SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF VERBS OF POSSESSION IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMSE

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

TRAN THI THU HANG

SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF VERBS OF
POSSESSION IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMSE
(ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ NGHĨA CÁC ĐỘNG TỪ DIỄN ĐẠT
SỞ HỮU TRONG TIẾNG ANH TƢƠNG VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2018


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

TRAN THI THU HANG

SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF VERBS OF
POSSESSION IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMSE
(ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ NGHĨA CÁC ĐỘNG TỪ DIỄN ĐẠT
SỞ HỮU TRONG TIẾNG ANH TƢƠNG VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A THESIS

Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

Supervisor : Dr. DANG NGOC HUONG

Hanoi, 2018


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF VERBS OF
POSSESSION IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMSE submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‟s work has been used
without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.

Approved by
SUPERVISOR
(Signature and full name)
Date:……………………

Ha noi, 2018


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 2
1.1. Rationale ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Objectives of the study ............................................................................... 4
1.3 Research questions ..................................................................................... 5
1.4. Methods of the study ................................................................................. 5
1.5. Scope of the study ..................................................................................... 6
1.6. Significance of the Study .......................................................................... 6

1.7 Design of the study..................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 8
2.1. Previous studies ......................................................................................... 8
2.2. Theoretical background ............................................................................. 9
2.2.1. Overview of syntax ................................................................................ 9
2.2.2. Overview of semantics ....................................................................... 12
2.3. An overview of English Verb ................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Stative verbs ........................................................................................ 16
2.3.2 Dynamic verbs ..................................................................................... 17
2.4. Verbs of possession in English and their Vietnamese equivalents ........... 18
2.4.1 An overview of possession in English ................................................. 18
2.4.2 A brief description of verbs denoting possession in Vietnamese ........ 19
2.5 Summary of the chapter ............................................................................. 20
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 21
3.1 Research methods....................................................................................... 21
3.2 Subjects ...................................................................................................... 22
3.3 Research procedure .................................................................................... 22
3.4 Data collecting instruments and analysis ................................................... 23
3.4.1 Summary of findings ............................................................................ 23
3.4.2 Discussions about findings ...................................................................... 24
3.5 Summary of the chapter ............................................................................. 30
Chapter 4: POSSESSIVE VERBS IN ENGLISH AND THEIR
EQUIVALENTS IN VIETNAMESE ............................................................... 31


4.1 The syntactic features of POSS-verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents
............................................................................................................... 31
4.1.1 The verb TO HAVE ............................................................................. 31
4.1.2 The verb TO OWN ............................................................................... 32
4.1.3. The verb TO POSSESS ....................................................................... 33

4.1.4 The verb TO BELONG TO .................................................................. 34
4.1.5 Syntactic comparison between POSS-verbs in English and their
Vietnamese equipvalents ....................................................................... 34
4.2 The semantic features of POSS-verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents
............................................................................................................... 35
4.2.1 The verb TO HAVE ............................................................................. 35
4.2.2 The verb TO OWN ............................................................................... 37
4.2.3 The verb TO POSSESS ........................................................................ 38
4.2.4 The verb TO BELONG TO .................................................................. 39
4.2.5 Semantic comparison between POSS-verbs in English and their
Vietnamese equipvalents ....................................................................... 40
4.3. Suggestions for learning POSS-verbs for Vietnamese learners of English
............................................................................................................... 40
4.3.1 Suggestions for teaching POSS-verbs for Vietnamese learners of English
............................................................................................................... 40
4.3.2. Suggestion on improving grammar points related to POSS-verbs ............ 41
4.3.4 Suggestions for translating POSS-verbs for Vietnamese learners of
English .................................................................................................. 43
4.4 Summary of the chapter ............................................................................. 44
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 45
5.1Summary of Findings .................................................................................. 45
5.2Concluding remarks .................................................................................... 45
5.3Recommendation for further study ............................................................. 47
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 48
APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 52


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The common types of English verbs ........................................................ 16
Table 2.2 Vietnamese verb types according to Le Dinh Tu .................................... 19

Table 3.1 Common errors made by English learners when using POSS-verbs ....... 23
Table 4.1 Summary of the Semantic Features of TO HAVE (as a POSS-verb) ...... 36
Table 4.2 Vietnamese Translational Equivalents of TO HAVE .............................. 37
Table 4.3 Vietnamese Translational Equivalents of TO OWN ............................... 38
Table 4.4 Summary of the Semantic Features of TO POSSESS ............................. 39
Table 4.5 Vietnamese Translational Equivalents of TO POSSESS ........................ 39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 The Schema of the Sentences with Have................................................ 31
Figure 4.2 The Core Image-Schema of Have (Tanaka et al 1989:215) ................... 35


ABSTRACT
In English studies, there have been a great number of books and research
works on possessive case in English and on English expressions of possession so
far. However, the analysis of verbs expressing possession: to have; to own; to
possess and to belong to in particular is barely touched upon. This thesis aims to
describe and analyze on the grammatical structures and semantic characteristics of
those verbs in comparision with their Vietnamese equivalents. By employing a
number of qualitative research methods: the descriptive method, the comparative
method and survey methods, the thesis has found out the basic syntactic and
semantic features of English verbs of possession, the similarities and differences
between them with their Vietnamese equivalents. The author has detected some
common mistakes in using and translating the verbs to have; to own; to possess and
to belong to Vietnamese learners of English may make. Based on the language
theory and practical experiences of the writer as an English teacher, this thesis
would draw out some solutions for avoiding making mistakes in teaching, learning
and translating these possession verbs. Some practical suggestions to amend the
situation will also be proposed. This study expects to contribute, to some extent, to
further colouring the language learning picture by adding some findings and
analyses in the verbs denoting possession. Furthermore, this thesis also proposes

some comparison with the Vietnamese equivalents of verbs denoting possession,
which is helpful for learning and translating those words in context.

1


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
According to Gentner in 1982 when he considered all parts of a sentence in
general, it is the verb that has a tendency to be hypothesized to be the semantic
variant in linguistics. The verbs to describe the state of possession are of no
exception. However, since there are a number of findings and research on
expression of possession in particular; this thesis will extend the scope to how the
semantic variant in linguistics of expression possession express itself in the form of
verbs, nouns and clauses and have some comparison with their equivalent in
Vietnamese.
Apart from discovering the semantic differences in a variety way to express
possession in English, this thesis also put an emphasis on the grammatical structure
and semantic characteristics in a wide range of words to have an insight into the
internal organization of both literal and figurative meaning of expression of
possession.
Linguistic characteristics should never be the mere factor to be taken into
account when the writer works on this thesis. Apart from the observation of
linguistic characteristics, the writer also puts her focus on the clarification of the
field in sociology with the comparison between English expression of possession
and its equivalent in Vietnamese. It has been recorded that there are no precedent
hypotheses on the interaction between the semantic structure of expression of
possession and the ecological context in which the expression is used between
Vietnamese and English. Hence, it is important to emphasize on this thesis‟s new
finding on a concrete relationship between the cultural factors and linguistics ones

related to varying ways to express possession in English and Vietnamese.
The issues between grammatical form and lexical meaning of any English
expression are always such a challenge for both language students and experts in the
field. Although words and clause to express the state of possessing lying in one of
the most common expression used in English speaking countries (de Leon, 2001),
there are still a number of mistakes in usage due to different meaning that the
expression carries and multiple ways to express it. There are two common
problems. The first one is making mistakes when using the expression of possession
whose meaning is different from what one wants to express. The second one is
choosing the expression of possession which has two meanings or more that can be

2


applied in the immediate context. Other than the nature of the complex relationship
between semantic structure and meaning, it is the confusion of the speaker itself that
is at fault. Therefore, this thesis is necessary in the sense that it could help English
speakers, especially those who are using English as a second language, to have an
insight into the meaning and usage of expression of possession in order to decide
the exact words they need to use. In the scope of the thesis, it will be useful
particularly to Vietnamese learners of English.
In recent time, with the increasing popularity of internet and its helpful services,
people are joining a communication net at a global level with a constant use of
English. However, it is still difficult for English speakers when they have to choose
appropriate words to apply in the immediate context in order to exactly transfer
their thought and feelings from their mother tongue to English and vice versa.
While Vietnamese language seems to focus on the verb, English has tendency to put
an emphasis on nouns and noun phrases (McDonough, C et al, 2011). While there
has been studies on expression of possession in noun phrase, its aspect of verb
phrase and clause remains virtually untouched. Thus in this writing, the author

would broaden her research by not only studying the expression of possession in
nouns but also considering it in verbs in both English and Vietnamese. While there
is a wide range of ways to express possession, this thesis would focus on three
specific ways which are the three verbs “TO HAVE”, “TO OWN”, “TO
POSSESS”. Throughout this writing, the author would refer to these three focused
as POSS-verb. Being aware of other alternatives such as compound possessive
(example: “The Queen castle”) and the double possessive (example: “the castle of
the Queen‘s”), the clinic “‟S” and the possessive word “OF” the author recommends
reading work of Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Payne to study more about these
alternatives.
As in other Germanic languages, English offers its speakers a number of ways
to express the state of possessing something. The issue here is to determine the
factors that have the most substantial influence on the speaker‟s choices of ways to
expression the state of possessing. In other words, what is being mentioned at the
moment is the preferred word order that a language speaker would choose. In
English and many other languages, the length of the constituents of a word or a
phrase may have a great effect on what the word order would be. The same thing is
applicable to clausal word order. According to “Expression of possession in

3


English: The significance of the right edge” (Borjars, K. et al, 2013) in a model that
has a random variable, parts of knowledge of grammar of the native speakers are
attributed to be formed by these preferences. To advocate this statement, people can
look at the fact that some languages categorize the same weight constraint but in
other languages, it only represents preferences. A wealth of literature relevant to
this matter can be easily found. The work of Givón in 1979 is an early study in this
field. Other more recent works are Bresnan, Dingare & Manning in 2001, Bresnan
& Nikitina in 2009, Bresnan & Ford in 2010 and Wasow in 2002. Tendencies

relating to the distribution of POSS-S in English parallel categorical grammaticality
in other languages. Therefore, it is safe to say that there are various factors affecting
the choice of speakers when they have to consider among “TO HAVE”, “TO
OWN”, “TO POSSESS”, “S” and “OF”. In the scope of this thesis, the author
would rely on convincing reasoning and document base to propose feasible factors.
From that, the author would draw out some suggestions to help Vietnamese learners
of English improve their proficiency in this particular matter.
On account of all the aforementioned reasons, the author has decided on the
topic for her thesis as “Syntactic and semantic features of verbs of possession in
English and in Vietnamese”. The thesis is aimed at syntactically and semantically
analyzing English expression of possession (POSS-verbs) with their Vietnamese
equivalents. With the explanation about the language characteristics as well as
recommendation on expression of possession in English, the thesis is also expected
to offer Vietnamese users of English with better understanding of appropriate
application of words, phrases and clauses to expression possession and
comprehensive insight to usage of these words for an effective and correct
translation.
1.2 Objectives of the study
The aim of this thesis, as suggested from the tittle, is to analyze the syntactic and
semantic features of English expressions of possession (POSS-verbs) with reference
to their Vietnamese equivalents so that Vietnamese users and translators can draw out
meaningful implications to apply those expressions in an effective and correct way.
To achieve the aforementioned objectives, this study focuses on the following goals:
 Analyzing the syntactic features of poss-verbs in English with reference to
their Vietnamese equivalents.

4


 Finding out semantic features of poss- verbs in English with reference to

their Vietnamese equivalents;
 Suggesting some recommendations on the development of English teaching,
learning as well as translating those verbs.
1.3 Research questions
On account of the aforementioned objectives of the thesis, the writer is going
to propose answers for the following questions:
1. What are the syntactic features of English verbs of possession (POSS-verb)
with reference to their Vietnamese equivalents?
2. What are the semantic features of English verbs of possession (POSSverbs) with reference to their Vietnamese equivalents?
3. What are the recommendations for learning, teaching, and translating those
verbs that would be helpful for Vietnamese users of English?
In order to accomplish the purpose, the author would investigate how
expressions of possession (POSS-verbs) are structured, why they are used in
specific cases and to what extent they are similar or different from their equivalents
in Vietnamese. To be more specific, the thesis firstly studies the syntactic and
semantic characteristics of POSS-verbs in English and their Vietnamese
equivalents. Secondly, the thesis conducts a survey to find out if Vietnamese
learners of English encounter any problems in mastering POSS-verbs when they
learn and use these expressions. On the basis of survey results, the thesis is expected
to introduce a number of strategies to help them improve the situation.
1.4. Methods of the study
In terms of methodology, the author utilizes qualitative research method,
comparative method and survey methods as the main methods for her thesis.
Qualitative research method is used with an aim to describe and analyze syntactic
and semantic features of English expressions of possession (POSS-verbs). On
account of the features found and analyzed, the author employs comparative method
to clarify the similarities and differences between English expressions of possession
(POSS-verbs) with their Vietnamese equivalents. Afterwards, with the purpose of
discovering the common mistakes and errors those Vietnamese learners of English
have a tendency to make with English expressions of possession (POSS-verbs).

From those findings, there would be some suggestions to be proposed so that the
readers can avoid making those mistakes again. This will be done when the author

5


employs survey methods to test students to find out what difficulties they encounter
in learning and translating the English expressions of possession (POSS-verbs)
under the study. Apart from the three mentioned methods, statistical techniques are
used to process numbers and percentage of data, designing tables and figures for the
illustration of arguments under discussion, etc. The author also resorts to other
research techniques to help consolidate her study‟s result.
1.5. Scope of the study
Expressions of possession have been received quite a substantial attention from
many researchers with a variety of opinions. However, their concentration is mainly
put on a study of linguistic semantics in noun and noun phrases. It is noticed that
from the point of view of natural language semantics, POSS-verbs are in full
conformity with independently established semantic generalizations. This study has
its foundation from the works of the following researchers: George A. Miller
(1990), Heine (1997), Viberg (1981) and Fujiwara., T et al (2014). Regarding
Vietnamese research, this study is drawn on the works of: Diep Quang Ban (2009),
Cao Xuan Hao (2010), Hoang Van Van (2011) and Tran Huu Manh (2007).
The scope of this thesis is restricted to syntactic and semantic analysis of
characteristics of the particular English expression of possession with reference to
their Vietnamese equivalents. The English expressions under the research scope of
the thesis are the four verbs to have; to own; to possess; to belong to which are
going to be referred in this thesis as POSS-verbs. Although there are many other
verbs to express the state of possessing such as to take, to get, to hold, to receive,
the author would only choose the three particular POSS-verbs as the subject of
study because those are the popular words with a high frequency of usage and

appearance in general English conversation, speech and document.
1.6. Significance of the Study
1.6.1 Theoretical significance
The thesis combines, classifies and analyzes linguistic features POSS-verbs,
which are English verbs of possessing, including "to have; to own; to possess; to
belong to”. This study is expected to focus on the syntactic and semantic features of
those verbs, and create a comparison with Vietnamese translational equivalents to
compare and contrast the differences and similarities between two languages
regarding those three verbs to facilitate the using and translating of English
expression of possession.

6


1.6.2 Practical significance
From the result of this thesis, Vietnamese users and learners of English can
have an insight into the meaning and usage of POSS-verbs to recognize distinctive
features of each POSS-verb so that they can select the most appropriate verb to
express their opinion, feelings and even implications exactly to the context.
The author would like to contribute her thesis to the development of Engilsh
learning and teaching at high schools and language centers in Vietnam. It is strongly
believed that this study can effectively accompany those who have an interest in
examining the learning, teaching and translating English and have a desire to
consolidate their skill in those fields.
1.7 Design of the study
Chapter 1: Introduction provides information about the background, objectives,
significance of the research and research question as well as research scope,
methodology and data overview, limitations on the research problem.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Models clarifies key concepts and
theoretical framework, which is in line with the proposed framework.

Chapter 3: The methodology of conducting the research and survey includes
the process and analysis of the subjects, research procedure, data collecting
instruments and summary of findings as well as discussion.
Chapter 4: The semantics and syntactics features of possession verbs and their
Vietnamese equivalents, including common errors made by learners of English
as well as suggested solutions for the issues.
Chapter 5: Conclusion draws out the conclusion, limitation of the research and
suggestions for further study.

7


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Previous studies
In 1990, George A. Miller presented 15 different criteria basing mostly on
semantic feature to divide verbs into. In terms of semantic structure,
Jackendoffian proposed a verb list of manner, motion and configuration. Larger
in quantity, Bibber in 1998 introduced seven major semantic domains in which
each verb has a tendency to have more than one definite meaning. “Modern
English a practice reference guide” by Marcella Frank offered another outlook
on this matter by categorizing verbs according to complement of verb or form of
verb. Specifically, the difference of each listed verb is observed basing on the
kind of complement that verb may have. In 1967, Vendler classified English
verbs into four categories which are activities, accomplishments, achievements,
and states. Apart from the rest, one file of this method fits to what linguists have
called as semantic domains verbs of states.
In 1997, Nguyen Kim Than predicated that Vietnamese verbs had their own
way of formation and classification. In 2013, Nguyen Lan Trung in his research on
Vietnamese nominal phrases also mentioned some differences between Vietnamese
expression of possessions and other Indian and European languages. Other

Vietnamese related studies are about semantic and lexical features of verbs. Huynh
Vu Chi Tam in 2004 had a study on semantic features of state related verbs and
expressions in English and their Vietnamese equivalents. There are a number of
researches on parts of speech of Vietnamese, especially with verb groups. A study
that analyzed the semantic and syntactic features of four English verbs “to say, to
tell, to speak, to talk” and their Vietnamese equivalents had been done by Tran Thi
Phuoc Hanh in 2002. Under the title ―A Study of Semantic and Syntactic Features of
Motion Verbs in English and Their Vietnamese Equivalents‖, Luu Thuy My Hanh
in 2006 observed and gave analysis on semantic and syntactic features of motion
verbs in English and Vietnamese equivalents. Nguyen Thi Mai (2008) devoted her
study on a linguisticfeatures of the three English verbs “carry, bring, take” and their
translational equivalents in Vietnamese. In 2005, Nguyen Thi Hong Duc
contributed to the research data base with her study named “English Spatial Verbs
and Their Vietnamese Equivalents‖ in which she provided more knowledge about
cognitive grammar in English spatial verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents.

8


In terms of the four words ―to have, to own, to possess, and to belong to‖, the
author found no research that had the same field of study, which motivates her to
determine this particular field as her topic of MA thesis.
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. Overview of syntax
According to the research of Richard Moot and Christine Retore, syntax is
studied as the due arrangement of words in sentences in their necessary relations.
Other papers by George Yule claim that syntax is the study of that part of grammar
which treats the construction of sentences, the relationship between linguistic forms,
how they are arranged in sequence and which sequences are well-formed. The ways
that words are connected to make bigger units such as phrases, clauses and

sentences are called syntactic characteristics of words. All approaches considered, it
is safe to say that syntax is the arrangement of words to make a standard sentence in
linguistics. In other words, it refers to the general rules that govern how words come
together to form phrases, clauses, and sentences in linguistics. In addition, syntax is
also referred to parts of speech or word classification.
Arrangement of words
How words come together to well form a sentence in a language is a meaning
logical arrangement that conforms to natural and socially accepted rules.
Arrangement of words can be a sequence of occurrence of events or various stages
in a process, a sequence of objects in a class or group, a sequence in ascending or
descending order or a sequential order of words according to dictionary, etc. To put
it simply, the order of subject, verb and object in a sentence are the essence of
syntax. For instance, with a word arrangement like “student am a I.”, people can
still understand the correct sentence would be “I am a student.” In general,
however; it is not seen as a well-formed sentence when it is examined under
standard English syntax.
Part of Speech Features
According to Yule (2010), English words in general can be categorized into
from eight to twelve syntactic files as parts of speech, namely: Adjective (A),
Adverb (Adv.), Coordinate conjunction (C), Determiner (D), Interjection (I), Noun
(N), Ad position (preposition, postposition, circum position) (P), Particle (Par),
Pronoun (Pr), Subordinate conjunction (Sub), Verb (V), etc. The work of appointing

9


the proper file that each word in text belongs in is called word tagging. Below is an
example of classifying a speech into syntactic files:
They

/ have

/ the

/ evidence.

Pr

V

D

N

Concepts of the sentence
So far, there have been numerous definitions of the sentence in English since
different grammarians look at the sentence from different perspectives. For
example, a sentence is defined as a group of words that is put together to mean
something. A sentence is the basic unit of language which expresses a
complete thought. It does this by following the grammatical rules of syntax.
A sentence is the largest independent unit of grammar: it begins with a capital letter
and ends with a period, question mark, or exclamation point. Through the definition
of the sentence, it can be understood that the sentence comes first and then grammar
and words as its elements are not categorized according to their word classes or the
role they play in the sentence.
The thesis follows the definition in the dictionary in which the sentence is said
to be a group of words that usually contains a subject and a verb and expresses a
complete idea; in writing, the sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a
stop or question mark (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, p.1587).
Based on this concept of the sentence, the sentence structure coincides with that of

an independent clause.
Elements of the sentence
Traditional grammar describes the sentence with two parts. For example,
Hopper (2000) claims that a sentence has two parts: the topic of the sentence is the
subject and what is said about the subject is the predicate. Maclin (1992) states that
predicate mean the verb phrase and all the complements and modifiers connected to
it. A predicate can be just a single word, or it can include several words in a verb
phrase, objects or predicate nominatives and their modifiers, and adverbs in the
form of single words, phrases, and clauses (Maclin, 1992, p.245). According to the
definition of sentence structure this way, the two parts of a sentence could be
illustrated as in the example below:
Sentence
Subject
predicate
Operator predication

10


Example:

He

had

given the girl an apple.

In modern theories of grammar, grammarians look at the sentence in structural
and functional aspects of its constituents. Modern grammarians such as Quirk in
1985 and Eastwood in 1994 relate the structure of the simple sentence to that of the

single independent clause with central elements as subject (S), verb (V), object (O),
complement (C) and adverbial (A) and categorize the constituents which function as
elements of clause structure are phrases. As a result, the five formal categories of
phrase are defined as verb phrases (VP), noun phrases (NP), adjective phrases
(AdjP), adverb phrases (AdvP) and prepositional phrases (PP). Each phrase is
named after a class of word which has a primary and indeed obligatory function in it
(Quirk, p.60). The structure of each category of phrase, according to Quirk (1985)
could be briefly described as follows:
Verb phrases consist of a main verb which either stands alone as the entire
verb phrase or is preceded by up to four verbs in an auxiliary function: The ship
may have been being sunk.
Noun phrases consist of a head, which is typically a noun, and of elements
which (either obligatory or optionally) determine the head and (optionally) modifier
(e.g. a good trip that I once had: postmodification), or of complement, another
element in the phrase (e.g. a better story than that: postmodification with
complementation). The elements of a noun phrase are determinative,
premodification, head, postmodification/complementation. Pronouns act as heads of
noun phrases.
Adjective phrases consist of an adjective as head, optionally preceded and
followed by modifying elements: The weather was too hot to be enjoyablepremodification-head-complementation; The weather was incredibly cold enoughpremodification-head-postmodification). (p.63)
Adverb phrases are similar to adjective phrases in their structure except that
they have an adverb as their head: I spoke to him quite often indeedpremodification-head-postmodification; I spoke to him as clearly as I could:
premodification-head-complementation.
Prepositional phrases consist of a prepositional followed by a prepositional
complement, which is usually a noun phrase: I met her for lunch. (p.64)
As has been described above, the predicate of a sentence includes the verb
phrase. However, some grammarians hold a different view, considering the

11

predicate to be the verb phrase, a verb phrase can be the predicate of the clause or
sentence which contains both the verb and either a direct or indirect object (the
verb‟s dependents).
2.2.2. Overview of semantics
Semantic words are related by one central meaning and each one contains its
own meaning, which makes it carry individual characteristics. In 1992, Baker even
used the strong word “personality” to describe the features that each word has,
emphasizing that each word has their own “personality” to characterize it. “Nonequivalence at word level means that the target language has no direct equivalent
for a word which occurs in the source text” Baker said. The scientist discussed
further that the nature of non-equivalence create various issues for translators
because it governs the type and level of difficulty. Baker also proposed methods to
solve the listed problems. Apart from source language and target language, most of
problems also have connection to cultural factors.
To name some prominent problems, people can first look at cultural specific
concepts in particular situation and the use of loan words in the source text. It is
common to find circumstances in which there is lexicalization of concepts in source
language but the equivalents are impossible to find in target language. Many other
problems can be named. When giving arguments on the translation of words in
semantic and communicative context, Neurbert (1999) wrote: “Thus, it appears as if
the right or adequate choice of words determines the success of translation”. As a
result, he supposed that despite the certain meaning that each word carries, a
sensible translator ought not to only and mechanically depend on it since words are
connected with one another in a text and their meaning can be modified due to the
context. Consequently, the scientist posed the question: “What is their „matter‟?
What is the „matter‟ behind the words, what do they stand for?”. Sweetser, another
linguist, had her opinion that “words are unique vehicles of meaning, can shed the
meaning neatly into new containers which the translator has located in [the target
language]”. In 1999, Neurbert also argued that a word would gain more lexical
meaning when it is used in larger units. From that point of view, in the same year,

the linguist claimed that translating words should no longer be used and it is more
appropriate for people to speak of “translated texts or rather words in texts”.
From a linguistic perspective, a distinction should be made to distinguish
between lexical and grammatical meaning. Lexical meaning refers to the meaning

12


of words that belong to one of the lexical word classes: verb, noun, adjective and
adverb. Lexical meanings of words are usually found in a dictionary. When
describing lexical meaning, people have to consider the linear or structural relations
of one word after another in the sentence; for example, when we use the word
speak, for example, the next word which may combine could be a noun, e.g. English
(speak English) or an adverb, e.g. loudly, (speak loudly), but not e.g. table (*speak
table) or heavily (*speak heavily). People have to take into consideration the
functional relations of lexical words, in the same function or position in the
sentence. For example, both the word red and blue are adjectives; they can replace
each other to describe the colour of an object and in the same function other words
can be used, e.g. a red / blue / cotton / nice… scarf in a sentence. In contrast,
grammatical meaning includes the meaning of grammatical items, for example, the
meaning of function words: preposition, article, particle… and inflectional affixes:
-s ending, prefixes…, grammatical functions: e.g. subject, verb, object… and
different clause or sentence types:
e.g. nominal, non-finite, subordinate,
declarative, interrogative….
Taking into account certain non-linguistic aspects of meaning Geoffrey
Leech (1981) lists seven different types of meaning. Denotative meaning which is
also called referential, descriptive , conceptual meaning or sense, refers to the
logical, cognitive aspect of words, e.g. bread, rose…, . In contrast, connotative
meaning which is called associative meaning denotes the associations and

secondary meanings the word implies: e.g. slim, thin, skinny. Words can have social
meaning; for example, the same thing can bear different names depending different
locations. One example of this is that Vietnamese people call the bowl for rice
eating differently in different regions. While the emotive or affective meaning
together is sometimes realized through the use of denotative or connotative meaning
of words, people can understand the emotion or attitude of the word users. The term
reflective meaning refers to that of collocations which is conveyed by characteristic
word combinations, e.g. fast food (not *quick food) indicating one kind of food.
Finally, thematic meaning denotes the organization of a message in terms of
information structure. For example, three sentences: I like this food, This food I
like, and It is this food that I like which have different position of subjects mean
differently.

13


There are three types of features when speaking of semantic descriptions of words
(definitions):
a. Category features allocate the word to a suitable semantic category, e.g. a
carrot belongs to the category [VEGETABLES].
b. Function features allocate a usual state or activity to the word, e.g. a tree
grows [GROW(X)] and releases oxygen [RELEASE (X OXYGEN)].
c. Property features name the properties differentiating the reference of the
word, e.g. an elephant has a trunk [TRUNK(X)] and a pair of ivory
[IVORY(X)].
2.2.3 Compare and contrast between Semantics and Syntax
To differentiate syntax and semantics, it is essential to acknowledge that syntax
and semantics are the two fundamental elements to make the validity of a sentence.
Syntax is the branch of linguistics that covers the grammatical arrangements of
words within sentences, and how speech is used in communication. Semantics deals

with the study of meaning and the way to combine words to create meaningful
discourse. It studies the relationship between signs and symbols and what they
represent. It is also used in logic as the principles that determine truth-values of
formulas within a logical system. In short, while the term syntax refers to
grammatical structure, the term semantics refers to the meaning of the vocabulary
symbols arranged with that structure. Nonetheless, if a sentence has syntactic
validitiy, it does not necessarily imply the semantic validity of that sentence. In
other words, grammatical correctness does not mean sensibility.
2.3. An overview of English Verb
The verb in English usually has an alleged function in the sentence. It is
usually seen being written next to the subject (following the S + V + O principle
from left to right). They can be modified by adverbs, multi-verb constructs, and
noun modifiers. English verbs undergo many derivative processes such as
attribution, causality, as well as processes involving a wide range of derivative
genres - imperfections, advances, imitations, distributions and continuity.
Besides, in a sentence, verb can perform independently when it is a unit. Verbs
in English do not place strict requirements on symmetrical arguments to form
grammatical clauses, as these arguments are not mandatory. According to Hopper
and Thompson (1980), the broader concept of causality (verb in general) is the

14


transition, defined as semantic parameters that affect the "effect that action takes".
Morphology accounts to the simplest forms of verb.
It can be said that the studies and hypotheses of Lakoff and Johnson (1999) are
the foundation of the study of verb classification in this thesis. However, there is
one substantial exception where instead of assigning verbs into categories by
language and speculating biological probes, the author starts the definition proposed
with biological systems and uses these systems to classify verbs. To put it simply,

verbs in this thesis are classified by the biological systems they correspond to.To
classify verbs, it can be based on the form or properties of each verb, which are
clearly demonstrated in “English Verb Classes and Alternations” by Levin in 1993.
Levin in 1993 claimed that linguists prefer to classify verbs according to their
language characteristics. This approach may live up to the linguistic criteria, but it is
unable to provide insight into how we receive in mind the activity and the biological
schema correlated with the diagrams. This new approach which is based on
biological systems and anthropological systems can help to explain which verbs are
determined by biological and verbal factors. Accordingly, verbs are not defined by
biological elements that can act as metaphorical extensions or special grammar
methods. In contrast, verbs are usually defined as part of a speech (or class) that
describes an action or occurrence or indicates a state of being. Nonetheless, the
difficulty here is to find the criteria to define a word as a verb.
Generally, it is more sensible to define a verb by what it does than by what it
is. For example, the words “rain” and “snow” can be a noun or a verb. A collection
of the verbal derivations can be found in English. Allomorphs for different syllabic
structures of the base are provided for each derivational morpheme. Both stative
verbs and dynamic ones can use derivations. To exclusively describe the formation
of words under derivations is the main objective of the thesis. See the table of
subsections below to understand the progress effects of the derivations.

15


Table 2.1 The common types of English verbs
NO
1

2

3

4

5

TYPES OF VERB
AUXILIARY VERB
LEXICAL VERB
English verb that is not an auxiliary
To decide the mood or tense of
verb,
having
a
real
meaning
another verb in a phrase.
and not depending on another verb.
DYNAMIC VERB
STATIVE VERB
To indicate an action, process, or To describe a state, situation, or
sensation.
condition.
FINITE VERBS
NONFINITE VERBS
Not to show a distinction in tense and
To expresses tense and can occur
can occur on its own only in
on its own in a main clause.
a dependent phrase or clause.

REGULAR VERBS
IRREGULAR VERBS
To form its past tense and past
participle
by adding -d or –ed. Not to form the past tense by adding (or in some cases -t) to the base d or –ed.
form.
TRANSITIVE VERB
INTRANSITIVE VERB
To be followed by a direct object.
Not to take a direct object.

2.3.1 Stative verbs
People can base on the relation of stative verbs to the progress, or the exception
or the incompatibility of the verb with society to give different definition to stative
verbs. In 1964, Joos claimed that stative verbs are defined as the words that “resist
the temporal aspect” and “reality is never used in the present continuous”.
Huddleston and Pullum in 2002 shared the opinion and gave a similar definition
where state verbs have a different name as “verbs rarely used in the present
continuous”. Notwithstanding, this phenomenon still receives quite a lot varying
explanations, which makes the accuracy of the grammar attributed to these verbs
only relative. Another criterion is proposed by Joo to distinguish stative verbs. This
criterion is for stative verbs that cannot have future references without such short
periods as Will or Be going to. The groups are:
a) Private verbs;
b) Verbs of physical perception;
c) Verbs of state.
It is accepted that a verb can convey different meanings. In his research,
Vendler shows the difference between the two meanings of the same verb by taking

16

the verb “think” as an example. The verb “think” is popularly used with two basic
meanings typically portrayed in the two following sentences: “He's thinking about
Jones.‖ and “He thinks Jones is a cheater.‖ In the first sentence, “thinking” is used
as a process. In the second one, “thinks” describes a state. Therefore, while
“thinking” in the first sentence can be used to describe what is being done; “thinks”
in the second cannot.
With the same idea, Quirk et al. argued that “We can draw conclusions about
the distinction between the dynamic meaning and the static meaning of verbs, but it
should be noted that we often refer to the meaning of dynamics and meaning”.
Huddleston and Pullum (2002) discussed static and dynamic situations, instead of
verbs. However, this approach is unlikely to result in any distinction since any verbs
can be used in a dynamic or static state depending on the specific context and
principle.
In her lesson of “Stative Verbs: Definition & Examples”, Lauren Posey has
divided stative verbs into four types which are opinion (Ex: think, know, believe),
possession (Ex: have, own, possess), sensory (Ex: hear, feel, smell) and emotion
(Ex: love, hate, want).
2.3.2 Dynamic verbs
Based on their distinction with stative verbs, dynamic verbs are defined with the
following properties. Firstly, they can attach the progressive morpheme directly to
the root. Secondly, dynamic verbs need to be relativized or derived with the
progressive to modify nouns in NPs.
Besides, with the default structure of the third clause, the verb is separated from
the stative verb. In dynamic clauses - unlike static propositions - the third object is
cross-referenced by the third from before being bound (third person, neutral). Both
positive and negative statement, even questions correspond to this general rule.
When one of the third person pronouns with an appropriate name, or the noun
acts represents an object as an indefinite pronoun, cross-references do not take

place. Also, transposition-related factors can mask it, for instance, a non-dynamic,
unidentified or lack of participant involvement in general or verbal statements.
Verb and stative verbs can be distinguished with the above criteria. An
additional observation of the division of these verbs involves the tendency to
associate with particular phonetic structures. Unlike stative verbs, which are
primarily disyllabic roots with / a / or / prefixes, verbs do not express a specific

17


phonetic structure, but display a series of the structure represents a possible word
structure. Dynamic verbs are encoded in situations which involve changes over
time. It is changes in those dynamic situations that add the stagnancy. Additionally,
according to Lyons in 1977 there is more likelihood for dynamic situations happen
than it is for static situations.
2.4. Verbs of possession in English and their Vietnamese equivalents
2.4.1 An overview of possession in English
In Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary (2005, page 1174) possessive is
defined as an adjective, or pronoun, or form of a word that shows that something
belongs to someone or something and possession is defined to have six senses, two
of which are related to ownership: 1) having something: „If something is in your
possession, you own it or you obtained it from somewhere‟ and 2) something you
own: „something that you own or have with you at a particular time‟ (pp.13491350). These two meanings have a close link with the terms Ownership and
Physical possession that will be discussed as follows.
It is true that Possession can be construed in various ways even in the most
straightforward case where the object is concrete. Miller & Johnson-Laird (1976:
565) use the following example to illustrate this: He owns an umbrella but she's
borrowed it, though she doesn't have it with her. (See also Heine, 1997 on
possession). It can be said that He owns an umbrella refers to Ownership;
whereas she borrowed it refers to Temporary possession. Ownership presupposes

certain socially regulated rights to use an object which is regarded as the property of
a certain individual. These rights can be transferred permanently (e.g. as a gift) or
temporarily (e.g. as a loan). The exact conventions are complex and vary a great
deal among different cultures. The last part of the example, she doesn't have it with
her, refers to Physical possession. Availability for immediate use or, in more
general terms, control seems to be the crucial notion behind this meaning. In the
prototypical case, Possession involves both Ownership and Physical possession,
which can be combined as in the traditional text-book example: Peter gave Mary an
apple (in her hand and she could keep it). Temporary possession is a possible but
marked interpretation with a verb such as give (Peter gave Mary a book as a loan).
Physical possession should be regarded as different from uses where mere
Location is involved as in “Charles has a spider on his ear‖. In this case, even
inanimate possessors are allowed: “The table has a vase on it‖. Physical possession,

18


on the other hand, should be contrasted with the Part/whole relation that is
constitutive and tends to be permanent whereas Location usually is temporary:
“Charles has pointed ears‖, ―The table has three legs‖.
All of the aspects of possession mentioned will be referred as concrete
possession provided that the possessor and possessed entity are concrete. When a
verb of possession has an abstract subject or object, this will be referred to as
abstract possession which is a cover term for a number of different uses.
In the scope of this thesis, the author puts the three verbsto have; to own; to possess
and to belong to into study with the understanding that they all have semantic
meanings of ownership and physical possession.
2.4.2 A brief description of verbs denoting possession in Vietnamese
According to Le Dinh Tu (2009), Vietnamese verbs are divided into
independent and dependent verbs and smaller groups as follows:

Table 2.2 Vietnamese verb types according to Le Dinh Tu
Types of Vietnamese verb
Independent

Dependent verb

verb
Verb of
physical
activity

Verb of
mental
state

Verb
of
mood

Verb of existence
Verb denoting
complementary
existence or
continuity of
things

Verb of
Verb
existence denoting the
end of the

existence of
things,
phenomenon

Verb of
relation

Vietnamese translational words of POSS-verbs are assessed to be dependent
verbs which do not express a complete meaning (meaning of action, activity, or
state) so in principle, can not stand alone to assume a grammatical function;
therefore, it requires another word (noun, verb, etc.) followed to complement
meaning. Under branch of independent verbs, existential verbs denote factual
existence of things or phenomena. There are three kinds of existential verbs:
 Verbs denote the complementary existence or continuity of things, phenomena:
 Verbs of existence
 Verbs denotes the end of the existence of things, phenomenon

19