A study of causal connectives in English and in Vietnamese in the light of figure/ground relationships
Causation can be expressed by various linguistic means. It is of great
importance to understand the nature of causation expressed by these different means in
the light of cognitive semantics. In addition, the choice of one causative construction over
another may differ in English and in Vietnamese. This difference may bring about the
negative impact on language transfer, and learners tend to fail to convey the causative
relation between participants in a causative eventIn this paper, causative constructions
with causal connectives shall be discussed and analyzed. The "so-called" backward
causality and forward causality will be discussed in the light of Figure/ Ground
relationships to &nd out the similarities and diferences between them. Then we propose
some solutions for Vietnamese learners of English to make the appropriate use of causal
connectives in English and in Vietnamese.
Nội dung tài liệu A study of causal connectives in English and in Vietnamese in the light of figure/ground relationships, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
in the backward causality in English. In contrast, in
Vietnamese, the main clause typically receives the focus and therefore functions as the
Figure and the subordinate clause as the Ground.
Meanwhile, in forward causality, though in both English and Vietnamese, the Er
often receives the focus and acts as the Figure in English. Yet, the forward causality in
English can also be expressed in Vietnamese by means of the correlatives mentioned
above. Thus, there is Figure/Ground Shift similar to that in the backward causality.
In consideration of epistemic domain and speech act domain, though the Figure/
Ground model is similar between the two languages, differences occur with each language
as per the dimension of causality: backward causality and forward causality. Whereas the
Ec acts as the Figure and the Er as the Ground in the backward causality, the Er acts as
the Figure and the Ec as the Ground in the forward causality.
In short, this subsection is closed by suggesting a dissimilarity between English
and Vietnamese in terms of the way cause-effect (fact-cause or result cause) relationship
is realized: while in Vietnamese the way both markers (one of cause, the other of result)
are combined together within the framework of a causative construction to show the
relationship is very common, in English, on the contrary, only either cause marker or
result one can be used within a causative construction to express the same relationship,
though emphatic effect of course, may vary distinguishably.
The table below summarizes causal connectives in English in contrast with
Vietnamese corresponding elements:
Table 1: Common causal connectives in English and Vietnamese
Dimension of
causality
Languages
in C. A
Backward causality Forward causality
English Simple conjunctions:
because, as, since, for;
Therefore, so, as a result,
that's why, consequently, as a
consequence
75
NGUYEN TU NHI
Table 2 below presents Figure/Ground Shift models in backward causality and
forward causality in English and Vietnamese:
Table 2: Figure/Ground Shift models for backward causality and forward causality in
English and Vietnamese.
D.o.C
Languages
of C. A
Backward Causality Forward Causality
Content Epistemic Speech
Act
Content Epistemic Speech
Act
Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er
English F/G G/F F G G F G F G F G F
Vietnamese G F F G G F G F G F G F
Note: D.o.C: Dimension of causality
3. Conclusion and Suggested Solutions
3.1. Conclusion
English and Vietnamese both have connectives to express causal relations. The
causal connectives may be used in three domains: content domain, epistemic domain,
and speech act domain. Causative constructions formed by these causal connectives may
be sub-divided into two types: backward causality and forward causality, depending on
the order of the Ec and the Er.
Viewed in the Figure/Ground Shift model, in the backward causality, emphasis
is put on the Ec. Thus, the Ec acts as Figure and the Er as the Ground in constructions
using because. There is a Figure- Ground shift in causative constructions with since or
as where the Er receives the emphasis and thus acts as the Figure and cedes the Ground
function to the Ec. In contrast, in Vietnamese, the main clause receives the focus and acts
as the Figure, the subordinate clause as the Ground. Unlike backward causality, forward
causality always sets the focus on the Er; thus, the Er acts as the Figure and the Ec as
the Ground. The Vietnamese translational equivalents suggest that emphasis is also put
on the Er; the Er therefore acts as the Figure, the Ec as the Ground. This ts in very well
with Talmy's cause-result principle.
3.2. Suggested Solutions
The fact that causative constructions with causal connectives may be used in three
domains: content-domain, epistemic-domain, and speech act domain. Dif culties may be
encountered by Vietnamese learners of English with this type of causative constructions.
For instance, there may be a shift from one domain to another when a comma is
added. The causal connective because is used in the content-domain in: John came back
because he loved her. This could be shifted to the epistemic domain with the interference
of a comma and could be taken as meaning that I conclude that he must have come
76
A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH...
back, because I know that he loved her: John came back, because he loved her. Thus,
the Vietnamese translational version: Vì lẽ yêu cô ấy nên John đã quay trở lại is not
satisfactory.
What is more, in uenced by the causal connectives being used in the speech act
domain in English, Vietnamese learners of English sometimes produce inappropriate
translational versions . For instance, they may literally produce such version as "Tối
nay bạn có làm gì không bởi vì ở rạp chiếu phim hay" instead of directly expressing the
speech act in the message "Tối nay ở rạp chiếu phim hay. Chúng mình đi xem phim nhé"
for the English causative constructions: What are you doing tonight, because there's a
good movie on.
Since correlative conjunctions are used in Vietnamese , Vietnamese learners of
English may be affected by the transfer, which brings negative impact in the translational
versions. With the use of these correlatives, there may be a Figure/Ground shift in the
Vietnamese translational equivalents, which unexpectedly fail to convey the correct
message from the speaker. Let us have a look at the following example:
Vì nó học kém nên nó thi hỏng. [2, p.209]
He failed the exam because he did badly at school.
In the Vietnamese version, the emphasis is put on the result: nó thi hỏng whereas
in English, the emphasis is shifted to the cause or reason: because he did badly at school.
In order to improve their understanding of causative constructions with
causal connectives so as to avoid potential mistakes in translation, interpretation and
communication, Vietnamese learners of English should be well equipped with knowledge
about Figure/Ground shift in causative constructions. More speci cally, they should
be aware of the Figure/Ground shift in different domain use of causal connectives as
well as in different types of causality: backward causality and forward causality. What
is more important, as English people say: “Practice makes perfect”, it is necessary for
teachers to design exercises to consolidate the learner's knowledge of the Figure-Ground
relationships and the use of causal connectives.
REFERENCES
[1] Altenberge (1984), Causal Linking in Spoken and Written English, Studia Linguistica
38.
[2] Diệp Quang Ban (2004), Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, NXB. Giáo dục.
[3] Chalker, Sylvia (1984), Current English Grammar, London: Mac Millan.
[4] Cobuild, Collin (1990), English Grammar, Rupa & Co.
[5] Frawley, W. (1992), Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
77
NGUYEN TU NHI
[6] Herschenson (1981), Causatives: Restructuring, Opacity, Filters and construal,
Linguistic Analysis.
[7] Sanders, Ted J.M. (1997), Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in
Discourse, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands.
[8] Sweetser, E. (1993), From Etymology to Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.
[9] Talmy Leonard (2000a), Toward a Cognitive Semantics - Vol.I., The MIT Press.
[10] Lý Toàn Thắng (2005), Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận- Từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn
tiếng Việt, NXB. Khoa học xã hội.
NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC TỪ NỐI CHỈ NGUYÊN NHÂN TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ
TIẾNG VIỆT TRONG MỐI QUAN HỆ HÌNH/NỀN
NGUYỄN TÚ NHI
Trường Đại học Phạm Văn Đồng, Quảng Ngãi
Tóm tắt: Các cấu trúc chỉ nguyên nhân-kết quả rất phổ biến và có thể được thể
hiện bằng các phương tiện ngôn ngữ khác nhau. Bản chất của nguyên nhân được thể
hiện qua các phương tiện khác nhau dưới ánh sáng của ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận. Việc
lựa chọn một cấu trúc chỉ nhân-quả này hoặc cấu trúc nhân-quả khác có thể khác nhau
giữa tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt. Sự khác biệt này có thể mang lại tác động tiêu cực trong
chuyển dịch ngôn ngữ và người học thường không truyền đạt mối quan hệ nguyên nhân
giữa các tham tố trong cùng một bối cảnh. Quan trọng hơn, sự khác biệt này phản ánh
khác biệt giữa các nền văn hóa trong sử dụng cấu trúc chỉ nguyên nhân-kết quả. Trong
bài viết này, các cấu trúc nguyên nhân-kết quả sẽ được thảo luận và phân tích. "Quan hệ
nhân-quả tiến và quan hệ nhân-quả lùi được thảo luận theo quan điểm của mối quan hệ
Hình/Nề̀n để tìm ra những điểm tương đồng và sự khác biệt giữa chúng. Sau đó, chúng
tôi đề xuất một số giải pháp cho người học tiếng Anh để sử dụng hợp lý mối liên hệ nhân
quả trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt.
Từ khóa: Ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận, mối quan hệ Hình/Nền, từ nối nguyên nhân- kết
quả.
Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:
a_study_of_causal_connectives_in_english_and_in_vietnamese_i.pdf
