\ N E X P E R I M E N T O F IN V K S T IÍỈA T IN ÍỈ S Y N T A C T I C B E H A V I O R O F N O U N S A N D VKRBS IN V IETNAMESE IN TERMS O F I C O N I C n Y
N g u y e n V a n H ie p (’’
Abstract
This paper deals with syntactic behavior of nouns and verbs in Vietnamese. Generally, in our language nouns differ from verbs in that they are different in compound with such other words as những, các, này, no... (as for nouns) or đà, dang, sẽ, xong, rói... (as for verbs). However, in some
cases, a noun or a verb may lack these abilities.
According to the hypothesis of iconicity in syntax, the syntactic behavior of nouns and verbs in Vietnamese are determined by the way they are used either prototypically or non- prototypically. The categories of nouns and verbs actually manifest themselves only when the discourse requires them to: the less a linguistic element is required by the discourse either to report an discrete discourse event or to introduce a discrete entity participating in the state of affairs, the less saliently it will be marked as verbs or nouns
l.T h e iconic features in syntax
The study o f linguistic universals in the 60s m ad e m an y lin guists surprised when they realized that n atural la n g u a g e s in the world rese m b le e a ch o th e r in s o m e aspects. This fact led them to su sp ec t the so-called arbitrariness o f language. Som e o b s e rv a tio n s sh o w ed that
"linguistic form s are fre q u e n tly the w ay they
are b ecau se, like d ia g ra m s , th ey resem b le the c o n c ep tu a l structures they are used to convey;
or, that linguistic s tru c tu re s re se m b le each oth er b e cause the d iffe re n t c o n c ep tu a l d o m ain s they rep resent are th o u g h t in the sa m e way"
[12, p. 1 ]. A rm e d with a special co n c ern , som e functional linguists have been co n d u c tin g research on the Icon icity in language. The result o f this re se a rc h c a n be resu m e d as following:
- M a n v linguistic universals are tend encies rather than a bso lute restrictions;
- T h e universals c a n be e xplained.
In details, tw o typ es o f iconicity in lang u a g e are a d v a n c e d as hy potheses:
+ Isom orph ism : the te n d e n c y for there to be a o n e -to -o n e c o rre s p o n d e n c e b e tw e e n form and m eanin g.
+ M otivation: the reflection in linguistic structure o f so m e asp ec t o f the structu re o f reality.
In the s u m m e r o f 1983, a c o n fe re n c e about iconicity in sy n ta x too k place in Stanford, g a th e rin g m a n y fam o u s linguists. A m o n g them , T ai d isc u s s e d the tem p o ral s e q u en c e o f c o m p o u n d se n te n c e s in C h in e se as one linearity m an ifest o f iconicity, recalling Caesar' s "veni, vidi, vici". D ealin g with s o m e reduced
Assoc Prof Dr Department of Linguistics. College of Social Sciences & Humanities. VNU
55
56 Nguyen Van Hiep
e x p re s s io n s , Cỉivón a r g u e d that in p rinciple re d u c e d e x p re s s io n s o f m o re p red ic ta b le in fo rm a tio n is a n icon o f the le s s e r attentio n paid to s u c h in fo rm a tio n . B ybee m a d e the point that the c lo s e n e s s b e tw e e n a v e rb s te m and in flectional c a te g o rie s te n d s to reflect the rele v anc e o f c o n c e p tu a l c lo s e n e s s that these inflectional c a te g o rie s c a rr y to s u c h v e rb stem.
She c o n fir m e d that the p r o x im ity o f e le m e n ts in a cla u se fo llow s s o m e iconic p rin c ip le w hose result is that e le m e n t s g o in g to g e th e r s e m a n tic a lly ten d to o c c u r c lo s e to g e th e r in the cla u se . A .W i e r z b ic k a s h o w e d that s e e m in g ly a rb itra ry d is tin c tio n s in te rm s o f sin g u la r/
plural b e tw e e n oats a n d w heat are in fact m o tiv ate d by a set o f c o g n itiv e principles...
[12]. In F ra n c e , m a n y re s e a rc h pap e rs with the sa m e spirit w e re c o lle c te d an d p u b lis h e d in
"Faits dc L a n g u e s " N o 1/1993.
In V i e tn a m e s e g r a m m a r , P h a n N g o c has sh o w n s o m e ico n ic p h e n o m e n a that are c o n s id e re d as a r g u m e n ts fo r a n e w a p p ro a c h to g r a m m a r o f V i e tn a m e s e o n s e m a n tic principles. F o r e x a m p l e , in serial verb s the one tak e s p r e c e d in g p o sitio n will be the one d e s c r ib in g th e e a rlie r e v e n t (M ời ố n g cỉi lên Ị.lập ô n g g iá m đ ố c ) o r the o r d e r o f attribute m o d ifie rs in V i e tn a m e s e is d e te r m i n e d by d e g re e o f a b s tr a c tn e s s ( Q u y ể n s á c h lịch s ử Việt N am bìa vủm> in c h ừ dò). He m a d e the point that ig n o rin g that rule w o u ld c re a te lon g and c u m b e r s o m e s e n te n c e s [6, p .2 7 1 - 3 0 1 ]. W h ile stro n g ly c ritic iz in g the p lau sib ility o f m o d el Subject “P re d ic a te fo r d e s c r ib in g V ie tn a m e s e se n te n c es, C a o X u a n H a o m e n tio n e d one iconic asp ec t o f V i e tn a m e s e sy n ta x by c o n firm in g that the o n l y a p p ro p ria te w ay to
describe se n te n c e o f such an isolating la n g u a g e as V ie tn a m e s e is to use m odel T h e m e - R h e m e . S poradically so m e c o n i c aspects o f Vietnamese syntax were mentioned such as the s y m m e tr y o f proverbs, the role o f o r d e r o f words... H ow ever, in V ie tn a m e s e no one officially pays attention to iconicity in syntax.
2. The iconicity in sjntactic behavior of noun and verb in Vietnamese
In this paper, in term o f iconicity we deal w ith syntactic b e h a v io r of n o u n s and verbs, two m o st im portant parts o f speech in V ietnam ese.
T h e refo re, we w o u ld like to provide data from an isolating la n g u a g e to c o n firm the iconic as p e c t o f the tw o parts o f sp eech , which has b e e n studied a lot by functional g ram m aria n s in inflectional la n g u a g e s (14].
N ouns and verbs in V ie tn a m e s e as well as in o ther la n g u a g e s are two m a j o r classes that have sem antic co rrelation with the two m ost im portant c o n c e p ts [11, p.320 -3 2 1 ]. As for no u n s the e n tity it p resents is som ething prototypicaiiy like "thing" o r " o b je c t” and is consid ered a s "tim e-stability". V e rb s, on the o th e r hand, are c o n sid e red to report som ething prototypicaily like "actions" o r "events"; they are used to sy m b o liz e c o n c ep ts that lack time- stability. T h e distin ctio n b e tw e e n nouns and verbs is a linguistic u n iversa l phen om eno n prevailing all o v e r the w orld. T h a t is why in V ie tn a m ese as well as in o th e r languages, the
" g eneral m e a n in g " c rite riu m is o fte n used for d istingu ish ing n o u n s an d verbs: nouns have g e n e ra l n e a n i n g a b o u t th in g s o r objects, verbs h a v e general m e a n i n g a b o u t a c tio n s o r events.
r . v r Joirnalof Science, Soc., Sci., Human., S o lE, 2002
I'll is c o n te n t d istin c tio n has been suppo rted from the fo rm al d istin ctio n : If in inflectional lan g u a g e s n o u n s d i f f e r from verbs in tra p p in g s o n gender, n u m b e r, tense, aspect, m o o d , v oice...then in such iso la tin g la n g u a g e s as V ie tn a m e s e that n o u n s a n d verbs are d ifferen t in the way ihev are c o m p o u n d e d with a n o th e r parts o f sp eech hav e until n o w b een agreed by m ost linguists. In itia ted by Le V a n Ly, the list o f "evidential w o r d s ” used for d is tin s u is h in g n o u n s and v e rb s is c o n fir m e d in alm ost hooks about parts o f sp e e c h as following:
a) Such w ords for p lural m a r k e r as
"những, c á c ” c a n he put b e fo r e a n d s u c h d e te rm in e rs as "này, ấy, nọ, kia" a fte r a noun.
For e xam ple,
- "Cúc han ấ y nói c h u y ệ n với nh au suố t n s a y ’TITiesc students are alw ays talking in class).
b) Such function w o rd s for te n s e , aspect, m ood, neg ation as "đã, d a n s , sè, k h ô n g , c h ả n g ,Cr c c chưa, cứ. còn..." can be located b e fo r e and such words as "xong, ròi" a fte r a verb. F o r e x a m p le :
-"Hm tôi chưa làm x o n g bài tập" (M y brother hasn't d o n e his h o m e w o rk yet).
The d istinctio n h as b e e n s u p p o rte d by m an y studies on n o u n p h ra s e s a n d v e rb p h rases in V ietnam ese. T h e fact that g e n e ra lly in c o m p a rin g with a n o th e r p arts o f s p e e c h no uns sharply d iffe r from v e rb s in term o f s y n ta c tic behavior (for an s u c h isolating la n g u a g e as V ie tn a m es e it m e a n s th e ability to c o m p o u n d with a n o th e r w ord) m e e ts th e fo llo w in g hypothesis a bo ut the ico n ic ity o f lexical categories principle:
' T h e m o re a form refe rs to a d isc re te d is c o u r s e e n tity o r rep o rts a d is c r e te d isc o u rs e e ven t, the m o r e d istin ct will he its linguistic fo rm fro m n e ig h b o r in g fo rm s, both p a r a d ig m a tic a lly and s y n ta g m a tic a lly "
[1 4 ,p. 151]. F o llo w in g fro m w h a t m e n tio n e d above, the hypothesis seem s to be unchallenged.
H o w e v e r, fro m all o f w hat m e n tio n e d a b o v e it is a ls o e a s y to re a liz e that th e re is an e x tr e m e te n d e n c y by fo c u s in g in herent s e m a n tic f e a tu re s o f n o u n s an d verbs, re g a r d in g th e s e fe a tu re s as d e c is iv e factors w h ic h d e te r m i n e s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f n o u ns and verbs. So re s e a rc h e rs m u s t be c o n fu s e d w h e n th e y c o n f r o n t the c a s e s in that n o u n s and verbs lack th e o w n c h a ra c te r is tic ab ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g . S o m e in sta n c e s c a n be cite d as fo llow ing :
-A s for no u n s:
- L a c k o f ab ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n t io n e d in (a), e.g . ab ility to g o a lo n g with
" n h ữ n g ’, " các" (pu t b e fo re ) a n d "n ày ", "ấy",
"nọ", "kia" (put after) and e x istence o f tendency s e m a n tic a lly to in c o r p o r a te in the prio r verb.
F o r e x a m p le : " N g ư ờ i V iệt N a m á n d ũ a '\
(T h e V i e tn a m e s e cat w ith c h o p s tic k s )
"Anil ta làm ruộng" He d o e s the f a r m in g ) .W e c a n not say:
- N gư ời V iệt N a m ăn * n h ữ n g /* c á c dũa
*này.
- A n h ta làm * n h ĩfn g /* c ác ruộng *dó.
-L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n tio n e d in (a) w h ile e it h e r p laying attributiv e role in c o p u la s e n te n c e s (B ỏ tôi là g iá o viên) ( M y f a th e r is a te a c h e r) o r p laying the role o f o b je c t in s u c h s e n te n c e s in w hich
I \ ( Journal of Science. Soc , Sci . Human , \ ,11:, 2002
58 Nguyen Van Hiep
transitive v e rb s are u s e d in a sp e cia l w a y as
"C hị làm ỵ tú đ à m ấ y n ã m n a y "( She h a s b e e n a nu rse for several y e a rs ). W e c a n no t say:
- Bô tôi là giáo viên *đó.
- C hị làm V tá *ấy d ã m ấ y n ă m nay.
- N o u n re f e rr in g to a n " a tta c h e d " body part lack ability o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n tio n e d in (a) w hile g o in g a lo n g w ith its o w n e r , as in se n te n c e ' T ô i đ a u đ ầ u" ( I h av e a headache),
"Tai nạn làm g â y tay nó" ( H e b roke his a rm in the accident). W e can not say:
- T ô i đ a u đ ầ u * này.
- T ai nạn làm g ã y * n h ữ n g /* c á c tay (cúa) nó.
A s fo r verbs:
- L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n tio n e d in (b) w h ile p la y in g the role o f s u b je c t in s e n te n c e , fo r e x a m p l e : "Yêu là chết ờ trong lò ng m ộ t ít" ( L o v e is b lu e ), "77?/ dua là yêu nước" ( E m u l a ti o n is p a trio tisiin ). W e c a n not say:
- * Đ ã / * d a n g /* s ẽ yêu là c h ế t ở tro n g lòng m ộ t ít.
- * Đ ã / * đ a n g /* s ẽ thi đ u a là y ê u nước.
- L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n tio n e d in (b) in th e s o -c a lle d e x iste n tial se n te n c e s , f o r e x a m p l e : " Đ á u làn g trồng một c â y đ a to" ( T h e r e is a tall tre e at th e d g e o f the village), ' T r ê n tư ờ n g treo m ộ t bức tranh"
(There is a picture o n the wall). W e c a n not say:
- " Đ á u làn g * đ ă /* d a n g / * s ẽ trồiìiị m ộ t cây đ a to.
- T r ê n tư ờ n g * d â /* d a n g / * s ẽ treo m ộ t bức tranh.
- L a c k o f ability o f c o m p o u n d in g as m e n tio n e d i n (b) while playing the ro le o f m o d if ie r to predicate in s u c h type o f s e n te n c e as "C hiếc d ồ n g h ổ này trông rất đẹp" (T h is w atch looks very nice), "Chuối này àn k h ô n g n g o n ” (T his k in d o f b an anas d o n 't taste d e l i c i o u s ) . W e c a n not say:
- C hiếc đ ồ n g hồ này * đ ã /? đ a n g /* sẽ trông rất đẹp.
-Chuối này *đã/*đang/*sẽ ân k h ô n g ng o n . Shortly speaking, in the fo re go ing stu d y casesx n oun s and verbs in V ie tn a m e s e lac k e d the characteristic ability o f c o m p o u n d in g , w hich would be used as criteria to th eir differentiation.
H o w w o uld these seem ly o d d p h e n o m e n a be e x p la in e d by linguists?
W e think that these p h e n o m e n a s h o w an a sp ec t o f the iconicity in sy ntax in V ie tn a m e s e , sp e cta cu la rly p erfo rm ed by no u ns and verbs.
Its nature c on sists in the d istinctio n be tw e en ce n tral/p erip h era l o r pro toty pical/non - proto typ ical in respect o f the syntactic b e h avio r o f nouns and verbs. C o n se q u e n tly , on ly a pro to ty p ical n o u n would be m a x im a lly distinct fro m a prototypical verb [15, p.30]. B ecause th o se nouns a n d verbs in the study c a se are used non-prototypically so th eir d istin ctio n in term o f syntactic be havior is not c le a rly shown.
T h e n the q u e stio n is: in w hat situation will a n o u n o r a ve rb be c o n s id e r e d being used prototvpicaily?
A functional point o f v iew c a n sh ed light on that issue and give a n reason able explanatio n: it is the role o f a n e le m e n t in
I'XU. Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
d isc o u rse that d e te rm in e s Its n a tu re , and by that d e te r m in e s its form. So the s u bje c tiv ity and c o m m u n ic a tiv e intention p lay s a c ru c ial role and if sa v in g in term of f u n c tio n a lis m we can co n firm that Pra g m a tic s d e te r m in e s S em an tics a n d in its turn, S em an tics d e te r m in e s S yntax [ 10. p. 13],
In o th e r w ord s, in respe c t o f p rototypically, intrinsic se m a n tic featu res are relevant, but not e n o u g h to a s sig n a form to nou n or verb c a te g o ry . W e have to resort to the ultim ate reason: the p ro to ty p ic a lity in n o u n s and verbs is u ltim a tely derivative o f th eir respective fu n ctio n s in sentence. A n d the intrinsic sem a ntic fe a tu r e s o f n ouns an d verbs arc ultim ately d erive d from their fu n ctio n s in sentence. By using this s ta te m e n t we will e xplain the s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f n o u n s a n d verbs in V ie tn a m e s e in turn.
As for n oun, the proto ty p ical use is to deno te a d is c r e te en tity involving in d is c o u r s e as a participan t [14,
p.
156]. D ue to that, the categorical sta tu s o f n o u n s will d isp la y in a scale reflec tin g the ico n ic d e g re e h o w th ey are used to that aim . In o t h e r words, th e m o re a form is to be used to d e n o te a d is c r e te e n tity , the more a fo rm has c a te g o ric a l sta tu s o f n o u n with all o f its o w n c ha ra c te ris tic form al features.In such s e n te n c e s a s "Người V iệt N a m ăn đũa", "Anh ta làm r u ộ n g " the o b jec ts arc n on- referring n o u n s , that m e a n s bv u sin g th e m the sp eaker/w riter has no inte n tio n to a s so c ia te with any d isc re te , s e p a r a te entity at all. T h u s , from the fu n ctio n al v iew p o in t, th ese n o u n s d o not denote p a rticipa nts i n any state o f affairs.
T h e y are not n o u n s p la y in g p ro toty pical f u n ctio n in s e n te n s e . T h a t is w h y they lose c h a ra c te r is tic a n d p o te n tia l a b ility o f n o u n c o m p o u n d i n g .
T h is e x p la i n a t i o n is a ls o a p p lie d for n o u n s that play e it h e r a ttrib u tiv e role in c o p u la s e n te n c e ("B ỏ tôi là g i á o v i ê n ” ) o r o b jec t role in s e n te n c e w h o s e v e rb - p r e d ic a te is used in a sp e cia l w a y ("C h ị tỏi làm y tá đ ã m ấ y n ăm n a y ” ).
A s f o r s u c h s e n te n c e s as "Tôi đ a u đ ầ u ",
"Tai nạn là m g ã y ta v nó " the situ a tio n b e c a m e m o re c o m p lic a te d . T h e o r e t ic a l ly , it is not d iffic u lt to rea liz e th at b o d y - p a r t n o u n is used as re fe rrin g e x p r e s s io n s . H o w e v e r , its referen t is not a u t o n o m o u s bu t is tre a te d as d e p e n d e n t, u n in v id id u a te d e n tity in re la tio n w ith its o w n e r.
So, in d e s c r i b in g fra m e o f pred ic ate - p a rtic ip a n ts c o n s tr u c ti o n it is n o u n refe rring the p o ss e s s o r" that is d i s c o u r s e sa lie n t e ntity. In fact, s o m e t h in g w h i c h h a p p e n s to a b o d y part is n o rm a lly d o n e by th e b o d y - p a r t p o s s e s s o r, so the b o d y -p a rt n o u n s in q u e s ti o n really are not used p ro to ty p ic a lly a n d c o n s e q u e n t ly th ey will lose c h a ra c te r is tic f e a tu re s o f n o u n s in resp e c t o f p o ten tia l c o m p o u n d i n g ability.
A s for v e rb s , the p ro to ty p ic a l use is to r ep ort an a c tu a l a c tio n o r e v e n t. D u e to that, the c a te g o ric a l sta tu s o f v e rb s will d isp la y in a s c ale reflec tin g th e i c o n ic d e g r e e h o w th e y are used to that a im . In o t h e r w o r d s , the m o re a form is to be u s e d to rep o rt a n a c tu a l a c tio n o r e vent, the m o r e a fo rm h a s c a te g o r ic a l sta tu s o f a ve rb w ith all o f its o w n c h a ra c te r is tic fo rm al features.
I M Journal o f Science, Sac., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
6 0 Nguyen Van Hicp
In s u c h s e n te n c e as "Y ê u là c h ế t tro n g lòng m ộ t ít”, "Thi d u a là y ê u n ư ớ c " , the v e rb s "yêu", ' thi đ u a" (in th e role o f s u b je c t ) a re not u sed to report e ith e r a c tio n o r e v e n t. So th ey d o not f u n c tio n as p r o to ty p ic a l verbs; and c o n s e q u e n tly th e y lose c o m p o u n d i n g potential m e n tio n e d in (b). T h is e x p la n a ti o n is also s u ita b le to the v e rb s th a t f u n c t i o n as m a n n e r c o m p l e m e n t to p r e d ic a te s in s u c h s e n te n c e s as
" C hiếc đ ồ n g h ổ n à y trô ng rất đ ẹ p " , "C h u ố i này ân k h ô n g ng o n".
S u c h s e n te n c e s as " Đ á u iàn g trổng m ộ t c â y đ a to", " T rê n tư ờ n g treo m ộ t bức tranh"...
m a y g e n e ra lly be c a lle d e x is te n tia l se n te n c e s . T h e y are c o n s id e r e d to be u s e d to c o n fir m the e x is te n c e o f id en tity o f s o m e e n tity , s o the v e rb -p re d ic a te in t h e m ( tr ổ n g , treo ) is not used in p ro to ty p ic a l w ay . In V i e tn a m e s e , one m e n tio n e d s o m e c o n s tr a in ts to v e rb -p re d ic a te in e x is te n tia l s e n te n c e s : th e v e rb - p r e d ic a te lose the ab ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g w i t h s u c h fun ctio n w o rd s for tense , a s p e c t, resu lt... [1]. T h e s e c o n s tra in ts , in o u r view , a re c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the fact that the v e rb s in q u e s ti o n w ere not p ro to ty p ic a lly used.
H o w e v e r, as we h a v e ju s t said, p ro to ty p ic a lly is a d e g r e e c o n c e p t. T h u s , there are s o m e c a s e s w h e re n o u n s o r v e rb s j u s t partly lose their o w n a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g . F o r insta n c e, stative v e rb s loses th e ability to go a lo n g w ith s o m e fu n c tio n w o r d s fo r a s p e c t or result, but m a i n ta i n th e a b ility to g o a lo n g with f u n ctio n w o rd s for ten se . C o m p a re :
+ A n h ta y ê u * x o n g / * đ ư ợ c c ả b a cô.
+ A n h ta đ ã /đ a n g y ê u c ả b a cô.
A n o t h e r distintction o n c o m p o u n d in g ability is a lso o b s e rw ed b etw een v e rb s u s e d to p resen t a fo reg ro u n d ie d action o r e v e n t a n d the s a m e u s e d to presentt a b a c k g ro u n d e d actio n or event. L o o k at how tlhe state o f affairs "Cô ấy li dị c h ổ n g " (She hias d ivo rced ) is used d iffe re n tly in followiing sentences:
+ C ô ấ y đ ã li dị c h ồ n g (fo re g ro u n d e d ) + C ô ấ y *dà li (dị chổng k h iế n m ọi người k in h n g ạ c (b ac k g ro u in d e d )
+ V i ệ c cô ấy *cđă li dị chồng k hiến m ọ i người k in h ng ạc ( b a c k g r o u n d e d )
T h e d istin ctio n b e tw e en p rototypical and n o n -p ro to ty p ic a l usatge h e lp us to u nderstand s o m e c a s e s w h e n a tform, w h ich is not a noun, te m p o ra lly has s y n t a c t i c b e h avio r o f a noun.
For e x a m p le , adjectdves "rắc rối", "khó khản"
f u n ctio n as n o u n in f o llo w in g sentences:
- N hữ ng rắc rối ấ y k h iế n ông phát k h ù n g .(T he tro u b le s m a d e h im m a d .)
- N hữ ng k h ó k h ă n này k h ồ n g dề khắc phục tro n g thời giam n g ắ n . (It is not easy to solve th ese d iff ic u ltie s im short tim e.)
S om e r e s e a r c h e r s a r g u e d that there was a c h a n g e in sta tu s o f w o r d classes: "rắc rối",
"kh ó k hă n" w e re n o l o n g e r adjectives, they b e c a m e no un s. A c c o r d i n g to o u r view such inte rpre ta tio n is too m e c h a n ic a l . W e incline to a n o th e r in te rp re ta tio n : i n that fo re g o in g cases, the a d je c tiv e s t e m p o r a l l y fu n c tio n in the way an p ro to ty p ic a l n o u n fuinctions, e .g to present discrete entitie s p a r t ic ip a tin g in fram e p re d ic a te -p a rtic ip a n ts off se n te n c e . Thus, they te m p o ra lly g a in ab ility o f c o m p o u n d in g o f a p ro toty pical noun.
YNU. Journal o f Science, Soic., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
3. C o n c l u d i n g
F r o m s o m e fo regoing ro u gh e x p e rim e n ts , we h a v e reason to c o n firm that sy n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f nouns a n d verbs in V i e tn a m e s e IS
not b e v o n d the g e n e ra l iconic p rin c ip le o f nouns and verbs in natural la n g u a g e s . The d istinctio n o n s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f prototypical n o u n s and verb s reflec ts the distinctio n in c o m m u n ic a t iv e in tention: a prototypical nou n inclin es to be u sed to p resent a d isc re te e n tity in d isc o u rs e , a p ro to ty pical verb in clines to be u sed to report a n actual action o r event in d isc o u rs e . O th e rw is e , both
n o u n s an d v e rb s lose, at d iff e re n t d e g re e , their o w n ability o f c o m p o u n d i n g . W e think that the fo re g o in g ico n ic p rin c ip le on syn ta c tic b e h a v io r o f n o u n s a n d verb s w o u ld criticize a ny a to m ic v iew in c irc le o f V ie tn a m e s e g r a m m a r ia n s , w h ic h led to m a n y m is u n d e rs ta n d in g for a long tim e and m e a n w h ile w o u ld c o n f ir m p rin c ip le s and interpretin g c a p a c ity o f F u n c tio n a l G r a m m a r that p ro fe s s o r C a o X u a n H a o firstly rep re sen t in m o n o g r a p h " T iế n g V iệ t- Sơ th ả o N g ữ p h á p chức nàng, q u v ể n I" ( V i e t n a m e s e - a s k e tc h o f F u n c tio n a l G r a m m a r , v o l u m e 1) [4]
R E F E R E N C E S
1. Cao Xuân Hao, Vietnamese- a sketch OÍ Functional Grammar, volume 1, 1991
2. Diẽp Quang Ban. Some issues on existential sentences in m odern Vietnam ese (Ph D Dissertation , Teaching training college o f Hanoi I, 1980
3. Nguyền Tài cấ n . Vietnamese grammar: Morphem- Compound word- Phrase. Hanoi, Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1975
4. Đinh Van Đức, Vietnamese grammar: parts of speech, Hanoi. Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1986
5. Cao Xuân Hạo. Tiếng Việt- Some issues on phonology, semantics and grammar, Hanoi, Education Publisher, 1998
6. Phan Ngoc, Pham Đức Dương, Linguistic contact in South-East Asia, Hanoi, South-East Asia Institute, 1983
7. Nguyền Thị Quy. Action verbs in Vietnamese and arguments. HCM city. Social Science Publisher. 1995 8. Nguyền Kim Thíin. V erbs in Vietnam ese, Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1977
9. Boileau L.D (ed), Faits cie Langues, M otivation et icomcite. Presses um versitaires de France, 1993 10. Dik S.. The Theory o f Functional Grammar. Part 1 : the Structure o f the clause. Dordrecht. Foris, 1989 1 1. Givón T. . On understanding grammar. New York . Academic Press. 1979
12. Haiman J (ed). Iconicily III Syntax. Am sterdam / Philadenphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
1985
13. Halliday M.A.K. All Introduction o f Functional Grammar. London : Arnold. 1985
14. Hopper P.J. and Thompson s.A: 'T h e iconicity of the universal categories NOUN and VERB“ In Haiman J. ( ed). 1985
15. Rosch E. H and Lloyd ( eds). Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale. Eribaum Associates, 1978 16. Rosch E. H . “Princip les o f Categorization*4 In Rosch E. H and Lloyd ( eds), 1978.
