V
V
I
I
E
E
T
T
N
N
A
A
M
MN
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
A

H
A
A
N
N
O
O
I
IU
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T
T
Y

A
N
N
D
DI
I
N
N
T
T
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
A

L
T
T
Y
YO
O
F
FP
P
O
O
S
S
T
T
-
-
G
G
R
R
A
A
DNGUYỄN THỊ ÁI ANH
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
OF FRONTING IN ENGLISH
VERSUS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

Đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong Tiếng Anh
và tương đương trong Tiếng Việt

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS F
F
i
i
e
e
l
l
d
d
:
:

s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s

C
C
o
o
d
d
e
e
:
: 6

V
V
I
I
E
E
T
T
N
N
A
A
M
MN
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N


H
H
A
A
N
N
O
O
I
IU
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T


A
A
N
N
D
DI
I
N
N
T
T
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N

U
L
L
T
T
Y
YO
O
F
FP
P
O
O
S
S
T
T
-
-
G
G
R
R
A




NGUYỄN THỊ ÁI ANH
STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
OF FRONTING IN ENGLISH
VERSUS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

Đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong Tiếng Anh
và tương đương trong Tiếng Việt

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS F
F
i
i
e
e
l
l
d
d

i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s

C
C
o
o
d
d
e
e
:
:


e
r
r
v
v
i
i
s
s
o
o
r
r
:
:

Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn HANOI, 2014
i

DECLARATION

I certify that all the material in this minor thesis which is not my own work has
been identified and acknowledged, and that no material is included for which a degree
has already been conferred upon me.

To everyone, thank you very much.

Hanoi, July 2014 Nguyen Thi Ai Anh iii

ABSTRACT
Fronting seems to be a new concept for English learners and teachers although it
can be used unconsciously in daily life. Research into fronting in English and “khởi
ngữ” in Vietnamese are numerous; however, no research has been done into the
similarities and differences in this linguistic phenomenon in the two languages. This
research is carried out to provide a more comprehensive understanding of “fronting” in
English and “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese. The analytical data include 50 fronted
sentences in English and 50 sentences with “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese collected from
books and newspapers since 1945. In the research, “fronting” in English is compared
and contrasted with “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese in terms of their structure and function.
The result of the research shows that there are similarities and differences in both
structure and function of “fronting” and “khởi ngữ”.
1.2. Fronting in English……………………………………….……………………… 5
1.2.1. Definition of Fronting …………… …….…………….……… 5
1.2.2. Realizations of Fronting…………… ….……………… …………………… 7
1.2.3.The differences between Fronting and the other non-canonical
constructions ………………………………………………….….…………………………7
1.2.3.1. Fronting and Left-dislocation……… …… ……….…… 7
1.2.3.2. Fronting and Argument reversal…… … …….……… 8
1.2.3.3. Fronting and Cleft-sentence……………… … …………………….10
1.2.3.4. Fronting and Post-posing…….………… ………………………… 11
1.2.3.5. Fronting and Right-dislocation.………… ……… ….…………… 12
v

1.2.3.6. Fronting and Conversing……………… ……………… 12
1.2.4. Fronting and presupposition in Topic-Comment Articulation (TCA)……………….12
1.2.5. Structural features of Fronting……….……………………….…………………… 13
1.2.6. Functional features of Fronting ……………………………….…………………….14
1.3. English vs. Vietnamese sentence structures and sentence elements………………… 15
1.3.1. The notion of fronting in Vietnamese…………………………… ……………….19
1.3.2. Structural features of "Khởi ngữ" in Vietnamese………….……….……………….19
1.3.3. Functional features of "Khởi ngữ" in Vietnamese 20
1.3.4. Distinction between "khởi ngữ" and Adverbial in Vietnamese .…… 21
Chapter 2: Methodology 22
2.1. Research questions .22
2.2. Research methods .22
2.3. Data collection .23
2.4. Data analysis .23
Chapter 3: Data analysis and Discussions 24
3.1. Data analysis .24
3.1.1. The structures of Fronting and “Khởi ngữ”. .24
3.1.1.1. Fronted elements in English 24
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A : Adverbial
Adj : Adjective
AdjP.: Adjective Phrase
C : Complement
Cs : Subject Complement
Co : Object Complement
Cprep. : Preposition Complement
Conj. : Conjuction
N : Noun
O : Object
Od: Direct Object
Oi: Indirect Object
Prep. : Preposition
Pron. : Pronoun
S : Subject

(Quirk et al, 1985). An interesting question arising is what functions these structures
perform. Numerous studies in linguistic literature have attempted to provide answers to
the question: to change the discourse focus; to help the speaker/writer to construct a
discourse representation; to create coherent and cohesive representations of texts for
better understanding of existing representations on part of the listener/reader (Sidner,
1978; 1983; Grosz, 1978; 1981).
In an attempt to investigate one of those constructions to better understand it and
to help Vietnamese learners of English use it more appropriately and efficiently in
communication, I have decided to carry out my research into “Structural and
functional features of fronting in English and khởi ngữ in Vietnamese”. 2

2. Aims and Objectives of the study
Aims of the study
This study is to help Vietnamese learners of English better understand the
structural and functional features of English Fronting and Vietnamese “Khởi ngữ” so
that they can use the construction more pragmatically appropriate in their
communication with English speaking people.
Objectives of the study
The study, as entitled, focuses on English fronting construction in comparison to
its Vietnamese equivalent “khởi ngữ” not only about the structures but also about the
functions. Thus, the study attempts to:
- Identify and point out the structural and functional features of Fronting in
English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese.
- Find out the similarities and differences in the structural and functional features
of fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese
3. Research questions
The study is carried out in order to answer two main questions as follow:

achieved from all the discussion in the thesis. 4

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Review of previous studies related to the research area
Among the pre-eminent authors who discuss fronting in great details are Quirk
et al (1985); Ward and Birner (2001); and Erteschik-Shir (2007). Discussions about
one or the other aspect of fronting can be found in Halliday (1994); Thompson (1996)
Huddleston (1995), and Brown (1983). Fronting (Quirk et al, 1985), which is also
referred to as pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001) or topicalization (Erteschik-Shir,
2007; Brown, 1983).
In Vietnamese grammar, this phenomenon has also been discussed for quite a
long time; however, until now it has not been thoroughly and satisfactorily solved.
There have been several disagreements among Vietnamese linguists concerning the
term. First and foremost, on considering using the term in Vietnamese, Nguyen Kim
Than (1997) used the term “Khởi ngữ”; Diep Quang Ban (2004) used the term “đề
ngữ” when referring to this grammatical construction. Hoang Trong Phien (1980)
mentioned it as Thành phần khởi ý whereas Nguyen Huu Quynh (2001) called it “Khởi

for creating coherent and cohesive representations of text and for changing discourse
focus (Sidner, 1978; 1983; Grosz, 1978; 1981).
The focus of this thesis is on Fronting, distinguishable with other non-canonical
constructions in terms of structure and function.
1.2.2. Fronting in English
1.2.2.1. Definition
Fronting (Ross, 1967; Postal, 1974; Parlmutter, 1979; Culicover, 1976; Winter,
1982; Quirk et al, 1985; Ward and Birner, 2001) is a process in which a constituent that
normally appears in some position within a sentence is pushed toward the initial
position (the front) of the sentence, leaving a gap in its normal position, as in:
This subject I enjoy.
6

where „This subject‟ is fronted leaving a gap in its normal position after the verb
„enjoy‟.
Fronting has been described in literature from different perspectives and is
referred to in different terms: Pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001), or Topicalization
(Erteschik-Shir, 2007; Brown, 1983; Jackendoff, 1972).
Quirk et (1985) describe fronting in term of the markedness of the initialized
(fronted) elements. Markedness, in this sense, is a concept used to refer to departure
from the norm. Thus, fronting is "… the achievement of marked theme by moving into
initial position an item which is otherwise unusual there" Quirk et al (1985: 1377). In
this respect, James (1980:110) affirms that marked theme can be simply achieved by
transposing object, verb or even adverb to sentence initial position.
Chomsky (1975) states that fronting is optional, having the effect of
representing in the significant first place of a clause something other than the subject.
Karris (1982) expresses fronting in terms of 'linearization' or rather 'alternative
linearization‟. Elgin (1979) thinks that fronting is one of the rules used to mark a
particular constituent of a sentence as the focus of that sentence. Leech (1975) holds
that moving another element to the front of the sentence gives the element a kind of

there, they sold most of it to the miners (Brown, 1983:321).
The canonically constructed sentence would have been:
They sold most of the cheese they made there to the miners.
Ward and Birner (2001), Erteschic-shir (2007), and Prince (1997) pointed out
the following structural and functional differences between the two constructions:
Structurally, while in pre-posing the canonical position of the item is left
unoccupied, in left-dislocation a resumptive co-referential pronominal element appears
in the marked constituent‟s canonical position.
In the above example, co-referential with the sentence-initial item the cheese
they made there is the direct object pronoun it.
8

In terms of function, left-dislocation is also distinct from pre-posing. In pre-
posing, the pre-posed constituent consistently represents information standing in a
contextual relationship with information either discourse-old or evoked or inferable
based on prior discourse.
However, left-dislocated item introduces discourse-new (or maybe hearer-new)
information. In the above example, „the cheese they made there‟ has never before
appeared in the discourse. Regarding dislocation, Gundel (1977) suggests that the
structures underlying left-dislocation sentences are derived by simply reversing the
order of topic and comment in these structures. Thus, the sentence “It was a great
place, Babylon” is derived from “Babylon, it was a great place‟, which is, in its turn,
derived from “Babylon was a great place” (cf. Gundel 1977).
1.2.2.3. 2. Fronting and argument reversal
Argument is a structural-functional term used to indicate a phrase (mainly but
not exclusively nominal) required by a verb as its complementation (Ward and Birner,
2001). In the reversing process, one clause element is pushed to the sentential initial
position resulting in another element normally occupying that position being pushed
towards the sentential final position.
Argument reversal exists in two constructions: inversion and by-phrase

each fictional heroine and each with a comparably pricey historically accurate
wardrobe and accessories. (Ward and Birner, 2001:129)
Though the dolls have been evoked in prior discourse, the reason for their being
post-posed is that they are less recently evoked than the books.
English by-phrase passives are sub-categorized with inversion as argument
reversal because both constructions involve the reversing of the canonical order of two
arguments. In such sentences, the logical subject is mentioned in a by-phrase, e.g.:
The device was tested by the manufacturers. (Quirk et al, 1985: 1389)
In this example, „the device‟ is pre-posed for linking purpose, thus preserving
the continuity of the topic/theme in the discourse (the previous sentences in the
10

discourse have „the device‟ as their topic/theme). „The manufacturers‟, according to
Quirk et al (1985) is the focus according to the principle of end-focus.
1.2.2.3.3. Fronting and Cleft-sentence
The cleft structure (Quirk et al, 1985), or focus construction (Brown, 1983), is a
construction aimed giving an item more prominence by cleaving the sentence into two
parts. The outcome of this process is a cleft sentence, which is the general term for
both „it-cleft‟ and „wh-cleft‟ (or „pseudo-cleft‟).
Cleft structure can be said to have two simultaneous functions: focusing and
contrasting, the contrasting one often rectifying participants‟ wrong assumptions or
propositions, e.g.:
It-cleft: It was the rain that destroyed the crops. (Widdowson, 1978:35)
Wh-cleft: What I need is a good holiday. (Richards and Schmidt, 2002:75)
A loaf of bread is what we chiefly need. (Halliday and Mathiessen, 2004:70)
What happened to the crops was that they were destroyed by the rain.
(Widdowson, 1978:38)
As shown in the examples above it-cleft involves the pushing of an item towards
the front of the sentence after the structure “it + to be‟. A wh-cleft consists of a wh-
nominal clause which can come first or second in the sentence. The other part of a wh-

old information; post-posing enables the marked element to represent new information.
There are two frequent post-posing constructions with the logical subject post-posed,
leaving the expletive there in the canonical subject position… traditionally known as
existential there and presentational-there sentences, e.g.: Existential there-sentence:
“There’s a warm relationship, a great respect and trust” between [United
Airline]‟s chairman, Stephen M. Wolf, and Sir Colin Marshall, British Air‟s chief
executive officer, according to a person familiar with both sides. (Ward and Birner,
2001:126) 12

1.2.2.3.5. Fronting and Right-dislocation
As we have seen and as suggested by the terms used to indicate the
constructions, left-dislocation (LD) stands in a close relationship with pre-posing, in
terms of their structural and functional features, especially when it comes to the
discourse constraints that regulate their communicative operations. The same scenarios
of similarities and differences exist between right-dislocation and post-posing.
Structurally, both constructions involve the non-canonical placement of a
complement of the verb in post verbal position. The difference lies in the given-new
status of the information expressed by those non-canonically positioned elements,
specifically, in right-dislocation, the post-verbal noun phrase bears no requirement to
represent new information. In other words, the right-dislocated constituent represents
information that has been either explicitly or implicitly evoked in the prior discourse.
1.2.2.3.6. Fronting and Conversing
Conversing is a process by which nominal clause elements can equally take
either initial or final position in the sentence. The process is made possible due to the
reciprocal meaning of some verbal, prepositional, or adjectival phrases. Often it is the
context e.g., the given-new status of information that decides which position is optimal.
1.2.2.4. Fronting and presupposition in Topic-Comment Articulation (TCA)

Wason (1977) and Culicover, Wason and Akmajian (1977), fronting is visualized as a
grammatical process that gives the configuration of movement. It is a device which
yields this configuration. Winter (1982) adopts the adjunction and a way in which such
a phenomenon would be formulated in the landing notation mentioned above. In the
contrary, Bakir (1979) proposes that a transformational relation between both the deep
structures and the surface structures is obtained through the application of a 'movement'
transformation.
In fronting, the fronted parts may be prosodically marked as marked themes and
may be any of a wide range of grammatical units such as direct object, prepositional
14

complement, subject complement, object complement. In the following examples, the
italicized are fronted elements.
Od: The cheese they sold mainly to the miners. (Brown, 1983:322)
Cprep: Others I have only that nodding acquaintance with and some are total
strangers. (Birner and Ward, 1998: 4)
Cs: Rare indeed is the individual who does not belong to one of these groups.
(Sinclair, 1990: 429)
Co: … and traitor we shall call him. (Quirk et al, 1985: 1378)
V: Work I must, and for money. (Biber et al, 1999: 906)
1.2.2.6. Functional features of fronting
Often it is the context that urges the speaker to resort to fronting, either to
thematize an item previously brought into the discourse providing direct linkage with
what has gone before, or to initially introduce what the context most requires.
Although English is a subject-prominent language (Li and Thompson, 1976), sentences
with fronted elements are very common both in colloquial speech and in formal written
style, particularly in journalism (Quirk et al, 1985).
Leech and Svartvik (1994), indicates three different effects of fronting as
follows:
Emphatic: giving the fronted element, in formal conversation, double emphasis,

between them. They share the same sentence elements although the elements are
termed differently: Subject (S), Verb (V), Object (O), Complement (C), and Adverbial
(A) in English and Chủ ngữ, Động từ, Tân ngữ, Bổ ngữ và Trạng ngữ in Vietnamese
(Trần Hữu Mạnh, 2007: 394). Both languages have a certain number of basic sentence
structures (7 in English). Furthermore, verbs in both languages decide sentence
structure and can be categorized into 5 groups. Subject (S), Object (O), Complement
(C) in English and Chủ ngữ, Tân ngữ, Bổ ngữ in Vietnamese are nouns, noun phrases
16

or pronouns. Subjects (S) stand at the beginning of the simple sentence. Objects
normally appear after subjects and verbs in the pattern SVO in English and NP1 + V +
NP2 in Vietnamese in which NP1 is subject and NP2 is object.
In the case that there are two objects (direct object and indirect object) in the
sentence, the English pattern is S V Oi Od and the Vietnamese pattern is NP1 + V +
NP2 + NP3 (NP1 is the subject, NP2 is the indirect object and NP3 is the direct object).
Oi usually stands before Od. Sometimes, Oi stands after Od and is separated by
preposition to or for. Verbs (V) in English and Động từ in Vietnamese stand after the
Subject. Complements (C) in English and Bổ ngữ in Vietnamese are also presented by
adjectival phrases (English complements can be noun phrases). They follow the subject
in the pattern S V C in English and NP1 + Adj in Vietnamese. Adverbials (A) in
English and “Trạng ngữ” in Vietnamese are often adverb or prepositional phrases.
They usually stand at the end of the sentence in the pattern S V A and S V O A in
English and NP1 + V + NP2 + Prep. + NP3 in Vietnamese in which NP3 is Adverbial (
Trạng ngữ). The position of adverbials in English as well as “Trạng ngữ” in
Vietnamese is very mobile; they can get initial, medial or final position in affirmative
simple sentence.
According to Tran Huu Manh (2007: 388), seven patterns in English are
equivalent to those in Vietnamese.

English