MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH SUBSTITUTIONS OF
SYNONYM WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU THAY THỂ TỪ ĐỒNG NGHĨA TRONG TIẾNG ANH
ĐỐI CHIẾU VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRẦN HÀ ANH

Hanoi, 2016


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS

A STUDY ON ENGLISH SUBSTITUTIONS OF
SYNONYM WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU THAY THỂ TỪ ĐỒNG NGHĨA TRONG TIẾNG ANH
ĐỐI CHIẾU VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRẦN HÀ ANH
Field: English Language
Code: 60220201


Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Văn Thanh for the continuous support of my M.A study
and research, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense
knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing
of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor
and mentor for my M.A study.

A special word of thanks goes to all my lecturers in Postgraduate
Department of Hanoi Open University and my classmates, without whose
support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to
have this thesis accomplished.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents, for
the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work.

ii


ABSTRACT

This article is an attempt to identify substitution of synonym in both English
and Vietnamese as a discourse cohesive device. Both quantitative and
qualitative approaches are used in the thesis. Besides, the thesis is carried out
based on the research methods such as statistical research, methodology
description, analysis and synthesis methods, comparing and contrasting
methods. With the corpora from stories and novels, the study classifies
substitution of synonym in English and Vietnamese into three types:
dictionary substitution of synonym, temporary substitution of synonym and
descriptive substitution of synonym. Then, the study explores the linguistic
features of these types of substitution of synonym in English and Vietnamese
in term of syntax and semantics. This aims to help learners to identify the type
of vocabulary and semantics common synonyms used in rather a synonym, at


TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1.1 RATIONALE ........................................................................................ 1
1.2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 3
1.2.1. Aims................................................................................................ 3
1.2.2. Objectives ....................................................................................... 3
1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 4
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................. 4
1.5. SIGNIFICANCA OF THE STUDY ..................................................... 5
1.6. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ................................................................. 5
1.7. PRGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND....8
2.1. PREVIOUS STUDY ............................................................................ 8
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 10
2.2.1. Discourse and Text ....................................................................... 10
2.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence .............................................................. 12
2.2.3. Reference ...................................................................................... 17
2.2.4. Substitution of synonym ............................................................... 19
2.2.5. Types of meaning ......................................................................... 30
2.3. SUMMARY........................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................. 34
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................ 34
3.2. RESEARCH METHOD ..................................................................... 34
3.3. SAMPLING ........................................................................................ 34
3.4. DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................... 35

Table 4.5. Relative frequency of substitute items in ESS and VSS in
semantic feature ............................................................................................ 80

vii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE
Communication, which is considered a “bridge” to bring people closer and
closer, always plays an important role in human life. People use language as
a vital means to communicative with each other. Thanks to language, the most
important means of communication in human society, people can exchange
information, ideas and feelings. In order to communicative successfully and
effectively, people have to make use of language properly. Thai is not merely
by putting one sentence after another to mean something, but that people
should use cohesive devices seems to be one of the suitable ways. The
substitution via synonyms that can be also called substitution of synonym
(SS) is one of those cohesive means. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)
During the process of writing or speaking, over repetition of a lexical item
may cause the boredom to the reader/hearer and may not convey the writer’s/
speaker’s message effectively. In contrast, the use of synonym to replace
some items of vocabulary can do better than this. That means the employment
of synonyms not only helps to avoid over repetition, but also contribute to the
effective expression of different shades of meaning. Here are some examples:
(1.1) Swetman, much awed and surprised, returned the articles to the
closet, and went downstairs pondering. Of his surmise he said nothing
to his daughters, merely saying to them that the gentleman was gone;
and never saying that he had been an eye-witness of the unpleasant
scene in the orchard that was the immediate cause of departure.
(1.2) Swetman, much awed and surprised, returned the articles to the

2


For these reasons, I have decided to choose the topic “A study on English
substitutions of synonym with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents”
for my master thesis.
1.2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1. Aims
This research focus on finding out different types of English and Vietnamese
substitution of synonym as well as describing the features of their language
syntax and semantics. The study aims at helping Vietnamese leaners of
English to be more aware of the role of substitution of synonym as a linguistic
means. Besides, the thesis is done to help Vietnamese leaners of English to
use synonyms suitably and persuasively in communicating and give some
implications for teaching English.
This research focuses on finding different kinds of English and synonyms
replace Vietnam as well as describe the features of their language syntax and
semantics. This study aims to help Vietnam's English learners to be more
aware of the role of alternative synonyms as a means of language. Besides,
the thesis is done to help Vietnam's English learners to use appropriate
synonyms and persuasive communication and give some suggestions for
teaching English.
1.2.2. Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
- to identify different types of SS in English and Vietnamese;
- to describe some linguistic features of SS in terms of syntax and
semantics;

3


2. What are the syntactic and semantic features of SS in English and
Vietnamese?
3. What are the similarities and differences of SS in English and
Vietnamese in term of syntax and semantic?
4. What are some suggestions to the teaching and learning of English to
Vietnamese teachers and learners?
1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Substitution of synonym is one of the cohesive devices used to create
cohesive and coherent language products. In fact, synonyms can be popularly
employed in both informal language (in everyday conversations) and formal
language (in speeches, reports, etc.). Thus, when conducting this thesis, I am
always aware that this will be necessary work. Because of some important
function of SS as follows:
- SS is a way of avoiding unnecessary repetition;
- Via SS, speaker/ write can diversify ways of using synonyms;
- Via different shade of synonyms used in SS, speaker/writer can show
their attitude towards character lively.
1.6. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
- Substitution of synonym:
There are some ways of naming the cohesive device in discourse that use
synonyms for substitution. In English, Halliday and Hasan [38, p. 318] call
this reiteration by using synonyms, superordinates, general words. In
Vietnamese, this device is named as substitution of synonyms (phép thế đồng
nghĩa) by Trần Ngọc Thêm [20, p.114].

5


In order to ensure the unity for the whole thesis, in this research “substitution
of synonym” is understood as the use of lexical items that are in some sense

Chapter 5 is the conclusions and implications where a summary of findings
is presented; besides, some practical implications and some suggestions for
further research are put forward.

7


CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. PREVIOUS STUDY
Up to now, a lot of English and Vietnamese researchers have investigated
various cohesive devices which help to create cohesion and coherence in
discourse.
“Cohesion in English” by Halliday and Hasan [28] is considered one of the
valuable books on this linguistic aspect in the English language. In this book,
Halliday and Hasan discuss and divide cohesion into five types of devices:
reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical ties. Lexical
cohesion, to which synonym belongs, is also explained by Halliday later in
“An introduction to Functional Grammar” [29]. Besides, cohesive devices
have also been paid much attention to by Cook in “Discourse” [22]. He
studies such cohesive devices as verb form, parallelism, repetition, lexical
chains and formal links.
In “Discourse Analysis” [21], Brown and Yule have stated the nature of
reference in text and discourse as a cohesive device. They talked about
exophoric and endophoric to support the idea of text cohesion. In
“Pragmatics” [46], Yule points out lexical substitution related to the two term
“anaphora” and “cataphora”.
Nunan in “Introducing Discourse Analysis” [38] also mentions lexical
cohesion. He bases on the view of Halliday and Hasan and states that
reiteration with repetition, synonym, near synonymy, superordinates, general

substitution of synonym, ellipsis, conjunction, etc. However, a contrast

9


analysis of a certain device between the two languages seems to be still rare.
Consequently, I choose SS as one cohesive device to study in my thesis. I try
to clarify some linguistic features of SS in English and Vietnamese, in which
syntactic and semantic features are mainly focused. With the findings of my
thesis named “Substitution of synonym in English and Vietnamese”, I
hope that my study will be of some help for the teaching and learning English
of Vietnamese teachers and leaners.
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1. Discourse and Text
2.2.1.1. Discourse
There have been a lot of concepts of discourse. With different objects of
study, discourse is understood and defined in different ways.
Cook [22, p. 156] defined discourse as “a stretch of language perceived to be
meaningful, unified and purposive’.
Besides, discourse is “a communicative process. Its situation outcome is a
change in a state of affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear,
its linguistic product is text” which stated by Widdowson [45, p.100].
As discussed by Brown & Yule [21, p.12], discourse is language in use.
From a number of sources about discourse, David Nunan [38, p. 5] also made
an extract as follows: “discourse is a continuous stretch of (especially spoken)
language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as
sermon, argument, joke or narrative” (Crystal 1992:25)
In brief, all concepts of discourse stress the communicative dynamics of
language. Therefore, there is a strong tendency for discourse analysts to rely
10

- a stretch of language which can be interpreted in its form, outside the
context.
- a system in which sentences are constituents, and this system has some
structures that identify the position of sentences and their relationship
in the whole text.
2.2.2. Cohesion and Coherence
Up to now, many English and Vietnamese writers have been investigating
various cohesive devices which help to create cohesion and coherence. The
two terms “cohesion” and “coherence” have become very popular in
discourse analysis and textual linguistics. They mentions the way in which
sentences, whether in spoken or written form, cohere together to form a
meaningful text.
2.2.2.1. Cohesion
Cohesion, a term popularized by Halliday and Hasan [28], refers to the way
sentences and parts of sentences to ensure that there is propositional
development in a written or spoken discourse. They suggest that cohesion is
a semantic relation. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of one another.
Galperin [27] shows that cohesion is lexical, grammatical forms of
connection between concrete parts of discourse. It indicates the transition
from a division of these contextual variants to another. Cohesion, therefore,
is expressed on the surface of a discourse, making a link between utterances
or parts of it.

12


Nguyễn Hòa [37, p. 23] says that “cohesion refers to the formal relationship
that causes text to cohere or stick together. It is indicated by grammatical,
logical and lexical relationships found among or between the sentences of a

smoother and better while (2.1a) sounds rather odd although all the sentences
in (2.1a) are grammatically well-formed. It is the force of cohesion that leads
to the difference between the two pieces. In (2.1b), the sentences are linked
by various cohesive devices: anaphoric items (she), conjunctions (but, when,
because), Meanwhile, each sentence in (2.1a) is a self-contained unit and its
existence is dependent on the others.
In other cases, it can be seen that the text containing those separate sentences.
(2.2b)(a) Cắm đi một mình trong đêm. (b) Đúng như báo Đảng nói, đêm nay
trời ít mây và có gió nhẹ. (c) Mùa xuân về trên rẻo cao đã làm nở những thứ
hoa chỉ thơm ban đêm, kín đào như nụ cười tình của một cô gái Mèo. (d)
Tiếng kêu của một con hoẵng lạc bầy trong rừng khuya nghe như tiếng gọi
tha thiết cuat một con người. (e) Cắm nghĩ chưa bao giờ anh nghe báo nói về
tiếng kêu của con hoẵng đó. (f) Nhưng nói làm gì, trên khắp đất nước ta, có
nơi nào mà một đêm mùa xuân lại không nghe thấy tiếng kêu tha thiết của
một con hoẵng con? (g) Cắm xốc lại cây sung, nhưng không phải để bắn. (h)
Anh đi nhanh trong đêm quen thuộc.
When (2.2a) and (2.2b) are compared, it is clear that the sentences in (2.2a)
are unrelated. Meanwhile, the sentences in (2.2b) have a lose connection.
From the act of đi trong đêm, “Cắm” comments on thời tiết ban đêm. The
typical weather of mùa xuân makes “Cắm” to notice hoa đêm trên rẻo cao,
muông thú. The sentence (e) connect the three ones (a)-(b)-(d) (Cắm – báo

14


Đảng – con hoẵng). The anxiety in (e) is replied though the content in (f).
The fact Cắm – súng – không bắn in (g) is related to con hoẵng in the previous
sentences and đi nhanh in (h). All of these complex relations among the
sentences create a net which helps to stick those sentences to be a text.
Obviously, cohesion plays an important role in discourse and thanks to

(2.3) A: Have you got a light?
B: Sorry, I don’t smoke

(Trần Thị Thùy Hương, 2002)

This exchange shows that the text can be easily understood by anyone
although there is no cohesion. This is because it has overall coherence. B’s
answer makes A understand that B does not have a light because he does not
smoke. Hence, the conversation is still coherent without cohesion.
(2.4) Giáp: Tối nay đi nghe nhạc với tớ đi! (a)
Bính: Có trận bóng đá vô địch toàn quốc mà. (b)
Giáp: Đành vậy. (c)
The utterance (a) is an invitation so it can get two answers: accepting the
invitation (Cảm ơn) or refusing it (Xin lỗi). Through the utterance (b), Bính
apologizes Giáp for the refusing of Bính’s invitation. As for Giáp, because he
knows that Bính likes watching football, he only says “Đành vậy” with the
implicature that he accepts Bính’s apology. The acts of speech such as Mời,
Cảm ơn, Xin lỗi or Chấp nhận lời xin lỗi are connected together and make the
coherence of the conversation although there is no cohesive device among the
sentences.

16