MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH
AND VIETNAMESE
(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU CÂU HỎI TU TỪ
TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

LE NAM THANG

FIELD: ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Hanoi, 2017

i


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH
AND VIETNAMESE
(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU CÂU HỎI TU TỪ
TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)
LE NAM THANG


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to thank all of my teachers in the Faculty of postgraduate
H.O.U for teaching and providing me with knowledge of English language so that
today I can do this research.
I own my deepest gratitude to my respectful supervisor, Nguyen Dang Suu, who
inspired me with the interest of rhetorical question and helped me to understand it to
the core. If not for his guidance and encouragement, this paper would not have been
completed. I thank him for being very caring and supportive.
Last but far from least, I am immensely grateful to my parents and my dear ones for
their credit and responsibility toward me during my study at Hanoi Open University
as well as their vital support for my writing this thesis.
Although every effort has been made, there still are inevitable shortcomings here
and there in the paper. I am, once again, grateful to any one who reads and is
tolerant of those shortcomings.

iv


ABSTRACT
This study looks at rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese. The major
concern is the contrastive analysis of pragmatic of rhetorical questions in English
and Vietnamese. It also analyzes the similarities and difference of rhetorical
questions into Vietnamese and find out some mistakes on the bilingual story “An
ideal husband”. We use the extracts from such story to prove the mistakes. The aims
of doing this is to find out the similarities and difference of rhetorical questions into
Vietnamese based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband to help English learner can
translating effectively translate works in general and rhetorical questions in
particular into Vietnamese.


2.1.2. In Vietnamese ......................................................................................... 7
2.1.3. The Thesis ............................................................................................... 8
2.2 Theory framework .......................................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Theories of Speech Act ........................................................................... 8
2.2.2. Criteria to Recognize Speech Act .......................................................... 13
2.2.3 Classifications of questions .................................................................... 16
2.3. Some necessary theory of translation equivalence ...................................... 22
2.4. Summary ..................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3: CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
3.1. Characteristic of pragmatics of the rhetorical questions in English .............. 24
3.2. Pragmatic characteristic of the rhetorical questions in Vietnamese .............. 27
3.2.1. Questions as Greetings .......................................................................... 27
3.2.2. Questions as Invitations ........................................................................ 27

vii


3.2.3. Question as a wonder ............................................................................ 28
3.2.4. Questions as requests ........................................................................... 29
3.2.5. Questions as threats ............................................................................... 29
3.2.6. Questions as assertions .......................................................................... 30
3.2.7. Questions as negations and denials ........................................................ 31
3.2.8. Questions as complaints ........................................................................ 32
3.2.9. Questions as suggestions/ advice ........................................................... 33
3.2.10. Questions as offers .............................................................................. 34
3.2.11. Questions showing incredulity and surprise ......................................... 34
3.2.12. Questions as reproach .......................................................................... 35
3.2.13. Questions for imprecation ................................................................... 35
3.2.14. Questions as wishes ............................................................................. 35

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Concluding remarks ..................................................................................... 58
5.2 Limitation of the study ................................................................................. 58
5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study .......................................... 58
REFERENCES

ix


CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
In everyday communication, exchanging information is a very common activity.
The act of giving and receiving information takes place anywhere, which a
conversation is formed. The question is a category, so It is one of the common
actions. Questions, therefore, become an important component in communication.
They play a significant role in human’s activity. As a result, there have been, so far,
many researches on grammatical question. Many grammatical issues are focused on
analyzingthe structure of questions and pointed out conventional uses of questions.
Therefore, referring to rhetical question with response, and also to the important
role in the activity and human perception, communication event research is
considered to describe the elements which are relevant to achieve its. Order,
warning, advice, offer.,
However, for the past decades, new branches of linguistics, semantics, pragmatic
have been developing rapidly together with phonetics, lexicology and grammar.
Some linguists such as, Austin, Searle, Yuleis prominent in the field of pragmatic.
Thus, more and more pragmatics-basing researches on aspects of linguistics are
being carried out.
Among those researches, pragmatics-based study of questions makes a worthmentioning contribution to this development. Recently, other functions or
unconventional uses of questions are studied by T. Givón in English and by Cao
Xuân Hạo in Vietnamese. These two authors state that questions are used not only

1.4. Methods of the study
The main methods are the qualitative, quantitative and descriptive in combination
with data collection and data analysis approaches to find out the similarities and
differences of rhetorical questions in the research into the bilingual story “An ideal
husband”.
1.5. Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is the CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS and find out the
similarities and differences of rhetorical questions IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband
1.6. Significance of the study
One of the main contributions of this thesis is find out the similarities and
differences of rhetorical questions IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE based on
bilingual story – An Ideal Husband and easy make mistakes when translate which
can provides the knowledge of questions in general and rhetorical questions in

2


particular for students of English so that they can use them in a better way after
graduating from university.
1.7. Structure of the graduation paper
This graduation paper is divided into 5 chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction where the writer would like to introduce the reason why
choose the topic for my research, the aims, the scope, the methods ofthe study and
the structure of the paper, as well.
Chapter 2: Overview of general theories of questions are mentioned.
Chapter 3: Contrastive study of rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese.
Chapter 4: Applications of rhetorical questions
Chapter 5: Conclusion


for a given language. Similarly, interrogative words seem to occur most commonly
in sentence-initial position, which may account for inversion in some types of
information questions. Probably, most languages append questions to declarative
statements to request confirmation
You are a student, aren’t you?
You are French, aren’t you

4


Many modern European languages make use of standard inversion patterns to signal
questions such as in English.
(Russell Ultan, Some General Characteristics of Interrogative Systems 1969, p.213)
Did he come home?
When did he come home?
From the above observations, Bollinger,D. in his study (1957) divided the
identifying characteristics of interrogative utterances into four classes: interrogative
distribution (general occurrence before a reply); syntax (inversion, interrogative
words, interrogative tags and other syntactic devices); interrogative intonation
(predominance of terminal rising or high pitch); interrogative gestures (eyebrow
lifted, head inclined forward, mouth left open at the end of the utterances). Besides
other factors such as emphasis and nuances added to the general interrogative theme
(degree of familiarity between speaker and hearer, degree of doubt (rhetority of
questions) characteristically produce variation in from of interrogative sentences.
According Encylopedia of Linguistics, questions are a universal structure type with
at least one universal function, that of requesting information. Structurally, two
major types of questions are WH or special questions and YES/NO or general
questions. The former includes one or more questions pronouns such as who, how…
which typically are related in form to indefinite relative pronouns. Languages show
considerable similarities in how they use intonation, word order and morphology to


You have seen John.

→

Have you seen John?

Semantically, questions differ from statements for the reason that they are
not propositions: They cannot be true or false. As speech acts, questions resemble
commands and they require some actions in response. When the answer is not
categorically determined by the questions, questions may form a third type
semantically clear-cut. Some yes/no questions require more than yes/no answer.
Has anything happened?
The answer to the above questions is definitely not “yes” or “no”. It depends on the
context of the utterance; the answer may be a long story.
In general, the type of answer appropriate to questions may not be determined
syntactically or semantically: it is often a pragmatic matter depending on the speech
situation. Hence a distinction must be made between “answer” and “response”; all
answers are responses, but not all responses are answers:
Where’s my box of chocolate?
I’ve got to catch the train.
The non-answer “I’ve got to catch the train.” Includes indication on listener’s part
that he is unable or provide an answer to the questions; it is based on incorrect
presupposition on part of speaker.
Semantic subclasses of questions may be defined by reference to the speaker’s
degree of prior knowledge of the answer (rhetorical questions or examination
questions) or his degree of certainty about one correct answer (negative question).
May I help you? – (an offer)
Would you close the door? – ( a request)


The interrogative tone.

In his book, professor Cao Xuân Hạo states that a question has an illocutionary act,
which requires an answer giving information on predicate or part of it and provides
true presupposition. He divides questions into two major types: Information
Question and Rhetorical Question. The former has an illocutionary act of asking
for information i.e. the information answer is needed. Meanwhile, the latter has
another illocutionary act. Depending on context that the participants are playing
their roles in conversation, this type of question can function as a requirement, an
exclamation, a suggestion and so forth.

7


2.1.3. The Thesis
In the chapter 1 the auther would like to introduce Rationale, Aims of study,
Objective, Scope and Methods of the study. The thesis deals with general features
and the theories of the rhetorical question.
Into English and Vietnamese languages, questions are the sentence with a question
mark at the end of the utterances. The function of questions is seeking for
information or the explanation that the speakers (the questioner) do not know or
doubt.
Tuổi về hưu của công ty anh là bao nhiêu?
Tại sao bà ta không tha thứ chứ?
(A.H, p192, 193)
Questions are, however, not always used to fulfill the information gap. In specific
context, a question has other functions. Specifically, it can function as a greeting, an
assertion, and an invitation…in form of interrogative sentence.
Why don’t you see a doctor
? →

as having a meaning of its own. The feelings, attitudes, emotions and thoughts of
the person performing linguistic act are much of a principal unit here.
Mrs Erlynne: Oh! What am I to say to you? You saved me last night? (Goes
toward her) (A.H P.442, 443)
This utterance have its specific meaning only in relation to it specific context.
In Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistic, speech act is
defined as: “Speech act is an UTTERANCE which has a functional unit in
communication. In speech act theory, an utterance has two kinds of meanings:
Propositional meaning and Illocutionary meaning.
a) Propositional meaning (known as locutionary meaning)
This basic literal meaning of the utterance is conveyed by the particular words and
structures that the utterance contains.
b) Illocutional meaning (known as illocutionary force)
This is the effect the utterance or written text which has on the reader or listener.
For example in “Where is my hat?”

the propositional meaning is what the

utterance says about the place that the hat is laying. The illocutionary force is the
request for the listener. It may be intended as a request for the listener to join the
search.
Therefore, the utterance that has both propositional meaning and illocutionary
meaning is called a speech act. Every speech act conveys at least one illocutionary
force but most convey more than one. For instance, “I’ve got a headache.” Apart
from the propositional meaning of the speaker’s physical state, it may function as an
excuse or a complaint…
(Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Jack C.
Richards,Richard W. Schmidt. P 542, 543)
John has two small sons. The two sons are fighting.
John: Be quiet! I’ve got a headache.

One utterance can have more than one illocution the utterance “Take action now!”
Can funtion as an order or a piece of advice.
Therefore, speech act must be interpreted with attention to their context and their
function as an intergral part of social interactive behaviour.
Perlocutionaryact is performed when the purpose of speaking is to cause an effect
on the hearer. Speakers want their opinions to be recognized, their advice taken,
warning heeded…. By this act, the speakers aim at bringing about or effecting the
thought or action of the hearer or others with words, (which is involved with the
locution and illocutionary points of the utterances). The point of carefully
distinguishing the perlocutionary effect of speech act from others is that
perlocutions can be often accidental and thus bear a relatively unsystematic
relationship to any claussification sentence types or unprediction in communication.
This results in unexpected information gap in communication. It normally creates a
sense of consequential effects on the audiences. The effects may be in the form of

10


thoughts, imaginations, feelings or emotions. The effect upon the addressee is the
main charactership of perlocutionary utterances.
Austin himself admits that these three components of utterances are not altogether
separable.“We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issuedthe total speech act – if we are to see the parallel between statements and
performative utterance, and how each can go wrong. Perhaps indeed there is no
great distinction between statements and performative utterances.” Austin.
2.2.1.3. Speech Act Classification
There are two major approaches of speech act classification: (1) a lexical
classification of so-called illocutionary verbs initiated by J. Austin (1962) and (2) J.
Searle’s classification of acts, which will be introduced as follows:
2.2.1.3.1. A Lexical Classification of Speech Acts
Lexically, there are five classes of illocutionary verbs:

world. This is on of the basic thing man does with language in order to tell people
how things are. The illocutionary point of representative is to commit a speaker in
varying degree (assert, claim, say, suggest, doubt, deny…) to the truth of something.
Speech act of this kind has a truth-value and show word-to-world correspondence
and express a speaker’s belief of the propositional content.
SIR . R . C: You think science cannot grapple with the problem of women?
SIR . R . C: Thế bà có cho rằng khoa học cũng không nắm bắt được vấn đề phụ nữ
không?
SIR . R . C: And now tell me, what makes you leave your brilliant Vienna for our
gloomy London – or perhaps the question í indiscreet?
SIR . R . C:Bây giờ , xin bà cho biết vì sao bà từ giã Viên chói lọi của bà để tới
Luân Đôn u ám của chúng tôi? Chết, hỏi thế này có hơi hớ henh không?
SIR . R . C: Well, at any rate, may I-know if it is politics or pleasure?
SIR . R . C: Vậy thì dù sao bà cũng có thể nói cho biết: vì chính trị hay là vì vui thú?
(A.H, P38,39)
b) Directive is speech acts having the function of getting a listener to do
something for the speaker. The primary illocutionary point of directives may differ
in the force of the attempt and such differences in the force of the attempt and such
differences in the force of the attempt result in different directives. Suggestions,
request, commands, directions, insistence, appeals are all directives which show
word-to-world fit and express the speaker’s wish or desire that the hearer does

12


something.
Situation : (commanding officer – recruit – at a parade ground)
At-ten-tion! Now, quick match. Left…right…left…right.
c) Commisive is speech acts that commit the speaker to doing something in
the future either by threatening or promising.


Group

Nhóm

1.

The order group

Ra lệnh

2.

The ask 1 group

Hỏi

3.

The ask 2 group

Yêu cầu

4.

The call group

Gọi

5.


The blame group

Khiển trách

11.

The attack group

Công kích

12.

The warn group

Cảnh báo

13.

The advice group

Khuyên bảo

14.

The offer group

Ban tặng

15.


The guess group

Phán đoán

21.

The exclaim group

Cảm thán

22.

The hint group

Gợi ý

23.

The conclude group

Kết luận

24.

The tell group

Bảo cho biết

25.



30.

The stress group

Nhấm mạnh

31.

The declare group

Tuyên bố

32.

The baptize group

Đặt tên thánh

33.

The remark group

Nhận xét

34.

The answer group


mistakes but did not critic the translator.
If we were to attempt to say what an utterance in conversation meant, but ignored
its context of use, we would not be successful or forced to conclude that its meaning
would be vague and ambiguous.
It is, therefore, impossible to say what most utterances mean, or what their intent is,
without having some knowledge of the situation in which they occur. Ronald
Warchaugh writes that context includes not only the linguistic one, the utterances
preceding of following the utterance in question, but also the surrounding physical
context, previous conversation, relevant aspects of the partipants’ life history, the
general rules of behavior the parties subscribe to, the assumptions about how the
various bits pieces of the world function.

15


Only by acknowledging that all these factors contribute to the meaning of particular
utterance in a particular context can we hope to understand what is going on when a
person say something to another.
It is context that creates possibilities for interpretation and helps remove the
multiple ambiguities that a utterance would have if they occur in isolation. Take the
following utterance for example:
A: Would you like another drink?
B: Yes, I would. Thank you, but make it a small one.
The utterance of “A” is both a question and an offer. We know that with the help of
the surface form of the response in which “Yes, I would.” Responds to the question
and “Thank you” responds to the offer. However, in other context the utterance
“Would you like anther drink?” does not function as what it has been discussed. In
some case, the host in saying “Would you like another drink?” may have the
intention of embarrassing the guess who has already finished several bottles of
wine, or he may have the intention of getting the guest to take the hint and leave,