Research questions
This study, titled "A Contrastive Analysis of Deverbal Nominalization in English and Vietnamese on BBC.co.uk and Nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to 2014 from a Cognitive Perspective," aims to address specific research questions related to the cognitive aspects of language.
1 How isdeverbal nominalizationlinguisticallyrealizedin English and Vietnameseon the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to 2014?
2 What are the similarities and differences in linguisticrealizationsbetween deverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnameseon the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to 2014?
3 What are the underlying reasons for the differences in linguistic realizations betweendeverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnamese from cognitive perspective?
Scope of the study
This study explores the linguistic phenomenon of nominalization, specifically focusing on deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese By conducting a contrastive analysis from a cognitive perspective, the research aims to highlight the differences and similarities between the two languages The data for this analysis is sourced from online newspapers, specifically bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn, covering the period from 2010 to 2014.
Significance of the study
This study conducts a contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese, focusing on content from bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn between 2010 and 2014, using a cognitive approach The researcher aims to enhance awareness among teachers and learners regarding the similarities and differences in deverbal nominalization between the two languages, as well as its formation Ultimately, the findings are intended to assist educators and students in improving their writing and translation skills.
Research methodology
The study aims at investigating comparingdeverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese based on cognitive approach
This study employs a contrastive approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze materials from English and Vietnamese online newspapers, specifically from bbc.com.uk and nhandan.com.vn Articles were selected based on specific criteria to ensure a comprehensive comparison.
First, the article must have at least one case of deverbal nominalization
Second, it must be published in the period from 2010 to 2004
Third, it must be taken from the two sources - the bbc.com.uk and the nhandan.com.vn
This study will analyze thirty online newspaper articles in both English and Vietnamese to investigate the linguistic realization and cognitive perception of deverbal nominalization It aims to identify the similarities and differences in how these concepts are understood in the two languages from a cognitive perspective.
Design of the study
The study is divided into three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion The main part of the study, Development, consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: TheoreticalBackground and Literature Review of the study
Chapter 2: Research Methodology of the study It provides a detailed description of the study including the aims, the scope, the methodology, the data collection procedure and the data analysis
Chapter 3: Data Analysis explores deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese, using sample articles from bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn It conducts a contrastive analysis of how deverbal nominalization is realized in both languages and examines the cognitive reasons behind the differences in these realizations.
Chapter 4: Findings and Implications It shows major findings from the study and suggests several recommendations concerning the research topic.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
Theoretical background
In "Contrastive Analysis," James, C (1980:2) defines contrastive analysis (CA) as a linguistic approach focused on creating inverted two-valued typologies, emphasizing the comparison of pairs of languages He highlights that CA is rooted in the concept of inter-language, which examines the development of languages rather than their final forms, positioning CA as a key aspect of applied linguistics.
In “Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguistics”, Fisiak, J states that
Contrastive linguistics is a branch of linguistics focused on comparing two or more languages or their subsystems Its primary aim is to identify both the similarities and differences that exist between these languages, enhancing our understanding of their structures and functions.
Fisiak's definition highlights the contrastive methodology used to identify similarities and differences among languages, which may lead to confusion between contrastive linguistics and comparative linguistics.
According to Krzeszowski (1990: 11), "Contrastive Linguistics" encompasses the entire domain of cross-language comparison, with a particular emphasis on the theories and methodologies involved While it can be used interchangeably with "Contrastive Analysis," the latter term is more specifically associated with the actual process of comparison.
Contrastive linguistics, as defined by Xu Yulong (1992) and cited by Wenguo and Mun (2007), is a specialized area of linguistic study focused on comparing two or more languages at a specific point in time Its primary goal is to identify and describe both the similarities and differences among these languages, with an emphasis on understanding the differences to enhance practical applications in various fields.
Contrastive Analysis (CA) is a crucial branch of linguistics that significantly contributes to language teaching and learning by identifying both the similarities and differences between two languages.
Cognitive linguistics, as described by Ungerer and Schmid (2013), is an approach that emphasizes the connection between language and our experiences of the world This field focuses on language use, highlighting its role in cognition and how it reflects the interplay of social, cultural, psychological, and communicative factors Understanding language requires a realistic perspective on cognitive development and mental processing, which are essential for grasping how we acquire and conceptualize knowledge.
Cognitive linguistics, as defined by Talmy (2000), is a conceptual approach that focuses on how language organizes and represents conceptual content This field encompasses various aspects of conceptualization, including space, time, motion, and events, as well as cognitive agents like attention, perspective, expectation, and intention It also explores the semantic structures of grammatical patterns, vocabulary, and morphology, along with the relationships between conceptual structures, such as text and context Talmy emphasizes that the primary goal of cognitive linguistics is to understand the integrated system of conceptual structuring in language He also refers to cognitive linguistics as "cognitive semantics," highlighting its focus on the interplay between cognition and language.
“semantics” is “specifically concerned with the conceptual organization of language.(2003:4)
Cognitive linguistics interprets language through concepts, highlighting its strong connection to semantics This perspective suggests that our understanding of language arises from its use, emphasizing that language is not an independent entity.
1.1.3 The relation of Grammar to Cognition
In his book “Toward a Cognitive Semantics”, volume 1-Concept Structuring
According to Talmy L (2000), language functions as a cognitive system comprised of two fundamental sub-systems: grammatical and lexical These components are interconnected, with grammar providing the structural foundation and lexicon supplying the conceptual content The grammatical parts shape the cognitive representation of a sentence, while the lexical elements contribute to its meaning Talmy emphasizes that grammar plays a crucial role in establishing the conceptual framework within a language's cognitive system.
Grammar plays a crucial role in shaping the conceptual structure of a sentence, establishing a close relationship with cognition It serves as the fundamental element that influences how we understand and interpret the meaning of a sentence.
1.1.4 Definition of Nouns in English and in Vietnamese
Nominalization involves understanding key concepts such as noun, nominal, and noun phrase According to Taylor (2002), a noun identifies a type of thing, while a noun phrase refers to a specific instance of that type He describes a noun as a "bare noun" and explains that a noun phrase is a nominal that includes a noun along with optional modifiers, complements, determiners, and quantifiers Cognitively, Taylor asserts that a nominal consists of four components that collectively form a layered conceptual structure.
(Grounding ( Quantification ( Instantiation ( Specification (Type) ) ) ) )
Specifications define how a type is described through modifiers, which provide a more detailed characterization For instance, the type indicated by "room" is less specific compared to "new car," where the noun "car" is enhanced by the adjectival modifier "new," offering a clearer and more precise description.
According to Taylor (2002: 343), numerous instances exist for each type, with instantiation illustrating the connection between a type and its instances For instance, various examples such as "the house," "the house that I bought last year," "the big house on the hill," "my house," and "the big house over there" represent different instances of the type "house" (Taylor, 2002: 344) Taylor asserts that when a type is defined, it is referred to as instantiated.
Quantification expresses the quantity of the instance that is designated
Taylor (2002:355) stated that quantifiers are the numerals and such items as one, all, both, each, a few, most, many, much, some, several and so on
Grounding refers to the contextual elements surrounding a speech event, including the participants involved, the situational content, prior discourse, and the shared knowledge among those engaged in the conversation.
Literature review
Nominalization is a common characteristic of English academic writing; however, there has been limited contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalization between English and Vietnamese During the research on nominalization, the researcher identified a singular article addressing this topic.
Ho Chi Minh City Pedagogical University Journal of Science by Nguyen ThiBichNgoan “ A contrastive analysis of Verb nominalizations in Vietnamese and
This research presents a contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalizations in English and Vietnamese, focusing specifically on authentic academic usage The study utilizes data from two major newspapers, BBC (bbc.co.uk) and Nhandan (nhandan.com.vn), covering articles published between 2010 and 2014 Unlike previous research that relied on summaries from other authors, this analysis aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of verb nominalizations in both languages.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research questions
With a view to making a contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnameseon the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to
2014 from cognitive perspective, the questions that the study investigates are as follow:
1 How is deverbal nominalization linguistically realized in English and Vietnameseon the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to 2014?
2 What are the similarities and differences in linguisticrealizations between deverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnameseon the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn from 2010 to 2014?
3 What are the underlying reasons for the differences in linguistic realizations between deverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnamese from cognitive perspective?
The initial question will be addressed following a thorough analysis of the collected and categorized data on deverbal nominalization across different languages Subsequently, a contrastive analysis of the deverbal nominalization data from two specific languages will enable the researcher to answer the second question.
Research approach
This study explores deverbal nominalization, a grammatical phenomenon linked to cognitive reification, through a cognitive linguistic lens This innovative approach examines grammatical structures based on their roles in representing conceptual frameworks Cognitive linguistics uniquely connects its insights to cognitive structures relevant to psychological theories By comparing deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese, this research aims to elucidate how conceptual phenomena manifest in both languages, shedding light on the underlying psychological structures and enhancing our understanding of language's role in expressing these concepts.
Research method
This study conducts a contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese, utilizing document analysis as the primary research method By employing qualitative techniques, the research involves the careful collection and examination of materials from online newspapers Specifically, thirty articles from the BBC (bbc.co.uk) in English and thirty from Nhandan (nhandan.com.vn) in Vietnamese were selected based on predefined criteria.
First, the article must contain at least one case of deverbal nominalization
Second, it must be published in the period from 2010 to 2014
Third, it must be taken from the two sources - the bbc.com.uk and the nhandan.com.vn
Besides, because the focus of the study is only on the use of deverbal nominalization on online newspapers, only the following cases are counted as deverbal nominalization:
In English: adding suffixes like “-tion”, “-ment”, “- ation”, etc
In Vietnamese: using nomializers such as “việc”, “cuộc”, “sự” ,etc, and using the words “những”, “mọi”
The quantitative method is employed to count and categorize deverbal nominalizations, providing essential data for further analysis to meet the study's objectives.
In this research, the cognitive theories by Radden, G et Dirven, R (2007), Langacker, R W (2008), Talmy L (2000) are adopted as theoretical framework for the study of deverbal nominalization.
Data collection procedure
This research utilizes articles from two reputable sources, bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn, covering the period from 2010 to 2014 These sources were selected due to their recognition as leading newspapers in their respective countries, known for their reliability Furthermore, both bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn serve as official representatives of the voices of the people and governments in Vietnam and England, making them comparable in their authority and perspective.
The procedure for data collection is in the following steps:
First, articles are collected randomly from the two sources to find whether deverbal nominalization is employed
Second, fifteen articlesfrom the bbc.co.uk and another fifteen from the nhandan.com.vn are selected for the data collection
Last, the number of deverbal nominalization cases in English and in Vietnamese are counted and categorized for further analysis.
Data analysis
The collected and categorized data will be analyzed to address two research questions regarding deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese This analysis will focus on the linguistic realizations and cognitive perceptions of deverbal nominalization in both languages A contrastive analysis will identify the similarities and differences in these realizations, while also uncovering the underlying reasons for these linguistic variations from a cognitive perspective.
Design of the study
The study is composed of three main parts:
The first part, Introduction , identify the rationale, the aim and objectives of the study, the scope and the significance of the study and the summary on the research methodology
The second pat, Development , is intended to be in four main chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 provides the theoretical background and related literature review of the study
Chapter 2 outlines the research methodology of the study, detailing its aims and scope, as well as the methodology employed It includes a comprehensive overview of the data collection procedures and the subsequent data analysis, ensuring a clear understanding of the research process.
Chapter 3 explores the instances of deverbal nominalization found in articles from bbc.co.uk and nhandan.com.vn, offering a comparative analysis of how deverbalization manifests in both English and Vietnamese It also delves into the reasons behind the differences in these realizations, highlighting the linguistic and cultural factors that influence the use of deverbal nominalization in each language.
Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the findings derived from the data collected in response to the research questions, offering several recommendations aimed at enhancing the teaching and learning of English.
The last part, Conclusion , states the recapitulation of the study, the limitations of the study and some suggestions for further research as well.
DATA ANALYSIS
The realizations of deverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnamese on the
The selected articles underwent thorough investigation, leading to the compilation of deverbal nominalization cases in a structured table for efficient data analysis This section will explore the linguistic manifestations of deverbal nominalization in both English and Vietnamese.
3.1.1 Linguistic realizations of deverbal nominalization in English
The analysis of deverbal nominalization in English, based on data from articles on bbc.co.uk, involved categorizing the deverbalized nouns according to their forms The following table illustrates the distribution of nominalization cases as they relate to various linguistic realizations.
LINGUISTIC REALIZATIONS OF DEVERBAL NOMINALIZATION IN ENGLISH
Forms Quantity Percentage loss 4 1.72 knowledge 3 1.29 sight 3 1.29 response 2 0.86 death 2 0.86
Table 1 Linguistic realizations of deverbal nominalization in English
Appendix A, spanning pages I-XVIII, compiles all instances of deverbal nominalization sourced from English articles on bbc.co.uk Notably, examples of this linguistic phenomenon include the addition of the “-ing” suffix to verbs, illustrating how verbs can be transformed into nouns in the English language.
At the peak of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza in August, social media militants condemned ISIS for its actions against Muslims while failing to support the Palestinian people.
The web represents a groundbreaking innovation, holding immense potential to drive social change comparable to the impact of the printing press and the steam engine.
The unrestrained extremism of IS can be traced back to its roots in al-Qaeda in Iraq, under the leadership of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by American forces in 2006.
A £2 million initiative has been established to enhance the marketplace in Grantham, aiming to draw in more shoppers.
“… It empowers everyone - men, women, children - to be creators of information rather than passive consumers.,,” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/- /2/hi/technology/8485833.stm) f Adding “-y” suffix:
“…Small, button-shaped batteries can be easy to swallow and cause thousands of injuries every year, some fatal…” (http://www.bbc.com/news/science- environment-29885832) g Adding “-th” suffix:
“…Researchers found new growth on the stumps left, except where deer had come in and eaten it…” (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-
The key ministries of interior, defence, and national security are currently vacant due to a lack of consensus on nominees This situation highlights the challenges in governance and decision-making processes, reflecting a state of disarray in essential government functions The inability to appoint suitable candidates for these critical roles raises concerns about national stability and security.
„…Then they zip along twisted tracks which have seen little maintenance since they were installed in the 1920s.”(http://www.bbc.com/news/business-11604718) k Adding “-ence” suffix:
The Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) emphasized the necessity for ongoing monitoring of beaver activities They advocated for annual surveys to assess the persistence, growth, and expansion of the existing beaver population.
“…My 18-year-old mother has been diagnosed with dementia, but it was noticeable well before her diagnosis ”(http://www.bbc.com/news/health-
“…US president Barrack Obama called the approval of the cabinet a “major step forward in advancing national unity”…” n Adding “-ness” suffix:
Shaking reports are essential for planners as they highlight weaknesses in construction standards and enhance preparedness for future significant events It is believed that the current wild beaver populations in Tayside are descendants of escapees from private collections in Angus and Perthshire over the last decade.
“…There is a pretty good new story in here- that the levels of radioactivity offshore are not of significance to human health in terms of exposure…”
(http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17124909) q Others:
“…The vast majority of the carers have no understanding or knowledge of the condition…”(http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25334102)
“…His hope was that the procedure would stop further deterioration and save what little sight he had left…” (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25718064)
“…Researchersgot a mixed response from local businesses about how the project was affecting them…” (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-
“…Beavers were once native to Scotland but died out because of hunting and habitat loss.”http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30127289
Table 1 highlights that the predominant characteristic of deverbal nominalization in English is the frequent use of nominalizers, with around 94% of deverbal nouns created through affixation, which involves adding a suffix to a root verb In essence, deverbal nominalization in English is primarily manifested in the formation of new words.
The analysis reveals that the suffix "-ing" is the most frequently used nominalizer, accounting for approximately one-third (33.48%) of all deverbal nominalizations in the sample articles Following this, the "-ion" nominalizer ranks second, representing nearly one-fourth (24.03%) of the total cases, while the "-er" nominalizer comes in third, comprising about one-sixth (16.31%) of the instances Additionally, the "-ment" nominalizer constitutes over 8% of the total nominalization cases, with other suffixes like "-ness" also contributing to the overall findings.
“-ure”, “-al”, etc are rarely used to create a deverbalized noun
In addition,the data from the table shows that there are only some cases in which verbs are converted into nouns without using any nominaliers such as “know” -
“knowledge”, “lose” - “loss", “see”-“sight” Deverbal nouns formed in this way are rare and often viewed as morphological changes
3.1.2.Linguistic realizations of deverbal nominalization in Vietnamese
In accordance with the criteria outlined in Chapter 2, selected articles were analyzed to compile a comprehensive list of deverbal nominals The following table summarizes the various cases of deverbal nominalization, categorized by their respective nominalizers.
LINGUISTIC REALIZATIONS OF DEVERBAL NOMINALIZATION IN VIETNAMESE
Sử dụng danh từ, việc 38% là một yếu tố quan trọng trong cuộc sống, trong khi sự 29% thể hiện những cách tiếp cận khác nhau Các khía cạnh như sức khỏe 4% và niềm vui 2% cũng đóng vai trò không thể thiếu Một số vụ việc và thói quen 1% ảnh hưởng đến trí tuệ và cảm xúc của con người Cuối cùng, những buổi gặp gỡ và câu chuyện 1% tạo nên những kỷ niệm đáng nhớ trong cuộc sống hàng ngày.
Table 2 Linguistic realizations of deverbal nominalization in Vietnamese
The article presents a comprehensive list of deverbal nominalization cases sourced from Vietnamese articles on nhandan.com.vn, detailed in Appendix B, pages XVIII – XXXI Examples of this linguistic phenomenon in English, specifically utilizing the nominalizer "việc," are also provided from the model articles featured on the website.
“…Bởi thế, việc giải quyết vấn đề thiếu vi chất dinh dưỡng rất cần một chiến lược đồng bộ với những giải pháp khác nhau, bổ sung cho nhau…”
(http://www.nhandan.com.vn/xahoi/suckhoe/tin-tuc/item/24976702-ngay-vi-chat- dinh-duong-2014.html) b Using nominalizer “sự”
“…Bác sĩ Cấn Phú Nhuận, Bệnh viện Nhi T.Ư cho biết sự thay đổi thời tiết như hiện nay rất “nhạy” với trẻ em…”
(http://www.nhandan.com.vn/hangthang/khoahoc-giaoduc/item/21729002-phong- benh-ho-hap-khi-chuyen-mua.html) c Using nominalizer “những”
“…Đặc biệt, một chế độ dinh dưỡng phù hợp có thể mang lại những tác động tích cực trong việc phòng ngừa và chữa trị bệnh cận thị…”
(http://www.nhandan.com.vn/hangthang/khoahoc-giaoduc/item/692902-.html) d Using nominalizer “các”
A contrastive analysis of linguistic realizations of deverbal nominalization in
in English and in Vietnamese on the bbc.co.uk and the nhandan.com.vn
3.2.1 The similarities in linguistic realizationsof deverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnamese
Deverbal nominalization in both English and Vietnamese involves transforming verbs into nouns through the addition of nominalizers This process is evident in sample articles from nhandan.com.vn and bbc.co.uk, where nominalizers play a crucial role in indicating the part of speech of the words In Vietnamese, nominalizers are independent words, including "việc," "sự," "nỗi," "các," and "những."
In English, nominalizers are suffixes, such as “-ing,” “-ion,” “-er,” “-ment,” and “-or,” which are clusters of letters that derive from root verbs and often lose their meaning when isolated from them.
In both languages, there are some exceptions to the general rules of deverbal nominalization, but these exceptions are minimal For instance, English allows for the formation of deverbal nouns by altering the verb forms in specific cases.
“know”, “see”, “lose” into “knowledge”, “sight” and “loss” For instance:
…It‟s also an enormous library of global consciousness, a digital collection of human knowledge from the past and the present…(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-
… “Alastair Hawken of the Grantham Business Club believes that the benefits the improvements will bring will outweigh the losses.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/8607039.stm)
Likewise, in Vietnamese, there are some cases in which no nominalisers are added to verbs to form nouns in several cases For example:
“…Nhận thức, thực hành các biện pháp kiểm soát ATTP của người tiêu dùng và người sản xuất, kinh doanh vẫn còn nhiều hạn chế…”
(http://www.nhandan.com.vn/chinhtri/item/24368802-noi-lo-thuc-pham-ban.html)
“…Ăn uống là nhu cầu hàng đầu của sự sống ”
Deverbal nominalization, as outlined by Biber et al (1992), highlights that numerous deverbal nouns in English signify either instances, processes, or actions related to their corresponding verbs The most common nominalizers for creating deverbal nouns in English are the suffixes “-ing” and “-ion,” which typically denote the action or instance of a verb.
“…So that would mean they have better antiseptic protection compared to other bees ” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/science/nature/8467746.stm)
“…The UK will aim to double its annual funding for dementia research to £132m by 2015…” (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25334102)
As can be seen from the two examples, the deverbalized noun protection and funding both indicate the action of the corresponding verbs “protect” and “fund”
Meanwhile, “việc” and sự” are the most commonly used nominaliser in
In Vietnamese, nouns derived from verbs often convey the meaning of the process or action associated with the original verb For instance, a statement from a sample article highlights the ongoing challenge of implementing a particular project, indicating that the method of execution remains unresolved.
“…Ngoài các đối tượng học viên là trẻ em, khóa học còn đón nhận được sự quan tâm sâu sắc của các bậc phụ huynh…”
(http://www.nhandan.com.vn/hangthang/khoahoc-giaoduc/item/14646802-.html)
In the two above examples, the two deverbalized nouns with the nomilizers
“việc” and “sự” both show the action of the two verbs “triển khai” and “quan tâm”
Deverbal nominalization is a prevalent linguistic phenomenon in both English and another language, with notable differences in its realizations This article will explore these distinctions in detail in the following section.
3.2.2 The differences in linguistic realizations ofdeverbal nominalization in English and in Vietnamese
The comparison of deverbal nominalization between English and Vietnamese reveals a key distinction in their linguistic structures English predominantly utilizes affixation, employing suffixes such as “-ing,” “-ion,” and “-ment” to modify verbs, while Vietnamese relies on separate words like “việc” and “sự” that precede the verbs Consequently, these suffixes in English and the standalone words in Vietnamese serve as indicators of deverbalized nouns, highlighting the differing approaches to nominalization in the two languages.
A comparative analysis of articles from nhandan.com.vn and bbc.co.uk reveals that while both sources contain fifteen articles, English samples exhibit a significantly higher occurrence of deverbal nominalization, with 233 cases compared to 137 in Vietnamese articles This disparity, however, is influenced by variations in article length, despite efforts to select similarly sized pieces Ultimately, the findings suggest that deverbal nominalization is more prevalent in English, aligning with Talmy's (2000) classification of languages into object-dominant and action-dominant categories English, favoring noun usage, aligns with the object-dominant classification, whereas Vietnamese is characterized as action-dominant It is crucial for Vietnamese learners of English to recognize these linguistic differences, particularly in the context of academic writing.
In the English language, nouns can be formed from verbs by altering the verb's structure, as demonstrated in Table 1.
Morphological changes, such as transforming verbs into nouns, are relatively rare in English, representing only about 6% of deverbal nominalization cases In contrast, the Vietnamese language allows certain verbs to function as nouns without the need for a nominalizer, highlighting a significant difference between the two languages.
“Ăn uống là nhu cầu hàng đầu của sự sống.”
In a study of Vietnamese sample articles from nhandan.com.vn, it was found that approximately 8% of cases involve deverbal nominalization without the use of nominalizers, a process known as conversion This form of deverbal nominalization is less frequently utilized compared to the conventional method that employs nominalizers, and it requires clear contextual identification for accurate understanding.
In English, a deverbalized noun can be created using a single suffix, whereas in Vietnamese, one nominalizer can precede two verbs to generate two deverbalized nouns.
Phòng tránh bệnh cận thị học đường là một vấn đề quan trọng mà cha mẹ cần quan tâm bên cạnh việc nhận biết và phát hiện sớm để có phương pháp điều trị kịp thời Việc áp dụng các biện pháp phòng tránh hiệu quả sẽ giúp giảm thiểu nguy cơ mắc bệnh cận thị ở trẻ em, đặc biệt là trong độ tuổi đi học.
Vietnamese grammar is more flexible than English grammar, which poses challenges for Vietnamese learners of English and can also create difficulties for foreigners studying Vietnamese.
The underlying reasons for the differences in linguistic realizations of
3.2.1 Deverbal nominalization in English seen from cognitive view
From a cognitive perspective, the data presented in Table 1 indicates that most cases of deverbal nominalization pertain to actions or instances of verbs Notably, over two-thirds of the deverbal nouns are formed by adding the suffixes “-ing,” “-ion,” or “-ment.” According to Biber et al (1992:89), these suffixes effectively convey the action or instance associated with a verb.
Understanding the difference between count nouns and mass nouns is crucial from a cognitive perspective, as highlighted by Taylor, J R (2002:368), who states, “the count-mass distinction is a matter of how speakers construe a thing.” The following table illustrates the distribution of count nouns and mass nouns within a selection of deverbal nominals sourced from fifteen articles on bbc.co.uk.
Kinds of deverbal nouns Quantity Percentage (%)
Table 3 The distribution of count nouns and mass nouns in English samples
The analysis of deverbal nouns from articles on bbc.co.uk reveals that count nouns constitute 55.36% of the total, surpassing mass nouns at 44.64% This indicates a preference for count nouns in English deverbal nominalization, although the difference between the two categories is relatively small.
The perception of deverbalized nouns in English is analyzed through the functions of deverbal nominalization as outlined by Biber et al (1992) According to data presented in Table 1, there are 52 instances of deverbal nominalization, which represent 22.5% of the total cases, formed by suffixes like “-ant”, “-er”, “-or”, “-ar”, and “-ee”, indicating roles such as the agent, patient, or instrument related to the root verbs In contrast, the remaining 179 cases, making up 77.5%, are formed with suffixes including “-ing”, “-ion”, “-ure”, “-al”, and “-ment”.
“-y”, etc.) function as either action, state or instance of the root verbs
Among 123 instances of deverbalized nouns categorized as mass nouns, 65 are formed by combining a root verb with the “-ing” suffix Additionally, there are 78 examples of deverbal nominalization using the “-ing” suffix, indicating that it is one of the most frequently used nominalizers in English Most deverbalized nouns created with the “-ing” suffix refer to mass nouns.
3.2.2 Deverbal nominalization in Vietnamese seen from cognitive view
Table 2 reveals that a significant proportion of deverbalized nouns in Vietnamese articles is created by prefixing the nominalizers “việc” and “sự” to root verbs, accounting for 27.74% and 21.17% of cases, respectively Dinh Van Duc (1986) notes that nouns formed with “việc” typically represent processes or actions, while those formed with “sự” are generally abstract Consequently, it can be concluded that many deverbalized nouns in the Vietnamese samples are regarded as abstract nouns that reflect the processes or actions of their corresponding verbs.
According to data from table 4, over 70.8% of deverbalized nouns analyzed from fifteen articles on nhandan.com.vn are classified as mass nouns This indicates that in the Vietnamese language, nouns derived from verbs tend to be perceived as substances rather than mere objects.
Kinds of deverbal nouns Quantity Percentage (%)
Table4 The distribution of count nouns and mass nouns in Vietnamese samples
This analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese reveals key differences from a cognitive perspective Notably, Vietnamese deverbal nouns are predominantly classified as mass nouns, with approximately 70.8% identified as such in the sample from nhandan.com.vn In contrast, the collection of deverbal count nouns slightly exceeds that of mass nouns, with 47.21% and 52.79% respectively, suggesting that Vietnamese speakers often conceptualize these nouns as refined substances rather than concrete objects Conversely, English exhibits a tendency for deverbal nouns to be more frequently categorized as count nouns than mass nouns.
3.3.3 The underlying reasons for the differences in linguistic realizationsof deverbalization in English and in Vietnamese from cognitive perspective
The key distinction in deverbal nominalization between English and Vietnamese lies in their linguistic realizations English primarily employs affixation, using suffixes like “-ing,” “-ion,” and “-ment” to modify verbs, while Vietnamese utilizes separate words such as “việc” and “sự” that precede verbs This difference stems from English being a synthetic language, where words can consist of multiple morphemes, in contrast to Vietnamese, an isolating language where most words are single morphemes Consequently, new words in English can be formed by adding prefixes or suffixes, whereas Vietnamese requires the addition of other words Interestingly, some Vietnamese verbs can function as nouns without any modifications This divergence aligns with Tran Ngoc Them's (2008) assertion that English grammar emphasizes form, while Vietnamese grammar prioritizes meaning, presenting a significant challenge for Vietnamese learners of English.
The analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese reveals a significant disparity, with English sample articles exhibiting 233 cases compared to only 137 in Vietnamese This finding aligns with Talmy's (2000) classification of languages into object-dominant and action-dominant categories Tran Ngoc Them (2008) supports this notion by highlighting Vietnamese's grammatical flexibility and preference for verbs and active voice over noun structures and passive voice In contrast, English tends to favor noun phrases and the active voice, reflecting broader cultural influences on language use This distinction underscores the importance for Vietnamese learners to recognize these grammatical characteristics of English to enhance their writing skills effectively.
According to Talmy (2000), deverbal nominalization involves conceptual conversions between time and space, with English favoring the conceptualization of unchanging things in space In contrast, Vietnamese demonstrates significantly fewer cases of deverbal nominalization, indicating a preference for conceptualizing things in terms of time, which is associated with progression This difference highlights that English deverbalized nouns are perceived as constant, whereas Vietnamese deverbalized nouns are viewed as dynamic and in progress.
This article presents a contrastive analysis of deverbal nominalization in English and Vietnamese, revealing both similarities and differences Both languages utilize nominalizers to form nouns from verbs, with lists of nominalizers identified for each language Deverbalized nouns in both English and Vietnamese typically denote instances, processes, or actions of the verbs, using specific nominalizers such as “-ing” and “-ion” in English, and “việc” and “sự” in Vietnamese However, a key distinction lies in the formation of these nouns; English employs suffixes, reflecting its synthetic nature, while Vietnamese uses separate words, characteristic of its isolating structure The research indicates that deverbal nominalization is more prevalent in English, with a higher occurrence of count nouns compared to mass nouns, whereas Vietnamese deverbalized nouns are primarily mass nouns This suggests that Vietnamese nouns often convey ongoing states, while English nouns tend to represent stable states The findings on the similarities and differences in deverbal nominalization will inform the subsequent discussion and conclusions in the following chapter.
