Tạp chí Khoa học Ngoại ngữ - Quân sự (No 19 – 5/2019)

COUNCIL OF DIIRECTORS<br /> Chairman<br /> DANG TRI DUNG, Major General, Prof. PhD<br /> Vice-Chairman<br /> NGUYEN TRONG HAI, Senior Colonel, Assoc. Prof. PhD<br /> Councilors<br /> TRAN NGOC TRUNG, Senior Colonel, PhD<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) ISSN 2525 - 2232<br /> PHAM QUANG HAI, Senior Colonel, MA<br /> MA ĐUC KHAI, Senior Colonel, Assoc. Prof. PhD<br /> TRINH THI THUY, Senior Colonel, PhD<br /> <br /> LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> EDITOR-IN-CHIEF<br /> NGUYEN THI THU THUY - Root modality in English and Vietnamese from the 3<br /> NGUYEN TRONG HAI, Senior Colonel, Assoc. Prof. PhD<br /> Force Dynamics framework<br /> <br /> DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF<br /> NGUYEN THU HANH, Lieutenant Colonel, PhD LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY<br /> <br /> TRAN LE DUYEN, LE THI CHUYEN - The effects of using mock conferences 14<br /> EDITORIAL BOARD to teach interpretation skills to the 4th year cadets of the English Department at<br /> Military Science Academy<br /> DUONG VAN TUYEN, Senior Colonel, MA<br /> BUI THI THANH LUONG, Senior Colonel, PhD LUONG THI PHUONG - Investigating the effects of task repetition on fluency 26<br /> and accuracy in English oral performance of low level adult students: A case<br /> LE CONG PHAT, Colonel, MA<br /> study at Vietnam Air Defence and Air Force Academy<br /> TRAN THI MINH THUC, Lieutenant Colonel, PhD<br /> NGUYEN THU HANH, Lieutenant Colonel, PhD NGUYEN THI HA THUONG - Application of sense relations to teaching 38<br /> English vocabulary<br /> DOAN THUC ANH, Lieutenant Colonel, PhD<br /> DO TIEN QUAN, Major, PhD NGO PHUONG ANH, DAO THI HONG THUY - Learner autonomy in 47<br /> learning English reading skills<br /> <br /> ADMINISTRATION OFFICE<br /> Head of Office DISCUSSION<br /> NGUYEN TUAN ANH, Major, MA<br /> NGUYEN THU HANH, PHAM THI HOAI PHUONG - An investigation into the 58<br /> Administration Staff impacts of out-of-class English activities on the English major students’ achievement<br /> at Military Science Academy<br /> HOANG THI BAC, Major, MA<br /> NGO NGOC HAI, Major, MA NGUYEN VAN TIEP - An investigation into students’ engagement in English 68<br /> NGUYEN THI THU, Captain, MA speaking activities at Political Academy<br /> <br /> TRINH VIET DUNG - Constructivist teaching – a new approach in the modern 78<br /> HEAD OFFICE education<br /> <br /> Address: 322E Le Trong Tan, Dinh Cong, TRAN LAN HUONG - An investigation into the factors that hinder the participation 86<br /> Hoang Mai, Ha Noi of the second-year English-major students in English speaking lessons at Thuong<br /> Phone: (+84) 966.297.878 Mai University<br /> Email: tapchikhnnqs@gmail.com<br /> NGO THI HUONG GIANG - The critical period for second language acquisition 98<br /> Website: hvkhqs.edu.vn - teacher’s role in helping learners overcome age-related differences<br /> <br /> NGUYEN XUAN NGHIA - How input-enhanced authentic videos support English 105<br /> THE PERMIT ON PRESS PUBLISHING listening comprehension: A discussion from an interactionist perspective<br /> No.200/GP-BTTTT dated 19/04/2016<br /> by Ministry of Information and Communications<br /> NỘI DUNG<br /> 1. Tình thái căn bản trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt, nghiên cứu dựa trên khung lý thuyết về lực; 2. Hiệu quả của việc áp dụng<br /> hội thảo mẫu vào giảng dạy dịch nói cho học viên năm thứ 4 Khoa tiếng Anh – Học viện Khoa học Quân sự; 3. Ảnh hưởng<br /> của việc lặp lại nhiệm vụ tới độ trôi chảy và độ chính xác trong kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh của học viên cấp độ thấp: Một nghiên<br /> cứu tình huống tại Học viện Phòng không-Không quân; 4. Ứng dụng lý thuyết về mối quan hệ ngữ nghĩa trong giảng dạy từ<br /> vựng tiếng Anh; 5. Năng lực tự chủ trong việc học kỹ năng đọc tiếng Anh; 6. Nghiên cứu về ảnh hưởng của các hoạt động<br /> ngoại khóa tiếng Anh đối với sinh viên tiếng Anh tại Học viện Khoa học Quân sự; 7. Nghiên cứu mức độ tham gia các hoạt<br /> động nói tiếng Anh của sinh viên tại Học viện Chính trị; 8. Giảng dạy kiến tạo - một phương pháp tiếp cận mới trong nền<br /> giáo dục hiện đại; 9. Nghiên cứu các yếu tố hạn chế sự tham gia nói của sinh viên năm thứ 2 Khoa tiếng Anh trong giờ học<br /> nói tiếng Anh tại trường Đại học Thương Mại; 10. “Thời điểm vàng” cho sự tiếp thu ngôn ngữ thứ hai - vai trò của giảng viên<br /> trong việc giúp người học vượt qua khác biệt về độ tuổi; 11. Sử dụng video đời thực có chú thích, phụ đề để nâng cao kỹ năng<br /> nghe hiểu tiếng Anh: Thảo luận từ góc độ của lý thuyết tương tác.<br /> <br /> <br /> 目录<br /> 1. 英越语的基本情态类型—基于驱力理论的研究; 2. 示范研讨会在军事科学学院英语专业本科四年级口译教学<br /> 中的应用效果; 3. “重复任务”对初级英语学习者口语表达的流利度及准确度所产生的影响—以防空空军学院<br /> 为例; 4. 语义关系理论在英语词汇教学中的应用; 5. 论英语阅读技能学习中的自主能力; 6. 英语课外活动对<br /> 军事科学学院英文专业学生的影响研究; 7. 政治学院学生英语交际活动中的参与层级研究; 8. 建构教学法—<br /> 现代教育的新切入口; 9. 影响贸易大学本科二年级学生参与英语口语课堂交际活动的因素研究; 10. 二语习得<br /> 的“黄金期”—兼谈教师在帮助学生超越年龄限制中的作用; 11. 如何通过带有字幕注释的实况视频提高英语学<br /> 习者听力水平—基于相互作用理论的视角。<br /> <br /> СОДЕРЖАНИЕ<br /> 1. Базовая модальность в английском и вьетнамском языках - её исследование в рамках теории о силе; 2. Эффект<br /> применения типовых диалогов в преподавании усного перевода для студентов четвёртого курса факультета<br /> английского языка Академии Военных наук; 3. Влияние повторности поставленных заданий на чёткость<br /> и точность в навыке говорения на английском языке учащихся базового этапа: ситуативное исследование в<br /> Академии Противо-воздушная обороны; 4. Применение теории о семантических отношениях в обучении лексике<br /> английского языка; 5. Самостоятельность в обработке навыка чтения на анлийском языке; 6. Исследование по<br /> теме влияния внеаудиторных мероприятий на англоязычных студентов Академии Военных наук; 7. Разработка<br /> мер для вовлечения учащихся в устную речь на английском языке на примере Военно-политической академии;<br /> 8. Конструктивное преподавание - новый подход в современном образовании; 9. Исследование факторов,<br /> ограничивающих активность в устной коммуникации у студентов второго курса факультета английского языка<br /> на уроке по развитию речи в институте торговли; 10. “Золотой промежуток времени” для овладения вторым<br /> иностранным языком - роль помощи преподавателя учащимся в преодолении возрастной разницы; 11. Реально<br /> бытовые видеоклипы с резюмированием и субтитрами для улучшения навыка аудирования на английском языке<br /> у студентов: Дискуссионный момент с точки зрения теории интеракции.<br /> <br /> <br /> SOMMAIRE<br /> 1. Principales modalités en anglais et en vietnamien à la lumière de la dynamique des forces; 2. Efficacité de l’application<br /> des siminaires simulés dans l’enseignement de l’interprétation pour les cadets de 4e année du Département d’Anglais,<br /> Académie des Sciences Militaires; 3. Effet de la répétition des tâches sur les facilités et l’exactitude de la production<br /> orale chez des cadets d’anglais de niveau débutant: le cas de l’Académie de Défense et de Forces aériennes; 4.<br /> Application de la théorie sémantique dans l’enseignement du vocabulaire anglais; 5. Autonomie dans l’apprentissage<br /> de la compréhension écrite en anglais; 6. Etude sur l’influence des activités extrascolaires en anglais sur les étudiants<br /> d’anglais à l’Académie des Sciences Militaires; 7. Etude sur le degré de participation aux activités de production orale<br /> en anglais à l’Académie des Sciences Politiques; 8. Enseignement constructiviste - une nouvelle approche de l’éducation<br /> moderne; 9. Facteurs limitant la participation des étudiants de 2e année d’anglais au cours de production orale à<br /> l’Université de Commerce; 10. “Âge d’or” pour l’acquistion de la deuxième langue - rôle de l’enseignant dans le fait d’aider<br /> les apprenants à surmonter les obstacles d’âge; 11. Utilisation des videos authentiques sous-titrées pour l’amélioration<br /> de la compétence de compréhension orale des apprenants d’anglais: Discusssion sous l’angle de la théorie interactive.<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ROOT MODALITY IN ENGLISH<br /> AND VIETNAMESE FROM THE FORCE<br /> DYNAMICS FRAMEWORK<br /> NGUYEN THI THU THUY*<br /> *<br /> Vietnam National University of Agriculture,  thuthuy.hn0508@gmail.com<br /> Received:15/11/2018; Revised: 10/04/2019; Accepted: 28/04/2019<br /> <br /> <br /> ABSTRACT<br /> This study aims to describe, analyze, compare/contrast English and Vietnamese root senses of<br /> modal verbs from Cognitive linguistics perspective, more specifically in terms of force dynamics<br /> framework. The study is both descriptive and contrastive in nature. The main aim of the research<br /> is to find similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root senses (including<br /> obligation, permission, ability and volition) of modal verbs from force dynamics. The main data<br /> used in this study are taken from the two corpora: one in English with 500,000 words in 91 social<br /> science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119 social science texts. The<br /> data collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed in order to find similarities and<br /> differences between English and Vietnamese root senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics.<br /> Keywords: cognitive, contrastive analysis, corpus, force dynamics, root modality<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. INTRODUCTION an attempt to describe, analyze, compare/contrast<br /> English and Vietnamese root modality (including<br /> Modality realized by modal verbs is an interesting, obligation, permission, ability and volition) as<br /> but complicated linguistic phenomenon in both realized by modal verbs from force dynamics.<br /> English and Vietnamese. Up to now, modality<br /> The study mainly follows the narrow definition of<br /> in the English language has been studied by a<br /> modality defined by Lock (1996, p.193), i.e. “A<br /> number of researchers such as Langacker (2013),<br /> narrow definition of modality encompasses only<br /> Talmy (2003), Johnson (1987), Taylor (2002),<br /> modal auxiliaries and their uses”. Modals in this<br /> Pelyvás (2006) and some others. Modality in the<br /> Vietnamese language has been investigated by a study mainly refer to Langacker’s study (2003,<br /> number of Vietnamese researchers such as Nguyễn p.3), i.e. modals “are grammaticized grounding<br /> Thị Thuận (2003), Bùi Minh Toán & Nguyễn Thị elements, in which the ground - the speech event<br /> Lương (2010) etc. However, there has been almost and its participants - are ‘offstage’ and subjectively<br /> no research on discussing and analyzing root construed’ and have ‘two crucial properties: (1)<br /> senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese they are force- dynamic and (2) the event marked<br /> from Cognitive perspective, more specifically in by the complement remains potential rather than<br /> terms of force dynamics. Therefore, this study is actual’ (Langacker, 1999, p.308).<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 3<br /> v LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> <br /> <br /> The study is primarily an empirical modals exhibit more clearly the force – dynamic<br /> investigation of modality phenomenon (modal character of modals, especially those involving<br /> verbs) based on two corpora: one in English with notions like obligation and permission. And<br /> 500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the ‘root modals generally convey force-dynamic<br /> other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119 relationships in the domain of social interaction’<br /> social science texts on the ground that it is a rich (Langacker, 1999, p.308). ‘Ranging in degree<br /> resource for the researcher to find examples of root from the absence of a barrier (may) to compulsion<br /> senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese (must), the force is generally manifested socially<br /> to serve the purposes of the study. The data in the case of root modals, mentally with epistemic<br /> collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively modals.’ (Langacker, 2011, pp.46-85). According<br /> analyzed so as to find similarities and differences to Langacker (2011, pp.46-85), “root modals are<br /> between English and Vietnamese root senses of aimed at effective control – determining what<br /> modal verbs in terms of force dynamics in case happens in the world itself’, which is exemplified in:<br /> that English is considered as a source language<br /> and Vietnamese as a comparative one. Root modals: You {may/should/must} report<br /> the theft.<br /> 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND<br /> In this study, the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is The Notion of Force Dynamics<br /> considered as a theoretical background since the Force dynamics, defined by Talmy (2003, p.409),<br /> CL account “differs radically from traditional<br /> ‘refers to how entities interact with respect to force,<br /> perspective by emphasizing that language is a<br /> which includes the exertion of force, resistance to<br /> reflection of general cognitive processes, not a<br /> such a force, the overcoming of such resistance,<br /> separated/ isolated system with its own systems of<br /> blockage of the expression of force, removal<br /> rules” (Tyler, 2008, pp.459-60). In comparison with<br /> of such blockage and the like.’ Force dynamics<br /> formal approaches, CL “stands out by resisting the<br /> emerges ‘as a fundamental notional system that<br /> imposition of boundaries between language and<br /> structures conceptual material pertaining to force<br /> other psychological phenomena. … Rather than a<br /> interaction in a common way across a linguistic<br /> distinct, self-contained entity (separate “module”<br /> or “mental faculty”), language is viewed as an range: the physical, psychological, social,<br /> integral facet of cognition” (Langacker, 2013, inferential, discourse, and mental-model domains<br /> pp.7-8). Cognitive Linguistics is “an approach to of reference and conception.’ (ibid.). Johnson<br /> language that is based on experience of the world (1987) argues that image schemas emerge from<br /> and the way we perceive and conceptualize it.” bodily experiences and perceptions. It is plausible<br /> (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996, xxi). Some Cognitive that force dynamic concepts have similar origin,<br /> researchers such as Mortelmans (2007, p.881) for example in our experience of things colliding<br /> argue that ‘the cognitive linguistic concepts of into each other (and of ourselves colliding into<br /> force dynamics, …. have proved to be highly things). Moreover, ‘we conceptualize force-<br /> powerful tools to discover common cores in dynamic interactions in terms of a figure-ground<br /> a wide variety of modal expression types’. contrast; we focus on what happens to a ‘privileged’<br /> Therefore, the researcher based on the notions of entity, the Agonist.’ (Taylor, 2002, p.528). “Force<br /> force dynamics (opposition) proposed by Talmy dynamics” pertains to the representation of force<br /> (2003); Langacker (2013); Johnson (1987); Taylor interaction and causal relations occurring between<br /> (2002) to discuss and analyze the root senses certain entities within the structured situation’<br /> of English and Vietnamese modal verbs. Root (Talmy 2000, pp.1-8).<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 4 No. 19 (5/2019)<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> Force-dynamic Parameters: This long<br /> conception of forces and their interaction,<br /> according to Mulder (2007, p.296) results in 4<br /> basic force-dynamic patterns: (a) The Agonist’s<br /> intrinsic tendency toward rest is overcome by a Figure 3. Counterforce (Johnson, 1987, p.46)<br /> stronger Antagonist, which forces it to move. (b)<br /> The Agonist’s tendency toward rest is stronger (iv). Removal of restraint in Figure 4.The<br /> than the force opposing it, consequently, the relevant schema is thus one that suggests an open way<br /> Agonist remains in place. (c) The Agonist’s or path, which makes possible an exertion of force.<br /> inherent tendency toward motion is opposed by the<br /> Antagonist, but the Agonist is stronger entity. And<br /> (d) The Agonist has a tendency toward motion but<br /> the Antagonist is stronger and blocks it.<br /> <br /> Features of Force: Johnson also provides the<br /> following schemata which represent five of the most Figure 4. Removal of Restraint (Johnson, 1987,<br /> common force structures that operate constantly p.47)<br /> in our experiences (Johnson, 1987, pp.45-48):<br /> (v). Enablement seen in Figure 5. The gestalt<br /> (i) Compulsion is visualized in Figure 1 below. is represented, then, only by a potential force<br /> Here the dark arrow represents an actual force vector and an absence of barriers or blocking<br /> vector and the broken denotes a potential force counterforces<br /> vector or trajectory.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Figure 5. Enablement (Johnson, 1987, p. 47)<br /> Figure 1. Compulsion (Johnson, 1987, p.45)<br /> The ‘strength’ of force, hence also of the<br /> (ii) Blockage can be seen in Figure 2 below. modality can vary, for example, must is a high-<br /> The relevant gestalt can be represented as a force strength modal, whereas should is low-strength.<br /> vector encountering a barrier and then taking any (Taylor, 2002, p.406). In all of these indications<br /> number of possible directions. of force opposition, the subject of the modal<br /> represents the Agonist, while the Antagonist is<br /> usually only implicit in the referent situation,<br /> without explicit mention. (Talmy, 2000, p.441)<br /> <br /> From the cognitive perspective, accounts in the<br /> Figure 2. Blockage (Johnson, 1987, p.46) force dynamic framework take root modality to<br /> include both deontic and dynamic meaning. Root<br /> (iii). Counterforce in Figure 3. Here two modality (root sense or non-epistemic modality),<br /> equally strong, nasty, and determined force centers deals ‘with obligation, permission, ability,<br /> collide face-to-face, with the result that neither can volition, …’ (Incharralde, 1998, p.1). Therefore, in<br /> go anywhere. what follows in this study, root modality including<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 5<br /> v LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> <br /> <br /> obligation, permission, ability, and volition of all root modality as realized by modal verbs<br /> modal verbs will be discussed and examined with used in English and Vietnamese social science<br /> respect to the sociophysical realm that includes texts in terms of force dynamics. Basing on<br /> physical interaction as well as social relations, devices processed in the corpus, the researcher<br /> practices, and institutions. (cf. Johnson, 1987) distinguishes four senses of roots namely<br /> obligation, permission, ability, and volition)<br /> within 5545 examples of modal verbs in English<br /> 3. METHODOLOGY and 5301 examples of modal verbs in Vietnamese.<br /> The data for the study include two corpora, one in<br /> English with about 500000 words (91 social science Cognitive Framework<br /> texts) and the other in Vietnamese with about<br /> 500000 words (119 social science texts). Each The first cognitive framework for the comparison<br /> academic corpus contains journal articles, collected between English and Vietnamese modal verbs is<br /> from 7 different categories of social science such the strengths of force. As observed by Langacker<br /> as psychology, education, culture, social science, (1999, p.308) that the properties of modal verbs<br /> economics, law, and linguistics. The data are are force-dynamic, and potential and the force<br /> chosen according to these four criteria: authenticity, dynamics are “inherent in the conceptualizer’s<br /> accessibility, reputation and variation mental activity, hence subjectively construed in the<br /> strong sense”, different speakers/conceptualizers<br /> The study was conducted with the help of use different modal verbs with different strengths<br /> corpus-aided analysis of English and Vietnamese of force in different contexts. In terms of strengths<br /> social science texts in order to find out the frequency of force, Taylor (2002) claims that must has high<br /> and KWIC (key word in context) concordance of strength of force while should has low. However,<br /> a certain modal verb. A text analysis software- with regard to other modals such as can, could,<br /> Concordance programme: TextSTAT-2 was used may, might, will, would, shall, he does not put<br /> to process the data. Searches were done for the key any ranking. Therefore, the researcher suggests<br /> lexical elements selected. These include English that the study use the low-median-high values of<br /> modal auxiliaries (can/ could, may/might, will/ modal verbs proposed by Halliday (1994) to serve<br /> would, shall, should/ought to, need and must/have the purpose of the study. Table 1 below shows the<br /> to) and Vietnamese modal verbs nên, cần,phải, categories of low-median-high force dynamics,<br /> có thể, sẽ, định, toan, dám. In response to each which is adapted from Halliday’s (1994, p.620)<br /> concordance search, the programme provides a list three values of modality and Rezzano’s (2004,<br /> of all the occurrences of the word (e.g. can/could) p.109) categories of analysis of modal verbs.<br /> within a co-text of 50 words to the right and 50<br /> words to the left. The results of data processing are Table 1. Categories of Low – Median - High Force<br /> stored in the database for sorting and analyzing. Dynamics in the English and Vietnamese<br /> The computer - aided analysis was also combined<br /> with the manual analysis. However, the manual Levels of English Modal Vietnamese Modal Verbs<br /> analysis was sometimes preferred to the computer- Forces Verbs<br /> <br /> aided analysis when identifying the modal devices Low may, might, can, could có thể<br /> <br /> for its more individualistic character. Median<br /> will, would, shall, nên, không nên, sẽ, định,<br /> should/ought to muốn, dám<br /> <br /> After extracting the data from the corpus, a High<br /> must, cannot, have to, phải, cần, cần phải, buộc<br /> need phải, không thể<br /> descriptive method will be used at first to exploit<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 6 No. 19 (5/2019)<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> Force dynamics has direct grammatical (should, ought to, need, have to, must) and<br /> representation that most uniquely characterizes Vietnamese modal verbs (nên, cần, phải) are used to<br /> the grammatical category of modals as a whole, indicate root modality, which is usually subjective<br /> both in their root (basic) and in their epistemic in that the speaker/writer/conceptualizer is the one<br /> usages. Secondly, for the purpose of the study, the who obliges. (ii) Secondly, nên in Vietnamese and<br /> four root senses (obligation, permission, ability,<br /> should in English have low strength of force while<br /> and volition) are identified as main categories<br /> phải in Vietnamese and must/have to in English<br /> for comparison between English and Vietnamese<br /> modal verbs. Two main aspects for this comparison have high strength of force. (iii) Thirdly, in terms<br /> are form-meaning pairings and force dynamics of forces, cần in Vietnamese and need in English<br /> which mainly focuses on the behaviour of the are stronger than nên and should, but weaker than<br /> Agonist in relation to the Antagonist. While the phải and must/have to.<br /> Agonist has a natural disposition towards either<br /> rest (or inaction) or motion (i.e. change), the Differences: The first difference lies in the<br /> Antagonist is able to exert a force on the Agonist frequency of modal verbs denoting obligation<br /> (Taylor, 2002). In the discussion that follows, in senses. As can be seen from Table 2, the total<br /> the indications of force opposition, the Agonist number of English modals denoting obligation is<br /> is represented by the subject of the modal verb, much lower (744 tokens with 21.72% out of all<br /> whereas the Antagonist is usually implicit in root modals) than that of Vietnamese (898 tokens<br /> the referent situation, without explicit mention. taking up 48.65% of all roots).<br /> The unnamed Antagonist can be anything from<br /> a person issuing a specific instruction, a legal<br /> proscription, moral or ethical considerations, or Table 2. Distribution of English and Vietnamese<br /> a physical impediment (Taylor, 2002). The force modals in the modality of obligation<br /> interaction between the Agonist and the Antagonist<br /> may come from different sources. In root modals, English Vietnamese<br /> Modal<br /> the force can be derived from “emanating from the Senses Modals Tokens % Modals Tokens %<br /> <br /> laws of physical world, from the psychological Obligation must 196 5.72 phải 607 32.88<br /> world of intentions, desires, and plans, or from the have to 109 3.18 nên 150 8.13<br /> psychological world of norms, laws, regulations, shall 16 0.47 cần 141 7.64<br /> and moral values” (Taylor, 2002, p.406). ought to 6 0.18<br /> should 246 7.18<br /> had 0 0<br /> 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS better<br /> need 171 4.99<br /> <br /> 4.1. Obligation in English and Vietnamese Total 744 21.72 898 48.65<br /> <br /> <br /> Form<br /> In other words, the Vietnamese writers/<br /> In English: Agonist + must/have to/need/had conceptualizers use much more modals denoting<br /> better/should/ought to VP the irresistible high compelling force (i.e, phải<br /> with 607 tokens equal to 32.88%) than their<br /> In Vietnamese: CN + nên/cần/phải + VP counterparts. However, the English writers/<br /> Meaning conceptualizers use modals with median force<br /> value with the highest frequency (i.e, modal should<br /> Similarities: (i) Firstly, both E modal verbs with 246 tokens taking 7.18%).<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 7<br /> v LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> <br /> <br /> The second difference lies in the strengths of social norm – responsible for granting permission.<br /> forces in the two languages. In Vietnamese, there (cf. Depraetere & Reed, 2006) In this case, the<br /> are three levels of strength of obligation (or forces) speaker/conceptualizer (typical “permission<br /> in nên, cần, and phải. (Thuận, 2003). For example, giver”) is not strong enough or does not find it<br /> for nên, the three levels are: Weak obligation (e.g. necessary to mobilize a force that is strong enough<br /> không nên). However, in English, the levels of to prevent, 1987). In contrast, if the permission<br /> forces range from the highest (i.e, modal must granter does not allow the action/event/state of<br /> with irresistible internal compelling force and affair to exert or the Antagonist impinges on the<br /> have to/have gotto with external compelling Agonist or into the designated process, the image<br /> force)) to median (i.e, need) and to low (i.e, ought schema of BLOCKAGE (Johnson, 1987).<br /> to/should).<br /> Table 3. Distribution of Permission realized by<br /> The third difference lies in the collocation of Modal verbs in English & Vietnamese Corpora<br /> the two languages. In Vietnamese, modals nên,<br /> Modal English Vietnamese<br /> cần, phải can go with another modal verb to make<br /> Senses Modals Tokens % Modals Tokens %<br /> different shades of meaning.<br /> can 144 4.21 có thể 257 13.92<br /> Permission<br /> The fourth difference lies in the form of could 64 1.87 không 75 4.06<br /> negatives and interrogatives in the two languages. In thể<br /> <br /> English, the negative form is modal verb + not (e.g, may 421 12.30<br /> might 170 4.96<br /> can not). In interrogatives, take inversion without<br /> to (e.g., Could you?). However, in Vietnamese, in Total 799 23.34 332 17.98<br /> <br /> negatives, không is placed before the modal verb<br /> (e.g., không nên). And in interrogatives, the modal Differences: The first difference can be seen<br /> verb can be placed between có ……. không? or đã from Table 3 that the total number of English<br /> …. chưa? modals denoting permission is much higher<br /> (799 tokens taking up 23.34% of all roots) than<br /> that of Vietnamese (with 332 tokens equal to<br /> 4.2. Permission in English and Vietnamese 17.98%). In other words, the Vietnamese writers/<br /> conceptualizers use fewer modals denoting<br /> Form<br /> permission than their counterparts in English.<br /> In English: Agonist +can/could/may/might + VP<br /> The second difference is that in Vietnamese,<br /> In Vietnamese: CN + có thể/không thể + VP the strength of force or the force interaction<br /> between the Agonist and the Antagonist expressed<br /> Meaning by có thể is lower than that expressed by phải/<br /> cần/nên, whereas in English the strength of the<br /> Similarities: In both languages under study, force expressed by can/could/may/might is often<br /> when expressing the modality of permission the considered as being lower than that expressed by<br /> speaker/writer/conceptualizer construes that in this must/have to/need or ought to/should. May in case<br /> case there is no barrier or no blockage to prevent of not, has construction: 1 (= Agonist) may not VP<br /> the action/event/state of affair from performing. (Talmy, 2000, p.447). In this case, the Antagonist<br /> The modality of permission usually implies an now impinges on the Agonist. Therefore, may not<br /> authority, or deontic source – which may be a indicates ‘an authority’s blockage to the expression<br /> person, a set of rules, or something as vague as a of the subject’s tendency’ (Talmy, 2000, p.441).<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 8 No. 19 (5/2019)<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> The third difference lies in the collocation of as in Table 4. As can be seen the table above, the<br /> the modals. The distinctive feature of Vietnamese total of modals denoting ability in English (634<br /> is that modal verb có thể can go with another tokens taking up 18.52%) is much higher than that<br /> modal verb to express different shapes of senses, in Vietnamese (with 162 tokens equal to 8.77%).<br /> e.g, có thể + phải = có thể phải; có thể + cần =<br /> có thể cần; có thể + nên = có thể nên, etc. Có thể Table 4. Distribution of Ability realized by Modal<br /> (for permission) and không thể (not permitted/ verbs in English & Vietnamese Corpora<br /> allowed) in Vietnamese have neutral shades of<br /> meaning. Note that the formality of có thể (for Modal English Vietnamese<br /> Senses Modals Tokens % Modals Tokens %<br /> permission) in everyday conversation depends on<br /> can 268 7.83 có thể 125 6.77<br /> the actual context, and it usually goes with another<br /> Ability could 214 6.25 không 37 2.00<br /> modal device, such as ạ in “Thưa thầy, em có thể<br /> thể<br /> vào được không ạ? – May I come in, teacher?”<br /> may 152 4.44<br /> Total 634 18.52 162 8. 77<br /> <br /> 4.3. Ability in English and Vietnamese<br /> In another word, it can be inferred from this<br /> Form result that the Vietnamese writers use much fewer<br /> modals denoting ability than their counterparts.<br /> In English: Agonist + {can/may/could} VP<br /> (Talmy 2000, p.445) The second difference seems to be that in<br /> English, can for ability is more common than may<br /> In Vietnamese: CN + có thể/không thể + VP<br /> (= ability) and could often covers past ability of<br /> Meaning can, whereas in Vietnamese, có thể for ability<br /> can be used in present, past and future time, since<br /> In both English and Vietnamese, this ability Vietnamese language has no tense system (Hoàng<br /> is inherent in the participants (or the doer/ Văn Vân, 2005) as English or other European<br /> Agonist), because of their physical (and perhaps languages.<br /> mental) abilities/skills/conditions, the speaker<br /> indicates the ability on the basis of grounds that The third difference lies in the collocation of<br /> are internal to (the participant/doer/Agonist) the the two languages in the way that the modal verb<br /> situation or the State of Affair. (Linden, 2012).In có thể in Vietnamese can go with another modal<br /> this case, as the property of being inherent in the (e.g. có thể + sẽ = có thể sẽ) to make different<br /> situation or in a participant is what motivates the shades of meanings. However, in English modal<br /> internal consistency of the dynamic category, ‘the verb can cannot go with another modal auxiliary.<br /> Antagonist is out of the way of the Agonist’ (Talmy<br /> 2000, p. 445). Therefore, the Agonist (as subject of<br /> the clause) is free (able)/strong enough to perform 4.4. Volition in English and Vietnamese<br /> the action. The sense of may/can/could for ability Form<br /> in English and of có thể in Vietnamese matches<br /> precisely the image schema for ENABLEMENT. In English: S + will/would/shall + VP<br /> (Johnson 1987).<br /> In Vietnamese: CN + định/sẽ/muốn/toan/dám + VP<br /> The first difference lies in the frequency of<br /> “ENABLEMENT” modals in the two languages Meaning<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 9<br /> v LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> <br /> <br /> From the analysis of will, would, shall in by the subject of the clause, in Vietnamese, sẽ in<br /> English; sẽ, định, toan, dám and muốn in case of không (sẽ không) can express a negative<br /> Vietnamese, it can be said that English and statement, or a refusal in everyday conversation<br /> Vietnamese modal verbs share some similarities (e.g, Tôi sẽ không bao giờ tha thứ cho nó vì tội<br /> in expressing volition. In all these indications, the dối trá). Moreover, in Vietnamese, there appeared<br /> doer (the subject of the clause/Agonist) intends to with a very typical collocation of modals, i.e. three<br /> perform some typical purposeful action (which modals co-occurred in one sentence (sẽ + nên +<br /> remains potential). The speaker/conceptualizer phải = sẽ nên phải). Sẽ cần phải can be called a<br /> is involved and there is force of volition and special case of modality in Vietnamese language<br /> responsibility. since three modal verbs go together, which<br /> expresses the combination meaning of future<br /> However, there are some differences between inclination, necessity and strong obligation. An<br /> English & Vietnamese in expressing volition. The example is in “Trong bối cảnh toàn cầu hóa và hội<br /> first difference is the frequency of modals denoting nhập quốc tế ngày càng sâu rộng, các thể lệ tài<br /> volition. It can be seen from Table 5 that the total chính sẽ cần phải có những thay đổi phù hợp với<br /> number of modals denoting volition (1247 tokens thông lệ, chuẩn mực quốc tế, doanh nghiệp muốn<br /> with 36.42%) in English is much higher than that tiếp cận để thu hút vốn trên thị trường tài chính<br /> in Vietnamese (with 454 tokens equal to 24.60%). nhất thiết phải thực hiện lành mạnh hóa và công<br /> khai hóa tài chính của mình” (VEco 94).<br /> More specifically, modals denoting volition rank<br /> the highest in terms of frequency in English,<br /> whereas Vietnamese modals of volition rank the 5. CONCLUSION<br /> second, only after the obligation.<br /> The study has presented a comparative/ contrastive<br /> Table 5. Distribution of Volition realized by Modal analysis of English and Vietnamese root modality<br /> verbs in English & Vietnamese Corpora (including obligation, permission, ability and<br /> volition) as realized by modal verbs in terms of<br /> Modal English Vietnamese force dynamics. The results of the study show that<br /> Senses<br /> Modals Tokens % Modals Tokens % English and Vietnamese share some similarities in<br /> will 650 18.98 sẽ 180 9.75 expressing root modality:<br /> Volition<br /> shall 17 0.50 định/ 8 0.43<br /> toan<br /> Firstly, it can be said that root modality is a<br /> universal linguistic phenomenon existing in both<br /> would 580 16.94 muốn 251 13.60<br /> English and Vietnamese languages. Both English<br /> dám 15 0.82<br /> and Vietnamese writers use modal verbs with<br /> Total 1247 36.42 454 24.60 different levels of strengths of force in either<br /> sociophysical areas or/and reasoning domain to<br /> The second difference is that in English, will perceive and conceptualize the entity/proposition/<br /> and shall are used for volition or strong obligation event. In the two languages under study, different<br /> and would (the past form of will) can be used for past categories of modal senses such as obligation,<br /> volition, whereas sẽ in Vietnamese can normally permission, ability, volition are realized by<br /> be used for future intention or willingness or different modal verbs. For instance, in English<br /> volition, which will happen after the speaking time. the modality of permission can be expressed by a<br /> number of modal verbs such as may, might, can,<br /> The third difference is that while in English, could. A given modal verb can express different<br /> will/shall/would in the case of not expresses refusal meanings. For example, in Vietnamese, modal<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 10 No. 19 (5/2019)<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> phải can be used to denote more than one meaning and the Vietnamese use có thể. In this case, the<br /> such as strong obligation and necessity. image schema for REMOVAL OF RESTRAINT<br /> is applied. If there is barrier or evidence that<br /> Secondly, there is force opposition between bars the speaker/writer/conceptualizer during the<br /> the Agonist (the subject of the clause) and the reasoning process, the English use epistemic can’t/<br /> Antagonist existing across all the modals under cannot and the Vietnamese use không thể. In this<br /> study in English and Vietnamese. The force can be epistemic domain, the relevant force gestalt is<br /> the one which impinges the participant or the state BLOCKAGE (ibid.).<br /> of affair or the event, making the situation necessary<br /> (e.g. must in English and phải in Vietnamese). The Apart from the above similarities between the<br /> force may be the one that prevents the participant two languages, the results of the study show some<br /> or the situation from taking place (e.g. can’t in significant differences between the two languages<br /> English and không thể in Vietnamese). There may in expressing root senses of modal verbs from<br /> be absence of force (e.g. can in English and có thể force – dynamic frameworks.<br /> in Vietnamese. There also appeared some common<br /> force structures across the two languages such as Firstly, the total number of root modals<br /> the image schema for COMPULSION (Johnson denoting obligation, permission, ability and<br /> 1987) which is used to represent the modality volition in English (3424 cases) is much higher<br /> of obligation (e.g., must in English and phải in than that in Vietnamese (1846 cases). In other<br /> Vietnamese); BLOCKAGE (e.g., can’t in English words, the English writers use much more<br /> and không thể in Vietnamese), REMOVAL OF modal verbs to denote their embodied academic<br /> RESTRAINT (e.g., may in English and có thể in experiences by relating them to their physical<br /> Vietnamese) and ENABLEMENT (e.g., can in and/or sociophysical and/or psychological forces<br /> English and có thể in Vietnamese). acting in the presence or absence of barriers than<br /> their counterparts in Vietnamese.<br /> Thirdly, English and Vietnamese writers use<br /> different conceptual structures and strengths of Secondly, in terms of strengths of forces, in<br /> modal forces in academic community to convince English, the predominance of low strength value of<br /> other members of the scientific community of can (= possibility) in the English corpus matches<br /> the importance/ significance of their study and to the observation by Coates (1995) and Rezzano<br /> persuade their readers. In this case, they use root (2004) as to the growing use of epistemic readings<br /> and epistemic senses of modal verbs from two of this modal. The overwhelming predominance of<br /> dimensions of experience: sociophysical domain low force dynamic value may be due to the fact that<br /> including physical interaction, social relation, these modal verbs can be used to express a variety<br /> practices and institutions and epistemic realm of shades of meaning that fall within what has<br /> of rational argument, theorizing and reasoning been here considered as low certainty and which<br /> (Johnson, 1987). During the reasoning process, writers exploit to achieve different communicative<br /> if there exists an irresistible force that drives the effects. In contrast, in Vietnamese, high value<br /> conceptualizer to come to the conclusion of the modals (phải, cần, không thể) predominate<br /> proposition/event, the English use epistemic must/ over median and low, which can be inferred<br /> have to and the Vietnamese use epistemic phải/cần that when writing their papers in social science<br /> phải. The relevant conceptual structure for this is the journals, the Vietnamese writers/conceptualizers<br /> force gestalt for rational COMPULSION (Johnson, have a tendency of expressing strong obligation<br /> 1987). If there are no facts or no barriers that and necessity, or in other words, they want to<br /> prevent the conceptualizer to reach the conclusion, strengthen their standpoints/stance/angle/opinion/<br /> the English use epistemic may/might/can/could attitude toward the proposition state of affair. The<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 11<br /> v LINGUISTIC THEORIES<br /> <br /> <br /> overweight of high dynamic value in Vietnamese Bùi Minh Toán (Chủ biên) – Nguyễn Thị Lương (2010). Giáo<br /> may be due to the fact that the three major trình ngữ pháp tiếng Việt (Sách dành cho các trường<br /> philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism CĐSP). Hà Nội: NXB Đại học Sư phạm.<br /> and Taoism have exerted their influence on the Hoàng Văn Vân (2005). Ngữ pháp chức năng của cú tiếng<br /> “subjective culture” of the Vietnamese. (Bochner, Việt: Mô tả theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống. Hà Nội:<br /> 1986, cited in Ellis, 1994, p.6 & Thêm, 1998, p.25). NXB Khoa học xã hội.<br /> The amalgamation of these three religions – (Tam Ellis, G. (1994). The Appropriateness of the Communicative<br /> giáo: Nho giáo - Phật giáo – Đạo giáo) (Thêm, Approach in Vietnam: An Interview Study in Intercultural<br /> 1998, p.51) which served to maintain the status Communication. (A minor thesis submitted in partial<br /> fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of<br /> quo by holding out the promise of harmonious<br /> Education. La Trole University Bundoora, Victoria 3083,<br /> relations is still ‘firmly embedded in the collective Australia).<br /> consciousness of the Vietnamese’. (Marr, 1981,<br /> Johnson, Mark (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis<br /> cited in Ellis, 1994, p.7). The combination of these<br /> of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: The<br /> three religions has also established the core values University of Chicago Press.<br /> and behavioural norms of the Vietnamese.<br /> Langacker, W.R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization.<br /> Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.<br /> Thirdly, in terms of linguistic form, in negative<br /> forms, in English, not is added after the modal Langacker, W.R. (2003). ‘Extreme Subjectification: English<br /> verb, (e.g., need not, cannot), while in Vietnamese Tense and Modals’ in Motivation in Language – Current<br /> Issues in Linguistic Theory ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, T.<br /> không stands before the modal verb (e.g., không<br /> Berg, R. Dirven, K. Panther, 3-26. USA: John Benjamins.<br /> phải). In interrogatives, in English, take the<br /> inversion of modals (e.g, Can you?). However, in Langacker, R.W. (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar.<br /> Vietnamese, use có … không? or đã … chưa? USA: OUP.<br /> Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar:<br /> Fourthly, with regard to different modal Descriptive Application. Vol. 17. Stanford: Stanford<br /> senses, modals denoting volition in English got University Press.<br /> the highest number while in Vietnamese, modals Pelyvás, P. (2006). ‘Subjectification in (Expressions of)<br /> denoting obligation did. This can be inferred that Epistimic Modality and the Development of the Grounding<br /> in social science journals, the English writers/ Predication’, in Subjectification: Various Paths to<br /> conceptualizers are more likely to use the modality Subjectivity, eds. Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costa Canakis<br /> & Bert Cornillie. Berlin& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.<br /> of volition to perform some typical potential<br /> purposeful actions, of which the forces involved Rezzano, S. N. (2004). Modality and Modal Responsibility<br /> are those of volition and responsibility. In contrast, in Research Articles in English, in English Modality in<br /> Perspective: genre analysis and contrastive studies, Vol,<br /> the Vietnamese writers/conceptualizers seem to<br /> ed. by R. Facchinetti & F. Palmer, 101-118. Germany: Peter<br /> use a lot of the modality of obligation in academic Lang GmbH.<br /> writing to denote a compelling force (which is either<br /> Talmy, L .(2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol I: Concept<br /> internal or external, and/or physical, sociophysical<br /> Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.<br /> or even cultural/moral/psychological) to make<br /> something done./. Talmy, L. (2003). Toward s Cognitive Semantics. Volume I:<br /> Concept Structuring Systems. London: The MIT Press.<br /> References: Taylor, R. J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford<br /> University Press Inc, NY.<br /> Trần Ngọc Thêm (1998). Cơ Sở Văn Hóa Việt Nam. Hà Nội:<br /> NXB Giáo dục. Ungerer, F. & H. Schmid. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive<br /> Linguistics. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc,<br /> Nguyễn Thị Thuận (2003). Các động từ tình thái nên, cần, New York.<br /> phải, bị, được trong câu tiếng Việt: Luận án tiến sĩ ngữ<br /> văn: MS: 5.04.08.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 12 No. 19 (5/2019)<br />  LINGUISTIC THEORIES v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Data sources:<br /> Table 6. below shows the titles of journals, the number of the texts and the number of words in each journal.<br /> Table 6. Data in English and Vietnamese Corpora<br /> English corpus Vietnamese corpus<br /> No of No of No of No of<br /> Titles of Journals Titles of Journals<br /> Txts Words Txts Words<br /> Advances in Social work 13 59325 Thông tin Khoa học Xã hội–Journal of Social 17 70040<br /> (ESoci 1- ESoci 13) Science Information (VSci 1– VSci 17)<br /> Journal of Southeast Asian American Education 13 71605 Tạp chí Khoa học Giáo dục - Journal of Education 17 58656<br /> and Advancement (EEdu14- Eedu 26) Science (VEdu 18 – VEdu 35)<br /> Australian Journal of Psychology (EPsy 27 – 13 59471 Tạp chí Tâm lý – Journal of Psychology (VPsy 36 17 65741<br /> EPsy 39) – VPsy 52)<br /> Colorado Research in Linguistics (Eling 40- 13 80325 Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ - Journal of Linguistics (VLing 53 17 76459<br /> ELing 52) – VLing 69)<br /> The Journal of American Popular Culture (ECult 13 62586 Văn hoá Dân gian – Journal of Folk Culture 17 78786<br /> 53 – 65) (VCult70 – VCult 86)<br /> Journal of Case Research in Business and 13 61424 Quản lý kinh tế – Vietnam Economic Management 17 81595<br /> Economics (Eeco 66 – EEco 78) Review (VEco 87 – VEco 103)<br /> Connecticut Public Interest Law 12 105534 Nhà nước và Pháp luật - State and Law Review 16 68723<br /> (Elaw 79 – ELaw 91) (VLaw 104 – VLaw 119)<br /> Total 91 500000 Total 119 500000<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> TÌNH THÁI CĂN BẢN TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT, NGHIÊN CỨU DỰA<br /> TRÊN KHUNG LÝ THUYẾT VỀ LỰC<br /> NGUYỄN THỊ THU THỦY<br /> Tóm tắt: Mục đích của nghiên cứu là mô tả, phân tích, so sánh/đối chiếu tình thái căn bản của<br /> động từ tình thái trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt theo quan điểm ngôn ngữ học Tri nhận, cụ thể hơn<br /> là nghiên cứu dựa trên khung lý thuyết về lực. Về bản chất nghiên cứu mang tính mô tả và đối<br /> chiếu. Mục tiêu chính của nghiên cứu là tìm ra điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa các nghĩa khác<br /> nhau của tình thái căn bản (bao gồm tình thái nghĩa vụ, tình thái cho phép, tình thái khả năng và<br /> tình thái ý chí) của các động từ tình thái trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt dựa theo khung lý thuyết<br /> về lực. Dữ liệu chính được sử dụng trong nghiên cứu này được lấy từ hai khối ngữ liệu: một bằng<br /> tiếng Anh với 500.000 từ trong 91 văn bản khoa học xã hội và một bằng tiếng Việt với 500.000<br /> từ trong 119 văn bản khoa học xã hội. Dữ liệu thu thập được phân tích định tính và định lượng<br /> để tìm ra điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa các nghĩa tình thái của động từ tình thái trong tiếng<br /> Anh và tiếng Việt.<br /> Từ khóa: tri nhận, phân tích đối chiếu, khối ngữ liệu, lực, tình thái căn bản<br /> Ngày nhận bài: 04/12/2018; ngày sửa chữa: 06/01/2019; ngày duyệt đăng: 28/4/2019<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> No. 19 (5/2019) 13<br /> v LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGY<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> THE EFFECTS OF USING MOCK CONFERENCES<br /> TO TEACH INTERPRETATION SKILLS TO THE 4TH<br /> YEAR CADETS OF THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT<br /> AT MILITARY SCIENCE ACADEMY<br /> TRAN LE DUYEN*, LE THI CHUYEN**<br /> *<br /> Military Science Academy,  duyenletran@gmail.com<br /> **<br /> Military Science Academy,  chuyentuan2002@yahoo.com<br /> Received: 13/3/2019; Revised: 09/4/2019; Accepted: 28/4/2019<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ABSTRACT<br /> Mock conference has been documented as an effective way to prepare interpreters for future<br /> professional careers in many institutions. In Vietnam; however, its effectiveness remains<br /> inconclusive as research on this activity has been rarely reported. Hence, this study presents<br /> the findings of effects of applying this activity to teaching interpretation skills to the fourth-<br /> year cadets of the English Department at Military Science Academy. An action research was<br /> conducted in one intact group at Military Science Academy via deploying three main instruments.<br /> Similarly, the effect of using the model was measured by statistical data. Thus, the effect of the<br /> mock conference on the cadets’ performance could be triple-checked. The findings revealed that<br /> the new activity did improve cadets’ interpretation skills as it brought about seven key benefits.<br /> Hence, it can be concluded that this activity may be a feasible solution to improving the quality<br /> of teaching interpretation skills to the fourth year cadets at Military Science Academy so that they<br /> can lay a good foundation for their future career as interpreters.<br /> Keywords: mock conference, activity, effects, interpretation skills, apply<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. INTRODUCTION