QUESTIONS WITH INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE AND ANSWERS IN VIETNAMESE CLASSES FOR NON-VIETNAMESE SPEAKERS

 

ABSTRACT

A question is an object that is paid attention by many linguists. As one of the four types of sentences classified by utterance purposes, questions are commonly used in the communication process. In terms of teaching Vietnamese as a foreign language, questions also play an important role. In this research report, our research objects are questions with interrogative particles (QIP) and answers (AS) in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels. Based on research results, our research’s purposes are to make some comments and recommendations on the introduction and use of this type of question in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers. Our major research methods include description, comparison and other statistical and classification methods. Research materials are questions and answers used in classes at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels that we have recorded. The outline of this research is as follows: 1. Introduction. 2. Theoretical background of questions with interrogative particles and answers in Vietnamese. 3. Descriptive analysis of QIPs in classes. 4. Survey on the use of answers to QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers. 5. Conclusion.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Многие лингвисты уделяют особое внимание теме вопросов в иностранных языках. Вопросы являются одним из четырех типов предложений по целям высказывания, и обычно используются в процессе общения. В преподавании вьетнамского языка как иностранного, вопросы также играют важную роль. В данной статье объектами нашего исследования являются вопросы с вопросительными частицами, а также ответы на уроках вьетнамского языка для лиц, не говорящих по-вьетнамски, на начальном, среднем и продвинутом уровнях. Основываясь на результатах исследования, цель данной статьи состоит в том, чтобы прокомментировать и дать рекомендации по введению и использованию данного типа вопросов на уроках вьетнамского языка для лиц, не говорящих на вьетнамском языке. Наши основные методы исследования включают описание, сравнение и другие статистические и классификационные методы. Материалами исследования служат аудиозаписи вопросов и ответов, используемые в классах начального, среднего и продвинутого уровней. Структура данного исследования выглядит следующим образом: 1. Введение. 2. Теоретические аспекты по вопросам с вопросительными частицами и ответами на вьетнамском языке. 3. Описательный анализ вопросов с вопросительными частицами на уроках. 4. Обзор использования ответов на вопросы с вопросительными частицами на уроках вьетнамского языка для лиц, не говорящих на вьетнамском языке. 5. Заключение.

 

Keywords: questions, questions with interrogative particles, answers, teaching Vietnamese for non-Vietnamese speakers.

Ключевые слова: вопросы; вопросы с вопросительными частицами; ответы; обучение вьетнамскому языку для лиц, не говорящих на вьетнамском языке.

 

1. Introduction

1.1 Reason for choosing the topic

Question is one of four types of sentences classified according to purpose of the announcement, which is commonly used in the communication process. Questions are always associated with answers in conversations and announcements. In which questions with interrogative particles are used a lot in conversational structures.

Up to now, Vietnamese questions are studied from different aspects; however, there is no research on questions with interrogative particles and answers in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

On this basis, we want to study questions with interrogative particles in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels to understand the current situation of using this type of question in teaching. Results of research will be helpful in teaching, learning and supporting the compilation of Vietnamese textbooks for non-Vietnamese speakers at different levels.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we chose the topic on questions with interrogative particles and answers in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels.

1.2 Purposes and tasks of the research

The purpose of this research is to clarify concepts relating to questions, questions with interrogative particles, and classification of questions in Vietnamese. From there, it surveys sub-categories of questions with interrogative particles and answers in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers in order to get an overview of the introduction and use of this type of question in classes. Through which we make comments and recommendations for teaching and learning this type of question in classes as well as the compilation of Vietnamese textbooks for non-Vietnamese speakers at different levels.

Tasks of this research consist of:

• To study the research situation and establish the theoretical basis of questions and questions with interrogative particles.
• To conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis of QIPs and their answers in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels.
• To give comments, assessments and recommendations on the introduction and use of QIPs in teaching Vietnamese for non-Vietnamese speakers in classes.

1.3 Research methods and data

We use two main research methods including descriptive and comparative methods. In addition, we also use statistical and classification methods in our research.

Survey data on questions with interrogative particles are based on audio recording data in 3 Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers (at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels) at the Center for Vietnamese Language and Culture, University of Social Sciences and Humanities.

The process of collecting data, analyzing and processing data is as follows:

• Firstly, we chose 3 classes with 5 - 8 foreign learners. Specifically, the elementary class has 8 foreign learners, the intermediate class has 7 foreign learners and the advanced class has 5 foreign learners.
• Then we put tape recorders in these 3 Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at elementary, intermediate and advanced levels from the beginning to the end of the course. The duration of each course at each level is 3 months. Particularly, the elementary class is started from September 14^th to December 14^th, 2020, there are total 150 class sessions. The intermediate class is from November 1^st, 2020 to January 30^th, 2021, there are total 150 class sessions. The advanced class is from May 11^th to August 11^th, 2020, there are total 150 class sessions.
• After collecting audio tapes of 3 classes at 3 different levels, we decoded tapes and based on our form criteria, we identified and classified questions with interrogative particles, answers, types of questions with interrogative particles and made statistics in terms of quantity of questions and answers into statistical tables.

2. Theoretical background of questions and questions with interrogative particles in Vietnamese

2.1 Question concept and types of question in Vietnamese

2.1.1 Question concept

Question is one of four types of sentences classified according to purpose of the announcement, which is commonly used in the communication process. The  structural and functional directions are studied questions by linguists.

In terms of structural direction, the authors consider the question as one of four types of sentences classified according to purpose of the announcement but identified according to the formal criteria. Typical trends are Bui Duc Tinh (1952), Nguyen Kim Than (1964), Ho Le (1979), Hoang Trong Phien (1980), Diep Quang Ban (1989) ... . Nguyen Kim Than stated that “the purpose of ordinary questions is to raise the speaker's skepticism and generally require the listener to report on the object or its characteristics” [10, p. 599]. He said that legitimate questions are “those that really aim to raise the speaker's skepticism and require a response from the listener (only in the exceptional case of a monologue, the response is not required)” [10, p. 600]. Diep Quang Ban (1989) claimed that “Questions are often used to raise unknown or doubtful things and wait for answers and explanations from the listener, and in terms of form, questions also have certain characteristic signs” [4, p. 247].

Regarding the functional direction, the question is considered as the typical expression form of the act of asking as the speech act. Cao Xuan Hao (1991) said that “Interrogative sentences (questions) of Vietnamese as well as of many other languages, in addition to the value of asking (notification request) as its direct illocutionary value, it may have derivative illocutionary value(s) (such as negation, affirmation, doubt, challenge or argument” [2, p. 390]. Based on the concept of illocutionary value, he conceived of legitimate questions as “Those are questions that require an answer informing a fact or a certain argument of a fact that is presupposed to be true” [2, p. 391] and other questions with illocutionary values: “When a sentence is in the form of a question (to some extent), but there is no request to provide a notice corresponding with the content of that question, its illocutionary values change and become another speech act. J.Searle (1979) calls it as an indirect speech act” [2, p. 400]. In the textbook named “Basic Linguistics and Vietnamese”, Bui Tat Tuom, Nguyen Van Bang, and Hoang Xuan Tam (1997) said that “An interrogative sentence is a question with illocutionary forces that require an answer informing a situation or part of a situation that is presupposed to be true” [1, p. 288].

In our opinion, the question has an interrogative form as ending by a question mark when writing, using means of expressing interrogative sentences by interrogative words (such as what, where, why etc.,), intonation and word orders. In terms of content, a question raises an unknown or doubtful thing and requires an answer.

2.2 Types of questions in Vietnamese

Vietnamese linguists classify questions in two directions as follows: The first one is to classify questions according to its structures (expression form) and the second one is to classify questions according to its contents (functions).

For the first direction, typical authors are Nguyen Kim Than (1964), Hoang Trong Phien (1980), Diep Quang Ban (1989) and Nguyen Phu Phong etc. Nguyen Kim Than (1964) based on natures and methods of expression to classify interrogative sentences. He classified interrogative sentences into the following types: Legitimate questions (including sub-categories such as Open-ended questions, Limited questions, Multiple-choice questions, Emphasis questions), Rhetorical questions, Interrogative - Negative questions, Interrogative - Affirmative questions, and Interrogative - Imperative questions. Based on the methods of expression, Nguyen Kim Than classified questions into sub-categories consisting of: Questions with interrogative pronouns (who, what etc.), questions with conjunctions (or, nor), questions with final particles (oh, huh etc.). Actually, his classification is still based on the form of expression. Hoang Trong Phien (1980) also based on the sentence structures to classify questions into blank questions or simple questions (using specialized words to ask like who, what, how etc.) and multiple-choice questions. Diep Quang Ban (1989) based on the form of expression to divide questions into the following sub-categories: Questions with interrogative pronouns (using different pronouns such as who, what, when, how, how much, how long, why etc.), questions with interrogative particle (using adjuncts such as do… don’t you, is it (or isn’t it …? Have/has already… yet?), questions with conjunction words “or”, questions with specialized particles (using particles such as oh, huh, hmm, ouch, wow etc.). Nguyen Phu Phong classified questions into Indefinite questions or open-ended questions (posed with indefinite elements such as “where”, “why”, “what” etc.), transitional or closed questions (means of expression such as intonation, lexical elements like or, do you...don’t you, already...yet, either…or, neither…nor), Directional questions (interrogative means are particles at the end of the sentence such as ah, huh, hum etc.).

In terms of the second direction, questions are classified on the basis of its contents (functions). The typical author is Cao Xuan Hao (1991), he based on the illocutionary force to classify questions as follows: Legitimate questions (special questions starting with wh-words, General questions, Limited questions, Meta-linguistic questions, questions ended with “don’t you” and “isn’t it”. Illegitimate questions (including subcategories such as imperative questions, affirmative questions, negative questions, conjecture, uncertain or confused questions, and exclamation questions). At this point, linguists have studied questions from functional perspectives, interested in their activities in the communication, not only from the perspective of pure, static and formal structures. In addition to questions requiring information, which some authors call as the legitimate question, there is also a type of question that does not require providing information, which is called as illegitimate questions, rhetorical questions. Dinh Trong Lac (1994) stated that rhetorical questions “are in the form of not requiring answers but only increasing the expressiveness of utterances” [see 6]. In addition, Diep Quang Ban said that rhetorical questions “are questions that do not need answers” [see 4]. Questions of this type are in the form of questions but do not ask for answers. According to Le Dong (1985), based on the question-answer relationship, questions are distinguished as follows [see 8]:

- Legitimate answer: Exact answer for the enquiry point, meeting additional demands of missing information of the questioner.

- Answer: Fail to meet the information demands of the question and completely go beyond the enquiry point.

All above are methods of classifying Vietnamese questions by the authors according to two trends. In this research, we only survey one sub-category of the legitimate question: that is the questions with interrogative particles in Vietnamese.

2.2 Questions with interrogative particles and their answers in Vietnamese

2.2.1 Questions with interrogative particles in Vietnamese

In this research report, we use the question classification method by Diep Quang Ban. It is based on the expression form to classify questions. Specifically, legitimate questions are classified into the following sub-categories:

• Questions with interrogative particles: using question forms such as do/does…?/ do... don’t you?/ have/has…yet?/ ...already yet?
• Questions using interrogative pronouns: using interrogative pronouns such as who, when, where, how, and why.
• Choice question: using word relationship or
• Questions with specialized particles: using particles such as oh, huh, wow etc.,

The object that we study is questions with interrogative particles; therefore, we will intensively study QIPs. According to Diệp Quang Ban (2004), this type of question uses form question patterns with general question contents such as:

• Type 1: Ask about the affirmation/negation including question patterns such as: Do/does...? (or do... don’t you?); is it...? (or ...isn’t it?)

E.g.: Teacher A: Phòng học này có rộng không? (Is this classroom large?)

         Learner: Không, không rộng ạ. (No, it is not large)

[Tape 1, elementary level]

Teacher T: Theo em thú cưng có phải là bạn không? ( Do you think        pets are our friends?)

                 Learner:  Có. (Yes, they are)

[Tape 59, intermediate level]

• Type 2: Ask about the occurrence/non-occurrence by question pattern: Have/has ... yet?

E.g.: Teacher K: Chị đã từng đến nhà của một gia đình Việt Nam chưa? (Have you ever visited a Vietnamese family yet?)

         Learner:  Chưa ạ. (Not yet)

[Tape 54, intermediate level]

• Type 3: Ask about the completion/incompletion by question pattern: ... done ...yet? (or... already yet?)

E.g.: Teacher H: Các em làm xong chưa? (Have you finished yet?)

         Learner: Rồi ạ (Yes, we have finished)

[Tape 23, advanced level]

2.2.2 Answers to questions with interrogative particles in Vietnamese

Questions with interrogative particles use form interrogative frames with different generalization contents, so that the answer of this type of question will be as follows:

Answers of type 1: For interrogative forms of affirmation/negation do/does…(or do... don’t you)?, questionable points are a verb or adjective so that the answer to this question will be yes/no + verb/adjective.

E.g.:	Learner:	Bạn có thích mùa thu ở Hà Nội không?  (Do you like the autumn in Hanoi? )
	Learner:	Có, em có thích ạ. (Yes, I do.)
		[Tape 21, elementary level]
	Teacher L:	Em có gọi điện về Hàn Quốc hỏi thăm sức khỏe gia đình không? (Did you call Korea to ask about your family’s health?)
	Learner:	Em không gọi ạ. (No, I didn’t)

 

For the question form do/does….? (or do... don’t you?), the questionable point is not defined, the answer may be directed to any point in the question sentence. Diep Quang Ban has provided the following hypothetical answer to the question to understand the diversity of the questionable point:

Có phải bạn Sửu đọc Tam Quốc không? (Do you (Suu) read the Romance of the Three Kingdoms?)

• Không phải bạn Sửu mà là bạn Dần. (Not Suu, but Dan)
• Không phải là đọc Tam Quốc mà là đọc truyện Kiều. (Not the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but the Tale of Kieu.)
• Không phải đọc sách mà là viết thư. (Not reading the book, but writing a letter.)

[5, p. 287]

Therefore, with this question form, the answer may direct to different points in the sentence or in other words, there are many different ways of answering.

Answers of type 2: With the question form of have/has... yet? It asks about the completion/incompletion of a verb, adjective as a predicate. Therefore, the answer will express the completion/incompletion such as: yet/not yet, Subject + yes/ not yet + verb, or only by a very short answer with yes/no.

E.g.:	Learner H:	Anh đã ăn cơm chưa? (Have you had your meal yet?)
	Learner N:	Rồi, tôi ăn rồi. (Yes, I have.)
		[Tape 2, elementary level]
	Teacher Q:	Kiri đã đi đến triển lãm bao giờ chưa? (Have you (Kiri) ever visited an exhibition before?)
	Learner:	Rồi ạ. (Yes, I have.)
		[Tape 25, advanced level]

 

For the question form …done (already) ... yet? or ...already yet? It is used to ask about the completion/incompletion of the verb as a predicate (this verb must indicate an ending action), so that the answer will also use verbs (not adjective), and the answer will be:

Yes, Subject + verb + yet or No, Subject + have/has not + verb.

E.g.:	Teacher T:	Anh Lân đã chuyển nhà xong chưa? (Has Mr. Lan finished his house moving yet?)
	Learner:	Chưa, anh ấy chưa chuyển xong ạ. (No, he has not finished yet.)
		[Tape 37, intermediate level]

 

3. Descriptive analysis of using QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

3.1 Statistical analysis of QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

After conducting a survey on the use of QIPs at 3 different levels, results are as follows:

Table 1.

 Numbers of QIPs used in classes at 3 levels

Level	Total number of legitimate questions	QIPs	Rate (%)
Elementary level	1636	374	22,8
Intermediate level	1308	342	26
Advanced level	1924	675	35

 

The survey results showed that the number of QIPs used is quite high at 3 levels. The number of QIPs used at 3 levels is relatively even. At the elementary level, we have surveyed 1636 legitimate questions, in which there are 374 QIPs (22.8%). At the intermediate level, 1308 legitimate questions are surveyed to be used in classes. In which, there are 342 QIPs (accounting for 26%). At the advanced level, 1924 legitimate questions are surveyed, in which there are 675 QIPs (accounting for 35%).

It can be seen that at 3 levels, QIPs are used at the highest rate in classes at the advanced level. The following are classes at the intermediate level, these classes use this type of question at the 2^nd highest rate. In classes at the elementary level, this type of question is used at a lower rate compared to two levels as mentioned above. For explanation, we find that at the elementary level, learners have just acquainted with Vietnamese so they cannot use many of these types of questions. At the intermediate level, learners have a certain knowledge of Vietnamese, so their communication activities are expanded, this type of question is used a lot in conversations. And at the advanced level, learners are fluent in Vietnamese, their communication activities occur frequently, their knowledge is improved. Teachers often use this type of question to ask about new words, correctness or incorrectness of words, information in lessons, occurrence or non-occurrence of events, completion/incompletion in lessons, conversations etc., so that this type of question is used at a higher level.

3.2 Statistical Analysis of types of QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

3.2.1 Survey results of types of QIPs

Table 2.

 Number of types of QIPs at 03 levels

Level	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Total
Elementary	222 (59%)	129 (35%)	23 (6%)	374 (100%)
Intermediate	254 (74.3%)	76 (22.2%)	12 (3.5%)	342 (100%)
Advanced	582 (86.2%)	84 (12.4%)	9 (1.3%)	675 (100%)
Total	1058	289	44	1391

 

Survey results showed that classes at 3 levels use all three types of QIPs. These three levels tend to use the same question type. The use of type 1 (form of do/does...?) is at the highest rate. Then followed by type 2 (form of have/has...yet?) at the 2^nd rate, and the type 3 (form of ... done ...yet?) is used at the lowest rate.

However, the number of types of questions used is different at each level with significant differences among them. Particularly, at the elementary level, Type 1 accounts for 59%, Type 2 accounts for 35%, and Type 3 only accounts for 6%.  The numerical difference between Type 1 and 3 is 9.8 times. At the intermediate level, Type 1 accounts for 74.3%, Type 2 accounts for 22.2% and Type 3 accounts for only 3.5%. The difference between Type 1 and 3 is 21 times. At the advanced level, the Type 1 accounts for 86.2%, Type 2 accounts for 12.4%, and Type 3 only accounts for 1.3%. The difference between Type 1 and 3 is 66 times. Therefore, it can be seen that Type 1 is used at the highest rate in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers, Type 2 and 3 are used at a lower rate in classes.

3.2.2 Survey results of variations of QIPs

During the survey process, we found that in addition to using different types of questions with typical structures, question type 1 and 2 of QIPs also have variations. Namely:

• Type 1 with question form:  Have/has + Subject + verb/adjective + yet? There are 03 variations as follows:

- Variation 1: Question structure is Do/does + Subject + Verb?(without yet)

E.g.:	Teacher T:	Em (có) biết giá cả thuê xe máy ở Việt Nam không? (Do you know the motorbike rental price in Vietnam?)
	Learner H:	Em biết nhưng không chi tiết lắm. (I know, but not clearly)
		[Tape 38, intermediate level]

- Variation 2: To be + Subject + adjective? (without  yet)

E.g.:                  Cái áo này (có) đẹp không? (Is this shirt beautiful?)

- Variation 3: In a question with do/does or have/has as a possessive verb or existing verb, these interrogative particles will be absent. The question structure is:

Do/does + Subject + verb (possessive verb, existing verb) + noun?

E.g.:	Learner A:	Nhà Minh có ban công không? (Does Minh’s house has a balcony?) (has is a possessive verb)
	Learner B:	Có, nhà Minh có ban công. Yes, Minh’s house has a balcony.
		[Tape 1, elementary level]

• Type 2 with question form Have/has + Subject + Verb + Yet? There is only a variation. That is: Have/has + Subject + Verb? (without ever)

E.g.:	Teacher:	Các em (đã) đi Vịnh Hạ Long chưa? (Have you (ever) visited Ha Long Bay?)
	Learner:	Rồi ạ. (Yes, we have.)
		[Tape 15, advanced level]

• Type 3 with question form done ... yet? There is no variation.

After surveying variations of QIPs, results are as follows:

Table 3.

 Number of variations of QIPs at 03 levels

Level	Variation of type 1		Variation of type 2	Variation of type 3	Total
	Variation 1	Variation 3
Elementary	40 (32%)	35 (28%)	51 (40%)	0	126 (100%)
Intermediate	22 (32.4%)	28 (41.1%)	18 (26.5%)	0	68 (100%)
Advanced	179 (70.2%)	49 (19.2)	27 (10.6)	0	255 (100%)
Total	241	112	96	0	449

 

Survey results showed that variations of type 1 and 2 are used in classes at 3 levels độ. Type 3 of QIPs has no variation in all 03 levels. In which, the advanced level uses variations at the highest rate, then followed by elementary level and intermediate level with lower use frequency of variations.

In all 03 levels, classes tend to use variations of type 1 more than type 2. Specifically, at the elementary level, variations of type 1 (do/does…?) account for 60%, and variations of type 2 (have/has…?) account for 40%. In which, type 1 has 2 variations: variation 1 (Do/does + Subject + Verb?) accounts for 32%, variation 3 (Do/does + Subject + verb (possessive verb, existing verb) + noun?) accounts for 28%. Type 2 has only one variation (Have/has + Subject + Verb?). At the intermediate level, variation 1 accounts for 73.5% and variation 2 accounts for 26.5%. In which, variations 1 and 3 of type 1 uses an equal number. The number of variations of type 2 is much lower than type 1. At the advanced level, the number of variations of type 1 increases significantly, accounting for 89.4% (in which variation 1 increases a lot compared to other two levels, that is 70.2%; variation 3 decreases in comparison with two other levels, that is 19.2%). The numbers of variations of type 2 also decrease significantly compared to the elementary and intermediate levels (10.6%).

4. Survey on the use of answers to QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

4.1 Current use situation of the use of answers to QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers

Survey results of answers to QIPs:

Table 4.

Answer rate of QIPs at all 03 levels

No.	Level	Number (vote)	Rate (%)
1	Elementary	338	29.7
2	Intermediate	309	27.1
3	Advanced	492	43.2
	Total	1139	100

 

Based on survey results, answers to QIPs at the advanced level are used at the highest rate (account for 43.2%). The number of answers to QIPs at the elementary level is ranked at the 2^nd position (accounting for 29.7%). And the number of answers to QIPs at the intermediate level is the lowest (accounting for 27.2%).

Among 1391 QIPs that we have surveyed in classes at 03 levels, there are 1139 answers, 252 questions have no answers (the elementary level has 36 questions, the intermediate level has 33 questions, and the advanced level has 183 questions).

To understand intensively about the use of 1139 answers to QIPs in classes, we have surveyed and classified answers of each type of QIPs.

4.2 The use of answers types of QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers  

After surveying answers of types of QIPs, results are as follows:

Table 5.

 Answers of types of QIPs at 3 levels

No.	Level	Answers of type 1	Answers of type 2	Answers of type 3	Total
1	Elementary	200	119	19	338
2	Intermediate	228	70	11	309
3	Advanced	411	73	8	492
	Total	839	262	38	1139

 

According to survey results, answers of type 1 are used at the highest rate. The next is answers of types 2 and 3. At all three levels, answers are the most used in classes at the advanced level. Then followed by the elementary and intermediate levels.

The number of answers is decreased in comparison with the number of questions. Particularly, at the elementary level, type 1 has 222 questions but there are only 200 answers; type 2 has 129 questions but there are 119 answers; and type 3 has 23 questions but there are 19 answers. At the intermediate level, type 1 has 254 questions but there are only 228 answers (type 2 has 76 questions but there are 70 answers; and type 3 has 12 questions but there are 11 answers). At the advanced level, type 1 has 582 questions but there are only 411 answers; type 2 has 84 questions but there are 73 answers; and type 3 has 9 questions and 8 answers. Therefore, it can be seen that the number of answers of type 1 decreases at the lowest rate compared to the number of questions, then following by the number of answers of type 2. Although the number of questions of type 3 is not high, the number of answers of type 3 is equal to the number of questions.

For types of QIPs without answers, our survey results are as follows:

Table 6.

 Types of QIPs without answers at all 3 levels

No.	Level	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3	Total
1	Elementary	22	10	4	36
2	Intermediate	26	6	1	33
3	Advanced	171	11	1	183
	Total	219	27	6	252

 

Survey results indicated that the number of types of QIPs without answers is not high (within 1391 QIPs, there are only 1139 QIPs that have answers and 252 QIPs that have no answers).

For 3 types of QIPs, the number of QIPs without answers of type 1 accounts for the highest rate, then followed by type 2 and 3.

In terms of each level, the intermediate level uses QIPs without answers at the lowest rate (33 votes); the elementary level is ranked at the 2^nd with 36 votes. The advanced level uses QIPs without answers at the highest rate (183 votes).

Types of QIPs without answers are mostly questions of a teacher to learners. The teacher asks about information in lessons, life or new words in lessons. Learners often don’t know/understand information/new words so they cannot answer. Or learners don’t want to answer private questions.

E.g.:	Teacher H:	Các  em làm hết bài tập chưa? (Have you completed your homework?)
	Learner:	(No answer).
		[Tape 25, elementary level]
	Teacher T:	Các em có biết biển Sầm Sơn, Thanh Hóa không? (Do you know Sam Son Beach in Thanh Hoa Province?)
	Learner:	(No answer)
		[Tape 11, advanced level]
	Teacher L:	Các từ quốc lộ, đại lộ, xa lộ các em biết không? (Do you know new words such as national highway, avenue or highway?)
	Learner:	(No answer)
		[Tape 6, advanced level]

 

Especially at the advanced level, learners have learned many reading lessons, good vocabulary and many other conversations, so topics are improved including social and scientific knowledge etc. Therefore, teachers often raise questions about the information in lessons, social or scientific knowledge. Learners will have a lot of information that they don’t know or just know general information so they will have no answer. At the elementary and intermediate level, learners just start learning Vietnamese, their topics, lessons and vocabulary are simple, so that learners just practice speaking skills and answering questions according to sentence patterns.

5. Conclusion

Based on the use of QIPs, types of QIPs in Vietnamese classes for non-Vietnamese speakers at all three levels, we found that:

The first, the use of QIPs:

- At elementary, intermediate and advanced levels, QIPs are used a lot in classes. In which, at the advanced level, this type of sentence is used the most, followed by the intermediate and elementary levels.

- The number of QIPs used in classes at each level is quite even; for example, the number of QIPs to be used at the elementary and intermediate levels is equal. However, there is a difference in terms of number of QIPs at the advanced level compared to the intermediate and elementary levels.

The second, the use of types of QIPs in classes at 3 levels, we found that:

- At elementary, intermediate and advanced levels, all three types of QIPs are used in classes. In which, three levels tend to use type 1 (do/does...?) at the highest rate. Type 2 (have/has...yet?) is used at the 2^nd highest rate. And type 3 (done ... yet?) is used at the lowest rate in classes.

- There is a common tendency in using the same sentence patterns; however, the number of each type of question at all three levels is different; there is a big difference among types of questions at the same level.

- Variations of QIPs: Type 1 has 02 variations (variation 1: Do/does + Subject + Verb?, variation 3: Do/does + Subject + verb (possessive verb, existing verb) + noun?. Type 2 has 01 variation (Have/has + Subject + Verb?). Type 3 has no variation. In which, variations of type 1 are used more than variation of type 2.

The third, the use of answers to QIPs in classes at 3 levels, we found that:

- The number of answers to QIPs is used a lot (1391 QIPs have 1139 answers; 252 QIPs have no answers). At the advanced level, the number of answers is highest, followed by the elementary and intermediate levels.

- Type 1 has the highest number of answers, and then followed by type 2 and 3.

We found that questions of type 1 and 2 are in grammar sections and at the elementary level; however, two types of this question have not been used and practiced as much as at the intermediate and advanced level. Type 3 is in grammar section at the intermediate level but scarcely used and hardly practiced in classes at this level. We recommend that teachers should practice questions of type 2 and 3 for learners at all three levels more.

 

References:

1. Bui Tat Tuom (Editor-in-chief), Nguyen Van Bang, Hoang Xuan Tam. Basic Linguistics and Vietnamese. Hanoi: Educational Publishing House, 1997.
2. Cao Xuan Hao. The Vietnamese Language: A Rough Draft on Functional Grammar. Hanoi: Educational Publishing House, 2006.
3. Cao Xuan Hao (Editor-in-chief), Hoang Xuan Tam, Nguyen Van Bang, Bui Tat Tuom. Functional Grammar of Vietnamese, Volume 1: Sentences in Vietnamese. Hanoi: Educational Publishing House, 2003.
4. Diep Quang Ban. General Vietnamese Grammar, Volume II. Hanoi: University and Professional Education Publishing House, 1989.
5. Diep Quang Ban. Vietnamese Grammar: Sentences. Hanoi: University of Education Publishing House, 2004.
6. Dinh Trong Lac. 99 means and methods of language rhetoric. Hanoi: Educational Publishing House, 1994.
7. Hoang Trong Phien. Vietnamese Grammar – Sentences. Hanoi: National University Publishing House, 2006.
8. Le Dong. Answers and responses to questions // Language Magazine. 1985. Sub-edition. Pp. 15-21.
9. Le Dong. Semantics – Pragmatics of legitimate questions), Ph.D. Thesis in Linguistics. Hanoi: National University Publishing House, 1996.
10. Nguyen Kim Than. Vietnamese Grammar Research. Hanoi: Educational Publishing House, 1963.
11. Nguyen Thi Nhu Quynh. Some remarks on the question with interrogative in Vietnamese textbooks for non-Vietnamese speakers // Humanitarian Scientific Bulletin. 2021. No 7, Pp. 112-122.