VINH UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

PROJECT
GRAMMAR COURSE
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SENTENCE STUCTURE
IN VIETNAMESE AND ENGLISH

Instructor: Ma. Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao

Class: 224.1_DAMH 16_Group 3
N.o Student’s name Student’s code
1 Bùi Ngọc Ánh 245722020110137
2 Thái Thị Hậu 245722020110024
3 Đào Linh Linh 245722020110070
4 Đỗ Lê Linh 245722020110314
5 Lê Thùy Linh 245722020110028
6 Lê Thị Thùy Linh

Vinh, April 2025

I. Introduction
1.1 Reasons for the study
The study of sentence structure differences between Vietnamese and English
holds significant importance in both theoretical and practical domains. From a
linguistic perspective, understanding how sentences are formed and function in
each language contributes to a deeper knowledge of syntactic organization and
the way meaning is conveyed through language. Sentence structure not only
reflects grammatical rules but also encodes cultural and communicative values
specific to each linguistic community. As such, comparative analysis between
Vietnamese and English offers valuable insights into the unique and shared
features of these languages.
One of the key motivations for conducting this study is its practical relevance to
language teaching, learning, and translation. The findings are expected to
enhance the quality of translation and interpretation by reducing errors and
misunderstandings caused by structural differences. Accurate comprehension
and production of natural sentences are crucial in cross-language
communication, especially in fields such as education, international relations,
and technology. For instance, the development of language processing tools—
such as machine translation systems and educational software—relies heavily
on a clear understanding of syntactic differences to produce more human-like
and accurate outputs.
From an educational standpoint, this research is particularly beneficial to both
language instructors and learners. As a language educator at Khanh Hoa
University, the author recognizes the challenges students face when
transitioning between sentence structures in Vietnamese and English. This study
aims to provide empirical data and theoretical foundations that inform more
flexible and effective teaching strategies. Educators can design curriculum
content and pedagogical approaches that address specific structural difficulties,
while learners can gain a clearer understanding of how sentence structures differ
and how to use them appropriately in various contexts.
Furthermore, this research contributes to cross-cultural understanding by
illuminating how sentence structure reflects cultural norms and communicative
styles. Recognizing these differences fosters greater sensitivity to the cultural
contexts embedded within language use, an essential component in developing
competent bilingual or multilingual speakers.
Ultimately, the research offers valuable contributions to the field of comparative
linguistics and language education. It supports the development of informed,
evidence-based methods for teaching and learning, while also promoting
linguistic awareness and communicative competence across diverse contexts.
By investigating sentence structure differences, the study not only advances
academic knowledge but also provides practical tools for improving the quality
of language education and effective communication in today’s globalized world.
1.2 Research questions
To guide the investigation into the structural differences between
Vietnamese and English, the following research questions have been
formulated:
1.2.1. Through what aspects are the differences in sentence structure between
Vietnamese and English most clearly expressed?
1.2.2. How does learners’ awareness of these sentence structure differences
influence their ability to acquire and use the target language
effectively?
1.2.3. What practical benefits does this research offer for current language
teaching and learning practices?

II. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials
To explore the structural differences between Vietnamese and English
sentences, this study utilizes a corpus of authentic language samples collected
from both languages. These materials were drawn from various real-life
contexts, including academic texts, journalistic articles, literary works, and
informal conversations. The inclusion of such a broad range of sources ensures
a representative sample of sentence structures used across different
communicative settings.
The sampling process was carried out using a random selection method to
minimize bias and enhance data diversity. Each selected sentence or text was
documented with detailed grammatical annotations, including sentence type
(e.g., simple, compound, complex), word order, use of modifiers, clause types,
and other syntactic features. Contextual factors, such as the purpose of the text
and its social or cultural setting, were also recorded to support later contextual
analysis.
This corpus serves not only as the foundation for syntactic comparison but also
as a resource for broader applications in language teaching, translation, and
computational linguistics.
2.2. Methods
This research employs a combination of analytical, comparative, and corpus-
based methods to examine sentence structure in Vietnamese and English. The
analytical-comparative method is central to the study, allowing the author to
identify and contrast key syntactic elements in both languages—such as word
order, grammatical structure, and the arrangement of sentence components
(subject, verb, object, etc.). This method facilitates a detailed understanding of
how meaning is constructed differently in Vietnamese and English, as well as
how linguistic expressions reflect cultural and cognitive processes.
In addition to structural analysis, a contextual comparison method is applied.
This approach investigates how sentence structures vary across different text
types and communicative settings, from formal academic language to informal
spoken discourse. By examining the relationship between language and context,
the study reveals how cultural, social, and pragmatic factors influence syntactic
choices and language use.
A corpus-based analysis supports these methods, providing empirical data from
the previously constructed sentence corpus. The analysis focuses on identifying
recurring syntactic patterns, differences in word order, and the use of
grammatical structures in different contexts. This data-driven approach
enhances the validity and reliability of the findings.
Furthermore, a review of comparative linguistics literature (e.g., Schweikhard &
List, 2020; Jamalli, 2023) is incorporated to ground the study within established
theoretical frameworks. This enables the findings to be interpreted in a broader
academic context and supports further applications in language learning,
translation, and natural language processing.
Together, these methods offer a comprehensive and systematic approach to
investigating syntactic differences between Vietnamese and English,
contributing both to theoretical linguistics and practical language applications.

III. Results
3.1. Difference between simple sentences
The structural and functional differences between simple sentences in
Vietnamese and English are evident across various linguistic aspects. Both
languages primarily follow the Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order;
however, English allows greater flexibility in altering this structure based on
communicative intent and syntactic emphasis. While Vietnamese tends to avoid
the use of auxiliary verbs, instead relying on context, word order, and temporal
markers, English frequently employs auxiliary verbs such as do, does, did, have,
and be to express tense, aspect, and modality. Pragmatic usage also differs:
Vietnamese simple sentences are often more direct and shaped by social and
cultural nuances, frequently omitting elements that are contextually understood.
In contrast, English simple sentences typically incorporate more explicit
grammatical elements to convey meaning clearly. Additionally, while both
languages utilize verb phrases and grammatical combinations to expand
sentence meaning, English tends to demonstrate a richer variety of constructions
due to its broader use of auxiliaries and modals. These distinctions can pose
challenges for language learners, making it essential to grasp the sentence
structures of each language to communicate effectively and avoid common
misunderstandings.
3.2. Differences in compound sentences
Compound sentences represent a sophisticated linguistic form, and notable
differences between Vietnamese and English can be observed across several
grammatical aspects. Both languages commonly adopt the subject–verb–object
(SVO) word order; however, English tends to demonstrate greater syntactic
flexibility, allowing for more nuanced rearrangement depending on the
communicative purpose (Futrell et al., 2020). In terms of subordinate clauses,
Vietnamese compound sentences often incorporate multiple dependent clauses
to detail conditions or elaborate on events, whereas English employs similar
clauses with more structural flexibility to support information flow (Chen et al.,
2021). Conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs are essential in both languages to
link clauses, but English showcases a broader variety of connectors, such as
"and," "but," "so," and "however," used with greater frequency and variation
(Boxodirova et al., 2022). Additionally, auxiliary verbs are more prevalent in
English compound structures, facilitating the creation of complex verb phrases
and clearer temporal or modal distinctions (Sujatna et al., 2019). Pragmatically,
Vietnamese compound sentences often highlight temporal or conditional
relationships, while English compound sentences are more versatile, capable of
conveying contrast, causation, and other logical relations (Friedman & Sterling,
2019). These distinctions reflect the deeper grammatical intricacies and stylistic
conventions of each language.
3.3. Differences in complex sentences
Complex sentences in both Vietnamese and English consist of at least one
main clause and one or more subordinate clauses, but their structures and usage
differ significantly due to grammatical and stylistic factors. In Vietnamese,
complex sentences generally follow the SVO (subject–verb–object) order,
though this can shift depending on context or communicative intent. Dependent
clauses are frequently used to elaborate on conditions, relationships, or details,
and are connected using conjunctions or linking adverbs. However, auxiliary
verbs in Vietnamese complex sentences are rarely employed compared to
English. In contrast, English maintains the SVO structure but with greater
syntactic flexibility, allowing subordinate clauses to be rearranged for stylistic
and semantic variation. English also employs a broader range of conjunctions
such as "although," "because," or "while" to express complex relationships
between ideas. Moreover, English uses more auxiliary verbs—like "do," "does,"
"did," "have," or "be"—to enhance grammatical precision and complexity.
Punctuation plays a key role in both languages, with commas and periods used
to separate and clarify clauses, though English may also utilize semicolons for
further nuance. These distinctions highlight the influence of linguistic structure
and cultural norms on how complex ideas are conveyed in each language.
3.4.Differences in narrative sentences
 Declarative sentences in Vietnamese and English, which are used to directly
express opinions, intentions, or events, show notable differences in structure
and usage. One of the most prominent distinctions lies in the use of tense.
English has a complex system of twelve verb tenses to indicate time, whereas
Vietnamese does not inflect verbs for tense. Instead, Vietnamese relies on time-
indicating adverbs such as “already,” “being,” “will,” “just,” “recently,” “about
to,” and “once.” A common sentence structure in Vietnamese follows the order:
Adverb – Subject – Predicate – Complement – Instrument. In terms of negation,
Vietnamese uses various words such as “không” (not), “chưa” (not yet), and
“chẳng” (no/none), and further classifies negative sentences into types like total
vs. partial negation, general vs. specific negation, and descriptive vs. refuting
negation. These negative markers can appear in various positions within a
sentence. In contrast, English typically uses “not” immediately after auxiliary or
modal verbs like “am,” “is,” “are,” “can,” “will,” and “must.” When no such
verbs are present, auxiliary verbs such as “do,” “does,” or “did” are used to
form the negative. English also includes inherently negative words like
“nobody,” “nothing,” and “no longer.” These structural differences not only
highlight grammatical contrasts but also reflect deeper cultural and cognitive
differences in how ideas are conveyed.
3.5. Differences in Interrogative sentence
Interrogative sentences, which are used to ask questions and seek information,
differ significantly between Vietnamese and English in terms of structure and
expression. In Vietnamese, questions can be formed using standard question
words such as "who," "what," "why," or "which," but the language also utilizes
a wide range of particles, modal words, and adverbs like “ah,” “uh,” “nha,”
“phải không,” and “chưa” to add nuance, emotion, or emphasis. These elements
often reflect the speaker’s intent or level of politeness. English, on the other
hand, follows a more rigid grammatical structure for interrogatives, requiring
the inversion of the subject and an auxiliary or special verb (e.g., “is,” “can,”
“will”) at the beginning of the question. If no auxiliary verb is present, English
speakers must insert one (do/does/did) to form a grammatically correct
question. Moreover, English allows for yes/no questions without question words
and employs a specific rule-based structure for question tags: if the main clause
is affirmative, the tag is negative, and vice versa. Vietnamese, by contrast, relies
more on intonation and final modal particles rather than syntactic inversion for
such tag questions. Additionally, when converting direct questions into reported
speech, English requires changes in word order and verb tense, while
Vietnamese retains a more flexible structure. These contrasts not only highlight
grammatical differences but also reflect deeper cultural and communicative
preferences unique to each language.
3.6. Differences in Imperative sentence
Imperative sentences, used to command, request, invite, or encourage
someone to perform an action, are structured differently in Vietnamese and
English due to both linguistic and cultural influences. In both languages, the
subject "you" is often omitted, with the listener being implicitly understood as
the performer of the action. In Vietnamese, imperative meaning is typically
conveyed through intonation when speaking and punctuation—particularly the
exclamation mark (!)—when writing. Moreover, Vietnamese employs a range
of modal particles, which can appear in various sentence positions, to express
nuances such as urgency, politeness, or encouragement. English imperative
sentences, by contrast, usually begin with the base form of the verb and may
include modal verbs like "must," "have to," or "should" to indicate different
levels of intensity or necessity. Additionally, English often incorporates polite
expressions such as “please” to soften commands. These structural and stylistic
differences demonstrate how grammatical choices in both languages are shaped
by cultural norms and communicative strategies in expressing authority,
politeness, or urgency.
3.7. Differences in Exclamatory sentence
Exclamatory sentences are used in both Vietnamese and English to express
strong emotions such as surprise, excitement, disappointment, or enthusiasm.
These sentences are typically marked by the use of an exclamation point (!) and
a structure that emphasizes emotional intensity. In Vietnamese, exclamatory
expressions are highly influenced by the use of function words and modal
particles, which appear frequently and vary depending on the speaker's emotion.
Words or phrases such as “trời ơi” (oh my god), “khổ quá” (so miserable), or
“tội nghiệp” (pitiful) are commonly used to convey strong feelings and are often
placed at the beginning or end of a sentence. Vietnamese exclamatory sentences
are considered a distinct category, and their expressive nature is heavily tied to
cultural and linguistic norms. In contrast, English exclamatory sentences often
rely on structural markers like “what” or “how” at the beginning of a sentence
—for example, “What a beautiful day!” or “How amazing this is!”—to
highlight emotional content. These differences demonstrate how each language
leverages unique syntactic and lexical tools to communicate emotional intensity,
shaped by their respective grammatical systems and cultural expressions.
IV. Discussion
The structural differences between Vietnamese and English have a considerable
impact on language teaching and learning, particularly within the context of
higher education institutions in Vietnam. These differences, rooted in the
contrast between isolating and inflectional language systems, can present
significant challenges for both instructors and learners. However, they also offer
valuable opportunities to enhance linguistic competence and cross-cultural
understanding.
One of the most notable challenges lies in the effect of sentence structure on
learners’ ability to communicate ideas clearly and confidently. Vietnamese
students, when learning English, often struggle with word order, the use of
auxiliary verbs, and the complexity of clause structures. Instructors, therefore,
must be attentive to these issues and design grammar instruction that explicitly
compares sentence patterns in both languages. Providing clear, contextualized
examples and targeted practice exercises can help learners internalize new
syntactic forms and gradually adapt to English grammar conventions.
Furthermore, the impact of sentence structure differences extends to students’
reading comprehension and writing skills. Complex or unfamiliar syntactic
constructions can hinder students' ability to understand academic texts or
produce coherent written work in English. To address this, educators should
select textbooks and supplementary materials that present sentence structures in
a clear and accessible manner. Incorporating bilingual examples may also
bridge the gap between the two language systems and support a deeper
understanding.
To enhance students' practical use of sentence structures, instructors should
integrate communicative teaching strategies, such as group discussions, peer
collaboration, and task-based language activities. These methods encourage
active engagement with sentence construction in meaningful contexts, allowing
students to develop fluency and accuracy simultaneously.
Innovative instructional techniques—such as the use of visual aids, multimedia
tools, and interactive digital platforms—can also play a critical role in making
abstract syntactic concepts more tangible. These methods cater to diverse
learning styles and create a dynamic learning environment that fosters curiosity
and linguistic flexibility.
Finally, assessments in grammar and writing should be carefully designed to
reflect students’ evolving understanding of sentence structure. Continuous
feedback and formative evaluation can guide learners in recognizing and
correcting their syntactic errors, leading to gradual improvement over time.
Ultimately, the differences in sentence structure between Vietnamese and
English should not be viewed solely as obstacles, but as opportunities to
cultivate adaptive, multilingual communicators. This study not only sheds light
on the structural complexities of both languages but also offers pedagogical
insights for improving the effectiveness of language instruction and fostering
learners’ confidence and competence.
V. Conclusion
The structural differences between Vietnamese and English sentences reflect a
fundamental distinction between isolating and inflectional languages. These
differences present both challenges and opportunities for language learners.
Understanding them is essential not only for mastering grammatical structures
but also for appreciating the diversity and flexibility of linguistic expression.
For English learners, exposure to variable sentence patterns fosters creativity
and enhances communicative competence. Conversely, Vietnamese learners
must develop precision in applying consistent and rule-based sentence
structures, which demands greater attention to grammar. In both cases, the
process encourages deeper engagement with language form and function.
In the context of a globalized world, language education plays a critical role.
Teachers must be equipped with a solid understanding of structural differences
to deliver clear explanations and contextualized examples. Students, in turn,
benefit from immersive learning environments that encourage active language
use through real-life communication and interactive practice.
Overall, these differences should be viewed not as barriers, but as gateways to
expanding linguistic knowledge and cross-cultural understanding. By
identifying key contrasts between Vietnamese and English sentence structures,
this research provides valuable insights for both teaching and learning. It also
lays the groundwork for future studies and practical applications in language
education, particularly within specialized academic contexts.

VI. REFERENCES
Abdullayevna, K. S., & Qizi, A. M. B. (2022). What is philology and its
difference from other areas. Scientific Impulse, 1(4), 135-140
Ajjour, Y., Wachsmuth, H., Kiesel, J., Potthast, M., Hagen, M., & Stein, B.
(2019). Data acquisition for argument search: The args. me corpus. In KI 2019:
Advances in Artificial Intelligence: 42nd German Conference on AI, Kassel,
Germany, September 23–26, 2019, Proceedings 42 (pp. 48-59). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30179-8_4
Asimov, P. (2020). Comparative philology, French music, and the composition
of Indo-Europeanism from Fétis to Messiaen (Doctoral dissertation).
https://doi.org/10.17863/ CAM.59302
Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for
teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in
Education, 6(4), 499-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00147-3
Boxodirova, F., Isroilova, D., Abduraxmanov, M., &Yuldasheva, D. (2022).
Difficulties in teaching the grammatical features of conjunctions. Science and
innovation, 1(B7), 1421-1422
Chen, X., Alexopoulou, T., &Tsimpli, I. (2021). Automatic extraction of
subordinate clauses and its application in second language acquisition research.
Behavior Research Methods, 53, 803-817. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-
01456-7
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated
expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural
perspective on motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cedpsych.2020.101859
Ellis, J. (2021). Towards a general comparative linguistics (Vol. 52). Walter de
Gruyter GmbH & Co KG
Futrell, R., Levy, R. P., & Gibson, E. (2020). Dependency locality as an
explanatory principle for word order. Language, 96(2),
371-412.https://doi.org/10.1353/ lan.2020.002
Friedman, L., & Sterling, A. (2019, August). A review of language, executive
function, and intervention in autism spectrum disorder. In Seminars in speech
and language (Vol. 40, No. 04, pp. 291-304). Thieme Medical Publishers
Hawkins, R. (2008). The nativist perspective on second language acquisition.
Lingua, 118(4), 465-477. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.011
Jamalli, A. I. (2023). Fostering language learning strategies through
comparative linguistics: future directions for Azerbaijani higher education.
Futurity Education, 3(3), 61- 76. https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2023.09.25.04
Javed, A., Zaman, M., Uddin, M. M., & Nusrat, T. (2019, October). An analysis
on python programming language demand and its recent trend in bangladesh. In
Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Computing and Pattern
Recognition (pp. 458-465).https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3373509.3373540
Koskas, M., Amant, F., Mirza, M. R., & Creutzberg, C. L. (2021). Cancer of the
corpus uteri: 2021 update. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics,
155, 45-60 .https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13866
Le, K. H., Datta, S. K., Bonnet, C., & Hamon, F. (2019, April). WoT-AD: A
descriptive language for group of things in 6842 International Journal of
Science Academic Research, Vol. 05, Issue 01, pp.6837-6843, January, 2024
massive IoT. In 2019 IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT)
(pp. 257-262). IEEE.https://doi.org/ 10.1109/WF-IoT.2019.8767228
Li, X., Peng, Y., & Zheng, X. (2022). The Association Between Mother’s
Descriptive Language and Children with Autism’s Conversational Repair: A
Moderated Mediation Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 1-15.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05785-8
Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax.
Cerebral Cortex, 30(3), 1481-1498.https://doi. org/10.1093/cercor/bhz180
Mashiane, M. V., & Ngoepe, L. J. (2021). A qualitative exploration of the
management of grammar structures by English language curriculum advisors in
concert with FET educators. Journal for Language Teaching, 55(2), 169-
193.https://doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v55i2.7
Meini, C. (2020). When the selfing process goes wrong: Social-biofeedback,
causal mechanisms, and pathological narcissism. Rivista internazionale di
Filosofia e Psicologia, 11(1), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp. 2020.0006
Nasir, I., Iqbal, M., & Raza, S. A. (2022). XML-based Descriptive Language for
Cognitive Architectures. International Journal of Computational and Innovative
Sciences, 1(2), 33-46
Rassaei, E. (2020). Effects of mobile‐mediated dynamic and nondynamic
glosses on L2 vocabulary learning: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern
Language Journal, 104(1), 284-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl. 12629
Sari, A. L., Nariyah, H., & Wihayati, W. (2019). Studi Fenomenologi Film
Animasi Upin dan Ipin di MNC TV dalam Membentuk Perilaku Imitasi pada
Anak di TK AlMuhibbin Kecamatan Sumber Kabupaten Cirebon. Journal
Signal, 7(1), 10-24
Sawyer, J. F. (2021). Comparative Philology and the Hebrew Language:
Aspects of James Barr’s Critique. In James Barr Assessed (pp. 46-58).
Brill.https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004465664_004
Schweikhard, N. E., & List, J. M. (2020). Handling word formation in
comparative linguistics. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 17(1), 2-
26.https://hdl.handle.net/ 21.11116/0000-0006-8BB
Silseth, K., & Gilje, Ø. (2019). Multimodal composition and assessment: A
sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 26(1), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1297292
Sujatna, M. L., Sujatna, E. T. S., & Pamungkas, K. (2019). Exploring the use of
modal auxiliary verbs in Corpus of Contemporary of American English
(COCA). Sosiohumaniora, 21(2), 166-172.https://doi.org/10.24198/
sosiohumaniora.v21i2.19970
Thorpe, L. (2021). Common sense and comparative linguistics. Revue
Philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, (1),
71-88.https://doi.org/10.3917/rphi.211.0071
Tizjang, E., Bijani, H., & Bani Orabah, S. S. (2023). Examining the Impact of
Implementing Nicenet on Teaching Grammar Structures to Develop Writing
skill among Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners. International Journal of
Research in English Education, 8(3), 94-107
Uktolseja, L. J., Sujaja, H., &Matinahoru, M. F. (2019). A contrastive analysis
between English and Indonesian kinds of sentences. IJET (Indonesian Journal
of English Teaching), 8(1), 54-61.https://doi.org/10.15642/ijet2.2019. 8.1.54-61
Vosiljonov, A. (2022). Basic theoretical principles of corpus linguistics.
Academicia Globe, 3(02), 173-175.https://doi. org/10.17605/OSF.IO/36RWP
Zhang, H., Li, C. C., Liu, Y., & Dong, Y. (2019). Modeling personalized
individual semantics and consensus in comparative linguistic expression
preference relations with self-confidence: An optimization-based approach.
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 29(3), 627-
640.https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2957259
Zhang, H., Xiao, J., Palomares, I., Liang, H., & Dong, Y. (2019). Linguistic
distribution-based optimization approach for large-scale GDM with
comparative linguistic information: An application on the selection of
wastewater disinfection technology. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
28(2), 376-389. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ. 2019.2906856.