Xem mẫu
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMESE IN THE LIGHT OF FIGURE/ GROUND RELATIONSHIPS Nguyen Tu Nhi1 Abstract: Causation can be expressed by various linguistic means. It is of great importance to understand the nature of causation expressed by these different means in the light of cognitive semantics. In addition, the choice of one causative construction over another may differ in English and in Vietnamese. This difference may bring about the negative impact on language transfer, and learners tend to fail to convey the causative relation between participants in a causative eventIn this paper, causative constructions with causal connectives shall be discussed and analyzed. The "so-called" backward causality and forward causality will be discussed in the light of Figure/ Ground relationships to nd out the similarities and diferences between them. Then we propose some solutions for Vietnamese learners of English to make the appropriate use of causal connectives in English and in Vietnamese. Key words: Cognitive semantics, Figure/Ground relationships, causal connectives 1. Introduction Causation has been a topic of linguistic investigation for many years. According to Herchenson (1981), there are two main reasons underlying this main interest of linguists in the phenomenon: (i) causative constructions build a good proving ground for many questions of theoretical interest, and (ii) causation can be expressed in natural language in numerous linguistic alternatives. Altenberg (1984) has, in fact, identi ed nearly one hundred possible explicit links for encoding a causal relation between two propositions. Focusing on different kinds of causal expressions could lead to different conclusions about the nature of causation. Any language user is thus confronted with the problem of choosing one alternative over another. But how is this choice constrained? Why does a language user choose one link over another? This same question arises in natural language generation, where it is crucial that the rules to select a speci c linguistic structure be made explicit. In order to use and generate the different possible causative constructions properly, it is necessary to understand what their underlying meaning is. In addition, the favor of one causative construction over another in a language, to some extent, re ects its cultural characteristics. This is the reason why we look at causation under the light of cognitive semantics, which is still a fairly new theory in Vietnam. This study is intended not only to illuminate the organization and constitution of causation in English and how it is realized in Vietnamese but also to help learners use the language accurately in translation, interpretation and communication. 2. Development 1. MA, Pham Van Dong University 67
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH... According to Frawley (1992), every event can be thought of as an abstract scene in which the entities that participate in the event can either emerge as salient - Figure- or recede and form part of the background – Ground. Talmy's cause-result principle (2000a) suggests that the unmarked (or only possible) linguistic expression for a causal relation between two events treats the Ec (Causing Event) as Ground and the Er (Resulting Event) as Figure. 2.1. Three domains of causal connectives Causative constructions with causal connectives shall be discussed and analyzed in the three domains proposed by Sweetser's (1993), including content domain, epistemic domain, and speech act domain . The "so-called" backward causality and forward causality shall also be discussed in the light of Figure/ Ground relationships. Both English and Vietnamese have connectives to express causal relations. The systematic use of one lexical item to express a certain type of causal relationship implies that people distinguish between several types of causality. In her seminal work, Sweetser (1993) argued that a conjunction like because is used in the content domain (1), epistemic domain (2) and speech act domain (3): John came back because he loved her. [7, p.77] John đã quay trở lại vì/bởi vì/bởi lẽ anh ấy yêu cô ta. Vì yêu cô ta nên John đã quay trở lại. John loved her, because he came back. [7, p.77] John yêu cô ta, vì lẽ anh ấy đã quay trở lại. What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on. [7, p.77] Tối nay anh có làm gì không? Ở rạp có chiếu phim hay đấy. (Chúng mình đi xem phim nhé). It can be seen in (1) that John came back, and asserting that his love was the real- world cause of his coming back. Example (2) does not most naturally mean that the return caused the love in the real world; in fact, (2) is normally understood as meaning that the speaker's knowledge of John's return (as a premise) causes the conclusion that John loved her. (3) would be a totally incomprehensible sentence if the conjunction were understood in the content domain. Since the main clause is not even a statement, the because-clause cannot be understood as stating the real-world cause of the event or situation described in the main clause. Rather, the because clause gives the cause of the speech act embodied by the main clause. Here the speech act of inviting occurs and the reading can be described as I ask what you are doing tonight because I want to suggest that we go and see this good movie. Sweetser (1993) suggests that causal conjunction in the content domain marks "real world" causality of an event, while in the epistemic domain, a causal conjunction will mark the cause of a belief or a conclusion, and in the speech act domain, it will 68
- NGUYEN TU NHI indicate causal explanation of the speech act being performed. In Vietnamese, causal connectives used in causative constructions are similar to those in English. The connectives "vì", "bởi", "tại", "do", "bởi vì", "tại vì", etc., are commonly used in all three domains to introduce the cause; and "nên", "cho nên" are used to introduce the result. All those above-mentioned conjunctions can be used on their own without the interference of others to emphasize either a result or a cause. However, there are differences in the use of these connectives in the two languages. While the correlatives such as vì...nên..., bởi...nên..., tại...nên..., bởi vì...cho nên..., do...nên..., tại vì...cho nên... cannot be used in English as a way of expressing cause-effect relationship, those are typically used in Vietnamese. In addition, it should be noticed here that in Vietnamese correlatives are hardly used in the epistemic domain. Instead, the causal connectives such as vì lẽ, bởi lẽ are commonly used. The reason is that the epistemic domain indicates a logical conclusion from the speaker. Sometimes, the conclusion is overtly expressed in Vietnamese by means of an epistemic modality such as ắt hẳn, hẳn là, chắc là. In the epistemic domain, the emphasis is on the Ec because it is the speaker's conclusion and he/she would like to make it salient. Thus, the subordinate clause functions as the Figure while the main clause as the Ground of the causative situation. On the contrary, in the speech act domain, Vietnamese translational equivalents suggest that emphasis be put on the main clause as Er and the causal connective is often omitted. Instead, the whole causative event is divided into two separate clauses. A speech act is part of the whole causative construction. Thus, main clauses as Er often function as Figure and subordinate clauses as Grounds of this causative construction. Similarities and dissimilarities in Figure/Ground Shift will be discussed in more details below in line with the two dimensions of causality: Backward causality and forward causality. 2.2. Figure/Ground Shift in backward and forward causality in causative constructions with causal connectives 2.2.1. Backward and forward causality in English and in Vietnamese Causal relations can be expressed in the order antecedents, consequents – as in X so Y - or in reverse order - Y because X. These are referred to as forward and backward causality (Sanders, 1997) While such conjunctions as because, as or since serve to introduce backward causality, those of forward causality are realized by so, as a result, that's why and so on. Below are two examples, one for each category: Some women are choosing coal mining as a job because modern technology has improved working conditions. [9, p.155] Một số phụ nữ ngày nay có khuynh hướng chọn nghề mỏ vì công nghệ hiện đại đã 69
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH... cải thiện điều kiện lao động. The sun was shining, so the temperature rose. [7, p.2] Trời đang nắng gắt, do vậy nhiệt độ tăng cao. To put it simpler, instead of saying A is the cause of B, we may say B is the result of A. So, it follows naturally that the same cause-effect relationship can often be established in either clauses as forward or those as backward causality: The neighbours are not at home, because their lights are out. [7, p.2] Những người hàng xóm không có ở nhà vì/vì lẽ đèn trong nhà tắt. The neighbours' lights are out, so they are not at home. [7, p.2] Vì lẽ đèn trong nhà tắt, nên (ắt hẳn) họ không có ở nhà. Despite the same cause-effect relationship they both may create, clauses as cause and result circumstantials are necessary to be separately observed and investigated, as the speaker's intention of emphasis is not always the same: sometimes on cause, sometimes on result. Talmy's cause-result principle suggests that the unmarked (or only possible) linguistic expression for a causal relation between two events treats the Ec (Causing Event) as Ground and the Er (Resulting Event) as Figure. Where the complete syntactic form is a full complex sentence, the two events are in the subordinate and the main clause, respectively. Let us consider the following examples: They stayed home because they were feeling tired. [9, p.380] Họ ở nhà vì họ cảm thấy mệt mỏi. They were feeling tired, so they stayed home. [9, p.380] Họ cảm thấy mệt mỏi, vì vậy họ ở nhà. We can note that the two sentences (8) and (9) are semantically alike, both referring to the same single situation; that the pair of events in that situation are related causally; and that the 'feeling tired' event is the cause, while the 'staying home' event is the result. By the cause-result principle, the Ec functions as the Ground, while the Er functions as the Figure. Sentence (8) represents the Figure in the main clause and the Ground in a dependent clause. On the other hand, sentence (9) represents the Ground in the main clause and the Figure in the dependent clause. Thus, viewed in the Figure/ Ground Shift model, causal connectives used in different dimensions of causality and different domains are very distinct from each other. 2.2.2. Figure/ Ground shift in backward causality In English, this type of causality is most commonly introduced by such conjunctions as because, as or since. Clauses as Ec beginning with because tend to follow the main clause ( nal position) as the emphasis is on the reason for the happening or occurrence in the main clause, according to Chalker (1984): 70
- NGUYEN TU NHI I lent him the money because he needed it. Tôi đã cho nó vay tiền vì nó cần tiền. This is in contrast to Talmy's cause-result principle that the Er receives the focus and functions as the Figure. Here, we agree with Chalker's viewpoint because Chalker is very clear when he also makes a distinction between because on the one hand and as, since on the another. It should be noticed here that because is the most common conjunction of cause and so because can always be used in place of as or since to answer the question "why?"; However, the conjunctions as, since cannot always be used instead of because especially when it follows a negative in the main clause. People sometimes use for, which means the same as because, to introduce clauses as Ecs, but its use is now considered to be too formal and old-fashioned, according to Cobuild (1990): The soldiers were exhausted for they had marched a long way. Những người lính kiệt sức vì họ đã hành quân quá xa. In Vietnamese, as has been mentioned above, the most common causal connectives are "vì", "bởi", "tại", "do", "bởi vì", "tại vì", etc. Unlike English, the correlatives such as vì...nên..., bởi...nên..., tại...nên..., bởi vì...cho nên..., do...nên..., tại vì...cho nên.. are commonly used in Vietnamese to express cause-effect relationship. In addition, in Vietnamese, the following clause is regarded as a typical kind of ways showing cause-effect relationship: Vì tên Đậu là thân nhân của hắn cho nên chúng con bắt nộp thay. [10, p.77] It is obvious that in Vietnamese there exists a combination of a cause conjunction with a result one, making a two-marker correlative (which is impossible in English): marker1 (conjunctions of cause), marker2 (result conjunctions): Here are some of the conjunctions: M1 ..., M2 M1 ..., M2 vì ... (cho) nên / mà bởi... (cho) nên / mà tại... (cho) nên / mà bởivì... (cho) nên / mà nhờ... (cho) nên / mà tạivì... (cho) nên / mà However, when these correlatives are in use, the emphasis is not on the cause or reason, but on the result. Thus, the construction M1 ... M2 in Vietnamese mentioned above is much closer to "as" or "since", which are also not emphasized in English, than "because", which is more emphatic to the cause in the content-domain. Viewed in the Figure/ Ground Shift model, in English the because-clause as the Ec receives the focus as a default case, and is referred to as the Figure while the main clause as the Er as the Ground. On the contrary, in the clauses with since or as, the focus may be shifted to the main clause as Er which is referred to as the Figure and the subordinate clause as 71
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH... the Ground. Meanwhile, in Vietnamese, with the common use of the correlatives, the emphasis is put on the main clause as Er, not on the subordinate clause as Ec. Thus the main clause functions as the Figure and the subordinate clause as the Ground in the causative event. This ts in very well with Talmy's cause-result principle. 2.2.3. Figure/ Ground Shift in forward causality This type of causality in English is introduced by connectives such as so, as a result, that's why, and normally takes the end position. That is, clauses introduced by these conjunctions often follow the main clause and describe consequences brought about by an event or a situation in it: The rules cannot be broken, so you will have to spend two hours collecting trash. [8, p.78] Vì lẽ không thể làm sai quy định nên anh phải bỏ ra hai giờ để thu dọn rác. He heard me calling, so he came. [8, p.79] Vì nghe tôi gọi nên anh ấy đến. He came, so he heard me calling. [8, p.79] Anh ấy đến, vì vậy/chính vì thế (ắt hẳn là/chắc rằng) anh ấy nghe tôi gọi. Here we are in Paris, so what would you like to do on our rst evening here? [8, p.79] Chúng mình đang ở Paris rồi đấy. Em thích làm gì trong buổi tối đầu tiên ở đây nhỉ? The causality in (14) would appear to be reversed with that of (13), but it is not. In (13) and 14), real-world causality connects the two clauses: that is, the rules' un- breakability causes your fate in the real world (13) and his hearing was the real cause of his coming (14) whereas in (15), the knowledge of his arrival causes the conclusion that he heard the calling, and (16) may be interpreted as: Our presence in Paris enables my act of asking what you would like to do. In Vietnamese, the connectives vì thế, vì vậy, bởi vậy, do vậy, chính vì thế, chính vì vậy, vì lẽ đó are commonly used in all three domains. These connectives are used separately without the interference of any other correlatives to introduce the Ers which receives the emphasis. The Vietnamese translational equivalents also suggest that correlatives such as vì...nên..., bởi...nên..., tại...nên..., bởi vì...cho nên..., do...nên..., tại vì...cho nên.. can also be used to express cause-effect relationship. In this case, the causative construction is very similar to that of backward causality. Viewed in the Figure/ Ground Shift model, the backward causality is very different from the forward causality with because-clauses. Clauses introduced by backward causal connectives function as the Ec in the causative situation while those introduced by forward causal connectives as the Er. In the former case, either the Ec or the Er can receive the focus, depending on the causal connectives used. Thus, there is a Figure/ 72
- NGUYEN TU NHI Ground Shift in this type of causality in English. Meanwhile, in the latter type the Er receives the focus and acts as the Figure. The similarity is that in both cases, the clauses introduced by the causal connectives receive the focus and act as the Figure, except for clauses introduced by since or as. The problem seems to be more complicated in Vietnamese. There are two possibilities in the Vietnamese translational equivalents. One is that when the correlatives are used, all the Figure/Ground functions are very similar to those of backward causality. The other is that the causal connectives vì thế, vì vậy, bởi vậy, do vậy, chính vì thế, chính vì vậy, vì lẽ are used to introduce the Er and act as the Figure. However, in both cases, the Ers act as the Figure while the Ecs as the Ground. 2.2.4. Similarities and Differences between backward causality and forward causality As has been discussed, much similar to English, in Vietnamese result is nothing other than the opposite of cause. To recognize the similarities and differences between backward causality and forward causality in English and in Vietnamese, Let us look at example (17): "Nó thi hỏng vì nó học kém" [2, p.209] which is translated into English as "He failed the exams because he learned badly at shool" . This sentence is semantically equivalent to (18): "Nó học kém nên nó thi hỏng" [2, p.209] which is translated into English as "He learned badly at school, so he failed the exams". Obviously, (17) is a typical example of backward causality whereas (18) is a typical forward causality. At rst look, these two constructions have the same meaning. However, when viewed in the Figure/Ground Shift model, they both have similarities as well as differences. - Similarities Both English and Vietnamese can express backward as well as forward causality by means of causal connectives. These two dimensions of causality are presented in three domains, namely content domain, epistemic domain and speech act domain as proposed by Sweetser (1993). Backward causality is introduced by connectives such as because, as, since in English and "vì", "bởi", "tại", "do", "bởi vì", "tại vì" and correlatives vì...nên..., bởi... nên..., tại...nên..., bởi vì...cho nên..., do...nên..., tại vì...cho nên. .in Vietnamese. In the meantime, forward causality is introduced by so, as a result, that's why in English and either connectives vì thế, vì vậy, bởi vậy, do vậy, chính vì thế, chính vì vậy or correlatives vì...nên..., bởi...nên..., tại...nên..., bởi vì...cho nên..., do...nên..., tại vì...cho nên.. in Vietnamese. It can be seen that in the epistemic domain, in both languages the Ec acts as the Figure and the Er as the Ground in the backward causality. In contrast, the Er acts as the Figure and the Ec as the Ground in the forward causality. Meanwhile, in the speech act 73
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH... domain both languages have the Er as the Figure and the Ec as the Ground. In the content domain, with forward causality, the emphasis is on the Er. Thus, in both cases, the Eract as the Figure while the Ec as the Ground in both English and Vietnamese. - Differences Let us start with the content domain. In backward causality, in English, the emphasis can be put either on the Ec (in case of because-clauses) or on the Er (in case of since or as-clauses) depending on the causal connective used in the context. That is to say, there is a shift of Figure and Ground in the backward causality in English. In contrast, in Vietnamese, the main clause typically receives the focus and therefore functions as the Figure and the subordinate clause as the Ground. Meanwhile, in forward causality, though in both English and Vietnamese, the Er often receives the focus and acts as the Figure in English. Yet, the forward causality in English can also be expressed in Vietnamese by means of the correlatives mentioned above. Thus, there is Figure/Ground Shift similar to that in the backward causality. In consideration of epistemic domain and speech act domain, though the Figure/ Ground model is similar between the two languages, differences occur with each language as per the dimension of causality: backward causality and forward causality. Whereas the Ec acts as the Figure and the Er as the Ground in the backward causality, the Er acts as the Figure and the Ec as the Ground in the forward causality. In short, this subsection is closed by suggesting a dissimilarity between English and Vietnamese in terms of the way cause-effect (fact-cause or result cause) relationship is realized: while in Vietnamese the way both markers (one of cause, the other of result) are combined together within the framework of a causative construction to show the relationship is very common, in English, on the contrary, only either cause marker or result one can be used within a causative construction to express the same relationship, though emphatic effect of course, may vary distinguishably. The table below summarizes causal connectives in English in contrast with Vietnamese corresponding elements: Table 1: Common causal connectives in English and Vietnamese Dimension of causality Backward causality Forward causality Languages in C. A English Simple conjunctions: Therefore, so, as a result, because, as, since, for; that's why, consequently, as a consequence 74
- NGUYEN TU NHI Table 2 below presents Figure/Ground Shift models in backward causality and forward causality in English and Vietnamese: Table 2: Figure/Ground Shift models for backward causality and forward causality in English and Vietnamese. D.o.C Backward Causality Forward Causality Content Epistemic Speech Content Epistemic Speech Languages Act Act of C. A Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er Ec Er English F/G G/F F G G F G F G F G F Vietnamese G F F G G F G F G F G F Note: D.o.C: Dimension of causality 3. Conclusion and Suggested Solutions 3.1. Conclusion English and Vietnamese both have connectives to express causal relations. The causal connectives may be used in three domains: content domain, epistemic domain, and speech act domain. Causative constructions formed by these causal connectives may be sub-divided into two types: backward causality and forward causality, depending on the order of the Ec and the Er. Viewed in the Figure/Ground Shift model, in the backward causality, emphasis is put on the Ec. Thus, the Ec acts as Figure and the Er as the Ground in constructions using because. There is a Figure- Ground shift in causative constructions with since or as where the Er receives the emphasis and thus acts as the Figure and cedes the Ground function to the Ec. In contrast, in Vietnamese, the main clause receives the focus and acts as the Figure, the subordinate clause as the Ground. Unlike backward causality, forward causality always sets the focus on the Er; thus, the Er acts as the Figure and the Ec as the Ground. The Vietnamese translational equivalents suggest that emphasis is also put on the Er; the Er therefore acts as the Figure, the Ec as the Ground. This ts in very well with Talmy's cause-result principle. 3.2. Suggested Solutions The fact that causative constructions with causal connectives may be used in three domains: content-domain, epistemic-domain, and speech act domain. Dif culties may be encountered by Vietnamese learners of English with this type of causative constructions. For instance, there may be a shift from one domain to another when a comma is added. The causal connective because is used in the content-domain in: John came back because he loved her. This could be shifted to the epistemic domain with the interference of a comma and could be taken as meaning that I conclude that he must have come 75
- A STUDY OF CAUSAL CONNECTIVES IN ENGLISH... back, because I know that he loved her: John came back, because he loved her. Thus, the Vietnamese translational version: Vì lẽ yêu cô ấy nên John đã quay trở lại is not satisfactory. What is more, in uenced by the causal connectives being used in the speech act domain in English, Vietnamese learners of English sometimes produce inappropriate translational versions . For instance, they may literally produce such version as "Tối nay bạn có làm gì không bởi vì ở rạp chiếu phim hay" instead of directly expressing the speech act in the message "Tối nay ở rạp chiếu phim hay. Chúng mình đi xem phim nhé" for the English causative constructions: What are you doing tonight, because there's a good movie on. Since correlative conjunctions are used in Vietnamese , Vietnamese learners of English may be affected by the transfer, which brings negative impact in the translational versions. With the use of these correlatives, there may be a Figure/Ground shift in the Vietnamese translational equivalents, which unexpectedly fail to convey the correct message from the speaker. Let us have a look at the following example: Vì nó học kém nên nó thi hỏng. [2, p.209] He failed the exam because he did badly at school. In the Vietnamese version, the emphasis is put on the result: nó thi hỏng whereas in English, the emphasis is shifted to the cause or reason: because he did badly at school. In order to improve their understanding of causative constructions with causal connectives so as to avoid potential mistakes in translation, interpretation and communication, Vietnamese learners of English should be well equipped with knowledge about Figure/Ground shift in causative constructions. More speci cally, they should be aware of the Figure/Ground shift in different domain use of causal connectives as well as in different types of causality: backward causality and forward causality. What is more important, as English people say: “Practice makes perfect”, it is necessary for teachers to design exercises to consolidate the learner's knowledge of the Figure-Ground relationships and the use of causal connectives. REFERENCES [1] Altenberge (1984), Causal Linking in Spoken and Written English, Studia Linguistica 38. [2] Diệp Quang Ban (2004), Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, NXB. Giáo dục. [3] Chalker, Sylvia (1984), Current English Grammar, London: Mac Millan. [4] Cobuild, Collin (1990), English Grammar, Rupa & Co. [5] Frawley, W. (1992), Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 76
- NGUYEN TU NHI [6] Herschenson (1981), Causatives: Restructuring, Opacity, Filters and construal, Linguistic Analysis. [7] Sanders, Ted J.M. (1997), Coherence, Causality and Cognitive Complexity in Discourse, Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands. [8] Sweetser, E. (1993), From Etymology to Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press. [9] Talmy Leonard (2000a), Toward a Cognitive Semantics - Vol.I., The MIT Press. [10] Lý Toàn Thắng (2005), Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận- Từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn tiếng Việt, NXB. Khoa học xã hội. NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC TỪ NỐI CHỈ NGUYÊN NHÂN TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT TRONG MỐI QUAN HỆ HÌNH/NỀN NGUYỄN TÚ NHI Trường Đại học Phạm Văn Đồng, Quảng Ngãi Tóm tắt: Các cấu trúc chỉ nguyên nhân-kết quả rất phổ biến và có thể được thể hiện bằng các phương tiện ngôn ngữ khác nhau. Bản chất của nguyên nhân được thể hiện qua các phương tiện khác nhau dưới ánh sáng của ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận. Việc lựa chọn một cấu trúc chỉ nhân-quả này hoặc cấu trúc nhân-quả khác có thể khác nhau giữa tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt. Sự khác biệt này có thể mang lại tác động tiêu cực trong chuyển dịch ngôn ngữ và người học thường không truyền đạt mối quan hệ nguyên nhân giữa các tham tố trong cùng một bối cảnh. Quan trọng hơn, sự khác biệt này phản ánh khác biệt giữa các nền văn hóa trong sử dụng cấu trúc chỉ nguyên nhân-kết quả. Trong bài viết này, các cấu trúc nguyên nhân-kết quả sẽ được thảo luận và phân tích. "Quan hệ nhân-quả tiến và quan hệ nhân-quả lùi được thảo luận theo quan điểm của mối quan hệ Hình/Nề̀n để tìm ra những điểm tương đồng và sự khác biệt giữa chúng. Sau đó, chúng tôi đề xuất một số giải pháp cho người học tiếng Anh để sử dụng hợp lý mối liên hệ nhân quả trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt. Từ khóa: Ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận, mối quan hệ Hình/Nền, từ nối nguyên nhân- kết quả. 77
Chính trị học
Báo chí - Truyền thông
Xã hội học
Giáo dục học
Tâm lý học
Lịch sử - Văn hoá
Triết học
Ngôn ngữ học
Thư viện thông tin
Văn học nước ngoài
Ngư nghiệp
Hành chính - Pháp luật
Địa lý - Địa danh
Văn học Việt nam
Lịch sử Đảng
CNXH - KH
Tư Tưởng HCM
Ngụ ngôn - Cổ tích
Ca dao - Tục ngữ
Hoá học
Sinh học
Y khoa - Dược
Kinh tế học