Information about the doctoral dissertation of PhD candidate Nguyen Van Tiep: A Comparative Study of Diplomatic Terminology in English and Vietnamese

1. Full name of doctoral candidate: Nguyen Van Tiep 2. Gender: Male

3. Date of birth: October 13, 1988 4. Place of birth: Thai Nguyen

5. Decision on admission of doctoral students: Decision No. 2775/2020/QD-XHNV dated December 31, 2020, of the Rector of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

6. Changes in the training process: Decision No. 9468/QD-XHNV extending the study period until December 31, 2026, by the Rector of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

7. Thesis Title: A Comparative Study of Diplomatic Terminology in English and Vietnamese

8. Specialization: Comparative and Contrastive Linguistics 9. Code: 9229020.03

10. Scientific supervisors: Prof. Dr. Le Quang Thiem; Dr. Pham Thi Thuy Hong

11. Summary of the new findings of the thesis:

11.1. Purpose and scope of the thesis

11.1.1. Research objectives of the thesis

Based on the collection, description, analysis, and comparison of diplomatic terminology systems in English and Vietnamese, this thesis aims to clarify the similarities and differences between the two terminology systems in two main aspects: structure and naming. Through this, the thesis contributes to supplementing data for terminology research and comparative linguistics, while also providing useful references for teaching, learning, research, translation, dictionary compilation, and standardization of English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology.

11.1.2. Research Subject of the Thesis

The subject of this dissertation is the diplomatic terminology system in English and Vietnamese. Based on unified identification and screening criteria, the dissertation establishes a corpus of 1350 English diplomatic terms and 1317 Vietnamese diplomatic terms, collected from dictionaries, specialized reference materials, textbooks, diplomatic documents, agreements, diplomatic notes, communiqués, legal documents, journals, and other relevant specialized sources. The research scope focuses on two dimensions: structure and nomenclature. At the structural level, the dissertation examines the form and type of structure, word class characteristics, number of term components, and structural models. At the nomenclature level, the dissertation examines the nomenclature type, methods of representation, distinguishing features, nomenclature models, and some conceptual metaphor source domains recorded in the corpus.

11.2. Research methods used

This thesis uses a descriptive method to identify, classify, and clarify the structural and identifying characteristics of diplomatic terminology in each language. A comparative method is used as the central approach: two corpora, English and Vietnamese, are examined relatively independently, then placed in a comparative relationship based on the same criteria, thereby identifying similarities and differences at the systemic level without assuming that all terms must form equivalent English-Vietnamese pairs in a 1:1 relationship.

The direct component analysis method is applied to identify constituent components, relationships between components, the degree of structure, and the structural models of terminology. For cases with signs of metaphorical semantic shift, the thesis applies conceptual metaphor identification analysis, referencing the principles of MIP/MIPVU and adjusting them to suit the characteristics of the terminology corpus, thereby determining the basic meaning, specialized meaning, source domain, target domain, and mapping relationships. In addition, statistical and modeling techniques are used to quantify the distribution and generalize the prominent patterns in the two terminology systems.

11.3. Main results and conclusions

11.3.1. Main results

Firstly, the thesis has systematized theoretical and practical issues related to terminology, term formation, comparative linguistics, nomenclature, and conceptual metaphor; and simultaneously established a relatively unified set of criteria for identifying, screening, and analyzing English and Vietnamese diplomatic terminology. Within the scope of the researched literature, the thesis shows that systematic comparative research on English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology across the dimensions of structure, nomenclature, and some conceptual metaphor mechanisms still has gaps that need to be filled.

Secondly, in terms of structure, the research results show that in both terminology systems, nominal phrases predominate over terms composed of words. In English, nominal phrases comprise 906 out of 1,350 units, accounting for 67.11%; in Vietnamese, they comprise 1,135 out of 1,317 units, accounting for 86.18%. Nouns and noun phrases dominate in both systems. Considering the number of components, nominal phrases consisting of two to three components account for a very high percentage; among them, the two-component structure is the most prominent. The structural models generally adhere to the characteristic syntactic rules of each language: English mainly shows the order of subordinate-main components, while Vietnamese mainly follows the order of main-subordinate components.

Thirdly, in terms of naming, over 77% of the terms in both corpora are directly named, reflecting a preference for clarity and precision in naming specialized concepts. Over 97% of the terms have a narrow semantic scope, reflecting the high degree of specialization in the modern diplomatic terminology system. In terms of representation, analytical representation predominates in both systems, but there is a significant difference: 95.4% in Vietnamese compared to 75.89% in English. Regarding characteristics and naming models, the two systems show a high degree of similarity in the selection of characteristics such as purpose/function, nature/state, and field/specialized department. The English terminology system records 13 naming models, while the Vietnamese system has 10; Vietnamese maintains a fairly stable "main before - subordinate" order and adds a characteristic indicating a property, exemplified by the diplomatic term "bamboo".

Fourth, conceptual metaphor surveys reveal that both English and Vietnamese diplomatic terminology utilize many familiar source domains to organize and express diplomatic concepts. Prominent among these are the domains MILITARY/WAR, JOURNEY/MOTION, SPACE/TERRAIN, and ECONOMY/MARKET; alongside CONSTRUCTION, PEOPLE, GAMES, FLOWS, and several other source domains. The two terminology systems share many similarities in their mapping mechanisms, while the main differences lie in the mapping focus, the choice of lexical expressions, and the frequency of each source domain within the corpus.

Fifth, regarding its novel contribution, the thesis provides a relatively large corpus processed according to unified criteria; systematically clarifies the structural and naming characteristics of English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology; and combines the analysis of structural models and naming characteristics with several conceptual metaphor mechanisms. The research results add empirical evidence to the theory of terminology and comparative linguistics, and provide a basis for reference in translation, teaching, dictionary compilation, and standardization of diplomatic terminology.

11.3.2. Conclusion

The research results show that the English and Vietnamese diplomatic terminology systems share a high degree of similarity in fundamental principles of organization, structure, and naming. Both systems prioritize nominal phrases, nouns/noun phrases, structures with a small number of components, direct naming, and specialized semantic scope. However, the two systems still differ in the ratio between words and nominal phrases, word formation mechanisms, component order, level of analytical complexity, number of naming models, and the realization of certain metaphorical source domains. These differences are primarily linked to the typological characteristics and linguistic organization mechanisms of English and Vietnamese, as well as the distributional characteristics of the two surveyed corps.

Theoretically, this thesis supplements the data for research in terminology, nomenclature, and comparative linguistics. Practically, the research results can be used as a reference in teaching specialized foreign languages, diplomatic translation, dictionary compilation, building a terminology bank, and standardizing the English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology system.

12. Directions for further research:

Further research could expand the survey of diplomatic terminology to other languages ​​that play an important role in international relations, such as French, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese; delve deeper into the equivalence and translation of diplomatic terminology between languages; continue to investigate cognitive semantic mechanisms and conceptual metaphors in diplomatic languages; and apply computational linguistics and corpus research methods to build an electronic corpus and online terminology bank for research, teaching, translation, and foreign affairs activities.

13. Publications related to the dissertation:

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Comparative analysis of diplomatic terminology in English and Vietnamese: formation methods and terminological elements”, British Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 12(3), Print ISSN: 2055-6063, Online ISSN: 2055-6071, pp. 46-56.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Formative models of Vietnamese diplomat terminology”, American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 12(11), Print ISSN: 2327-6126, Online ISSN: 2327-6150, pp. 413-419.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Formative models in English diplomatic terminology: A linguistic analysis”, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Comparative Linguistics and Interlingual Comparison 2024”, Phenikaa University, Vietnam Linguistics Association, National Foreign Language Project Board - Ministry of Education and Training, ISBN: 978-604-392-377-3, pp. 1339-1348.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2025), “Contrastive analysis of diplomatic terminology in English and Vietnamese”, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “On Social Sciences and Humanities Issues (Third Edition)”, University of Social Sciences and Humanities - Vietnam National University, Hanoi, ISBN: 978-604-43-4874-2, pp. 542-551.

INFORMATION ON DOCTORAL THESIS

1. Full name: NGUYEN VAN TIEP 2. Sex: Male

3. Date of birth: October 13, 1988 4. Place of birth: Thai Nguyen

5. Admission decision number: 2775/2020/QD-XHNV dated December 31, 2020 by University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

6. Changes in academic process (if any): Decision No. 9468/QD-XHNV issued by the Rector of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, on the extension of the study period until December 31, 2026.

7. Official thesis title: A Contrastive Study of Diplomatic Terminology in English and Vietnamese

8. Major: Comparative - Contrastive Linguistics 9. Code: 9229020.03

10. Supervisors: Prof.Dr. Le Quang Thiem; Dr. Pham Thi Thuy Hong

11. Summary of the new findings of the thesis

11.1. Purpose and research object of the thesis

11.1.1. Research purpose of the thesis

On the basis of collecting, describing, analyzing and contrasting diplomatic terminology in English and Vietnamese, the thesis aims to identify the major similarities and differences between the two terminological systems with respect to two principal dimensions: formation and nomination. In doing so, the study provides additional empirical evidence for terminology studies and comparative-contrastive linguistics, while offering useful references for teaching, learning, research, translation, dictionary compilation and the standardization of English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology.

11.1.2. Research object of the thesis

The research object is the system of diplomatic terms in English and Vietnamese. On the basis of consistent criteria for identification and screening, the thesis establishes a corpus of 1350 English diplomatist terms and 1317 Vietnamese diplomatist terms. The data were collected from specialized dictionaries and reference works, textbooks, diplomatic documents, agreements, diplomatic notes, communiqués, legal documents, journals and other relevant specialized sources. The study focuses on two dimensions: formation and nomination. The formation analysis covers structural types, parts of speech, numbers of terminological elements and formation models. The nomination analysis examines types of nomination, modes of expression, distinctive features, nomination models and selected conceptual-metaphor source domains attested in the corpus.

11.2. Research methods

The descriptive method is employed to identify, classify and clarify the formation and nomination characteristics of diplomatic terms in each language. The contrastive method serves as the central research method: the English and Vietnamese corpora are first examined relatively independently and are then compared against the same set of criteria, thereby allowing similarities and differences to be established at the systemic level without assuming that all terms must form one-to-one English-Vietnamese equivalents.

Immediate constituent analysis is used to determine structural components, relations among components, levels of formation and recurrent formation models. For terms showing signs of metaphorical semantic transfer, the thesis applies conceptual-metaphor identification with reference to MIP/MIPVU principles, adapted to terminological data, in order to determine basic meanings, specialized meanings, source domains, target domains and mapping relations. Statistical and modeling techniques are also employed to quantify distributional patterns and generalize the major regularities found in the two terminological systems.

11.3. Major results and conclusions

11.3.1. Major results

First, the thesis systematises theoretical and practical issues relating to terminology studies, term formation, contrastive linguistics, nomination and conceptual metaphor, and establishes a relatively consistent set of criteria for identifying, screening and analyzing English and Vietnamese diplomat terminology. Within the body of literature reviewed, the study identifies a remaining gap in systematic English-Vietnamese contrastive research that integrates term formation, nomination and selected conceptual-metaphor mechanisms.

Second, with regard to formation, nominal groups are more prevalent than single-word terms in both systems. English contains 906 nominal groups out of 1350 terms (67.11%), whereas Vietnamese contains 1135 nominal groups out of 1317 terms (86.18%). Nouns and noun phrases predominate in both corpora. In terms of the number of terminological elements, two- and three-element structures account for the overwhelming majority, with two-element structures being the most prominent. Formation models generally conform to the syntactic patterns of the respective languages: English typically places modifiers before heads, while Vietnamese predominantly follows the head-before-modifier order.

Third, in terms of nomination, more than 77% of the terms in each corpus are directly nominated, indicating a strong preference for transparency and precision in naming specialized diplomat concepts. More than 97% of the terms have a narrow semantic scope, reflecting the high degree of specialization characteristic of modern diplomat terminology. Analytic expression predominates in both systems but is markedly more frequent in Vietnamese (95.4%) than in English (75.89%). The two systems show considerable similarity in the selection of distinctive features such as purpose/function, quality/state and field/specialized unit. The English corpus exhibits 13 nomination models, compared with 10 in Vietnamese; Vietnamese maintains a highly stable head-before-modifier order and additionally displays a distinctive-feature pattern exemplified by the term bamboo diplomacy.

Fourth, the conceptual-metaphor analysis shows that English and Vietnamese diplomat terminology draws on a range of familiar source domains to structure and express diplomat concepts. The most prominent domains include MILITARY/WAR, JOURNEY/MOTION, SPACE/TERRAIN and ECONOMY/MARKET, together with BUILDING, HUMAN BEING, GAME, FLOW and several other source domains. The two systems share many mapping mechanisms, while differences are mainly found in mapping focus, lexical realization and the frequency of particular source domains in the respective corpora.

Fifth, as its main contribution, the thesis provides a relatively large dataset processed according to consistent criteria; scientifically clarifies the formation and nomination characteristics of English and Vietnamese diplomatic terminology; and combines the analysis of formation models and nomination features with selected conceptual-metaphor mechanisms. The findings add empirical evidence to terminology studies and contrastive linguistics and provide a useful basis for translation, specialized-language teaching, dictionary compilation and the standardization of diplomatic terminology.

11.3.2. Conclusions

The findings demonstrate a high degree of similarity between English and Vietnamese diplomat terminology in the fundamental principles governing formation and nomination. Both systems favor nominal groups, nouns and noun phrases, structures with relatively few elements, direct nomination and specialized semantic scope. At the same time, differences remain in the relative proportions of words and nominal groups, word-formation mechanisms, constituent order, degree of analytic expression, number of nomination models and the linguistic realization of certain conceptual-metaphor source domains. These differences are mainly associated with the typological characteristics and organizational mechanisms of English and Vietnamese, as well as with the distributional properties of the two corpora.

Theoretically, the thesis contributes additional data to terminology studies, nomination research and comparative-contrastive linguistics. Practically, its results can serve as reference material for specialized foreign-language teaching, diplomatic translation, dictionary compilation, bilingual terminology-bank development and the standardization of English-Vietnamese diplomatic terminology.

12. Further research directions

Future studies may extend the investigation of diplomatic terminology to other languages ​​of major importance in international relations, such as French, Russian, Chinese and Japanese; examine equivalence and translation of diplomatic terminology in greater depth; further investigate cognitive-semantic and conceptual-metaphor mechanisms in diplomatic language; and apply computational linguistics and corpus-based methods to build electronic diplomat-terminology corpora and online terminology banks for research, teaching, translation and diplomat practice.

13. Thesis-related publications

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Comparative analysis of diplomatic terminology in English and Vietnamese: formation methods and terminological elements”, British Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 12(3), Print ISSN: 2055-6063, Online ISSN: 2055-6071, pp. 46-56.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Formative models of Vietnamese diplomat terminology”, American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 12(11), Print ISSN: 2327-6126, Online ISSN: 2327-6150, pp. 413-419.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2024), “Formative models in English diplomatic terminology: A linguistic analysis”, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Contrastive Linguistics and Cross-Linguistic Comparison 2024”, Phenikaa University, Linguistic Society of Vietnam, National Foreign Languages ​​Project - Ministry of Education and Training, ISBN: 978-604-392-377-3, pp. 1339-1348.

- Nguyen Van Tiep (2025), “Contrastive analysis of diplomatic terminology in English and Vietnamese”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Social Sciences and Humanities - Vietnam National University, Hanoi, ISBN: 978-604-43-4874-2, pp. 542-551.