The Sino-Vietnamese Negative Prefixes bất, vô, phi and Their Coexistence with Sentential Negators: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic and diachronic analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese negative prefixes bất (Chinese 不 bù), vô (無 wú), and phi (非 fēi), examining their historical development and modern usage in Vietnamese, with a comparative perspective on their Chinese equivalents. By investigating the interaction between these prefixes and Vietnamese sentential negators—such as the native chẳng and the Chinese-derived không—the study explores the evolution of negation in Vietnamese over several centuries. The research draws on a corpus of three bilingual Classical Chinese–Vietnamese translations of Confucius’s Analects from the 17th, 19th, and 21st centuries, two written in traditional Nôm script and one in the modern Quốc ngữ alphabet. This corpus provides valuable insights into linguistic shifts driven by language contact in Vietnam. The findings reveal that in the 17th century, the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes bất, vô, and phi were largely absent, with native chẳng dominating. By the 19th century, chẳng persisted, but không emerged as a sentential negator, and bất appeared, both reflecting Chinese forms and demonstrating innovative uses. In the 21st century, không became the dominant negator, with bất and vô seeing increased usage, reflecting broader trends of linguistic modernization. This study situates these changes within the broader context of 20th-century East Asian literacy expansion, where Japan played a pivotal role in disseminating modernized Chinese-based vocabulary. By examining the selective adaptation and integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of language contact, syntactic influence, and lexical innovation in the evolving Vietnamese lexicon.

1. Introduction

This paper investigates the Sino-Vietnamese negative prefixes bất, vô, and phi, tracing their historical development and modern usage in Vietnamese, while comparing them with their Chinese counterparts 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi. Although significant work exists on Sino-Vietnamese linguistic interaction (Haudricourt, 2010; Hashimoto, 1978; T. C. Nguyễn, 1979; Alves, 2007a, 2007b, 2017; Shimizu, 2017, a.o.), less attention has been paid to the specific evolution of these negative prefixes and their interaction with native Vietnamese sentential negators like chẳng and the Chinese-derived không. This study seeks to address this gap by focusing on both the synchronic and diachronic changes in the Vietnamese negation system.

1.1. The Vietnamese Negation System

Vietnamese negation operates on two levels: sentential and lexical. At the sentential level, contemporary Vietnamese primarily uses không as the standard negator1, which originates from the Chinese word 空 kōng ‘empty, void’ (P. P. Nguyễn, 1994; Trinh, 2005; Phan, 2023). However, không only became a sentential negator in the late 17th century (Phan et al., 2024), whereas chẳng, a native negator, was dominant before the mid-19th century. By the 19th and 20th centuries, không overtook chẳng as the primary negator in Vietnamese (Trinh et al., 2024).

At the lexical level, Sino-Vietnamese prefixes like bất, vô, and phi have been productive in forming negative adjectives, nouns, and verbs (Alves, 2007a, 2007b). However, little research has explored when these prefixes became productive in Vietnamese or how they interact with sentential negators such as không and chẳng. This paper provides a detailed analysis of how these negative prefixes evolved and how they coexist and compete with native negators in the Vietnamese language.

1.2. Why Focus on Vietnamese Translations of the Analects?

A key contribution of this study is its analysis of three bilingual Classical Chinese–Vietnamese translations of Confucius’s Analects from the 17th, 19th, and 21st centuries. The Analects (論語 Lúnyǔ), a cornerstone of Confucian philosophy, had a profound cultural and linguistic influence in both China and Vietnam (Lau, 1979; Ames & Rosemont, 1998; Gardner, 2003). These translations, two written in the traditional character-based Nôm script and one in the modern Quốc ngữ alphabet, offer a unique opportunity to observe how Sino-Vietnamese prefixes (bất, vô, phi) were integrated into Vietnamese alongside native negators like chẳng and không. By analyzing this corpus, we can observe patterns of linguistic coexistence, competition, and innovation, revealing shifts in negation usage over time.

1.3. Chinese Negators and Their Vietnamese Adaptations

In the history of Chinese, 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi have been used as core negators at both the sentential and lexical levels (Pulleyblank, 1995; Li & Thompson, 1981). When these elements were borrowed into Vietnamese, they were restricted to word formation, functioning only as prefixes to form negative adjectives, nouns, and verbs. In contrast, Vietnamese relied on native negators such as chẳng, with không later incorporated from Chinese. As a result, in Vietnamese translations of Chinese texts, translators utilized both Sino-Vietnamese prefixes and sentential negators to accurately maintain the original meaning.

1.4. Classical Chinese and the Evolution of Literary Sinitic in East Asia

‘Classical Chinese’ is used to refer to the form of written Chinese used in classical texts from the late Spring and Autumn period to the Han Dynasty (roughly corresponding to Peyraube’s (1996) ‘Late Archaic Chinese’), including Confucius’s Analects. These texts, particularly the Confucian classics, shaped the intellectual history of East Asia. In English-language Sinology, the terms ‘Classical Chinese’ and ‘Literary Chinese’ have been traditionally used to describe this variety and the written variety modeled on the classics which was used in later epochs (i.e., since the first century CE, known in Chinese as 文言 wényán), respectively. Mair (2004) introduced the term ’Literary Sinitic‘ to replace ‘Classical Chinese’ or ‘Literary Chinese’. In a recently published work, King (2021) proposed using the new term ‘Literary Sinitic’ to both refer to the term of wényán used in modern Chinese, and also to refer to the concept of 漢文 hànwén in other East Asian countries (kanbun in Japan, hammun in Korea, and Hán văn in Vietnam) because Literary Sinitic is the most important linguistic feature of classical texts in East Asian countries.

In Vietnam, Chinese characters were introduced during the Nam Việt 南越 kingdom period (203–111 BCE) and became entrenched during the Chinese domination of 交州 Jiāozhōu/Giao Châu (modern-day northern Vietnam) from 179 BCE to 938 CE (T. C. Nguyễn & Bùi, 2020). By the 8th and 9th centuries, under the influence of the Chinese language in Tang dynasty, the Hán-Việt (Sino-Vietnamese) reading system emerged, a system that remains in use today (T. C. Nguyễn, 1979; Phan, 2013, 2025)2. After Vietnam’s independence, Chinese characters (chữ Hán) remained the official script for administrative documents. The Confucian civil service examination system (1075–1919) ensured the continued mastery of Literary Sinitic, allowing scholars to compose official documents and literary works in this written variety. Surveys show that the nine most important Confucian classics, including the Analects, were all translated into Vietnamese and recorded in chữ Nôm during the monarchal period (T. C. Nguyễn, 2016). These translations, along with later versions in Quốc ngữ, cemented wényán’s long-standing impact on Vietnamese linguistic and intellectual history.

Choosing the Analects for this study offers several advantages. First, its mix of dialogue, narrative, and didactic passages provides a rich array of syntactic environments in which negation appears. Second, the availability of translations of the Analects from the 17th, 19th, and 21st centuries provides a well-spaced corpus for examining linguistic change over time. Third, its broad dissemination—first via woodblock printing and later through modern editions—means these versions were read by diverse audiences, helping us gauge both scholarly and popular language use.

1.5. Aims and Main Findings

The primary objective of this study is to offer a synchronic and diachronic analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese negative prefixes bất, vô, and phi, comparing their usage with their Chinese equivalents. It also explores the interaction between these prefixes and sentential negators, revealing patterns of linguistic coexistence and innovation.

Our key findings are as follows:

(i)

17th-Century Native Dominance: In the 17th-century translation, chẳng dominates the negation system, with no occurrences of the prefixes bất, vô, or phi, reflecting the dominance of indigenous negators during this period.

(ii)

19th-Century Transition: By the 19th century, while chẳng remains prevalent, không emerges as a sentential negator. This period also sees the appearance of bất, which corresponds directly to Chinese forms (e.g., bất nhân 不仁) or appears in innovative formations (e.g., bất tài 不才), signaling the increasing influence of Chinese on Vietnamese negation patterns.

(iii)

21st-Century ‘Modernization’: In the 21st-century translation, không becomes the dominant negator, and there is a notable increase in the use of bất, vô, and phi, reflecting broader innovative trends in Vietnamese. This shift is part of the broader linguistic and cultural ‘modernization’ of East Asia, influenced by Japan’s role in transmitting modernized Chinese characters through reformist writings (Sinh, 1993).

Structure of the Paper

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the Chinese negative prefixes 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi in Classical Chinese and their development in (Modern Standard) Mandarin. Section 3 focuses on the modern usage of bất, vô, and phi in Vietnamese, particularly on their interaction with native negators like chẳng and không. Section 4 introduces the historical corpus, and Section 5 presents a diachronic analysis of the three bilingual Analects translations. Section 6 discusses the broader implications of these findings and suggests future research directions.

2. 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi in Chinese

Chinese negation involves a nuanced system of items that have undergone significant changes throughout the history of the language. Among the most central negators are 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi, which have played key roles at both the sentential and lexical levels. This section focuses on their use and evolution from Classical Chinese to Modern Standard Mandarin, providing crucial context for understanding their adaptation into Vietnamese.

2.1. Classical Chinese

Given that the translations of the Analects chosen for this study are bilingual—featuring both Vietnamese and Classical Chinese—understanding the role of these negators in Classical Chinese is essential.

2.1.1. Verbless Nominal Predication: 非 fēi

In Classical Chinese, 非 fēi was commonly used to negate nominal predicates in verbless sentences. Unlike copular verbs in other languages, fēi is not considered a verb but rather a particle that negates the predicate directly (see Vogelsang, 2021). This structure, which was well established in the Classical period, became a defining feature of nominal negation throughout Premodern Chinese.

An example of fēi in a nominal predication may be found in the Mencius:

(1)	非	我	也，	兵	也
	fēi	wǒ	yě,	bīng	yě
	NEG	1SG	PTC,	weapon	PTC
	‘It was not I, it was the weapon’. (Mencius; Pulleyblank, 1995, p. 16)

In this example, fēi negates the subject 我 wǒ (‘I’), contrasting it with 兵 bīng (‘weapon’). The particle 也 yě is often omitted in negative clauses, in the Classical language.

In another example from the Zhuangzi, the nominal negation is simpler, and fēi serves again as the main negator:

(2)	子	非	魚
	zǐ	fēi	yú
	2SG	NEG	fish
	‘You are not a fish’. (Vogelsang, 2021, p. 34)

Here, fēi negates the subject–predicate relationship directly, contrasting 子zǐ (‘you’) with 魚yú (‘fish’). The use of fēi in this manner highlights its role in creating binary contrasts in Classical Chinese.

Historically, 非 fēi evolved from the phrase 不唯 bù wéi, where bù functioned as a negator and 唯 wéi acted as an emphatic particle. Over time, 不唯 bù wéi ceased to be used, and 非 fēi became the standard form of nominal negation (Vogelsang, 2021, p. 32). Grammarians differ in their classification of 非 fēi: some treat it as a particle rather than an adverb (e.g., Guo et al., 1999), which makes it unique among negators in Chinese (Vogelsang, 2021).

2.1.2. Verbal Predication: 不 bù

Unlike 非 fēi, which negates nominal predicates, 不 bù is primarily used to negate verbal predicates. In Classical Chinese, and up until the stage of Modern Chinese, bù played a central role in negating actions and states. It could negate verbs and adjectives.

Consider the following example from the Mencius, where 不 bù negates the verb 見 jiàn (‘see’):

(3)	就	之	而	不	見	所	畏	焉
	jiù	zhī	ér	bù	jiàn	suǒ	wèi	yān
	approach	3SG	and	NEG	see	NMLZ	fear	PTC
	‘Going up to him, I did not see anything to fear in him’.
			(Mencius; Pulleyblank, 1995, p. 29)

Here, bù directly negates the act of seeing, marking the absence of the action. This example illustrates the broad applicability of bù to verbal negation in Chinese.

Additionally, 不 bù is used to negate adjectives, which are sometimes classified as stative/property verbs in Chinese. The following example shows the negation of an adjective:

(4)	日	月	不	高
	rì	yuè	bù	gāo
	sun	moon	NEG	high
	‘The sun and moon are not high’. (Vogelsang, 2021, p. 45)

In this example, 不 bù negates the adjective gāo (高, ‘high’), treating it as a stative verb. This reflects the flexibility of 不 bù in Classical Chinese, as it can negate both actions and states.

2.1.3. Possessive and Existential Negation: 無 wú

The third negator we considered in the present study is 無 wú, which negates possession or existence. In Classical Chinese, 無wú was used to negate existential or possessive predicates, distinguishing it from 不 bù, which negates actions or states.

For example, in the following sentence, wú negates the existence of ‘gentlemen’:

(5)	無	君子，	莫	治	野人
	wú	jūnzǐ,	mò	zhì	yěrén
	NEG	gentleman,	no one	rule	rustic-person
	‘If there were no gentlemen, there would be no one to rule the rustics’.
		(Mencius; Pulleyblank, 1995, p. 29)

Here, wú negates the existence of 君子 jūnzǐ ‘gentleman’, building a conditional clause about governance.

2.2. Modern Standard Mandarin

In Modern Standard Mandarin, the negators 不 bù, 沒 méi, and 無 wú have developed distinct syntactic functions, each associated with specific contexts of negation. This section explores how these negators operate in the modern language and compares their roles to their counterparts in Classical Chinese. This comparison is essential for understanding the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes bất, vô, and phi and their integration into Vietnamese linguistic structures.

2.2.1. Irrealis Negation: 不 bù

In Modern Standard Mandarin, 不 bù functions as the general negator for irrealis predicates, negating both verbs and adjectives. This is similar to its role in Classical Chinese, where bù negates verbs and adjectives directly, without the need for additional auxiliaries. Just as in Classical Chinese, predicative adjectives are sometimes conflated with verbs in the literature (see, e.g., Li & Thompson, 1981), but the criteria for distinguishing them from verbs are somewhat clearer in the modern language (see, e.g., Arcodia, 2012).

Example (6) illustrates the negation of an adjectival predicate:

(6)	張三	不	高
	Zhāngsān	bù	gāo
	Zhangsan	NEG	tall
	‘Zhangsan isn’t tall’.

Bù is also used to negate the copula 是 shì, as in example (7):

(7)	張三	不	是	日本人
	Zhāngsān	bù	shì	Rìběn-rén
	Zhangsan	NEG	COP	Japan-person
	‘Zhangsan is not Japanese’.

Here, bù negates the copula 是 shì, used in nominal predication. In Classical Chinese, fēi would have been used in such cases, without a copula (see Exx. 1–2). In Modern Standard Mandarin, 非 fēi is used only in lexical items and conventionalized constructions, while bù serves as the general negator for the copula.

Bù is also the general irrealis negator for verbs, as may be seen in example (8):

(8)	我	不	去
	wǒ	bù	qù
	1SG	NEG	go
	‘I’m not going’.

In this sentence, the verb 去 qù (‘go’) is negated by bù. The pattern is similar to that found in Classical Chinese verbal negation, such as in example (3) from the Mencius.

2.2.2. Realis Negation: 没(有) méi(yǒu)

In contrast to 不 bù, 沒(有) méi(yǒu) is used to negate realis predicates: while bù covers irrealis contexts, 没 méi is mostly used to negate the occurrence of past episodic events.

For example, in (9):

(9)	我	没	去
	wǒ	méi	qù
	1SG	NEG	go
	‘I didn’t go’.

Here, 没 méi negates the occurrence of the action of going. This differs from 不 bù, which negates a habitual or future event (compare Ex. 8).

Méi is also used as the existential negator: in (10), it negates the existential predicate 空 kòng (‘free time’):

(10)	今天	我	没	空
	jīntiān	wǒ	méi	kòng
	today	1SG	NEG	free time
	‘I don’t have time today’.

In this case, 沒 méi negates the existence of free time, much like 無 wú in Classical Chinese negates existence or possession, as example (5) above. However, in Modern Standard Mandarin, 沒 méi is also the primary negator for realis situations, especially when discussing past episodic events (9).

2.2.3. Word Formation

In contemporary standard Mandarin Chinese, the negators 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi play crucial roles not only in sentence-level negation but also in word formation, particularly in creating derived adjectives and nouns.

For instance, 不 bù is frequently used to form adjectives by negating the base adjective or noun. In example (11), 不 bù combines with 安 ān (‘peace’) to form 不安 bù’ān (‘uneasy’), a predicative adjective that describes an emotional state:

(11)	他	很	不安
	tā	hěn	bù’ān
	3SG.M	very	uneasy
	‘He’s feeling (very) uneasy’.

This pattern, where 不 bù is prefixed to an adjective or noun, demonstrates how 不 bù functions as a productive prefix in forming descriptive adjectives. However, 不 bù very often creates non-predicative adjectives, e.g., 不敗 bùbài (‘invincible’); as shown in (12), such a non-predicative item cannot be used in the same predicative construction seen just above (11).

(12)	*他	很	不敗
	tā	hěn	bùbài
	3SG.M	very	invincible
	(Meaning:) ‘He’s (very) invincible’.

Similarly, 無wú serves as a negator in morphologically complex words, typically indicating the absence of possession or attributes. In (13), for example, wú combines with 糖 táng (‘sugar’) to form 無糖 wútáng (‘sugar-free’), a non-predicative adjective designating a food product lacking sugar:

(13)	無糖
	wútáng
	NEG sugar
	‘sugar-free’

In this case, 無 wú negates the noun 糖 táng, creating morphologically complex words that describe what something lacks, which is common in terms that describe attributes or states. Similarly to 不 bù, it can be sometimes used also to form predicative adjectives (e.g., 無力 wúlì ‘powerless’), and we can find it also in nouns, again describing something lacking a property (e.g., 無產者 wúchǎnzhě ‘proletarian’, lit. ‘one who lacks properties’).

非 fēi, on the other hand, is used to form words that imply negation of a property, such as 非會員 fēihuìyuán (‘non-member’). This prefix can form nouns, as 非會員 fēihuìyuán, but also non-predicative adjectives, both by combining with nouns (e.g., 非貿易 fēimàoyì ‘non-commercial’) and with adjectives (非官方 fēiguānfāng ‘unofficial’; see Arcodia, 2012).

These examples of word formation highlight how negators in Mandarin Chinese are used not only to negate verbal or adjectival predicates but also to create new lexical items. In both Classical and Modern Chinese, 不 bù, 非 fēi, and 無 wú serve distinct but related functions in negating actions, states, and existence. While 不 bù continues to dominate verbal and adjectival negation in modern Mandarin, and is also used in word formation, wú and méi have evolved specific functions, with 無 wú primarily used in lexical negation and méi in syntactic negation; 非 fēi is generally confined to word formation, in the modern language. These negators provide a foundation for understanding how Sino-Vietnamese prefixes like bất, vô, and phi were integrated into the Vietnamese lexicon.

In the following section, we examine how these elements, after being introduced into Vietnamese, interact with sentential negators like chẳng and không. By analyzing the Vietnamese translations of Confucius’s Analects, we explore how Sino-Vietnamese negative prefixes coexist with sentential negative markers, setting the stage for the development of Vietnamese negation systems.

3. Bất, vô, and phi in Present-Day Vietnamese

A crucial distinction between the Chinese negators 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi and their Vietnamese counterparts bất, vô, and phi lies in their syntactic scope. In Chinese, 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi function at both the sentential and lexical levels, whereas in contemporary Vietnamese, bất, vô, and phi are restricted to word formation (i.e., to the lexical level) and co-exist with independent sentential negators. This distinction is central to understanding how negation operates in Vietnamese, and how it diverges from its Chinese origins.

In present-day Vietnamese, negation is expressed through both sentential negators and negative prefixes. There are two primary sentential negators: không, which is derived from Chinese 空kōng and functions as the standard negator, and chẳng, a native negator that is considered non-standard and often adds an emphatic or non-neutral tone.

(16)	a.	Nó	không	đi	thư viện
		3SG	NEG	go	library
		‘He didn’t go to the library’.
	b.	Nó	chẳng	đi	thư viện
		3SG	NEG	go	library
		‘He didn’t go to the library’.

Both (16a) and (1tb) convey the meaning ’He didn’t go to the library,’ but the latter carries a stronger, more emphatic connotation due to the use of chẳng. While the use of sentential negators like không and chẳng has been widely investigated (P. P. Nguyễn, 1994; Phan, 2023; Trinh et al., 2024), there has been significantly less attention paid to the negative prefixes bất, vô, and phi in modern Vietnamese. These Sino-Vietnamese prefixes, which originate from their Chinese counterparts, are primarily used in the formation of negative adjectives, nouns, and verbs. This section, therefore, is devoted to examining the role and usage of bất, vô, and phi in present-day Vietnamese, shedding light on how they function within the broader system of Vietnamese negation.

Drawing on data from the Great Dictionary of Vietnamese (N. Y. Nguyễn, 1999), we compiled a list of 125 frequently used words containing either bất, vô, or phi in the prefixal position. From this list, 51 occurrences of bất, 67 occurrences of vô, and 7 occurrences of phi were identified, excluding archaic or idiomatic usages, as summarized in

Table 1. The number of words containing bất, vô, phi in the Great Dictionary of Vietnamese.

	Great Dictionary of Vietnamese (1999)
number of words containing bất	51
number of words containing vô	67
number of words containing phi	7

.

While these prefixes retain core semantic functions related to negation, their usage patterns in Vietnamese show significant divergence from Chinese, particularly in terms of allowable combinations and lexical productivity.

3.1. Bất in Present-Day Vietnamese

The prefix bất is used to create negative adjectives, verbs, and nouns in Vietnamese, often expressing negative qualities or states. In our data, we identified 51 frequently used words with bất such as:

(17)	bất	an	‘insecure’
	bất	biến	‘invariant’
	bất	cẩn	‘careless’
	bất	chính	‘unrighteous’
	bất	công	‘unjust’

These examples illustrate how bất functions to negate qualities and states, forming compound words that convey negative meanings. This pattern aligns with its use in Modern Standard Chinese, where, as shown earlier (§2.2.3), 不 bù similarly negates adjectives and nouns to express states of negation or absence, as in 不安 bù’ān (‘uneasy’) or 不正 bùzhèng (‘unrighteous’). However, Vietnamese demonstrates selective adaptation, as some combinations commonly used in Chinese are not productive or acceptable in Vietnamese. For instance, while bất tài (‘incompetent’) is a viable term in Vietnamese, neither vô tài nor phi tài are considered acceptable combinations. This contrasts with Chinese, where both 不才 bùcái (‘incompetent’) and 無才 wúcái (‘talentless’) are permissible. This divergence highlights how Vietnamese has selectively integrated bất while maintaining constraints on its combinations. In this sense, bất has retained its core semantic function of negating qualities but has been limited in terms of lexical flexibility when compared to Chinese.

3.2. Vô in Present-Day Vietnamese

The prefix vô is more frequently used in Vietnamese than bất, with 67 occurrences identified in the data. Vô generally negates qualities and states, often conveying the absence or lack of something. Common examples include:

(18)	vô	tâm	‘unthoughtful’
	vô	tận	‘endless’
	vô	thần	‘atheist’
	vô	tội	‘innocent/guilt-free’
	vô	trách nhiệm	‘irresponsible’

These compounds highlight how vô in Vietnamese is used to negate the existence or presence of a quality, much like 無 wú in Chinese. However, Vietnamese demonstrates unique constraints on how vô can be used.

3.3. Phi in Present-Day Vietnamese

The prefix phi is the least frequently used of the three, with only seven occurrences identified in the data. However, phi plays an important role in forming compound words related to non-standard or non-normative categories. Some examples include:

(19)	phi đạo đức ‘unethical’
	phi lý ‘irrational’
	phi pháp ‘illegal’
	phi quân sự ‘non-military’
	phi thường ‘extraordinary’
	phi nghĩa ‘unrighteous’
	phi phàm ‘extraordinary’

The prefix phi typically negates normative categories, indicating something that deviates from social or legal standards. This usage parallels that of 非 fēi in Mandarin, where it negates similar concepts, such as in 非貿易 fēimàoyì (‘non-commercial’) or 非會員 fēihuìyuán (‘non-member’). However, as seen with bất, Vietnamese imposes restrictions on how phi can combine with certain base words. While phi phàm (‘extraordinary’) is commonly used, bất phàm is not, even though the equivalent forms in Chinese are both acceptable.

Across all three prefixes—bất, vô, and phi—Vietnamese demonstrates a strong parallel with Chinese. For example, combinations like bất an (insecure) in Vietnamese closely align with the Chinese 不安 bù’ān, and vô biên (boundless) mirrors 無邊 wúbiān in Chinese. This alignment suggests that Vietnamese has maintained much of the original form and function of these prefixes as they were borrowed from Chinese. Particularly in formal and philosophical domains, the overlap between the two languages is significant, as seen in terms like bất khả thi (impossible), which directly corresponds to 不可能 bù kěnéng in Chinese. This reflects the deep and enduring influence of Chinese on the Vietnamese lexicon.

However, a crucial difference emerges in how these prefixes function within each language. In the history of Chinese, 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi have operated flexibly at the sentential and lexical levels, although only 不 bù is productively used as a syntactic negator in the modern language. In contrast, their Vietnamese counterparts—bất, vô, and phi—are strictly confined to lexical negation, forming negative compounds such as adjectives, nouns, and verbs. This aligns with typological studies showing that core grammatical elements like negation are more resistant to borrowing than lexical items (Heine & Kuteva, 2005; Sakel, 2007). Sentential negation in Vietnamese is handled separately by the native negators không and chẳng, which coexist alongside the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes. This compartmentalization of negation in Vietnamese, where sentential and lexical negators are separated, marks a significant structural divergence from Chinese. It illustrates how Vietnamese, while adopting Chinese lexical elements, has tailored its negation system to its own syntactic norms. Vietnamese also demonstrates a degree of innovation with these borrowed prefixes. In some cases, Vietnamese has created terms that do not have exact counterparts in Chinese, reflecting creative linguistic adaptations. This dynamic process of borrowing and adaptation exemplifies how languages can integrate foreign elements while still evolving in unique ways.

In the next section, we explore how these prefixes function in translations of Confucius’s Analects, examining their appearance across the 17th, 19th, and 21st centuries. This analysis provides further insights into the interaction between Sino-Vietnamese prefixes and sentential negators, and how these elements have coexisted and evolved in Vietnamese over time. Specifically, we focus on the timing of their appearance and their frequency in translated texts, shedding light on broader patterns of language contact and adaptation.

4. Data Collection

To trace the evolution of Sino-Vietnamese negators from Classical Chinese to modern Vietnamese, this study examines three key bilingual texts spanning the 17th to 21st centuries: Luận ngữ ước giải (17th century), Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca (19th century), and Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ (21st century). These texts, blending Classical Chinese with Vietnamese translations, offer a unique corpus for analyzing the integration of the prefixes bất, vô, and phi alongside sentential negators such as chẳng and không.3

4.1. Luận ngữ ước giải (Concise Interpretation to the Analects) (17th Century)

Luận ngữ ước giải 論語約解, known as the Concise Interpretation to the Analects, is the earliest extant Vietnamese translation of Confucius’s Analects, composed in the 17th century. Its full title is ‘Tứ thư ước giải Luận ngữ giải quốc âm nghĩa tăng bổ Đại toàn bị chỉ’ 四書約解論語解國音義增補大全備旨 (Explanation of the Analects using national pronunciation and meaning, supplemented with important annotations from the Daquan 大全, part of the Concise Interpretation to the Four Books). In this paper, it is referred to as Luận ngữ ước giải. It forms part of the Tứ thư ước giải 四書約解 (Concise Interpretation to the Four Books), which translates and annotates the Four Books of Confucianism into Vietnamese using the Nôm script, accompanied by Literary Sinitic annotations. The translator remains anonymous, and the text is housed at the Institute of Sino-Nom Studies (Hanoi, Vietnam), with call number AB.270/1–5.

Although the book cover dates the text to the 20th year of Emperor Minh Mạng’s reign (1839), subsequent research by T. C. Nguyễn (2009), T. C. Nguyễn (2014) revealed that the composition was completed in the 17th century. The wood blocks used for printing were re-carved multiple times from the 17th to the late 19th century. Despite the cover date of 1839, the text itself, written in Nôm script and Vietnamese language, retains the characteristics of 17th-century language and script.

The Luận ngữ ước giải originally consisted of 19 volumes, but only 12 volumes remain, with volumes 3–9 missing. The remaining portion includes the last six chapters of the Analects, from chapter 15 ‘Weiling Gong’ 衛靈公 to chapter 20 ‘Yao yue’ 堯曰, spanning 98 pages. To maintain a strict comparative framework, our study focuses exclusively on these final six chapters, comparing them across the 17th, 19th, and 21st-century Vietnamese translations alongside the original text in Literary Sinitic.

The format of Luận ngữ ước giải is bilingual, with large traditional Sinographs used for the original Literary Sinitic text and smaller Nôm characters for the Vietnamese translation. The structure of each paragraph in the Luận ngữ ước giải is divided into three parts, as illustrated in

Table 2. The first page of the remaining portion of the Luận ngữ ước giải, within the Tứ thư ước giải, call number AB.270/3, page 1a.

		1. Large traditional Sinographs, original text: 衛靈公問陳於孔子 Vệ Linh công vấn trận ư Khổng tử (Sino-Vietnamese reading). Weiling Gong inquired of Confucius regarding the matter of warfare. 2. Small-sized Nôm characters, Vietnamese translation: 翁衛靈公𠳨事行陣蒸翁孔子 Ông Vệ Linh công hỏi sự hành trận chưng ông Khổng tử (Vietnamese phonetic transcription). The elder Weiling Gong asked about the conduct of warfare to Master Confucius. 3. Circular bullet point and small-sized Sinographs annotation: ¡陳去聲 Trận, khứ thanh. (Sino-Vietnamese reading). The word ‘Trận’ has a departing tone.4
The first page of the remaining portion of the Luận ngữ ước giải, within the Tứ thư ước giải, call number AB.270/3, page 1a	Exposition of the translation of the opening passage of chapter 15 ‘Weiling Gong.’

:

(i)

Original Text in Literary Sinitic: The main text is written in large traditional Sinographs at the beginning of each paragraph.

(ii)

Nôm Translation: Below the original text, small-sized Nôm characters provide the Vietnamese translation.

(iii)

Annotation Section: Small Sinographs give additional annotations, typically sourced from the Great Complete Works of the Four Books (四書大全), compiled during the Ming dynasty by a group led by Hu Guang (胡廣, 1369–1418). A circular bullet point separates the Nôm translation from the annotation, where present as they both use small font sizes.

This format, with its bilingual structure and detailed annotations, allows for in-depth analysis of how negators in Literary Sinitic were translated into Vietnamese, particularly the use of 不 bất, 無 vô, and 非 phi.

4.2. Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca (Song of Interpreting the Meaning of the Analects) (19th Century)

Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca 論語釋義歌, or Song of Interpreting the Meaning of the Analects, is a 19th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects with 2970 lines of verse. Its full title is Tự Đức thánh chế Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca 嗣德聖制論語釋義歌 (The Song of Interpreting the Meaning of the Analects Composed by Emperor Tự Đức), hereafter referred to as the Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca. This translation was compiled by Emperor Tự Đức (1828–1883), a monarch of the Nguyễn dynasty renowned for his poetic compositions, during his reign from 1848 to 1883. It was authorized for engraving and printing by the court around the years 1896–1907 after the author’s death. The text exhibits the linguistic and script characteristics (Vietnamese language and Nôm script) of the second half of the 19th century, reflecting the time of the author’s completion of the work. The composition incorporates many expressions from the Huế dialect, the capital of the Nguyễn dynasty (1802–1945), such as the words mần răng 𠼦凌 (how), mần ri 𠼦夷 (like this), chừ 除 (now), and ni 尼 (this).

At the Institute of Sino-Nom Studies (Hanoi, Vietnam), there are currently two sets of books with call numbers A.186/1-2 and HVv.709/3-6, with the latter being incomplete. Therefore, this article references the first set. Call number A.186/1-2 comprises seven volumes, divided into two booklets, totaling 1,104 pages. Corresponding to the last six chapters of the remaining portion of the Luận ngữ ước giải presented above, from chapter ‘Weiling Gong’ to chapter ‘Yao yue,’ the Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca cover from the latter part of volume 5 to the end of volume 7, totaling 760 lines of verse (26% of the total length of 2970 lines).

Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca is written in the poetic lục bát (six-eight, i.e., the number of syllables in every two lines) verse form and uses Nôm script, a reflection of the linguistic and cultural environment of the Nguyễn dynasty. The text demonstrates the highly formalized nature of Vietnamese poetic composition in this era.

The presentation format of Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca is structured into two tiers, as shown in

Table 3. The Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca (Song of Interpreting the Meaning of the Analects), call number AB.186/2, volume 5, pages 76a (right side) and 76b (left side).

The Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca (Song of Interpreting the Meaning of the Analects), call number AB.186/2, volume 5, pages 76a (right side) and 76b (left side).

:

(i)

Top Tier: This contains (i) the original text of the Analects in large traditional Sinographs, accompanied by (ii) small Sinographs for annotations. These annotations are mainly drawn from Zhu Xi’s (朱熹, 1130–1200) Collected Annotations on the Analects 論語集注.

(ii)

Bottom Tier: (iii) The large Nôm characters in the bottom tier provide the Vietnamese translation in lục bát verse, followed by (iv) commentary in small Sinographs written by Nguyễn Phúc Miên Trinh 阮福綿寊 (1820–1897), an uncle of Emperor Tự Đức.

This text exemplifies how Vietnamese translators engaged with Classical Chinese texts using the lục bát form, while still incorporating complex philosophical concepts. The use of bất, vô, and phi in this poetic context provides insight into how Classical Chinese negators were translated into vernacular Vietnamese during the 19th century, when both Chinese influence and native linguistic forms coexisted.

4.3. Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ (Confucius and the Analects) (21st Century)

Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ (Confucius and the Analects) by Phạm (2004) is a modern translation of the Analects into Vietnamese using the Latin-based Quốc ngữ script. This work reflects the modernization of the Vietnamese writing system, marking the transition from Nôm script to Quốc ngữ, which became the dominant script from the 20th century. The text was first published by the National Political Publisher in Hanoi in 2004. The translated portion from chapter 15 ‘Weiling Gong’ to chapter 20 ‘Yao yue’ spans from page 337 to page 391.

This translation adheres closely to the segmentation of the Analects as outlined in Zhu Xi’s Collected Annotations on the Analects, using a systematic approach to label each section. For example, XV.1 refers to the 15th chapter and the 1st section. The text is organized into four main components, as seen in Figure 1:

(i)

Original Text in Literary Sinitic: The source material is presented in traditional Sinographs.

(ii)

Sino-Vietnamese Phonetic Transcription: This provides a phonetic transcription using Sino-Vietnamese readings.

(iii)

Vietnamese Translation: The translation is rendered in modern Vietnamese prose using Quốc ngữ.

(iv)

Footnote-Style Annotations: These provide additional commentary, although they are less extensive than the annotations found in the earlier Nôm-script texts.

The modern prose translation allows for a clear understanding of how Sino-Vietnamese negators bất, vô, and phi have been fully integrated into contemporary Vietnamese. The text reflects the culmination of centuries of linguistic adaptation and demonstrates how these prefixes have been normalized within modern Vietnamese vocabulary.

4.4. Comparison of the Three Bilingual Texts (the Last Six Chapters)

The three texts—Luận ngữ ước giải, Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca, and Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ—offer a unique corpus that spans over 400 years of Vietnamese linguistic history, as summarized in

Table 4. Comparison of the 3 bilingual texts.

Book Title	Luận ngữ ước giải	Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca	Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ
Date of Completion	17th century	Late 19th century	Early 21st century
Language of Translation	Vietnamese	Vietnamese	Vietnamese
Script of Translation	Nôm script	Nôm script	Latin-based Quốc ngữ script
Genre of Translation	Prose	Lục bát (six-eight) verse	Prose
Segmentation Method of Each Translation	The segmentation is much smaller compared to Zhu Xi’s segmentation, with most segments not forming complete sentences but rather individual phrases; when concatenated, they form complete chapters and sections.	Segmentation is smaller or equal to Zhu Xi’s chapters, but each segment is either a complete sentence or a concise paragraph.	Follow Zhu Xi’s Collected Annotations on the Analects, each chapter is divided into sections.
	When concatenating the Nôm translation segments of the 2 Nôm translations together according to Zhu Xi’s chapter units, it will form the corresponding Vietnamese translated text for each chapter, following the segmentation structure of the Quốc ngữ script translation.
Literary Sinitic Annotations.	Available, based on the Great Complete Works of the Analects 論語大全 Hu Guang group	Available, based on Zhu Xi’s Collected Annotations on the Analects	Not available

. Together, they allow us to trace how Sino-Vietnamese negators have evolved across different periods, genres, and writing systems.

In terms of script and language, the first two texts are written in Nôm script, while the 21st-century text is written in Quốc ngữ. This transition from Nôm to Quốc ngữ reflects broader cultural and educational reforms in Vietnam.

In terms of translation style, the 17th-century Luận ngữ ước giải uses prose for translation, while the 19th-century Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca uses the poetic lục bát form. We acknowledge that the lục bát form’s fixed syllable count and tonal pattern may preferentially accommodate shorter negators (e.g., chẳng, không) and limit the inclusion of longer, multi-morphemic prefixes such as bất- and vô-—potentially influencing their observed frequencies. The 21st-century translation returns to prose, offering a more straightforward approach. These shifts in genre and style reflect changes in how the Vietnamese approached the translation of Classical Chinese texts.

In terms of annotation and commentary, the 17th- and 19th-century texts include extensive annotations, often explaining the translation choices and providing additional context for the use of Sino-Vietnamese negators. The 21st-century text includes fewer annotations, relying instead on a direct translation of the Analects into modern prose. These annotations are crucial for understanding the nuanced use of negation in earlier translations and how they were understood in different periods.

By analyzing these texts, we can observe the gradual integration of Sino-Vietnamese negators into the Vietnamese lexicon, from the early stages in the 17th century, through their poetic adaptation in the 19th century, to their full incorporation into modern prose in the 21st century. These shifts reflect broader cultural and linguistic changes in Vietnam, offering a comprehensive view of the evolution of Sino-Vietnamese negation.

5. Bất, vô, phi and Their Coexistence with Sentential Negators in the Three Translated Texts

This section examines the use of the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes bất, vô, and phi in the three translations analyzed in this study. By analyzing these texts, we can trace the integration of these Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into the Vietnamese language and their interaction with native negators like chẳng and không. In particular, we explore when these prefixes first appear, how frequently they are used, and how they function alongside sentential negators in each translation.

In the original text of the last six chapters of the Analects, 153 instances of 不 bù, 38 of 無 wú, and 4 of 非 fēi were identified, totaling 195 sentences containing these negators, as seen in

Table 5. The number of 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi in the last 6 chapters of the Analects.

	The Analects (Last 6 Chapters)
不 bù	153
無 wú	38
非 fēi	4

. Our bilingual corpus includes all these Chinese sentences along with their equivalents in the three Vietnamese translations, resulting in 585 sentences across the 17th-, 19th-, and 21st-century translations. This brings the total number of sentences in the corpus to 780, providing a robust foundation for comparative analysis of the usage and adaptation of negation in both languages. In particular, the 153 instances of 不 bù make it the most frequent negator, reflecting its prominence in both sentential and lexical negation. The 38 instances of 無 wú and the 4 instances of 非 fēi show that these negators, though less frequent, are still essential for marking lexical negation, particularly in abstract or moral contexts. These frequency patterns in Literary Sinitic offer a point of comparison when analyzing how the corresponding Vietnamese prefixes (bất, vô, and phi) were adapted across the three translations.

5.1. Distribution of Negators in the 17th-Century Translation

Our analysis shows that in the 17th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects, most instances of 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi were translated using chẳng, the native Vietnamese negator. Specifically, chẳng was used in 152 out of 153 cases of bù, 32 out of 38 cases of wú, and all 4 instances of fēi, as seen in

Table 6. 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi and their equivalents in the 17th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects.

Literary Sinitic	Vietnamese Translation (17th Century)
不 bù (153)	chẳng (152), others (1)
無 wú (38)	chẳng (32, in which chẳng có (12)), others (6)
非 fēi (4)	chẳng (4, in which chẳng phải (3))

. This overwhelming reliance on chẳng reflects a clear preference for native sentential negation over the adoption of Sino-Vietnamese lexical prefixes like bất, vô, or phi, which do not appear in the translation at all.

In the original Literary Sinitic text, 不 bù is used 153 times; 152 of these instances were translated using the native Vietnamese negator chẳng.

(20)	bù (不)	=>	chẳng
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.21)
	君子	矜	而	不	爭、
	Quân tử	căng	nhi	bất	tranh.
	gentleman	proud	but	NEG	contentious
	群	而	不	黨、
	Quần	nhi	bất	đảng”.
	join	but	NEG	cliquish

‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious. He joins with others but is not cliquish.’

b.	Vietnamese translation (17th century)
	㝵	君子	嚴	麻	拯	爭
	Người	quân tử	nghiêm	mà	chẳng	tranh
	CLF	gentleman	proud	but	NEG	contentious
	‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious’.
	固	排	麻	拯	覓		𤿤	丕
	Có	bầy	mà	chẳng	mếch	làm	bè	vậy
	has	group	but	NEG	wrongly	make	ally	PRT
	‘He joins with others but is not cliquish’.

無 wú is used 38 times in the original Chinese text, and it is typically translated as chẳng or chẳng có ‘not have’ in the Vietnamese translation.

(21)	無wú => chẳng có ‘not have’
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 17.23)
	君子	有	勇	而	無	義
	Quân tử	hữu	dũng	nhi	vô	nghĩa
	gentleman	possess	courage	but	lack	rightness

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (17th century)
	㝵	君子	固	孟	麻	拯	固	義
	Người	quân tử	có	mạnh	mà	chẳng	có	nghĩa
	gentleman		have	courage	but	not	have	rightness

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness’.

Here, 無 vô is rendered as chẳng có, indicating the absence of a quality (rightness). This structure mirrors the negation pattern found in Chinese but uses the native Vietnamese negator chẳng có instead of vô.

非 fēi, which appears four times in the original Chinese text, is mostly translated as chẳng phải ‘not right’ in the Vietnamese translation, a construction that aligns with (verbless) nominal negation in Vietnamese.

(22)	非 fēi => chẳng phải ‘not right’
	a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.28)
		人	能	弘	道、	非	道	弘	人、
		Nhân	năng	hoằng	đạo,	phi	đạo	hoằng	nhân
		Person	can	enlarge	Way,	NEG	Way	enlarge	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; it is not the case that the Way can enlarge a person’.

	b.	Vietnamese translation (17th century)
	𠊛	咍		𢌌	道,	拯	沛	道	咍
	Người	hay	làm	rộng	đạo,	chẳng	phải	đạo	hay	làm
	person	can	do	large	Way	not	right	Way	can	do
	𢌌	㝵
	rộng	người
	large	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; it is not the case that the Way can enlarge a person’.

The 17th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects preserved the semantic distinctions of the Literary Sinitic negators through native syntactic mean; we do not see examples of prefixation (lexical negation) yet in the Vietnamese text. For example, the complex form chẳng có ‘not have’ (a negator and an existential verb) was used for existential negation and chẳng phải ‘not right’ (a negator and a predicate) was used for (verbless) nominal negation. Chinese syntactic negators, therefore, are consistently rendered using native Vietnamese syntactic negators—a significant observation, as later translations show the gradual emergence of Sino-Vietnamese negators.

This dominance of native Vietnamese negators during the 17th century points to a period where Vietnamese largely retained its own negation system, even as it borrowed Chinese vocabulary in other lexical domains. The findings illustrate the selective nature of linguistic adaptation, where core grammatical elements like negation were slower to absorb Sino-Vietnamese influences. In the following section, we turn to the 19th-century translation of the Analects, examining how the prefixes bất, vô, and phi began to be integrated into the Vietnamese language while continuing to coexist with native negators such as chẳng.

5.2. Distribution of Negators in the 19th-Century Translation

The data for the 19th-century translation reveal a mix of native and borrowed negators, as illustrated in

Table 7. 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi and their equivalents in the 19th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects.

Literary Sinitic	Vietnamese Translation (19th Century)
不 bù (153)	chẳng (90), không (35), bất (2), others (26)
無 wú (38)	chẳng (11), không (14), others (13)
非 fēi (4)	chưa (1), lầm (1), nào có (1), no translation (1)

:

In the 19th-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects, we observe a more diverse distribution of negators compared to the 17th-century text. Native negators like chẳng continue to be dominant, appearing 90 times to translate 不 bù and 11 times to translate 無 wú, but we also see the increasing use of không, which appears 35 times to translate 不 bù and 14 times to translate 無 wú. This shift aligns with the historical trend of không, which is derived from Chinese 空 kōng, becoming more integrated into the Vietnamese language, particularly as a sentential negator. Recent studies have noted that không began to grammaticalize into a general negator in the late 17th century (Phan et al., 2024), and by the late 19th century, it started to rival or even replace chẳng as the dominant negator (Trinh et al., 2024).

Additionally, we observe that, among the three prefixes, bất is the first to appear in the Vietnamese translation, albeit in just two instances. Its early inclusion marks the initial stage of the integration of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into Vietnamese negation. This reflects a gradual linguistic shift, where native negators like chẳng still dominated but were slowly accompanied by borrowed Sino-Vietnamese elements. The appearance of bất signals the beginning of increased lexical borrowing from Chinese, which would become more prominent in subsequent periods.

In the 19th-century translation, 不 bù is predominantly translated as sentential negators chẳng or không.

(23)	不 bù => chẳng/không
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.21)
	君子	矜	而	不	爭、
	Quân tử	căng	nhi	bất	tranh.
	gentleman	proud	but	NEG	contentious
	群	而	不	黨、
	Quần	nhi	bất	đảng”.
	join	but	NEG	cliquish

‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious. He joins with others but is not cliquish’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (19th century)
	𠊛	賢	嚴	吏	空	争、
	Người	hiền	nghiêm	lại	không	tranh,
	person	gentle	proud	but	NEG	contentious
	和	𢧚	𢛨	眾	拯	𠴇	誽	隊𡿨、
	Hoà	nên	ưa	chúng	chẳng	bênh	dua	đòi,
	join	then	like	group	NEG	incline to	cliquish

‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious. He joins with others but is not cliquish’.

Having compared example (20) and example (23), we see that in the same Literary Sinitic sentence, 不 bù appeared twice and was translated as chẳng in both instances in the 17th-century translation, whereas in the 19th-century translation, one instance was rendered as chẳng and the other as không. The shift from the native sentential negator chẳng to the Chinese-derived sentential negator không suggests an increased adoption of Sino-Vietnamese lexical elements during the 19th century, although the chosen item does not match Chinese usage.

Another distinctive feature of the 19th-century translation, among the three bilingual texts under investigation, is the first appearance of one of the three Sino-Vietnamese prefixes. This is the earliest text where 不 bù is translated as bất, marking the initial stage of integrating these items into Vietnamese negation.

(24)	不 bù => bất
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 19.3)
	嘉	善	而	矜	不	能
	gia	thiện	nhi	căng	bất	năng
	applaud	good	but	sympathize	NEG	ability

‘He applauds good men and sympathizes with those who lack ability’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (19th century)
	𠸦	𠊛	唯𡿨	卒	傷	台	不	才
	Khen	người	giỏi	tốt	thương	thay	bất	tài
	applaud	person	good	nice	sympathize	PRT	unable

‘He applauds good men and sympathizes with those who lack ability’.

(25)	不 bù => bất
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 17.21)
	子	曰、	予	之	不	仁	也
	Tử	viết:	“Dư	chi	bất	nhân	dã
	Confucius	say	Yu	PRT	no	human	PRT

‘The Master said, Yu (Zai Wo) has no humaneness!’

b.	Vietnamese translation (19th century)
	𠰺	浪	予	意𡿨	罕	時	不	仁
	Dạy	rằng	Dư	ấy	hẳn	thì	bất	nhân
	teach	that	Dư	that	clearly	TOP	unhuman

‘The Master said, Yu (Zai Wo) has no humaneness!’

Interestingly, these two examples where 不 bù is translated as bất reveal distinct translation strategies: one slightly more innovative, and the other more conservative. In the first example (24), 不能 bù néng, which means ‘lacking ability’ in Literary Sinitic, is translated as bất tài in Vietnamese. While bất tài can still be understood as ‘lacking ability,’ it typically carries a stronger connotation of ‘incompetence’ or ‘lack of talent.’ This translation reflects a minor shift toward a more specific interpretation. In the second example (25), 不仁 bù rén, meaning ‘inhumane’ or ‘lacking benevolence,’ is translated as bất nhân, which is a direct and faithful reflection of the original. Here, the translator adheres closely to the source text, preserving the core meaning of the Confucian concept of 仁 rén, or ‘benevolence’ (Ivanhoe, 2000). Unlike the slight shift seen in the previous example, this translation remains conservative, ensuring that key philosophical terms retain their original sense and integrity. These two examples illustrate the early stages of the integration of bất into Vietnamese negation. In one case, as with bất tài, the translator makes subtle adjustments to fit Vietnamese usage, while in another, such as bất nhân, the original term is maintained. Together, these cases suggest that the appearance of bất in the 19th-century translation marks a gradual yet careful adoption of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into the Vietnamese lexicon.

Similar to 不 bù, the negator 無 wú continues to be predominantly translated as chẳng (11 times) or không (14 times). However, we observe a more frequent use of không as the preferred translation for vô, reinforcing the trend of increased Sino-Vietnamese lexical borrowing in this period. This is consistent with recent studies on the grammaticalization path of không (Phan et al., 2024), which suggest that, before không assumed the role of a general negator in Vietnamese, it initially functioned as an existential negator meaning ‘not have’. In the following example from Chapter 17.23 of the Analects, 無 wú is translated as không, reinforcing this trend:

(26)	無 wú => không
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 17.23)
	君子	有	勇	而	無	義	爲	亂
	quân tử	hữu	dũng	nhi	vô	nghĩa.	vi	loạn
	gentleman	have	courage	but	NEG	rightness	do	rebellious

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness will become rebellious’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (19th century)
	勇	麻	空	義	亂	𨢟	苦𡿨而	之
	Dũng	mà	không	nghĩa	loàn	gây	khó	gì
	courage	but	NEG	rightness	rebellious	cause	trouble	thing

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness will become rebellious’.

In the case of 非 fēi, the 19th-century translation shows a variety of renderings, including chưa ‘not yet’, lầm ‘wrong’, and nào có ‘not have’, depending on the context.

(27)	非 fei => nào có ‘not have’
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.28)
	人	能	弘	道、	非	道	弘	人、
	Nhân	năng	hoằng	đạo,	phi	đạo	hoằng	nhân
	Person	can	enlarge	Way,	NEG	Way	enlarge	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; it is not the case that the Way can enlarge a person’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (19th century)
	𠊛	咍	𩦓	𢌌	道	常、
	Người	hay	mở	rộng	đạo	thường,
	person	can	open	large	Way	often
	道	箕	芾	固	𩦓	芒	鄧	𠊛、
	Đạo	kia	nào	có	mở	mang	đặng	người,
	Way	DEM	not	have	open	PRT	can	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; but the Way cannot enlarge a person’.

This variability may be influenced by the poetic nature of the text, which often allows for broader interpretation. The translator’s approach to 非 fēi seems more flexible, moving away from a strict adherence to uniform translation norms. This flexibility may reflect their efforts to convey the nuances of meaning and context, using different forms of negation depending on the specific situation.

Compared to the 17th-century translation, where the native sentential negator chẳng was overwhelmingly dominant and there was no sign of bất, vô, or phi, the 19th-century translation marks a transitional phase. A notable difference is the increased use of the Chinese-derived sentential negator không, especially in translating both 不 bù and 無 wú. This shift aligns with recent research on the development of không, which transitioned from an existential negator to a general negator (Phan et al., 2024). Additionally, the 19th-century translation introduces bất for the first time, signaling the early stages of integrating Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into the negation system.

Overall, the 19th-century translation reflects a period of transition in Vietnamese negation. Native negators like chẳng remained prominent, but the increasing use of không and the introduction of bất are indicative of a gradual integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements. In the following section, we explore the 21st-century translation of the Analects and how bất, vô, and phi have become more integrated into modern Vietnamese.

5.3. Distribution of Negators in the 21st-Century Translation

In contrast to earlier translations, the 21st-century version reflects a linguistic shift toward the frequent use of the Chinese derived không as the standard negator over the native Vietnamese chẳng.

As seen in

Table 8. 不bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi and their equivalents in the 21st-century Vietnamese translation of the Analects.

Literary Sinitic	Vietnamese Translation (21st Century)
不bù (153)	không (127), chẳng (12), bất (5), others (9)
無 wú (38)	không (27) (in which không có (9)), chẳng (2), vô (5), others (4)
非 fēi (4)	không (4) (in which không phải (3))

, không has become the overwhelmingly preferred negator, translating 127 out of 153 instances of 不 bù, 27 out of 38 instances of 無 wú, and all 4 instances of 非 fēi. In comparison, chẳng plays a more limited role in this period, appearing in only 12 instances for 不bù and 2 for 無 wú, a stark contrast with its prominence in earlier translations. This decline reflects a shift in usage patterns where không takes precedence, pushing chẳng into a more emphatic or non-standard role. This supports previous research on the grammaticalization of không, which became a standard negator by the late 19th century (Trinh et al., 2024). Below are examples in which 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi are all translated as không.

(28)	不 bù => không
a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.21)
	君子	矜	而	不	爭、
	Quân tử	căng	nhi	bất	tranh.
	gentleman	proud	but	NEG	contentious
	群	而	不	黨、
	Quần	nhi	bất	đảng”.
	join	but	NEG	cliquish

‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious. He joins with others but is not cliquish’.

b.	Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Người quân tử		tự chủ bản thân,		giữ		quan điểm		nhưng
	CLF gentleman		control self		hold		opinion		but
	không		tranh giành,		cãi cọ.
	not		fight		argue
	Hợp quần	với		mọi người		nhưng		không		bè	phái
	join	with		people		but		not		ally
	‘The gentleman is proud but not contentious. He joins with others but is not cliquish’.

(29)	無 wú => không or không có ‘not have’:
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 17.23)
	君子	有	勇	而	無	義	爲	亂
	quân tử	hữu	dũng	nhi	vô	nghĩa	vi	loạn
	gentleman	have	courage	but	NEG	rightness	do	rebellious

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness will become rebellious’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Quân tử	có	dũng	mà	không	có	nghĩa
	Gentleman	has	courage	but	NEG	have	rightness
	thì	làm	loạn
	TOP	make	rebel

‘A gentleman who possesses courage but lacks rightness will become rebellious’.

(30)	非 fēi => không phải ‘not right’:
	a.	Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.28)
	人		能	弘	道、	非	道	弘	人、
	Nhân		năng	hoằng	đạo,	phi	đạo	hoằng	nhân
	Person		can	enlarge	Way,	NEG	Way	enlarge	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; it is not the case that the Way can enlarge a person’.

	b.	Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Con		người	có thể	hoằng dương		đạo lý,	chứ	không
	CLF		person	CAN	enlarge		Way	but	NOT
	phải		đạo lý	hoằng dương		cho	con	người
	right		Way	enlarge		for	CLF	person

‘A person can enlarge the Way; it is not the case that the Way can enlarge a person’.

The 21st-century translation of the Analects exhibits a similar pattern to that of the 17th century, where Vietnamese mostly employed syntactic strategies rather than relying on lexical prefixation for negation. The key distinction, however, lies in the choice of the standard negator: while the 17th-century translation predominantly used chẳng to maintain the semantic distinctions of the Literary Sinitic negators, the 21st-century text continues this syntactic approach with không as the main negator. For example, in both periods, existential negation is expressed through the combination of a negator and an existential verb. In the 17th-century translation, this was typically rendered as chẳng có (‘not have’), as seen in example (21b), whereas in the 21st-century version, the same structure is realized as không có, as seen in example (29b). Similarly, for (verbless) nominal negation, the earlier translation used chẳng phải (‘not right’), as in (22b), which in the 21st-century translation becomes không phải, as in (30b). This suggests that, despite increased lexical borrowing from Chinese, Vietnamese uses the core grammatical strategies with compound structures like không có and không phải, allowing for precise differentiation between types of negation.

The increased appearance of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes, such as bất and vô, is also notable in this period. Bất appears in five instances, and vô in five instances as well, marking their integration into the Vietnamese lexical negation system. Just as in the 19th-century translation, bất continues to appear, showcasing its role as a formal and fixed negator. However, while two of these instances were already present in the 19th-century translation, the 21st-century version introduces three more cases of bất. Two of these three retain the original lexical form of Literary Sinitic, such as bất thiện and bất đồng, while the third offers a more innovative translation: the Literary Sinitic bất hiền is rendered as bất tiếu in Vietnamese. For instance, in Chapter 16.11 of the Literary Sinitic text, 不善 bù shàn is translated as bất thiện:

(31)	不 bù => bất
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 16.11)
	見	不	善	如	探	湯
	kiến	bất	thiện	như	thám	thang
	see	NEG	good	as	explore	scalding	water

‘sees what is not good and acts as though he had put his hand in scalding water’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	thấy	điều	bất	thiện	chạy	như	tránh	nước	sôi
	see	thing	NEG	good	run	as	avoid	water	boiling

‘sees what is not good and acts as though he had put his hand in scalding water’.

Similarly, in Chapter 15.39, 不 bù is translated as bất đồng:

(32)	不 bù => bất
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.39)
	道	不	同
	Đạo	bất	đồng
	way	NEG	same

‘your Way is not the same’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Đạo lý	đã	bất	đồng
	way	PST	NEG	same

‘your Way is not the same’

However, the translation becomes more innovative in Chapter 19.22. Instead of directly translating 不賢 bù xián ‘unworthy’ as bất hiền, the 21st-century translation uses bất tiếu (not worthy):

(33)	不 bù => bất
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 19.22)
	賢	者	識	其	大	者、
	Hiền	giả	chí	kì	đại	giả,
	worthy	man	remember	PRT	essential	thing
	不	賢	者	識	其	小	者
	bất	hiền	giả,	chí	kì	tiểu	giả,
	NEG	worthy	man	remember	PRT	minor	thing

‘worthy men remember the essentials and those of little worth remember the minor points’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Bậc	hiền	giả	nhớ	được	cái	lớn,	kẻ	bất
	CLF	worthy	man	remember	CAN	CLF	big	man	NEG
	tiếu	nhớ	được	cái	nhỏ.
	worthy	remember	CAN	CLF	small

‘worthy men remember the essentials and those of little worth remember the minor points’.

This innovation highlights the growing flexibility of bất in the modern Vietnamese lexicon, reflecting both the preservation of classical forms and the creative use of new ones to adapt to contemporary linguistic norms.

In addition to the prefix bất, vô makes its debut in the 21st-century translation, appearing in five instances that underscore its role in formalizing lexical negation. Notably, vô did not appear in the 17th- and 19th-century translations, marking its emergence solely in the 21st-century version. Unlike bất, which shows some innovative usages in Vietnamese, vô remains closely aligned with its original Literary Sinitic form, without deviations from the classical meanings.

In the following examples, vô consistently retains its original sense of existential negation without creative reinterpretation or novel usage:

(34)	無 wú => vô
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.4)
	無	爲	而	治	者	其	舜	也	與
	Vô	vi	nhi	trị	giả	kỳ	Thuấn	dã	dư?
	NEG	action	but	rule	person	that	Shun	PRT	PRT

‘Of those who ruled through inaction, surely Shun was one?’

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Người	thực hiện	nền	chính trị	vô vi	mà
	person	carry out	CLF	politics	inaction	but
	đất nước	thịnh trị	có lẽ	là	Thuấn	chăng
	country	peaceful	perhaps	is	Shun	PRT

‘Of those who ruled through inaction but the country was peaceful, was Shun the one?’

In this instance, vô vi is directly retained in the Vietnamese translation, preserving the original term from Literary Sinitic.

(35)	無 wú => vô
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.6)
	邦	無	道	如	矢
	Bang	vô	đạo	như	thỉ.
	state	NEG	way	as	arrow

‘The state was without the Way, he was straight as an arrow’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Nước	vô	đạo	ông	cũng	thẳng	như	tên
	state	lack	way	PRN	still	straight	as	arrow

‘The state was without the Way, he was straight as an arrow’.

Again, the phrase vô đạo is preserved directly from the classical text.

(36)	無 wú => vô
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.3)
	終	夜	不	寢	以	思
	chung	dạ	bất	tẩm	dĩ	tư
	all	night	NEG	sleep	in order to	think
	無	益
	vô	ích
	no	use

‘and all night without sleeping in order to think. It was no use’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Trọn	đêm	không	ngủ	để	nghĩ
	all	night	NEG	sleep	in order to	think
	nhưng	đều	vô ích
	but	all	no use

‘and all night without sleeping in order to think. It was no use’

In this case, vô ích maintains its classical meaning of ‘no use’.

(37)	無 wú => vô
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 16.2)
	天下	無	道
	Thiên hạ	vô	đạo
	world	NEG	way

‘When the Way no longer prevails in the world’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Thiên hạ	vô đạo
	world	lack way

‘When the Way no longer prevails in the world’.

Here, vô đạo once again aligns perfectly with its Literary Sinitic form.

(38)	無 wú => vô
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 17.24)
	惡	勇	而	無	禮	者
	ố	dũng	nhi	vô	lễ	giả
	hate	courage	but	no	ritual	person

‘He hates courage that ignores ritual decorum’.

	b. Vietnamese translation (21st century)
	Ghét	kẻ	có	dũng	mà	vô lễ
	hate	person	have	courage	but	no ritual

‘He hates courage that forgets ritual decorum’.

In this final example, vô lễ is faithfully translated as ‘no ritual’ in Vietnamese, closely following the classical meaning. The consistent appearance of vô in these examples demonstrates its seamless integration into the Vietnamese lexicon, with no notable departures from its original Literary Sinitic usage. Unlike bất, which sometimes exhibits innovative translation choices, vô adheres closely to its classical roots, highlighting its stability as a negation prefix in modern Vietnamese.

Unlike bất and vô, phi does not appear in any of the three Vietnamese translations analyzed in this study. In the 21th-century translation, 非 fēi is consistently translated as không, with không phải, a common construction in modern Vietnamese that negates the truth of a statement or identity being the most commonly used form. This indicates a clear preference in Vietnamese for syntactic negation over lexical negation when considering (verbless) nominal negation constructions. Rather than employing a Sino-Vietnamese prefix equivalent to 非 fēi, such as phi, Vietnamese translators favor the use of không phải, a syntactic structure that aligns with the native patterns of negation, particularly in (verbless) nominal negative contexts. This aligns with a trend in Vietnamese to adapt and integrate negation strategies through syntactic combinations rather than adopting all lexical prefixes from Literary Sinitic.

(39)	非 fēi => không phải ‘not right’:
	a. Literary Sinitic (Chapter 15.1)
	對	曰	然、	非	與、
	Đối	viết:	“Nhiên.	Phi	dư?”5
	reply	say	yes	NEG	Q

‘Zigong replied, Yes, isn’t that so?’

	b. Vietnamese translation (21th century)
	Đáp	rằng:	“Vâng,	chẳng lẽ	không	phải	ư?”
	reply	COMP	Yes	perhaps	NEG	right	Q

‘Zigong replied, Yes, isn’t that so?’

The 21st-century translation of the Analects marks a significant shift in the Vietnamese negation system, with không firmly establishing itself as the dominant negator. Additionally, there is a notable increase in the use of bất and vô reflecting broader ‘linguistic modernization’ trends in Vietnam. This shift aligns with the larger cultural and linguistic modernization of East Asia, heavily influenced by Japan’s transmission of neologisms made of Chinese morphemes through reformist writings during the 20th century (Sinh, 1993).

In this context, the integration of bất and vô into formal expressions, alongside the creative flexibility seen in the translation of bất tiếu ‘not worthy’, highlights the evolving role of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes in modern Vietnamese.

This 21st-century shift contrasts with earlier periods, such as the 17th-century translation, where chẳng overwhelmingly dominated, and the 19th century, where không and chẳng coexisted more equally. The gradual rise of không as the standard negator underscores the ongoing influence of Sino-Vietnamese elements in the language. The increased presence of bất and vô in the 21st century demonstrates the culmination of these linguistic trends, showing how Vietnamese has balanced the integration of Chinese lexical features with its own syntactic structures.

In summary, the 21st-century translation exemplifies the historical evolution of Vietnamese negation, with không taking precedence while bất and vô gain prominence in specific contexts. This evolution is part of a broader cultural shift in East Asia, driven by modernization and the transmission of modernized Chinese linguistic features (Sinh, 1993; Alves, 2017).

5.4. Evidence from Earlier Texts

As highlighted earlier, the 17th-century Vietnamese translations of the Analects relied almost exclusively on native Vietnamese negators like chẳng, with no evidence of bất, vô, or phi. This pattern is consistent across earlier bilingual texts, suggesting a strong reliance on native Vietnamese negators in formal translations. For instance, in the Tân biên Truyền kỳ mạn lục tăng bổ giải âm tập chú 新編傳奇漫錄増補解音集註 (Interpretation of Legendary Tales: Newly Edited Collection with Supplementary Explanations and Pronunciation Annotations), (late 16th to 17th century), the translation of 不 bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi similarly utilized native negators such as chẳng, chăng, and chớ.

As shown in

Table 9. 不bù, 無 wú, and 非 fēi and their equivalents in the late 16th-century–17th-century Vietnamese.

Literary Sinitic	Vietnamese Translation (Late 16th–17th Century)
不 bù (563)	chẳng (558), chớ (5)
無 wú (95)	chẳng (92), chăng (3)
非 fēi (69)	chẳng (44), chớ (25)
	(Washizawa, 2019a, pp. 151–157)

, the 16th- to 17th-century Vietnamese translations predominantly employed native sentential negators without integrating Sino-Vietnamese lexical prefixes. This reliance on native structures, especially for negation, persisted in earlier texts, indicating a gradual and selective integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements into the language. The transition to using prefixes such as bất and vô would not occur until the 19th and 20th centuries, suggesting that Vietnamese language and translation practices initially remained insulated from external lexical influences in the domain of negation.

By the 20th century, the rise of the sentential negator không and the emergence of the negative prefixes bất and vô reflect broader shifts in the intellectual and linguistic landscape of Vietnam. These shifts align with the country’s ‘modernization’ efforts, which were significantly influenced by Chinese and Japanese intellectual movements, as well as by European colonialism. As noted by Sinh (1993), the reforms in Japan during the Meiji period played a crucial role in disseminating modernized Chinese-character-based vocabulary across East Asia, facilitating the eventual integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements, including bất and vô, into the Vietnamese lexicon. The literacy reforms and educational movements of the 20th century, particularly the promotion of the Quốc ngữ script, further accelerated the standardization of the Vietnamese language. This standardization allowed for greater integration of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into formal, academic, and philosophical texts. These reforms not only improved access to education but also reinforced the use of prefixes like bất and vô in domains where precision and formality were required.

By the 21st century, bất and vô had become firmly established in formal Vietnamese, particularly in academic and philosophical discourse. This is evident in modern translations of the Analects, where these prefixes appear alongside không, which had by then become the dominant negator for sentential negation. The growing prominence of bất and vô underscores the increasing formalization and modernization of Vietnamese in intellectual contexts, influenced by East Asian linguistic reforms in the early 20th century (Hashimoto, 1978; Alves, 2017; Takahashi, 2022). The integration of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into the modern lexicon reflects both Vietnam’s efforts to ‘modernize’ its language and educational system and the external influences from Chinese and Japanese reformists. Despite the increasing presence of bất and vô, however, không remains the dominant negator, highlighting a balance between retaining native linguistic structures and incorporating new Sino-Vietnamese elements, and a division of labor between syntactic negation and lexical negation. This gradual yet dynamic evolution demonstrates the adaptability of the Vietnamese language in response to both internal and external changes.

6. Discussion

This study has examined the development and integration of the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes bất, vô, and phi within the Vietnamese language, using a unique corpus of bilingual translations of the Analects from the 17th, 19th, and 21st centuries. By analyzing these texts, we have traced how these prefixes entered the Vietnamese language and interacted with sentential negators like chẳng and không. The shifts observed over these three centuries highlight both the resilience of native Vietnamese syntactic structures and the gradual incorporation of Sino-Vietnamese lexical elements.

6.1. Comparison of Negation Across Three Periods

A comparative analysis of the three translations spanning over three centuries reveals a dynamic evolution in how negation has been handled in Vietnamese. Each period represents a distinct phase in the adaptation and integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements into the negation system of the language.

6.1.1. The 17th Century: Dominance of Native Negators

In the 17th century, the Vietnamese translation of the Analects overwhelmingly relied on native negators, particularly chẳng. The absence of the Sino-Vietnamese prefixes bất, vô, or phi during this period indicates that Vietnamese was largely resistant to lexical borrowing in the domain of negation. Native constructions like chẳng có ‘not have’ for existential negation and chẳng phải ‘not right’ for (verbless) nominal negation maintained the semantic distinctions of Literary Sinitic negators through syntactic, rather than lexical, means. The reliance on these native forms suggests a period where the Vietnamese language favored its own grammatical structures over borrowed ones, even though other areas of the lexicon had already incorporated Chinese vocabulary.

6.1.2. The 19th Century: Transitional Phase

The 19th-century translation of the Analects marks a clear transition in the Vietnamese negation system. While native negators such as chẳng continued to dominate, không—a Chinese-derived sentential negator—began to appear more frequently, particularly for translating 不 bù and 無 wú. This shift aligns with historical linguistic studies that identify the grammaticalization of không as a general negator (Washizawa, 2019b; Phan et al., 2024; Trinh et al., 2024). The 19th century also saw the first instances of the Sino-Vietnamese prefix bất, signaling the early stages of its integration into the Vietnamese negation system. However, bất only appeared in two instances, one of which maintained a conservative translation (e.g., bất nhân), while the other reflected a more innovative use (e.g., bất tài). The usage of bất remained limited to formal or philosophical contexts, reflecting a cautious and gradual borrowing process. This transitional phase marked a shift in Vietnamese negation, where native structures were slowly complemented by borrowed Sino-Vietnamese elements, leading to a more hybrid system that combined both native and borrowed forms.

6.1.3. The 21st Century: Modernization and Integration

The 21st century marks a significant shift in the Vietnamese negation system, with không emerging as the dominant sentential negator across most contexts. Unlike the 17th century, where chẳng dominated, and the 19th century, where không and chẳng coexisted, the modern translation of the Analects shows a clear preference for không. In this period, bất and vô also appear more frequently, reflecting their growing role in formal and academic discourse. While the innovation seen in the earlier usage of bất continued, vô maintained a more conservative usage, remaining closely aligned with its original Literary Sinitic meaning. Interestingly, phi is still absent in the 21st-century translation. Instead, 非 fēi is consistently translated as không phải (‘not right’), reflecting Vietnamese’s continued preference for syntactic negation over the adoption of a lexical negator such as phi. This suggests that despite increased borrowing of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes in other areas, Vietnamese retains a syntactic strategy for negation in copular constructions, demonstrating the resilience of native grammatical patterns.

6.2. Linguistic Modernization and Broader Cultural Context

The increasing integration of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes like bất and vô in the 21st century reflects broader cultural and linguistic modernization in East Asia. As Sinh (1993) noted, Japan’s Meiji-era reforms played a pivotal role in transmitting modernized Chinese vocabulary across East Asia, influencing countries like Vietnam. The rise of Sino-Vietnamese prefixes in Vietnamese texts, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries, mirrors these larger regional shifts toward linguistic and intellectual modernization.

The promotion of the Quốc ngữ script during the 20th century also played a critical role in the standardization of the Vietnamese language. This increased literacy and educational reform not only made the language more accessible but also facilitated the integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements like bất and vô into formal contexts. As Vietnam engaged more deeply with modern Chinese and Japanese intellectual traditions, these prefixes became more embedded in the lexicon, particularly in legal, academic, and philosophical discourse.

Despite this growing presence, the dominance of không as the general sentential negator suggests that the Vietnamese language has balanced external influences with a preservation of native structures. While prefixes like bất and vô have found their place in formal contexts, không remains the most versatile and widely used negator, illustrating the selective nature of Vietnamese in the adoption of Chinese items.

6.3. The Role of our Unique Corpus and Future Research Directions

The unique bilingual corpus of the Analects translations, spanning three centuries, offers invaluable insights into the evolution of negation in Vietnamese. It provides a rare opportunity to trace how Vietnamese has integrated Sino-Vietnamese prefixes into its language, alongside native syntactic strategies. This corpus allows for a deeper understanding of the interplay between borrowed lexical elements and native grammatical structures, shedding light on the complexities of linguistic adaptation in Vietnam.

However, more research is needed to address key questions that this study has raised:

(i)

When did the first compounds involving bất, vô, and phi appear in Vietnamese? While we have identified their early usage in the 19th century, understanding the precise origins of these compounds and their spread across different text types could further illuminate the process of Sino-Vietnamese lexical integration.

(ii)

What are the possible word classes for these compounds, and do they behave syntactically like their counterparts in Chinese? Further research should explore how these compounds function across various syntactic contexts in Vietnamese and whether they mirror Chinese structures or diverge in significant ways.

Expanding the corpus to include non-philosophical genres from the same periods would provide a broader picture of how Sino-Vietnamese prefixes were adopted across different domains. Additionally, further exploration of literacy movements and educational reforms, particularly the influence of Japan and China in transmitting modernized vocabulary, could offer deeper insights into the cultural factors driving these linguistic shifts.

7. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of negation in Vietnamese across three centuries, tracing the gradual integration of Sino-Vietnamese lexical prefixes bất, vô, and phi alongside sentential syntactic negators such as chẳng and không. The findings highlight a slow but steady shift toward incorporating Sino-Vietnamese elements into the language, particularly in formal and academic contexts. However, the preservation of native syntactic structures underscores the balance Vietnam has struck between borrowing external linguistic elements in the lexicon, while maintaining its own native constructions in syntax.

The unique corpus of the Analects translations has offered a rare glimpse into this linguistic evolution, providing a valuable resource for future research. By examining how negation has shifted over time in Vietnamese, we gain a deeper understanding of the complex processes of language contact, adaptation, and modernization in Sinospheric East Asia. The selective integration of Sino-Vietnamese elements like bất, vô, and phi into the modern Vietnamese lexicon underscores the dynamic nature of language contact and the complex processes through which languages evolve over time.

• Documents investigated in the paper

Luận ngữ ước giải 論語約解 [Concise Interpretation to the Analects], 17th century, anonymous, written in Nôm, archived of Institute of Sino-Nom Studies, call number AB.270/3, Romanized transliterated by T. C. Nguyễn (2009, manuscript).

Tự Đức thánh chế Luận ngữ thích nghĩa ca 嗣德聖制論語釋義歌 [Tự Đức imperical explanation of the Analects], 19th century, by Emperor Tự Đức (1828–1883), written in Nôm, archived at the Institute of Sino-Nom Studies, call number A.186/1-2.

Khổng phu tử và Luận ngữ [Confucius and the Analects], 21st century, by Phạm (2004), written in Romanized Quốc ngữ, Hanoi: National Political Publisher.

Tân biên Truyền kỳ mạn lục tăng bổ giải âm tập chú 新編傳奇漫錄増補解音集註 (Interpretation of Legendary Tales: Newly Edited Collection with Supplementary Explanations and Pronunciation Annotations), 16th–17th century, anonymous, written in Nôm, archived of Institute of Sino-Nom Studies, call number HN.257 and HN.258, Romanized transliterated by Q. H. Nguyễn (2001), Truyền kỳ mạn lục giải âm, Hanoi: Social Sciences Publishing house.

Đại từ điển tiếng Việt [Great Dictionary of Vietnamese], complied by N. Y. Nguyễn (1999). Ho Chi Minh City: Culture and Information Publisher.