ABSTRACT The dissertation is an attempt to describe linguistic features of the structure that consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I and cognitive non-factive verb and
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
In daily communication, our primary objective is to convey information while also demonstrating our commitment to the truth of our statements Linguists link the speaker's attitude to modality, particularly epistemic modality, making it a crucial area of study in linguistics Understanding modality is essential for grasping how language serves as a strategic tool for constructing social reality An utterance comprises distinct parts, but modality is vital in expressing the speaker's thoughts and attitudes to the listener As Bally notes, modality is the essence of the utterance, highlighting its importance in effective communication.
English offers a diverse range of lexical tools to convey modality, such as modal nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs However, as Perkins (1983) notes, researching modality can be as challenging as navigating a crowded room without stepping on others' toes Similarly, Jongeboer highlights the complexities involved in this area of study.
In the study of grammar, particularly regarding modality, there is a surprising level of disagreement among scholars This area appears to be a complex maze, with each grammarian navigating their own path to understanding.
Despite extensive research on modality, several aspects remain unexplored Hoye (1997) notes that "modal elements frequently combine and interact dynamically," highlighting a key property of modality that captivates linguists today Consequently, the study of collocations has become a vital area of linguistic research, leading to significant advancements in lexicology by examining the occurrence and collocation of words to understand their impact on modality.
In fact, everyday words not only have a distinct meaning or meanings but also are a plentiful combination of multi-word patterns which make up a text
In epistemic modality, the combination of diverse modal elements is common, particularly the use of cognitive non-factive verbs and epistemic adverbs These elements serve to hedge or soften the speaker's assertions, allowing the listener the opportunity to contest the truth or falsity of the presented states of affairs.
Hedging items, which combine cognitive non-factive verbs with epistemic adverbs and a singular first-person subject, such as "I certainly think," "I possibly believe," "maybe I guess," and "I suppose perhaps," represent an intriguing and beneficial aspect for all English language learners.
(1.1) “I think per haps I can too But I try not to borrow First you borrow
Then you beg.” (The old man and the sea, 1952, p.10)
(1.2) “ I guess maybe we'll starve, but he won't care He's so mean!"
In reflecting on past worries, the speaker expresses newfound ease regarding the situation, hoping for timely plane departures and a dusty road tomorrow.
In communication, the English are often in the habit of using the structure I
Incorporating collocations such as "I think," "I guess," "maybe," and "I certainly hope" at the beginning of utterances serves to convey the speaker's attitude towards the proposition This structure not only reflects personal sentiment but also functions as hedges, aligning with the cooperative principle and politeness strategies in communication.
Extensive research on modality has been conducted, focusing on the interplay between modal verbs and modal adverbs, as highlighted in studies by Cappelli (2005), Coates (1983), McIntosh (1961), Hoye (1997), and Lyons.
Despite previous research by Perkins (1983) and others, there has been a lack of comprehensive studies on modality expressions that reflect the speaker's attitude, particularly in terms of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics This thesis, titled "A Study of Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English," aims to fill this gap by exploring the structure involving the singular first-person subject pronoun "I," cognitive non-factive verbs, and epistemic adverb collocations The research intends to benefit both English learners and native speakers by enhancing their communication skills The study will delve into the linguistic features of these collocations across the three aspects of language, emphasizing the interplay between them.
CNFV and EA collocations in terms of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics might contribute a better understanding of modal meanings in English to improving the quality of teaching and learning English.
Aims and Objectives of the Study
This study investigates the linguistic characteristics of the structure formed by the singular first-person subject pronoun "I" combined with collocations of CNFVs and EAs in English It aims to highlight the interaction of these linguistic elements to equip both English learners and native speakers with practical knowledge for more effective communication.
This study is intended to achieve the following objectives:
- To identify the linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocation in three aspects of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics
- To present the interplay of these above mentioned aspects in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations
- To make suggestions on using the structure mentioned to teach and learn English as a foreign language.
Research Questions
In order to achieve the above aim and objectives, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:
- What are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of the structure I +
CNFV and EA collocations in English?
- What is the interplay of three above mentioned linguistic dimensions in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in English?
Object of the Study
This study focuses on the structure involving the singular first-person subject pronoun "I" and the collocations between cognitive non-factive verbs and epistemic adverbs in the simple present tense.
Scope of the Study
This study focuses on the collocations of six cognitive non-factive verbs (CNFVs) — think, believe, guess, suppose, assume, and hope — alongside epistemic adverbs, including both assertive and non-assertive types such as certainly, perhaps, and probably While the field of collocations is extensive, this research narrows its scope due to the frequency and semantic overlap of these selected CNFVs in the collected data The analysis specifically examines the structure "I + collocations" in the simple present tense, highlighting the speaker's subjectivity and commitment to the propositions Notably, the study does not address phonetic devices due to its limitations.
Significance of the Study
This study significantly contributes to the field of linguistics by providing a thorough analysis of the I + CNFV and EA collocations It offers a comprehensive understanding of the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of these structures, while also delivering clear and plausible explanations regarding their usage in English.
The interaction among these three linguistic dimensions significantly enhances the theoretical importance of the study Their correlation allows for a deeper understanding of the structure of I + CNFV and EA collocations in English.
The study makes contribution to:
- providing a complete systematic description of the structure I + CNFV and
EA collocations in English serve as a valuable reference for developing lectures, books, and materials pertinent to the study's scope, encompassing aspects of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.
This article aims to assist both non-native and native English speakers in understanding the modal meanings of various structures By enhancing their comprehension, language learners can use these structures more effectively in communication.
- helping researchers obtain a comprehensive and detailed overview on the modality structure and form a sound theoretical base for their next studies
The completed dissertation aims to assist both English learners and native speakers in effectively utilizing the structure in communication Additionally, the exploration of the I + CNFV and EA collocations from syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives may enhance the understanding of modal meanings in English, ultimately improving the quality of English teaching and learning.
Organization of the Study
The study consists of eight chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of the rationale, the aims, the objectives, the scope of the study, two research questions and the organization of the study
Chapter 2, Literature Review and Theoretical Background, provides a brief literature review and theoretical knowledge for the matters of study
Chapter 3, Research Methodology, presents the research method, data collection and analysis, analytical framework and the research procedures
Chapter 4, Syntactic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA collocations, describes syntactic linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and
Chapter 5, Semantic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA collocations, describes semantic linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and
Chapter 6, Pragmatic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA collocations, describes pragmatic linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and
Chapter 7, Interplay of three linguistic dimensions: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations, presents the correlation of three linguistic aspects of the structure
Chapter 8, Conclusions, is the summary of the development of the study
This section also draws brief conclusions, raises some implications for English teaching and learning and language research, some limitations and gives some suggestions for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL
Review of Previous Researches Related to the Study
Research on modality expressions encompasses various modal lexical items, including modal verbs and adverbs, as well as their combinations To provide a comprehensive overview of previous studies, we categorize the findings into four key areas: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics, and a synthesis of these linguistic aspects This chronological organization aims to give readers a clear understanding of modality and establish a foundational context for our research.
In his early study, Urmson (1963) explored parenthetical verbs like "suppose," "believe," and "think," highlighting their role as comments on main propositions Later, he expanded his research (1982) to include certain adverbs, termed sentential adverbials, which share similar grammatical relations and mobility within sentences as parenthetical verbs Building on Urmson's findings, Mackenzie (1987) investigated the mobility of mental verbs such as "know" and "guess," emphasizing that these parenthetical verbs do not necessarily indicate mental activities, despite their association with mental verbs.
Aijmer (1997) explored the English modal particle "I think," suggesting it has grammaticalized into modal particles However, subsequent studies by Mindt (2003) and Blanche & Willems (2007, 2008), as well as Van (2011), classified "think" as a weak verb Despite differing terminologies among linguists, mental verbs convey both descriptive and modal meanings, reflecting the speaker's commitment to the truth of the proposition Consequently, expressions of modality such as "I think," "I believe," and "I guess" are frequently used in everyday communication to fulfill human interaction needs.
Especially, factive verbs and non-factive verbs were discussed by Kiparsky
Factive verbs, including "know," "realize," and "forget," affirm the truth of a proposition, while non-factive verbs like "think," "believe," and "suppose" indicate uncertainty about a situation Halliday (2004) categorized verbs such as "think" and "know" as mental processes associated with human agents, emphasizing the capacity for thought and perception.
(2005) adapted Halliday’s view to give the description of experiential grammar of Vietnamese clauses in his work
More importantly, Halliday (1994) described a type of collocational study, saying that collocation is the syntagmatic association of lexical items In his study
In 1994, the author outlined key components of theme, including interpersonal, topical, and textual themes, with a particular focus on the interpersonal theme This theme encompasses modal adjuncts that convey the speaker's judgment about the message's relevance, such as "probably," "possibly," and "certainly," as well as phrases like "I think" and "I believe." Additionally, in his 1970 research, he emphasized the importance of the interaction between verbal and non-verbal elements, referred to as 'forms' of modality Halliday's work further illustrates that the choice of modal combinations in language structure is influenced by their contextual use.
“Language is as it is because of the functions it is required to serve.” (1970, p.324). However, the term modality used by Halliday in this context is only synonymous to
Non-factive verbs are characterized by a notable phenomenon known as neg-raising, which has been extensively discussed since Fillmore's (1963) syntactic theory This theory has garnered significant attention and is backed by compelling evidence Additionally, Horn (1978) contributed to the understanding of neg-raising, while Bublitz (1992) further explored the concepts of moved negation and modality Moved negation stands out as a fascinating syntactic feature frequently utilized in English communication.
Thompson and Mulac (1991) utilized the theory of grammaticalization to explore the parenthetical nature of certain structures, suggesting that these structures evolve from propositions to parentheses They noted that parenthetical structures can sometimes act as modal adverbs, such as "probably," "possibly," and "maybe." Additionally, a key aspect of the early stages of grammaticalization is the omission of the complementizer "that." The London – Lund Corpus reveals a significant disappearance of "that," with a notable 93% reduction, supported by Haan's findings of 90%.
(1997) as cited in Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008, p.136)
Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) identifies two distinct types of modality: the modality of utterance-act in pragmatics and the modality of statement in semantics The modality of statement is further divided into modality of sentence and modality of predication This modality reflects the speaker's stance within the fundamental grammatical framework of Theme – rheme structure, which Hạo views as a key method for expressing modality in the Vietnamese language.
Bybee and Fleischman (1995) presented a series of 18 papers that investigated the modality expressions in the grammatical points of natural languages, with an emphasis on its expressing in naturally occurring utterances
The research highlights key aspects of modality, including the relationship between "mood" and "modality," the characteristics of modal expressions, and the role of modality in everyday language It also identifies significant features known as "irrealis" and examines how modal concepts relate to other grammatical categories This study significantly contributes to the understanding of modality by exploring its interaction with various grammatical elements, such as negation, complementizers, past tense, and the imperfective aspect.
Haan's study (1997) identifies two primary strategies for the interaction of modality and negation: the modal suppletion strategy and the negation placement strategy The modal suppletion strategy highlights the distinction between "must not," which indicates narrow scope of negation, and "need not," which reflects wide scope Conversely, the negation placement strategy reveals that differences in scope are indicated by the position of negation, leading to a phenomenon known as negative transportation that creates a mismatch between syntax and semantics Additionally, the study explores other categories that interact with negation, noting that evidentials cannot fall within the scope of negation Overall, Haan's research paves the way for future linguists to further investigate the complexities of negation in modality.
Nguyễn Minh Thuyết and Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (1998) introduced the concept of phrasal modality (tình thái ngữ) as a subordinate part of a sentence They distinguished phrasal modality from other sentence elements, classified its types, and demonstrated its application within sentences Their research particularly focused on the conditions for using adverbs, exploring their positional mobility in sentences This perspective has significantly contributed to the understanding of syntactic features in our study.
Nguyễn Kim Thản (1977, 1999) identified the syntactic features of Vietnamese epistemic verbs, categorizing Vietnamese verbs into six groups, with epistemic verbs like biết, hiểu, and tin included in the fifth group However, his study provided only a general overview of these verbs rather than an in-depth analysis, leading to some overlap among categories; for instance, while hiểu is classified as a sentimental verb, am hiểu is categorized as a perceptive verb.
Ngô Thị Minh (2005) noted that conversational language is rich in modal items and features a diverse range of modal devices In addition to phonetics, lexicon, and grammar, she identified three additional elements: the use of abuse, curses, idioms, and epistemic markers However, her discussion of epistemic markers lacks detail and clarity, serving only as an introduction to the topic.
Nordstrom’s 2010 study examines the relationship between modality and subordinators, revealing how each can enhance the understanding of the other It highlights that general subordinators, or complementizers, exhibit propositional modality, which is also conveyed through moods like the indicative-subjunctive and epistemic-evidential modal markers The research investigates this hypothesis across different languages, particularly within the Germanic language family It demonstrates that both the indicative-subjunctive distinction and subordinators play a crucial role in determining clause types Notably, the study shows that subordinators often reflect the indicative-subjunctive difference, as seen in German, where the choice between "that" and "if" is influenced by the speaker's commitment to the truth of the proposition.
In summary, we have provided a comprehensive overview of prior research concerning key syntactic perspectives, including mobility, grammaticalization, negation, and the loss of the complementizer 'that.' This overview serves as a crucial foundation for advancing the subsequent sections of the study.
Theoretical Background
Since the time of Aristotle, modality has been associated with propositions and the actual world, originating from the field of logic Logic examines modality due to its relevance to the truth, falsity, and validity of propositions in various states of affairs This concept, known as objective modality, reflects logic's perspective on the meanings of sentences.
In traditional logic, judgments can be classified by various criteria, including quantity, quality, structure, and modality Modality specifically refers to how judgments are categorized based on the relationship between the subject and predicate, focusing on the appropriateness of the judgment in relation to reality Consequently, judgments are divided into two main types: necessity and possibility.
Necessity can be categorized into two types: necessary truth and accidental truth Necessary truth refers to propositions that hold true in all possible worlds, while accidental truth pertains to propositions that may not be true in the real world due to the non-eternal nature of the subject's properties Accidental truths are statements that are currently true but could potentially be false For instance, while both "Bill Clinton is president" and "The sun rises in the east" are true, the statement "Necessarily, Bill Clinton is president" is false, whereas "Necessarily, the sun rises in the east" is true.
The general structure of possibility is expressed as “S might be P,” indicating that a statement could be true or false For instance, the phrase “It might be sunny tomorrow” suggests that sunny weather is a potential outcome, highlighting the uncertainty of what the weather will actually be.
Judgements can be categorized based on three key norms: necessity, possibility, and actuality A proposition P is considered possible if there exists at least one possible world where P holds true In contrast, necessity indicates that P is necessarily true if it is valid in all possible worlds Lastly, actuality pertains to the affirmation or negation of P as a truth.
In logic, modality focuses on the relationships between judgment and reality, excluding subjective elements like volition, evaluation, commitment, and the speaker's perspective This leads to the classification of modality in logic as objective modality, highlighting its inherent objective characteristics.
Kiefer (1994) asserts that modality fundamentally involves relating the validity of sentence meanings to various possible worlds In essence, objective modality in logic disregards the influence of the speaker.
Traditional modal logic provides a crucial foundation for understanding the fundamental concepts of modality by revealing the internal components of propositions It serves as a starting point for the development of new theories related to linguistic modality Consequently, it is essential for researchers to grasp logicians' perspectives when conducting investigations into modality.
Subjective modality in linguistics emphasizes the speaker's perspective, contrasting with the objective modality found in logic While modality encompasses concepts of possibility, necessity, and actuality, subjective modality highlights the speaker's personal evidence or deductions, reflecting their commitment to the truth of a proposition and their attitudes towards it.
Consequently, the contrary of objective modality is subjective modality which linguistics is interested in and considers as a part of the content of sentence
Subjective modality reflects the speaker's personal stance on states of affairs, highlighting that evaluation serves as its semantic foundation This subjectivity encompasses a wide range of modal evaluations, from possibility to necessity and factuality to non-factuality, illustrating a complex interplay between quantity and quality influenced by evidence, inference, and the speaker's power and obligations Consequently, subjective modality is more prevalent than objective modality.
The followings are some views on modality
Rescher (1968) defines modality as follows
A proposition that is modified by an additional qualification, resulting in a new proposition, is said to be subjected to a modality.
Lyons (1977) attributes that modality is the speaker’s attitude to the propositional content which is expressed in the sentence or the state of affair described in the proposition
Bybee (1985) defines modality in broad terms saying that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition
In recent years, Vietnamese linguists such as Cao Xuân Hạo, Đỗ Hữu Châu, and Nguyễn Minh Thuyết have extensively discussed modality Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) identifies three types of modality: modality of utterance act, modality of predication, and modality of sentence Meanwhile, Đỗ Hữu Châu (2009) approaches modality from a pragmatic perspective, defining it as the collection of meanings that contribute to the formation of a message within the context of a sentence.
Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008) gives an overall view on modality by analyzing and comparing different ones and especially the clear distinction between objective modality and subjective modality
Linguists agree that modality reflects the speaker's attitude towards the entire proposition rather than just specific events or meanings Palmer (1986) defines modality as the semantic information linked to the speaker's opinion about the statement, highlighting its complexity and the relationship between propositional content and reality This comprehensive perspective on modality serves as the foundation for our study, which examines the structure involving the singular first-person subject pronoun "I," cognitive non-factive verbs, and epistemic adverb collocations in English Our goal is to uncover the linguistic features of this structure and its role in everyday communication.
2.2.1.3 The Distinction between Modality and Proposition
In linguistics, Bally identified the meaning structure of a sentence as comprising two interrelated components: modus and dictum Modus refers to the speaker's mental engagement with the propositional content, encompassing their thoughts, emotions, and intentions In contrast, dictum represents the state of affairs conveyed by this mental act, essentially reflecting what is being communicated.
2008) He also considered the modus as the “theme”, and the dictum as the “goal” (pros) of the utterance For example, in the following sentence
(2.1) “ I think perhaps you had a great lesson to learn which could not be learned in any way less destructive.” (The thorn bird, 1977, p.436)
“I think perhaps” is modus, and “you had a great lesson to learn which could not be learned in any way less destructive” is dictum
Linguists, including Bally, have introduced various terms for the components of language, with "proposition" and "modality" being the most widely recognized Proposition conveys the core information, while modality enhances its significance and informativeness The concepts of modality and proposition offer researchers valuable insights into the study of modally harmonic combinations and the scope of modal devices within sentences According to Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2004), the semantic structure of an utterance can be effectively represented in this manner.
And we have modalized utterances like: Possibly I think P; Maybe I believe
2.2.1.4 The Distinction between Deontic and Epistemic Modality
According to Jespersen (1949, p.28) the two features which share are subjectivity, i.e the involvement of the speaker and non-factuality which consists of
Summary
This chapter reviews previous studies on the linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations, focusing on syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics It establishes a theoretical foundation for our research, drawing on the achievements of earlier linguists Key theories, particularly Palmer’s (1986) perspective on epistemic modality, are highlighted for their relevance to analyzing cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations The chapter also defines and classifies CNFVs and EAs, presenting their characteristics and the collocations formed between them Syntactically, it discusses modal collocations' mobility and transferred negation, while semantically, it references Givón’s (1982) epistemic scale and Cappelli’s (2008) developments Additionally, Searle’s (1976) speech act theory is essential for understanding modality Finally, the chapter explores the relationship between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, alongside Grice's cooperation principle.
(1975) was also mentioned Besides, factors affecting the mobility of the structure I
+ CNFV and EA collocation were showed In addition, Givón’s scale of certainty
The foundational theories of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1982, 1987) serve as essential frameworks for analyzing the structure of I + CNFV and EA collocations in our upcoming significant research.