LV An investigation into the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of deontic markers

ABSTRACT This study attempts to investigate the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of deontic markers DM in English and Vietnamese.. Since the semantic field of modality has, fo

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains

no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgements in the thesis

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Da Nang, 2006

ABSTRACT

This study attempts to investigate the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of deontic markers (DM ) in English and Vietnamese The study explores the use of modal devices expressing obligation and permission in modern English and Vietnamese novels and short stories The study is carried out through the adoption

of descriptive, quantitative, qualitative and contrastive approaches

The most important and significant aspect of the study, the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese ways of expressing deontic modality

in the view of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics, is presented in order to help learners have better use of language in communication The findings of the study show the frequency and variety in terms of occurrence of deontic forms On the basis of the findings, some teaching implications consisting of teaching strategies and some suggested exercises have been put forward

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Justification of the Study 4

1.3 Scope of the Study 4

1.4 Research Questions 4

1.5 Organization of the Study 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Review of Previous Studies 6

2.2 Theoretical Background 7

2.2.1 Some Background Concepts 8

2.2.2 Concepts of Modal Verbs 9

2.2.3 Types of Modality 11

2.2.4 Linguistic Realization of Deontic Modality 15

2.2.5 Deontic Modality in the View of Pragmatics 18

2.2.6 Linguistic Communication 22

2.3 Summary 27

CHAPTER 3: METHOD AND PROCEDURE 28

3.1 Aims and Objectives of the Study 28

3.1.1 Aim of the Study 28

3.1.2 Objectives of the Study 28

3.2 Research Methodology 29

3.3 Research Procedures 30

3.4 Description of Population and Sample 30

3.5 Data Collection 31

3.6 Data Analysis 31

3.7 Reliability and Validity 31

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 33

4.1 Syntactic Representation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese 33

4.1.1 UCDM Consisting of a Complete Sentence 33

4.1.2 UCDM Consisting of an Incomplete Sentence 41

4.1.3 UCDM Containing Subordinate Acts 45

4.1.4 Summary 46

4.2 Semantic Characteristics of DM in English and Vietnamese 49

4.2.1 The Presentation of Semantic Features of English Modals 49

4.2.2 Specific Realizations of UCDM Expressing the Notions of Obligation and Permission 57

4.2.3 Summary 72

4.3 Pragmatic Interpretation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese 76

4.3.1 The Affect of Social Distance (Solidarity) in UCDM in English

and Vietnamese 76

4.3.2 Power Relationship in UCDM in English and Vietnamese 84

4.3.3 Summary 92

4.4 Result Discussion 93

4.4.1 Syntactic Features of UCDM as Communicative Acts in English and Vietnamese 93

4.4.2 Semantic Features of UCDM in English and Vietnamese 96

4.4.3 Pragmatic Features of UCDM in English and Vietnamese 98

4.4.4 Summary 101

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING 103

5.1 Conclusions 103

5.2 Implications for Language Learning and Teaching 108

5.3 Suggestions for Further Research 110 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

ABBREVIATIONS

DM : Deontic Markers

D & C : Directives and Commissives

FTA : Face Threatening Acts

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1: Summary of the Similarities and Differences in the Syntactic

Representation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese

48

Table 4.2: Summary of the Typical Semantic Meaning of 11 Modal Verbs

Found in UCDM in English and Vietnamese

56

Table 4.3: Summary on the Performative Verbs of UCDM in English and

Vietnamese

74

Table 4.4: Summary of the Representation of DM for the Six Functions

of UCDM in English and Vietnamese

75

Table 4.5: Relative Frequency (%) of English and Vietnamese Deontic

Markers under Syntactic Features

95

Table 4.6: Summary of Polite Markers & Mitigating Words in UCDM in

English and Vietnamese

102

of descriptive information is usually not an end in itself” (Lyons, 1977) Speakers,

by means of language, also wish to express their emotions and attitudes, or to influence in some way the addressee’s beliefs and behaviours They often qualify their statements with respect to believability, reliability and general compatibility

with accepted fact, for example It must be raining; or else, intervene in the speech event by laying obligation or giving permission: We must copy this out again; You’d better come, too This area of semantics that concerns those expressive and social

information of statements is modality Since the semantic field of modality has, for most linguists, covered a wide range of attitudinal notions of speech event, a number of types of language forms can represent its concepts, among which the use

of moods, modal verbs, performative verbs as well as particles are very common in English and Vietnamese

Though many pages and chapters, books have been written about the English modal system, it still remains a complicated and troublesome area of language for linguists and learners of English The problem can be traced to the polysemy or ambiguity of modal meanings Semantically, a modal can have both deontic and

epistemic meaning In the sociophysical (deontic) world, the must in John must go

to all the department parties is taken as indicating an obligation imposed upon the

subject of the sentence by the speaker ( or by some other agents) In the epistemic

world, the must in the same sentence could be read as a logical necessity according

to the reasoning I must conclude that it is John’s habit to go to all department

parties (because I see his name on the sign-up sheet every time, and he’s always out

on those nights) In addition, there is considerable overlap between modals It is

hard to discern any semantic difference among them since modals are almost

substitutable in almost contexts, such as should and ought to in I should/ ought to finish this essays tonight Pragmatically, we can talk about modal meanings in terms

of such logical notions as permission, obligation and prohibition performed by speech acts of directives and commissives, but this done, we will have to consider ways in which these notions become remoulded by the psychological pressures of everyday communication between human beings: factors such as the effect of social distance, the power relationship between interlocutors, politeness, directness, indirectness , mitigating devices and hedges The appropriate use of the linguistic means to the context is the matter of culture- specifics A good knowledge of such factors plays an important role in sustaining communication and good relationship between interlocutors

In foreign language classes, focus is given on the teaching and learning of the linguistic forms and functions The pragmatic use of them in communication has completely been ignored or not fully been introduced and practised Moreover, the socio-cultural factors and routines of the community using the language have not been mentioned As a result, there is a gap between classroom interactions and the authentic use of language in communication and thus learners with good knowledge

of a language may fail in his real communication

The learning of meaning of modal verbs, performative verbs and particles and how to use them correctly has not been, then, an easy task for learners of English Learners are often confused in choosing the appropriate lexical devices to

express certain notion of modality When I say, “John may go home now” to give John permission to leave, or when I advise, “Elena should go home She looks tired.” I am using deontic modality.

These descriptions raise several considerations One of them is that I used the

same modal may in John may go home now to give John permission to leave

(deontic) and to tell my listener that I am not certain if John is leaving (epistemic), which may cause ambiguity This ambiguity is found throughout the modal system and is one of the reasons that classroom activities and exercises focusing on modality can be so difficult to develop

This problem is especially more embarrassing when they encounter different modals conveying the same meaning Also, they can produce grammatically correct utterances, but do not understand properly the social and cultural information each modal meaning conveys Furthermore, due to the structuralist approach to grammar teaching, learners can memorize modal words with their accompanying meanings, but do not know how to use them to improve their communicative competence, say,

to mitigate directness, to express politeness, to make assertions in social interaction Besides the modals, there are other means expressing deontic modality: the notions

of obligation, prohibition, permission, performed by speech acts of directives, commissives such as performative verbs, particles and the imperative mood

Although Palmer’s notional categories make sense, I found that it was difficult to process the grammatical patterns in the language data used to illustrate the categories Part of my difficulty may be attributed to the fact that I believe modality needs to be studied in the context of use, i.e., natural texts, not isolated sentences; and also, I believe that a thorough study of all grammatical expressions

of modality and mood must be done within a single language before the results are compared and contrasted cross-linguistically Such linguistic and methodological viewpoints have revealed that a fully complete study on approaches to syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analysis of modal meanings is essential, especially for learners of English as a foreign language

On recognizing of the needs for such a study, I decided to make an investigation into deontic markers in English and Vietnamese It is hoped that the study is an attempt to consider problematic aspects of deontic modality with the respects to semantic, syntactic and pragmatic features of English DM in comparison with Vietnamese ones to serve better communication as well as the teaching The

investigation will be a significant task contributing to the study of English as a foreign language, especially to learners of both languages

1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY

Although many linguists have studied English deontic modality, they have paid attention to studying modal verbs in terms of semantics and syntactics In fact, the contrastive analysis on the means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese is of great demand This is the first thesis studying DM in English and their Vietnamese equivalents that has realised the deontic forms and discovered the similarities and differences between English means of expressing obligation, permission, and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics This study will be a contribution to pragmatic competence that benefits Vietnamese learners and helps Vietnamese learners of English as well as foreign learners of Vietnamese to achieve high efficiency in communication

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study investigates lexical devices (modal verbs, performative verbs, and particles), and mood (especially imperatives) that are used to express deontic modality in English and Vietnamese literary works These devices are examined and categorized in accordance with grammatical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects The study also mentions some functions concerning directives and commissives such as requirements, prohibitives, requests, advisories, suggestions and permissives with different structures and modal devices in relation to different relationship between interlocutors Due to the limited time, these devices are explored in English and Vietnamese texts and conversations from literary works

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The findings are discussed in relation to the following research questions of the study:

Vietnamese DM?

2 What are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of DM in English and Vietnamese?

3 How are the DM distributed in literary works in English and Vietnamese?

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This paper includes the following parts:

- Chapter 1 introduces the rationale of the study, presents the aims and objectives,

the scope, the justification and the organization of the study

- Chapter 2 is the literature review which includes previous studies and the

linguistic concepts of modality, types of modality, notions of possibility and necessity as semantic category of deontic modality, linguistic realizations of DM in English and Vietnamese Besides, the theory of speech acts, principles of politeness and mitigation to express obligation and permission in social interaction are discussed

- Chapter 3 mentions the method and procedure, research questions, description of

population and samples, data collection and procedure of studying modal lexical devices, imperative mood in English and Vietnamese and their semantic, syntactic, pragmatic features

- Chapter 4 presents the findings and discussions consisting of the linguistic

features of DM that are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features, the frequency of occurrence of DM in English and Vietnamese

- Chapter 5 is the conclusion which draws the similarities and differences on

syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features in English and Vietnamese; the implications, the limitations of the study and some suggestions for further study

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

A large number of linguists have investigated the English modal system in terms of grammar, semantics, and pragmatics Quirk’s study may be one of the most useful treatments of English modals within grammatical scope It presents all characteristics of modal usage such as morphological, syntactic and main uses His research serves as the basic groundwork for the consideration of meanings of

modals must, should, ought to, have to, can, may, will, would, shall, could, might in

the light of deontic markers in this paper

There are also a wide variety of researches on meanings of English modals

Those that count are Modality and the English Modals by Palmer (1990) and Meaning and the English Verbs by Leech (1987) Palmer puts forward the

investigation on identifying the central meaning of modals and discusses the similarities and differences between the use of modals in denoting notions of modality Meanwhile, Leech mentions pragmatic elements of modal meanings and suggests that they should be taken in consideration in using English modals Also,

Dixon (1992) in A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles

provides a fresh look at parts of English grammar, in which modals are considered

as secondary verbs due to their dependent semantic roles in verbs phrases Furthermore, it should take into accounts of viewpoint of Lyons (1962) in

Semantics and Sweetser (1976) in From Etymology to Pragmatics Lyons provides

basic ideas on modality, in which modals are seen as a means to express modal meanings Sweetser, on the other hand, sets forth discussions of approaches to pragmatic interpretation of modal semantics in terms of speech acts

In 1999, Nguyen Duong Nguyen Chau presented a M.A thesis about modal

verbs must, should, have to expressing obligation Her investigation focused on the

semantic and pragmatic features of these three English modals

Tran Thi To Nga (2002) with the thesis “An Investigation into the Syntactic and Pragmatic Features of Directives in English and Vietnamese” described and analysed the syntactic and pragmatic features of directives in English and Vietnamese At the same time, she presented the differences and similarities between English and Vietnamese in the syntactic and pragmatic perspectives of directive speech act

Though there have been so many investigations on modals, such researches are general discussions of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of English modal system There have not been so far a specific study which attempts to apply certain fully complete approach of syntactic and semantic analysis as well as pragmatic features of deontic modality expressing the notion of obligation and permission so as to help learners of English have a thorough insight into this problematic area of language For this reason, the study on the markers of expressing deontic modality in English and their Vietnamese equivalents seems to

be a significant task, contributing to the study of languages in general and the study

of English as a foreign language in particular, especially to learners of both languages

2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter presents the theoretical background of the study The first part deals with preliminary information closely related to the study such as concepts of modality, notions of possibility and necessity as semantic category of deontic modality, linguistic realization of deontic modality in English The second part discusses the deontic modality in the view of pragmatics, in which the theory of speech acts , of politeness especially mitigation devices reducing the speaker’s obligation are taken in consideration

2.2.1 Some background concepts

2.2.1.1 Sentences and Utterances

Longman Applied Linguistic Dictionary (1996) defines sentences (in grammar) as the largest unit of grammatical organization within which, parts of speech and grammatical classes (word, phrase and clause) are said to function In English, a sentence normally contains one independent clause with a finite verb Utterance in discourse is defined as what is said by one person before and after another person beginning to speak

The utterance, in general, is not identical with the “sentence” Firstly, the basic criterion for a sentence is grammatical correctness, while that of an utterance is its acceptability or meaningfulness in the context That can explain the existence of utterances in form of incomplete sentences or of more than one sentence Secondly, sentence meaning is free from context, whereas utterance meaning is context dependence A sentence may have different meanings in different contexts In short, utterances are sentences in context

2.2.1.2 Proposition and Modality

In a sentence, there are two semantic components One is what Jespersen (1909:313) refers to as “the content of the sentence” and the other is the speaker’s attitude or opinion In other words, they are proposition and modality The former contains information and the latter makes it more meaningful and informative

Let look at the following two examples:

(a) John may be in his office

(b) John must be in his office

Both utterances carry the same content or proposition, that is “John – in his office” However, it is the presence of modal markers may and must that

differentiates their meanings In (a) the speaker only speculates on John’s presence

in his office and therefore, John may be somewhere else While in (b) the speaker is

much more certain about John’s presence in his office By saying (b), he shows strong commitment to the truth of what he says

The notion content of modality highlights its association with entire statements Modality concerns the factual status of information; it signals the relative actuality, validity, or believability of the content of an expression

Thus, Palmer defines modality as semantic information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said Bybee (1995) gives a broader definition: What the speaker is doing with the whole proposition Though these definitions diverge on the particulars, they agree that modality concerns entire statements, not just events or entities, and its domain is the whole expression at a truth-functional level

2.2.1.3 Mood and Modality

A good starting point is Jespersen (1909)’s discussion of mood He says of the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods They express certain attitudes of mind of the speaker towards the contents of the sentence (uncertainty, necessity, possibility, etc.) Further, it is very important that we speak of “mood” only if the attitude of mind is shown in the form of the verb: mood thus is a syntactic, not a notional category

Modality is “the system expressing mood” In case of grammar, the constituent consists of the elements of tense, mood, and aspect In logic and semantics, the classification of propositions according to whether they are

necessary, possible, contingent, obligatory etc

2.2.2 Concepts of Modal verbs

2.2.2.1 Modal Verbs

Language is not always used just to exchange information by making simple statements and asking questions Sometimes, we want to make requests, offers, or suggestions We may also want to express our wishes, intentions or indicate our

feelings about what we are saying In English, we do all these things by using a set

of verbs called modal verbs or modal auxiliaries

Modals are one way for a speaker to encode modality into what (s)he says- such ideas as necessity, possibility, obligation, etc Here is a list of the modals used

in English Of the same pair, one is root modal and the other is distal one Distal modal will be more polite than its root one

can / could may / might shall / should will/ would

2.2.2.2 Semantic features of modal verbs

According to Lewis (1990: 101), the primary semantic characteristic of modals is that they allow the speaker to express an attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the situation This means (s)he can introduce elements of modality such as possibility, necessity, desirability, morality, doubt, certainty, etc

For example, in making such a question as What should I do? It is clearly about the

speaker, but is also equally importantly about the listener’s judgement or opinion

In an approach to modal semantics, Dixon (1991:170) points out that each modal has a fair semantic range, extending far beyond the central meanings that are indicated There is in fact considerable overlap between modals For instance, the

central meaning of can refers to inherent ability: John can lift 100 kilos, and any of may to the possibility of some specific event happening: We may get a Christmas bonus this year But both modals can and may refer to a permitted activity: John can / may stay out all night

2.2.2.3 Modal verbs and pragmatic analysis

The previous part has presented modal verbs as modality markers Hence the question is how these units perform their function in a broader context outside the system of language, i.e in the pragmatic context

As Sweetser (1990:65) states, modals are an area of language where speakers

can either simply describe or mould real-world modality Just as “You must speak

English” could be either words used to impose or describe an obligation The

interpretation of such an utterance depends on pragmatic factors involved in identifying the source or imposer of modality It is in this case that general principles of expression of modality in terms of speech acts should be taken in consideration

On the other hand, one of the factors that makes the interpretation of meaning of modals problematic and causes difficulties in accounting for the use of these words is that their meaning has both a logical and pragmatic element According to Leech (1987), we can talk about modals in terms of such logical notions as permission, necessity, obligation and so on, but when this done, we have

to still consider ways in which these notions become remoulded by the psychological pressure of everyday communication between human beings: factors such as power relationship, social distance, politeness, tact, irony

For the purpose of dealing with semantic structure of modals, therefore, it is necessary to consider pragmatic aspects governing the use and interpretation of modals in social interaction, which are speech acts and theory of politeness

2.2.3 Types of modality

The distinction that Jespersen draws between the two kinds of modality (“containing an element of will” and “ not containing an element of will”) is closely paralleled in Lyon’s (1977:452) reference to “the speaker’s opinion or attitude towards the proposition describes”

Steele et al (1981:21) implicitly make the same distinction: “Elements expressing modality will mark any of the following: possibility or the related notion

of permission; probability or necessity or the related notion of obligation, certainty

or the related notion of requirement” The remarks in Steele et al can be illustrated from English; the following sentences can be interpreted either in terms of possibility, probability and necessity, or in terms of permission, obligation and requirement (the glosses are rough paraphrases):

He may come tomorrow (Perhaps he will / he is permitted)

The book should be on the shelf (It probably is / Its proper place is)

He must be in his office (I am certain that he is / he is obliged to be)

There is no doubt that the English modals have both epistemic and deontic interpretations, and it would appear from the glosses that both interpretations are available for a single form

However, although the same forms are used, there are often quite clear formal distinctions between epistemic and deontic use In English, for example, the

negative form mustn’t is generally used only deontically, as in he mustn’t be in his office The only way of expressing the negative of epistemic must is to use can’t: He can’t be in his office

2.2.3.1 Epistemic and Deontic modality

In discussing modality, it is common to make a distinction between epistemic and deontic modality Lyons recognized these two kinds of modality, using Von Wright’s term: “Epistemic modality is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief” (1962:793) or “opinion rather than fact” (1962:681) and

“Deontic modality is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed

by morally responsible agents” (1962:823)

Semantically, the two kinds of modality are quite different According to Palmer (1986:121), epistemic modality is concerned with language as information

It expresses speaker’s commitment to the truth of what he says On the other hand, deontic modality is concerned with language as action It is the device that helps to express speaker’s attitude towards possible actions, for example:

(c) He may stay at home

Depending on its context, we can interpret (c) in two ways: he is permitted to stay at home and perhaps he stays at home In the first case, may expresses permission and therefore it is deontic modality In the second case, may reveals the

speaker’s belief and it is epistemic modality

2.2.3.2 Defining deontic modality

According to Lyons (1977:793), deontic modality is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents By means

of this, speakers intervene in or bring about changes in events

To use Chung and Timberlake’s (1985) account, deontic modality expresses the imposition of a state of affairs on individuals, or with the modality as deixis, the imposition of an expressed world on a reference world

Deontic modality, in one form or another, is related to all the following: orders, rights, willing, duty, exhortation, permission, requirements and even ability These concepts comes into two basic categories: obligation and permission

Within the scope of the study, a version of obligation and permission is dealt with so as to lay the foundation for later discussion on its semantic and pragmatic aspects

2.2.3.3 Deontic and performative

Deontic modality is essentially performative By using a deontic modal, a

speaker may actually give permission may, can, could ; lay an obligation must or make a promise or threat will, shall

The criterion of being performative may be starting-point for defining the deontic modals They give (or refuse ) permission, lay an obligation, or make a promise Moreover, there will normally be no past tense forms, for by their nature performatives cannot be in the past; the act takes place at the moment of speaking

2.2.3.4 The notions of possibility and necessity as semantic category of deontic modality

The notions of possibility and necessity, traditionally associated with modal logic, are also central to the discussion of modality They are relevant to epistemic modality as well as to Von Wright’s alethic They can also be used to describe

deontic modality, since to give permission is to make an action possible and to lay

an obligation is to make it necessary

With respect to the notion of obligation, Lyons (1977: 824) suggests that it seems preferable for linguists to take a maximally view of what constitutes obligation, drawing no distinction, in the first instance at least, between morality, legality, and physical necessity In the analysis of lexical structures of particular languages, on the other hand, distinctions need to be drawn between various kinds

of obligation; many of these are culture-dependent and correlated with institutionalized beliefs and norms of conduct Nevertheless, he also assumes that there is some universally valid notion of obligation which may be variously categorized and differentiated in terms of its course and sanctions in different cultures

According to Lyons, an utterance expressing obligations may refer to either a restricted or unrestricted obligation This distinction can be accounted for by quantifying the worlds in which the obligations holds An unrestricted obligation is concerned in the sense that it holds at all times and in all possible worlds This kind

of obligation often derives its validity from ominitemporally or eternally applicable principles governing social behaviour Such principles would be analogous to the so-called laws of nature or moral and legal obligations in the form of directives issued by parents, priests, judges or by some higher, and ultimately sovereign, authority who establish and maintain norms of conduct within the society

2.2.3.5 Summary

The term deontic ( from the Greek “deon”: “what is binding”) is now quite

widely used by philosophers to refer to a particular branch or extension of modal logic: the logic of obligation and permission There are certain obvious differences between alethic and epistemic necessity, on the one hand, and what we might call deontic necessity (i.e obligation), on the other Logical and epistemic necessity , as

we have seen, have to do with the truth of propositions; deontic modality is

concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents When we impose upon someone the obligation to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act, we are clearly not describing either his present or future performance of that act There is a sense in which the sentence we utter can be said

to express a proposition; but it is not a proposition which describes the act itself What it describes is the state-of-affairs that will obtain if the act in question is performed; and we have already seen that directives can be analyzed, along these lines, as utterances which impose upon someone the obligation to make a proposition true (or to refrain from making it true) by bringing about (or refraining from bringing about) in some future world the state-of-affairs that is described by the proposition

2.2.4 Linguistic realization of deontic modality

Modality, conceived as a general notional category present in all languages and therefore subject to a cross-linguistic comparison, indicates the attitude of the speaker towards the propositional content of the utterance It can be expressed in a variety of forms, either grammatical or lexical, mood, modal verbs, modal uses of tenses, sentential adverbs, particles, periphrases (verbal, adjective and nominal expressions), or via intonation

Deontic modality can be expressed by different devices such as syntactic, lexical and morphological devices On the scope of this research, only syntactic and lexical devices are investigated

2.2.4.1 Linguistic realization of deontic modality in English

Deontic modality is marked in various ways, especially by lexical devices (modal verbs, performative verbs) and by mood

The imperative is the maximally explicit form of expressing obligation, but also the unmarked- or minimally marked-form It is also used for expressing

direction (Turn left at the supermarket); advice (See a doctor about that cough); appeal (Be a blood donor); permission (Come in!); prayer (Forgive us our trespasses); warning (Watch out for falling rock); requests (Pass the salt); offers (Have some more coffee); instructions (Open your books)

2.2.4.2 Linguistic realization of deontic modality in Vietnamese

Vietnamese also owns a system of lexical devices in four grammatical groups:

+ Modal auxilaries: cấm, khuyên, bắt buộc, yêu cầu, đề nghị, kiến nghị, ra

lệnh, cho phép

+ Modal lexical verbs:

- Obligation : phải, cần, nên

- Prohibition: dám, nỡ, đành, đang tâm, không được, đừng

- Permission : cĩ thể, được

- Exemption: khoan, khơng thể

- Advice: nên, thử, khoan, phải

- Suggestion, proposal: nên, cần, phải

+ Modal adverbs: Hãy, đừng, chớ

+ Modal particles: à , ạ, sao, nhỉ, nhé, nghe , cho, với, mà…

- Command: đi, đã, thơi, chứ, mà

- Request: xem, coi

- Suggestion: nào, nhé

- Entreating/ Begging: với , mà

Particles play a very important role in expressing modality in Vietnamese Vietnamese linguists identify and recognize a special word class expressing modal meanings: modal particles which can partly be realized by such

items as chăng, đâu, nhỉ, etc Hồng Trọng Phiến (1980:51) also offers the

following remarks:

In different languages, modality is expressed differently Modality can often

be expressed by intonation, verbs, word order and such modal particles as : à, ư, nhỉ, nhé, sao, chăng, ru, chăng tá

Authors of “Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Việt” (1983) classify “particles” into a word class which is neither within the scope of content words nor function words, and which is different from pronouns Particles express the speaker’s attitude They neither take the function of topic and comment, nor take the function of head and modifier They are often added to sentences to express surprise, doubt, irony, joy, politeness or special affirmation…

In summary, modality is not, then, necessarily marked in the verbal element nor is there any obvious reason why it should be, apart from the fact that the verb is

Since modality is not confined to verbal features, quite independent “modal” particles can also be considered It has already been noted that Vietnamese has abundant particles, they appear in different positions but usually in final positions

Semantically the speaker merely “presents” the proposition for action by the hearer; context provides information for interpretation In the text type under examination, it is the text function which ensures that the imperative be understood

as expressing obligation The imperative can be portrayed as the most direct way of

demanding action It is neither stronger nor weaker than must; its force depends

again on context: The receiver is left to judge the force of obligation from the sender’s authority; individual or institutional In this case the force is strong

2.2.5 Deontic modality in the view of pragmatics

According to Yule (1987), pragmatics is “the study of speaker /writer’s meaning” In other words, it is also considered as the study that deals with the analysis of what people mean by utterances rather than what the words and phrases might mean by themselves One of the central concepts of pragmatics is the observation that utterances perform actions, which are known as speech acts Therefore it is necessary to consider deontic modality in the view of pragmatics, especially under the theory of speech acts

2.2.5.1 Speech act theory

According to Austin (1962), when making an utterance, the speaker performs

an action that consists of three acts: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts

Locutionary acts is the act of using language units like phonetic, grammatical, lexical unit to form an utterance The utterance, after being produced, performs a certain function It can be used to apologize, to make suggestion, to ask for permission, to show commitment, etc When performing these functions, the

speaker is said to be performing an illocutionary For example, “ I hereby order you that you clean up this mess” is an utterance representing a command

By perlocutionary act, the speaker, by his manner of locutionary act in an actual situation, conveys an idea, a further purpose which can be interpreted by the hearer, not on the surface of the words and structure of the sentence For example,

“I’ve just made some coffee” can be interpreted as an explanation for a wonderful

smell, or to get the hearer to drink some coffee

These three acts must have a close relation to achieve high efficiency in communication A particular locution has a particular illocutionary force if it meets the appropriate conditions for that act On the contrary , the same locutionary act can be understood in different ways i.e having different illocutionary force in

different contexts The utterance “I will talk to you later” (A father says to his son)

can count as a promise if the father is in a good mood and wants to have a talk with his son about a problem they both are interested On the contrary, it may be understood as a threat when the father is angry with his son and dissatisfied with his action or words

Speech acts may be performed directly or indirectly We often use indirect

speech acts when we wish to be polite “Would you please give me a hand?” is in preference to “Give me a hand” or “I want you to give me a hand.”

2.2.5.2 The Classification of Speech Acts

According to Searle (1969), there are five types of general functions performed by speech acts : declaratives, representatives, expressives, directives and commissives

(a) Declaratives are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via

their utterance The speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration appropriately:

Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife

(b) Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker

believes to be the case or not Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions and descriptions are examples of the speaker representing the world as he or she believes it is:

The earth is flat

Chomsky didn’t write about peanuts

(c) Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker

feels They express psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow:

I’m really sorry!

Congratulations!

(d) Directives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get someone

else to do something They express what the speaker wants They are usually commands, orders, requests, suggestions, and can be positive or negative:

You should obey the law

Could you lend me a pen, please?

(e) Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that the speakers use to

commit themselves to some future action They express what the speaker intends, and can be performed by the speakers alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group:

I’ll be back (promise)

We will not do that (refusal)

* Directives and commissives

Among the five types of functions performed by speech acts, directives and commissives obviously correspond to deontic modality (Searle 1983: 166)

Directives, “where we try to get our hearers to do things”, and commissives,

“where we commit ourselves to do things”; in each case the speaker effectively tries

to make reality conform to his requirements, the world is made to fit the words:

Could you possibly find out who really did do it? (Directive)

That I shall certainly do (Commissive)

The essential difference between the two types of speech act is illocutionary force: Directives can be associated with the making of requests, creating an obligation in the person addressed, or “requestee”, and commissives with the making of a promise, creating an obligation in the speaker or “promiser” Both types of act are performative since both initiate action by the speaker or by others They share with “assertives” the feature of non-factuality and subjectivity according

to the nature of the deontic source Finally, unlike assertives which can involve past, present or future, directives and commissives refer only to the future; “At the time

of speaking a speaker can get others to act or commit himself to action only in the future” (Palmer 1986:97)

2.2.5.3 Fecility condition

Fecility conditions are known as expected or appropriate circumstances for the performance of a speech act to be recognized as intended Searle (1969:57 -61) points out four conditions that a speech act must need

(a) Content conditions: show the characteristics of the content of the speech

act For example, for both a promise and a warning, the content of the utterance must be about a future event

(b) Preparatory conditions: The person performing his/her act must have the

right or authority to do so; and, in certain cases , the occasion for his utterance must

be appropriate to the illocutionary act in question For example, for a promise, for a command, the speaker must have the superior authority over the addressee which allows him to impose the act and the addressee must acknowledge this

(c) Sincerity conditions: The person performing the act must have the belief

or appropriate feelings of what he is doing There are of course occasions when sincerity is overridden by politeness; and those occasions are presumably determined by social convention, even if the more basic sincerity conditions are not

(d) Essential conditions: The person performing the act is committed by the

illocutionary force of his utterance to certain beliefs or intentions; and if he thereafter produces an utterance which is inconsistent with these beliefs or conducts himself in a way that is compatible with the intentions to which he is committed, he may be judged guilty of a branch of commitment

2.2.5.4 Performative verbs

Speech acts are performed by speech act verbs In English some verbs are

considered performatives such as promise, permit, declare, inform whereas others can not, run, smile , close, think They are called descriptive “She runs home” describes the fast movement of a girl / woman on the way home “You are hereby sentenced.” to perform act named by the very verb in the utterance According to

Austin (1962:15) performatives are neither true nor false, unlike what he called constative The difference between constative and performative utterance is superseded by saying something and what one does when saying it However, one

does not have to say “I apologize …” to make an apology or “I assert …” to make

an assertion

2.2.6 Linguistic communication

Politeness in linguistic communication is indicated by the appropriateness of the linguistic forms in use to a social context Politeness is also expressed by interactants’ manner of speaking and listening and to the sequence of the exchange

in extended interaction (Pascall Brown) Brown and Levinson (1967:61) consider politeness to display of respect for one’s self-image involving the desire for the freedom of actions and freedom from imposition

The Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson concerns such concepts as face (positive and negative), positive politeness, negative politeness and politeness strategies and face threatening acts (FTA)

2.2.6.1 Face

Face is a technical term to denote the public self-image all human beings wish to maintain In everyday social interaction people act in such a way as to show respect for the face needs of their conversation partners It is a story simply of “If you respect my public self-image and I’ll respect yours”

Negative face is the want of every individual and competent interactant to be unimpeded in the performance of his or her actions by the conversational partner

Positive face is the want of every individual and competent interactant to have his or her personal wants and desires displayed as favourable, socially acceptable, agreeable to the conversational partners

2.2.6.2 Face Threatening Acts (FTA)

Brown and Levinson (1987) divide FTAs into 4 groups

1 Acts threatening the hearer’s negative face are those which indicate that speaker does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action Directives such as orders, requests… belong to this group because they predicate some future act of H and in so doing put some pressure on H to do the act Besides, commissives likes promises and offers belong to this group because they predicate some possible future act of S toward H and thus put some pressure on H to accept or reject them or incur a debt

2 Acts threatening the hearer’s positive face are those which indicate that the speaker does not care about the addressee’s feeling, wants, that is, he does not want H’s wants Refusals, disagreements belong to this group

3 Acts threatening the speaker’s negative face are those which offend the speaker’s negative face Acceptance of offers, acceptance of H’s thanks, unwilling promises (S commits himself to some future action although he does not want to) … belong to this group

4 Acts threatening the speaker’s positive face are those which directly damage S’s positive face Apologies, acceptance of a compliment or confessions belong to this group

2.2.6.3 Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness

Brown and Levinson divide polite behaviour into positive politeness and negative politeness Positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face It means that S’s own wants are similar to the addressee’s wants

Negative politeness addresses H’s negative face In other words, it underlines

a sense of personal autonomy, assurance that S does not wish to disturb H’s freedom

2.2.6.4 Politeness strategies for doing FTA

Brown and Levinson suggest possible strategies for doing FTAs as follows:

1 Bald on-record is efficient when S can claim that other things are more important than face

2 Positive politeness strategies satisfy H’s positive face in some respect

3 Negative politeness strategies satisfy H’s negative face to some degree

4 Off-record strategies can satisfy H’s negative face to a degree greater than that afforded by negative-politeness strategy In this way S can avoid the responsibility for his action that on-record strategies entail

2.2.6.5 Politeness and Indirectness

In communication, whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure of an utterance and its function, we have an indirect speech act In such cases, Searle suggests that the utterance seems to have two illocutionary forces in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another

In English, one of the most common types of indirect speech act has the form of an

interrogative, but is not typically used to ask a question (i.e we don’t expect answer, we expect action):

Will you open the door? (directing by question)

Is that my fault? (asserting by question)

Could you pass the salt? (requesting by question)

One fact of human communication is that more often than not interactants do not say directly what they intend to mean Many researchers consider indirectness and politeness to be closely related

Once the speaker decides to use indirectness, a number of parameters are involved in the calculation of relative power between S and H, social distance, weight of imposition, rights and obligations and the degree of involvement in the interaction by the participants Note that all of these parameters are relative and negotiated in the course of the interaction The choice made by the speaker is manifested in the linguistic code (address form, honorifics, indirect speech acts, passives, formulaic language and forms of mitigation) and paralinguistic means, specially through prosody

- Third, indirectness is frequently regarded as polite, although researchers differ on this topic Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the degree of indirectness

is inversely proportional to the degree of face threat Consequently the greater the

face threat, the greater the need to use linguistic politeness and the more indirectness is used

- Finally, a related purpose for using indirectness is a strategy to gain or maintain power over others

2.2.6.7 Mitigation

If saying is doing, it must be an effective doing Mitigation – according to Claudi Caffi’s definiton is the result of a weakening one of the interactional parameters – is a cover-term for a set of strategies, rooted in a metapragmatic awareness, by which people try to make their saying-doing more effective Globally, it reduces participants’obligations (Meyer-Hermann and Weingarten, 1982:243), to which the felicity conditions of a speech act belong, thereby furthering the achievement of interactional goals Thus, mitigation is functional to smooth interactional management in that it reduces risks for participants at various levels, e.g risks of self-contradiction, refusal, losing face, conflict, and so forth

The basic effect of reducing obligations makes it possible to unify mitigation which relates to deontic modality Typically, mitigation affecting deontic modality reduces addressee’s obligations Claudi Caffi expected to find different classes of mitigating devices reducing the speaker’s obligations in the case of constatives-verdictives, and the hearer’s obligations in the case of directives Substitutive means are at work in so-called “indirect speech acts” (Searle, 1969) which question or state fecility conditions of a speech act, e.g in requests, preparatory conditions for the performance of the action Among the additive means, the following can be employed in many different illocutions With the regard to “internal” mitigation (For the distinction between internal and external mitigation , (Blum-kulka et al., 1989): morphological means, diminutive suffixes, vocative, address terms (the apostrophe in rhetoric); syntactic: (a) local, e.g conditional mood; (b) global, e.g

hypothetical constructions; lexical, markers such as “please” Among the whole range of specialized mitigators for “requests, “please” downgrades the directive and

at the same time indexes the act as a request There is an inclusive relationship between the two sets of mitigation; in other words, the set of mitigation markers includes a subset of specialized markers which are also markers of illocution

2.3 SUMMARY

Chapter two briefly introduces the concepts of mood and modality, proposition and modality and discusses the notion of obligation and permission as a semantic characteristics of modality The presentation of semantic as well as syntactic features of English modals points out their function as modality markers, i.e means for speakers to introduce elements of modality into what (s)he says, such

as possibility, necessity, obligation, permission, etc This discussion serves as the groundwork for the analysis of syntactic, semantic features of UCDM in expressing the obligation and permission in the next chapter

In the view of pragmatics, this study reveals that the identification of the source or imposer of modality depends on pragmatic factors inherent in the speech-act setting, especially focusing on D & C In this regard, modals and performative verbs are assumably used descriptively and performatively to either impose or describe modality They also function as markers of illocutionary force in speech acts and help interpret the speaker’s intent in social interaction On the other hand, the study also shows that the semantic structure of DM may diverge under the influence of social factors such as tact, power or status relationship, social distance

of participants in communication and so is governed by politeness strategies, i.e the choice between directness and indirectness, mitigation devices in interaction

CHAPTER 3

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

This chapter aims at dealing with method and procedure of the study It consists of the presentation of the aims and objectives of the study; the methods used in the course of the study which support each other in investigating data and finding the results It also mentions the procedure in which the problems relating to the study are gradually solved, leading to the final results Moreover, how data are collected and analysed are also presented in this chapter

3.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

3.1.1 Aims

This study – An Investigation into DM in English and Vietnamese – focuses

on investigating the syntactic analysis and semantic interpretation as well as pragmatic features of obligation, and permission meaning expressed by English modal verbs, performative verbs , particles, and imperatives in comparison with the equivalents in Vietnamese

3.2.2 Objectives

The study is done to:

- identify and describe lexical devices used to express deontic modality in English and Vietnamese spoken and written discourse

- analyse syntactic characteristics of DM

- explore semantic interpretation of D & C modality expressed through direct and indirect illocutionary act

- investigate the pragmatic features of D & C in English and Vietnamese

- find out how English speakers make use of deontic modality to convey the notion of obligation and permission in social interaction

- show the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modal devices in semantic, syntactic and pragmatic aspects

- offer some suggestions for the application of the study to the learning and teaching of DM

3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Descriptive research is supposed to be the main method for the contrastive analysis because it is synthetic or analytic in its approach Besides, the study also uses quantitative and qualitative approaches as supporting methods which make analysing data become reliable The study also collects 1000 samples and make generalization about characteristics of the data based on information obtained from the samples

Since the notion of obligation and permission is a semantic category of modality which shows the relationship between participants in social interaction, the interpretation of this meaning in terms of both semantics and pragmatics has to take into accounts of syntactic connection of modals and other devices to personal and impersonal subjects Also, the statistical method is applied to the research design

on how English speakers use DM to convey the notion of obligation and permission

These methods help the study to describe and demonstrate linguistic features

of means of expressing English deontic modality and their Vietnamese equivalents

in English literary works and their Vietnamese version A contrastive analysis will

be conducted to find out their linguistic differences and similarities in terms of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics Then how they are in use and their frequency

in English will be analysed and synthesized In the course of studying this research, English is considered the source language and Vietnamese as the target language

In the study, different devices expressing obligation and permission in English are presented, described and classified together with their Vietnamese equivalents The analysis is made and the differences and similarities are classified

by examples taken mainly from English and Vietnamese novels and short stories From the findings of the analysis, related problems faced by Vietnamese learners of English are presented Some teaching implications and suggested task forms are mentioned in the hope that learners can deal with these problems more easily

3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE

The step involved in the study are as follows:

- collecting samples on different lexical devices expressing deontic modality

in English and their Vietnamese equivalents

- calculating the frequency of occurrence to decide the focus of the study, that is which DM (modal verbs, performatives, particles or imperatives) are frequently used in UCDM

- discovering linguistic performance of each lexical devices in English in the field of syntactics and semantics

- studying the pragmatic features of those lexical devices

- comparing the lexical devices expressing deontic modality in English and their Vietnamese equivalents to find out how each lexical device is interpreted and how many equivalents each verbs can have

- making tables about frequency of occurrence of these lexical devices

in English in general as well as that of each group of DM to see how they work, that is English speakers’ tendency towards these lexical devices

- presenting related problems based on the findings of the study

- putting forwards some teaching implications for the problems

3.4 DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION AND SAMPLE

In order to survey the population and samples of the investigated modal lexical devices, the study is focused to reach more than one thousand samples from literary works of different English and American authors and their Vietnamese translational versions to warrant the objectivity of frequencies, variabilities and tendencies of using the imperative mood, the modal lexical devices including modal

verbs like will, shall, should, would, may, might, can, could, must; the semi-modals ought to, have to, had better; performative verbs command, suggest, order, prohibit, forbid, permit… ; modal adjectives necessary, permitted, forbidden, obligatory; modal nouns obligation, permission, and particles nào, nhé, đi, mà, với

(mostly existed in Vietnamese rather than English) The samples are also collected

in the consideration of the strong effect of personal relationship between interlocutors on these DM

3.5 DATA COLLECTION

The corpus with about more than five hundred sentences containing English modal devices of DM and the same amount of their Vietnamese equivalents is collected from a variety of contexts in original literary works in English and Vietnamese It is likely to provide a detailed description of how a form develops in different contexts as well as to show a general tendency They are not only employed to get the quantitative evidence for the study but also employed as illustrations to clarify the study

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

The data are grouped into categories depending on their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features They are then set in a list in order of population, frequency, politeness The researcher observes and investigates the data taken from literary works in English and Vietnamese , examines how they are used and describes them

A more detailed linguistic analysis is finally performed in order to find out the

similarities and differences among them and compare them with Vietnamese equivalents from which a conclusion is drawn finally

3.7 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Comparing and contrasting the uses and meanings of DM in English and Vietnamese require collecting two corpora of literature works to be studied and analysed Since the whole research work relied on the corpora, it was essential that these works be carefully read and that examples be carefully selected so as to ensure

a satisfying reliability of results

Reliability and validity are two most important criteria to guarantee the quality of the data collection procedures The study is required to be verified if there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies The study uses checklist, statistics, numerial scale and rating scale to eliminate irrelevant and unstable data The patterns from the data collection are always compared with the results from the theoretical background to maintain the quality of the research

Besides, the data selected are derived from American and English literary works and are investigated on the basis of linguistic and grammatical documents so they are reliable The criteria to examine linguistic features of DM are used as syntactic, semantic and pragmatic background Moreover, the investigation of the data follows the principles in the theoretical background presented in Chapter 2 to guarantee the reliability and validity of the research

In sum, the study strictly follows the research design The data collection plays an important part in finding the result of the research to produce a qualified study, helping Vietnamese learners of English to overcome their difficulties in using

a foreign language as well as to achieve better communicative aim