A study of cognitive non factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in english

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

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

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

Danang, January 2018

Tran Thi Minh Giang

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 epistemic adverb collocations in English in terms of epistemic modality

framework Based on the descriptive method and the collected data of 1000 English samples randomly gathered from different sources such as novels, short stories and

online materials, the study presented a detailed description of the structure I +

cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in three linguistic

aspects: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics More importantly, a linguistic portray of the interplay of these three linguistic dimensions was depicted to serve the main aim of the research It is hoped that the findings from the research will not only make a great contribution to further understanding of modality in linguistics,

but also become very useful to language users in the use of the English structure I +

cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in communication

Noticeably, the study provides learners of English and even native speakers of English with a practical knowledge of using the structure Especially, since the

study presented detailed and overall view of the structure I + cognitive non-factive

verb and epistemic adverb collocations, it is really a good source of reference for

teachers of English to apply the English structure in teaching English more

effectively In addition, the study of the structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and

epistemic adverb collocations in English also opens the paths for interesting

questions relative to epistemic modality in particular, and linguistics in general

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study 3

1.2.1 Aims of the Study 3

1.2.2 Objectives of the Study 3

1.3 Research Questions 4

1.4 Object of the Study 4

1.5 Scope of the Study 4

1.6 Significance of the Study 5

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance 5

1.6.2 Practical Significance 5

1.7 Organization of the Study 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 7

2.1 Review of Previous Researches Related to the Study 7

2.1.1 Syntactics 7

2.1.2 Semantics 11

2.1.3 Pragmatics 16

2.1.4 A Combination of Three Aspects 20

2.2 Theoretical Background 24

2.2.1 Modality and Epistemic Modality 24

2.2.1.1 Traditional Logic Modality 24

2.2.1.2 Linguistic Modality 26

2.2.1.3 The Distinction between Modality and Proposition 27

2.2.1.4 The Distinction between Deontic and Epistemic Modality 28

2.2.1.5 Types of Epistemic Modality 29

2.2.2 Collocations of Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverbs 31

2.2.2.1 Modal Lexical Verbs 31

a Mental Space Theory 31

b Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs 32

c Characteristics of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs 34

2.2.2.2 Modal Adverbs 35

a Epistemic Adverbs 35

b Types of Epistemic Adverbs in English 36

c Characteristics of Epistemic Adverbs 38

2.2.2.3 Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 43

a The Definition of the Term collocation 43

b Modally Harmonic Combinations of a Modal Verb and a Modal Adverb 44

2.2.3 Linguistic Features of CNFV and EA Collocations 46

2.2.3.1 Syntactics 46

a Mobility of Modality Collocations in the Same Clause 46

b Moved Negation and Epistemic Modality 47

2.2.3.2 Semantics 48

a Epistemic Scale 48

b Epistemic Modality Based on Deduction 51

c Speech-Act Related Modality 52

2.2.3.3 Pragmatics 55

a Pragmaticalization and Pragmatic Markers 55

b Factors Affecting the Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations 56

c The ‘Conversational Maxim’ View in Communicative Strategies 57

d The ‘Face-Saving’ View in Politeness Theory 58

2.3 Summary 63

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 64

3.1 Research Design 64

3.2 Research Methods 64

3.3 Data Collection 65

3.3.1 Description of Samples 65

3.3.1.1 Authenticity 66

3.3.1.2 Accessibility 66

3.3.1.3 Variation 66

3.3.1.4 Reputation 67

3.3.2 Data Collection Procedure 67

3.3.3 Data Analysis Procedure 68

3.4 Procedures of the Study 69

3.5 Analytical Framework of the Study 70

3.6 Reliability and Validity 72

3.7 Summary 72

CHAPTER 4 SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS 74

4.1 Analysis of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 74

4.2 Harmony of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs and Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 76

4.2.1 The Structure I think + EAs 76

4.2.2 The Structure I believe + EAs 80

4.2.3 The Structure I hope + EAs 83

4.2.4 The Structure I guess + EAs 86

4.2.5 The Structure I suppose + EAs 86

4.2.6 The Structure I assume + EAs 87

4.3 Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 89

4.4 Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Matrix Clause 90

4.5 Syntactic Positions of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in the Superordinate Clause 92

4.5.1 Initial 92

4.5.2 Medial 93

4.5.3 Final 94

4.5.4 Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in Initial, Medial, and Final Positions 95

4.6 Complementizer “that” in a Superordinate Clause 96

4.6.1 Complementizer “that” with Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 97

4.6.2 Omission of Complementizer “that” in the Superordinate Clause 98

4.7 Raising of Negative Form in Sentences with the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 100

4.8 Summary 104

CHAPTER 5 SEMANTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS 105

5.1 Deduction-Based Semantic Features 105

5.1.1 The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Belief 105

5.1.2 The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Inference 108

5.1.3 The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Prediction 111

5.1.4 Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Showing in Belief, Inference and Prediction 114

5.2 Modal Meanings of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 114

5.2.1 Tentativeness 115

5.2.2 Assertion 116

5.2.3 Negation 117

5.3 Scale of Certainty- Based Semantic Features 118

5.3.1 High Certainty 119

5.3.2 Mid Certainty 121

5.3.3 Low Certainty 123

5.4 Semantic Features of the Structure I think + EAs Based on the Scale of Negation 126

5.5 Summary 128

CHAPTER 6 PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS 130

6.1 The Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations Used in Politeness Strategies 130

6.1.1 Negative Politeness Strategy 131

6.1.1.1 Mitigating the Reproach 131

6.1.1.2 Avoiding the Imposition of Knowledge 132

6.1.1.3 Revealing the Speaker’s Unflattering Things 133

6.1.2 Positive Politeness Strategy 134

6.1.2.1 Mitigating Illocutionary Force to Downgrade the Positive Face of the Speaker 135

6.1.2.2 Enhancing the Hearer’s Good Virtues to Respect His Positive Face 136 6.1.2.3 Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge by Negating the Speaker’s Knowledge 137

6.2 The Communicative Strategies Using the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 139

6.2.1 Hedges 139

6.2.2 Mitigation in the Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 141

6.3 Pragmatic Meanings in Negation of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive

Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 143

6.3.1 Hearer-Oriented Pragmatic Meanings of Moved Negation of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 143

6.3.2 Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge by Using Moved Negation of the structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations 144

6.4 Speech Act – Based Pragmatic Features Expressed by the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 147

6.4.1 Complaining or Admonishing 147

6.4.2 Counselling 149

6.4.3 Reducing Boasting 150

6.5 Summary 152

CHAPTER 7 INTERPLAY OF SYNTACTICS, SEMANTICS, AND P R A G M A T I C S I N T H E S T R U C T U R E I + C N F V A N D E A COLLOCATIONS 154

7.1 Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocation 154

7.2 Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the Combination of Just and Other EAs in the Matrix Clause 157

7.3 Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in a Superordinate Clause 160

7.4 Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in the Emphasis by Using Auxiliary Verbs Do in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 162

7.5 Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in Application of the Relevance Theory by Sperber in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 164

7.6 Interaction of Three Linguistic Aspects in Negative Move of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations 166

7.7 Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the Structure I + CNFV and EA

Collocations Based on Deduction 169

7.7.1 Belief 169

7.7.2 Inference 171

7.7.3 Prediction 172

7.8 Summary 174

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION 176

8.1 Recapitulation 176

8.2 Conclusions 179

8.3 Implications 180

8.3.1 For English Language Learning and Teaching 180

8.3.2 For Language Research 181

8.4 Limitations of the Thesis and Suggestions for Further Studies 182

8.4.1 Limitations of the Thesis 182

8.4.2 Suggestions for Further Studies 183

THE AUTHOR’S ARTICLES RELATED TO THE STUDY 184

REFERENCES 185

APPENDIX 210

APPENDIX A 210

APPENDIX B 215

APPENDIX C 229

APPENDIX D 254

V : verb

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Positions of epistemic adverbs across registers (Biber, 1999, p.872) 41

Table 4.1 Harmony of the pattern I think and strong epistemic adverbs 77

Table 4.2 Harmony of the pattern I think and medium epistemic adverbs 78

Table 4.3 Harmony of the pattern I think and low epistemic adverbs 79

Table 4.4 Harmony of the pattern I believe and strong epistemic adverbs 80

Table 4.5 Harmony of the pattern I believe and medium epistemic adverbs 82

Table 4.6 Harmony of the pattern I believe and low epistemic adverbs 82

Table 4.7 Frequency of the pattern I believe and EAs 83

Table 4.8 Harmony of the pattern I hope and strong epistemic adverbs 83

Table 4.9 Harmony of the pattern I hope and medium epistemic adverbs 84

Table 4.10 Harmony of the pattern I hope and low epistemic adverbs 85

Table 4.11 Frequency of the pattern I hope and EAs 85

Table 4.12 Harmony of the pattern I guess and epistemic adverbs 86

Table 4.13 Harmony of the pattern I suppose and epistemic adverbs 87

Table 4.14 Harmony of the pattern I assume and epistemic adverbs 87

Table 4.15 Summary of harmony of CNFVs and EAs in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 88

Table 4.16 Frequency of six patterns of the structure I +CNFV and EA collocations 89

Table 4.17 Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in Initial, Medial, Final Positions 95

Table 4.18 Positions in correlation with the employment of “that”with epistemic adverbs in the matrix Clause 98

Table 4.19 Positions of complementizer ‘that’ in the superordinate clause 99

Table 4.20 The omission of complementizer “that” in English sentences 99

Table 4.21 Frequency of the moved negation in English sentences with the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 103

Table 5.1 Semantics features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in

English based on deduction 113

Table 5.2 Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in Belief, Inference, and Prediction 114

Table 5.3 Scale of certainty of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in English 125

Table 6.1 The structure I + CNFV and EA collocations with positive and negative politeness strategies 138

Table 6.2 Pragmatic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations based on Speech Act theory 151

Table 6.3 Frequency of pragmatic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations based on Speech Act theory 152

Table 7.1 Interplay of three linguistic aspects based on the mobility of EAs in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 156

Table 7.2 Frequency of mobility of EAs in the matrix clause 156

Table 7.3 Positions of Just in the matrix clause 158

Table 7.4 Three linguistic dimensions in combination of Just and other EAs 159

Table 7.5 Interplay of three linguistic aspects in the mobility of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in a sentence 161

Table 7.6 EAs in the emphasis by using the auxiliary Do in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 163

Table 7.7 Interplay of three linguistic aspects in the emphasis with Do in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 164

Table 7.8 Interplay of three linguistic aspects in negative move of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 168

Table 7.9 Interplay of three linguistic aspects based on deduction of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations 173

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Summary of types of modality by Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2007) 30

Figure 2.2 Scale of certainty of assertive epistemic adverbs 37

Figure 2.3 Scale of possibility of non-assertive epistemic adverbs 37

Figure 2.4 Adaptation of Givón’s (1982) scale of epistemic space 49

Figure 2.5 Two dimensions of epistemicity 50

Figure 2.6 Evidentality (Cappelli, 2008) 50

Figure 2.7 Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization 56

Figure 2.8 Brown and Levinson’s strategies for doing an FTA (1987, p.60) 60

Figure 2.9 Nguyễn Quang’s strategies for doing an FTA (2002, p.53) 62

Figure 3.1 Theoretical framework of collocations of CNFVs and EAs 71

Figure 4.1 Tree diagram showing the deep construction of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocation in a sentence 75

Figure 4.2 Matrix and subordinate clause in the superordinate clause 91

Figure 4.3 Tree diagram with negative particle Not in the subordinate clause 102

Figure 4.4 Tree diagram with the negative move from the subordinate clause to the matrix clause 102

Figure 5.1 Formula of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations expressing Belief 108

Figure 5.2 Formula of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations expressing Inference 110

Figure 5.3 Formula of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations expressing Prediction 112

Figure 5.4 Formula of high certainty semantic feature 121

Figure 5.5 Formula of mid certainty semantic feature 123

Figure 5.6 Formula of low certainty semantic feature 125

Figure 5.7 Scale of negation of the structure I think + EAs 127

Figure 6.1 Inner compelling force of the negative move 147

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

In daily communication, our ultimate goal is not only to impart information described in utterances but also to display our commitment to the truth of what is said, or the content of the proposition Linguists attribute the speaker’s attitude to

the states of affairs modality in general and epistemic modality in particular Up to

now modality has been a fascinating area to linguists because studying modality is necessary to the development of linguistics Without modality, we cannot

understand the nature of language as “strategic linguistic tools for the construction

of social reality” (Bybee, 1995, p 8) In fact, an utterance only consists of separate

parts Meanwhile modality, the indispensable factor plays an important role in imparting the speaker’s thoughts and attitude to the hearer; therefore, Bally says that modality is the soul of the utterance, as cited in Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008, p.74)

As a matter of fact, English possesses a variety of lexical means to express

modality including modal nouns, adjectives, adverbs and lexical verbs Yet,

according to Perkins “Doing research on modality is very similar to trying to move

in an overcrowded room without treading on anyone else’s feet” (1983, p.4) In the

same line, Jongeboer remarks:

Comparing the relevant grammars and the monographs to […] modal aspects in general, one is astonished to find that in seemingly no other field

of grammar so much disagreement prevails as in what I summarize under the term of modality It is the true sense of the word a maze in which every grammarian is searching for his way.(Wynmann, 1996, p.14)

Despite so many researches of modality, there are still several different aspects of modality which have not been investigated in earlier works yet

According to Hoye’s remark, “Modal elements frequently combine and interact

dynamically” (1997, p.3) It is one of the most interesting properties in modality that

attract linguists’ attention nowadays Therefore, the study of collocations has

always been an important aspect of linguistic research and until now essential

progress has been made in the aspect of lexicology based upon the research of

occurrence and collocation to find out the effect of collocations in 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

Especially in epistemic modality, there is also high probability for the combination

of varied modal elements Among them, cognitive non-factive verbs and epistemic

adverbs are often used to hedge or mitigate the speaker’s imposition and give the

addressee a chance to argue about the truth, or the falsity of states of affairs

Hedging items or modulations combined a cognitive non-factive verb and an

epistemic adverb with the singular first person subject such as I certainly think, I

possibly believe, maybe I guess, I suppose perhaps … in English may be an

interesting and useful aspect to all language learners of English as in the following

examples

(1.1) “I think perhaps 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!"

(Gone with the wind, 1947, p.440) (1.3) “I don’t know why I worried about it before It seems easy enough

now I hope they get the planes up on time for once I certainly hope that tomorrow

is going to be a day with dust on the road.” (Vanity fair, 1996, p.308)

In communication, the English are often in the habit of using the structure I

+ CNFV and EA collocations in communication by adding I think perhaps, I guess

maybe, I certainly hope like in (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) at the beginning of their

utterances because they want to express their attitude to the content of the

proposition Besides, the structure can be used as hedges in cooperative principle

and politeness strategies

Until now although there has been a wide range of research on modality among which are studies on the combination of a modal verb and a modal adverb such as Cappelli (2005), Coates (1983), McIntosh (1961), Hoye (1997), Lyons (1977), Perkins (1983), …there has been no study on a comprehensive overview of modality expressions showing the speaker’s attitude in the utterance in three aspects: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics Consequently, a study of the

structure that consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I and a cognitive

non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocation still remains an unexploited area

Therefore, the thesis entitled A study of cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic

adverb collocations in English is hoped, once finished, may help both learners of

English and native speakers of English use the structure effectively in communication Now that in our study, linguistic features of cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations will be investigated deeply in three aspects: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics, and more importantly, the interplay of these

three linguistic aspects will be mentioned Therefore, the study of the structure I +

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

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study

1.2.1 Aims of the Study

This study aims at examining the linguistic features of the structure that

consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I and a collocation of CNFVs

and EAs in English and showing the interplay of these linguistic aspects in order to provide learners of English and native speakers of English with practical knowledge

to use the structure more effectively in communication

1.2.2 Objectives of the Study

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

1.3 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?

1.4 Object of the Study

- The object of the study is the structure that consists of the singular first

person subject pronoun I and collocations between cognitive non-factive verbs and

epistemic adverbs in simple present tense

1.5 Scope of the Study

In the field of collocations, there have been a lot of important studies dealing with modal – adverb collocations and collocations of adverbs and verbs; however, it

is too vast to study collocations of all CNFVs and all types of adverbs Therefore, in

the study we examined the collocations created from six CNFVs namely think,

believe, guess, suppose, assume, hope and epistemic adverbs including assertive

adverbs and non-assertive adverbs like certainly, perhaps, probably, possibly,

maybe, surely, definitely, really, indeed, verily… In fact, there are a lot of cognitive

non-factive verbs; however, we have chosen these six CNFVs because of the overlap of the core semantic features with the remaining members of the set of CNFVs and especially in our collected data the frequency of these cognitive non-factive verbs is more often than others (see Appendix C, p.229) Especially, through

the study, the structure with the singular first person subject pronoun I was chosen,

which manifests the epistemic modality with the speaker’s subjectivity in giving

his/ her commitment to the states of affairs in the proposition Therefore, this study

primarily concentrated on the structure I + collocations of six representative CNFVs

and assertive and non-assertive epistemic adverbs in simple present tense in

English discourse In addition, it does not investigate any phonetic devices because

of the limit of the study it is difficult to carry out a phonetic survey

1.6 Significance of the Study

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance

The study can make an essential contribution to linguistics As a matter of

fact, the full and detailed analysis of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations

depicts a comprehensive portray of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic linguistics of the structure Noticeably, it also gives clear and plausible explanations about the structure in English

In addition, the interplay of these three linguistic dimensions also plays an important part in contributing to theoretical significance of the study Thanks to

their correlation, we can understand more about the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in English

1.6.2 Practical Significance

The study makes contribution to:

- providing a complete systematic description of the structure I + CNFV and

EA collocations in English in terms of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics that is

a very useful source of reference for compiling lectures, books, and materials related to the scope of the study

- assisting learners of English who are not native speakers or even native speakers of English to have better understanding of modal meanings of the structure

so that language learners of English can know how to use the structure 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

In brief, hopefully, it is once finished, the dissertation may help both learners

of English and native speakers of English use the structure effectively in

communication Furthermore, the study of the structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations in terms of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics might contribute a

better understanding of modal meanings in English; therefore, improving the quality

of teaching and learning English

1.7 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

EA collocations

Chapter 5, Semantic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations, describes semantic linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and

EA collocations

Chapter 6, Pragmatic Features of the Structure I + CNFV and EA

collocations, describes pragmatic linguistic features of the structure I + CNFV and

EA collocations

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

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter chiefly presents two main parts: a brief review of previous researches related to the study and theoretical background

2.1 Review of Previous Researches Related to the Study

Until now there has been a wide range of research on modality expressions using not only one type of modal lexical items like modal verbs or modal adverbs but also the combination of these two above ones To have an overall view of previous researches related to the study, we have decided to arrange those into four parts: syntactics, semantics, pragmatics, and a combination of three linguistic aspects Hopefully, the chronological arrangement will provide readers with a

comprehensive portray of modality and a basic grounding for our study

2.1.1 Syntactics

At first, in an early study by Urmson (1963, p.1963), he discussed

parenthetical verbs such as suppose, believe, think, expect… and their function has

the nature of a comment on the main proposition But later, Urmson (1982, p.486) identifies certain adverbs (sentential adverbials) which have the same role and grammatical relations to the sentence as parenthetical verbs Moreover, these adverbs are very mobile in the sentence just as in the case of parenthetical verbs Later, Mackenzie (1987) went on Urmson’s research about the mobility of mental

verbs such as know, believe, guess but they had deep studies of the parenthetical

verbs Mackenzie considered that Urmson’s parenthetical ability and new characteristics of these verbs do not denote any mental activities although the speakers are using mental verbs

Next, in Aijmer’s work (1997), he gave further study on an English modal

particle - I think According to him, I think has been grammaticalized to become

modal particles However, later Mindt (2003), Blanche & Willems (2007, 2008),

Van (2011) considered think as weak verbs In brief, despite being called different

names by some linguists, the mental verbs are used to show not only descriptive meanings but also modal meanings It means that they mainly display speaker’s commitment to the true or falsity of the content of the proposition Therefore,

modality expressions such as I think/ believe/ guess… occur very often in real life to

meet man’s needs in communication

Especially, factive verbs and non-factive verbs were discussed by Kiparsky

(1971) and Leech (1974) Factive verbs consist of verbs such as know, realize,

forget… which assert the truth of the content of the proposition Conversely, non

factive verbs are think, believe, suppose… which show the uncertainty in the state

of affairs However, Halliday (2004) arranged think, know … in mental process with

the agent- human being because man can sense and think Later, Hoàng Văn Vân (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

(1994), he presented all components of theme such as interpersonal theme, topical

theme and textual theme However, among them is interpersonal theme which

means any of the modal adjunct that expresses the speaker’s judgement regarding

relevance of the message such as probably, possibly, certainly, perhaps, maybe… sometimes interpersonal theme also consists of I think, I believe, I

suppose….Especially, in his research (1970) he recognized the significance of the

potential interplay between the verbal and non-verbal elements called ‘forms’ of modality and Halliday also based his article to explain language structure and therefore that we choose this or that modal combinations depends on its 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

“semiotic”

One of the most important characteristics of non-factive verbs is the negative move known for a long time In reality, the syntactic theory of neg-raising proposed

by Fillmore (1963) has enjoyed a good deal of attention and is supported by a number of compelling arguments Another influential factor of neg-raising is presented in Horn (1978) And later Bublitz (1992) also mentioned moved negation and modality As a matter of fact, moved negation is one of the most interesting syntactic features that English people use very often in communication

In addition, Thompson and Mulac (1991) applied the theory of grammaticalization in order to explain more about the parenthetical ability of the structures He considered that parenthetical structures are grammaticalized because they changed from propositions to parentheses Especially sometimes they

functioned as modal adverbs such as probably, possibly, maybe… Besides, one of

the grammaticalized categories at the beginning stage of grammaticalization is the

omission of the complementizer “that” According to London – Lund Corpus, the disapearance of “that” is very remarkable with the result of 93%, and 90% by Haan

(1997) as cited in Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008, p.136)

Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) in the functional notional category stated that there are two different kinds of modality: modality of utterance-act (modalité d’ énonciation)

in pragmatics, modality of statement (modalité d’énoncé) in semantics Besides, modality of statement consists of two types known as modality of sentence and modality of predication (modalité de la predication) As a matter of fact, modality of statement shows the speaker’s stance in a basic grammatical rule called Theme – rheme structure He considered it as a means of expressing modality in Vietnamese

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 Although the research gave a wide range of subjects and viewpoints, they yet mentioned some main points: the correlation between “mood” and “modality”; the description of modal characteristics; the foundation of modality in daily discourse;

the prominent features called “irrealis”; and the relation of modal concepts and characteristics to other grammatical categories The study is, in fact, a useful contribution to modality because in different ways the study explored the interaction between modality and other domains of grammar specifically: negation, complementizers, past tense, and imperfective aspect

In Haan’s study (1997), he proposed two basic strategies for the interaction

of modality and negation The first one is called the modal suppletion strategy It is exemplified by the difference in English between must not and need not The first

combination denotes narrow scope of the negation while in the second, the negation

has wide scope The second main strategy is called the negation placement strategy

which is characterized by the fact that differences in scope are signaled by a different position of the negation The process of negative transportation causes a mismatch between syntax and semantics The study is also concerned with some other categories and their interaction with negation Evidentials do not allow them

to be in the scope of a negation In fact, his study opens new paths about negation in modality for later linguists

Nguyễn Minh Thuyết and Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (1998) proposed a subordinate part of a sentence called phrasal modality (tình thái ngữ) They gave the distinction between phrasal modality and other elements in the sentence, classified phrasal modality and showed its use in the sentence Especially the research showed conditions for using adverbs in a sentence in which they discussed how to use the different positions of adverbs, i.e their mobility in a sentence Their perspective has really become one of the most important basic contributions in syntactic features for our study

Nguyễn Kim Thản (1977, 1999) presented syntactic linguistic features of Vietnamese epistemic verbs At first, he divided Vietnamese verbs into 6 groups

among which the fifth group is epistemic verbs such as biết, hiểu, tin… However,

the study only gave general introduction of Vietnamese epistemic verbs but not a comprehensive research on them, and sometimes there is the overlap of some

epistemic verbs For example, hiểu belongs to the group of sentimental verbs but am

hiểu belongs to the group of perceptive verbs

Ngô Thị Minh (2005) judged that in fact conversational language contains a lot of modal items and modal devices are so varied Besides the devices such as phonetics, lexicon and grammar, she provided three more ones: using abuse, curse, idioms, epistemic markers, or quibble; however, epistemic markers she showed are not in details and clear, just an introduction

Nordstrom’s study (2010) connected two linguistic phenomena, modality and subordinators in order that both are seen in a new view, each can add to the understanding of the other It discusses that general subordinators (or complementizers) show propositional modality (otherwise expressed by moods like the indicative-subjunctive and epistemic-evidential modal markers) The study explores the hypothesis on both a cross-linguistic and a language-branch distinctive level (the Germanic languages) Moreover, both the indicative-subjunctive and subordinators make a decision for clause types More importantly, it is proved that thanks to data from different languages, subordinators themselves frequently show the indicative-subjunctive difference In German, there is a difference in many kinds

of clauses between the indicative and the subjunctive, for example, that and if are

influenced by the speaker’s commitment to the truth of content of the proposition

In sum, we have just presented an overall view of previous researches related

to the study with main syntactic perspectives such as mobility, grammaticalization, negation, and the disappearance of complementizers ‘that’… Obviously, the overview will be considered as an essential grounding to contribute to the development of next parts of the study

2.1.2 Semantics

According to Bally, the sentence is formed by modus and dictum, which are complementary to each other Modus indicates the act of thought by the thinking

subject, i.e the speaker’s propositional attitude toward what is said, e.g the

speaker’s cognitive, emotive, and volitive attitude Dictum indicates the

representation performed by such an act, i.e what is said (Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, 2008, p.86),

Bäcklund (1973) basing on previous linguists’findings presented a subject of study the collocation of adverbs of degree, which turned out to be rewarding and interesting The collocations yielded the possibility in some cases to establish

semantic sets of lexical items that are grouped with other adverbs such as certainly,

really, surely… in a particular syntactic relationship

Basing on the criteria of time, Vendler (1967) distinguished two meanings

of the verb “think”:

+ Showing a process of cognition with definite time For example, I am

thinking about my family now

+ Showing a state of cognition with indefinite time For example, I think that

you are right

In reality, like Vendler’s, there are a lot of researches on “think” such as

Persson (1993), and Aijmer (1997) However, they have different approaches to the

polysemy of “think”: Aijmer dealt with the issue from the cognitive semantic view,

whereas Persson is panchronic perspective On the contrary, Wierzbiczka (1998) considered the idea as a misunderstanding The criterion of time is not exact,

because in fact these two meanings are one, for example, “I think he is writing a

letter.” refers to time And in his research, Van Bogaert (2010) gave the variant

forms of “I think” such as I’m thinking, I would think… According to him, “I

think” has advanced on the path in changing from a marker of epistemic modality

typically expressing lack of speaker commitment

Rescher (1968) gave a larger system of modality in logic He considered that

modality was often shown by a judgement in reported speech like “X believes the

cat is on the mat” and the judgement may be true or false His view on modality

interests many linguists’ great concern in the world Besides Wright’s (1951) modes

such as alethic, epistemic, deontic, and existential, Rescher presented four more:

temporal modalities, boulomaic modalities, evaluative modalities, and causal

modalities The reason for the various kinds of modality is that Rescher gave the

definition of modality in very wide meaning and it is difficult for us to master all kinds of modality

Searle (1969) considered the theory of speech acts by Austin (1962) as the most suitable to discuss modality because this theory concerns about the relation between the speaker and what is said He gave five basic categories of illocutionary

acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives With

his view, Searle provided a large basic frame for modality and modality is not in logic any longer The speaker plays an important part in interpersonal relation because the theory always concerns the relation between the speaker and what is said Therefore, the theory of speech acts is really necessary for all linguists to discuss modality

Hoàng Phê (1984) called “nghĩ” in the structure “tôi nghĩ là” parenthetical

verb He stated that the structure with parenthetical verbs is, in fact, a modal-logic

which is a special and complete element of the language (1984, p.141) (“Thật ra

cấu trúc có chứa động từ trong ngoặc chỉ là một toán tử logic tình thái Với tư cách

là một toán tử, nó là một thể hoàn chỉnh, hoạt động như là một khối có sẵn Nó là một loại đặc biệt của ngôn ngữ”) His study made a useful contribution to studying

modality later

Givón (1982) discussed scalar properties of epistemic modality According

to him, epistemic modality is the way a language user shows the relative judgements concerned with the proposition, and this also depends on the way the language and the culture that the language is involved in interpreting a universal degree of epistemic choice In the analysis we employ Givón’s scale of certainty as

it is particularly well-suited to the way of analysis of our research

Palmer (1986) focused on epistemic and deontic modalities, which correspond roughly with Jespersen’s two categories, while Palmer reorganized categories of modality such that the first division is between propositional modality

on the one hand, encompassing both epistemic and evidential modality, and event

modality on the other hand, encompassing both deontic and dynamic modality Propositional modality is concerned with the speaker’s attitude to the truth value or factual status of the proposition, while event modality refers to events that are not actualised, events that have not taken place but are merely potential Especially in the study, Palmer attributed that epistemic modality should consist of modal systems that show the degree of conviction by the speaker to what he or she said Furthermore, he aptly remarked that in some languages such as English, there existed some “modal lexical verbs” with complement clause, mostly verbs with a singular first person subject, which could be performatively used to indicate the attitudes and opinions of the speaker In the analysis that follows, we employ Palmer’s categories of modality as those particularly well-suited to the analysis of

the structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations

The research on the linguistic analysis of modality by Mathews (1991) referred to the modals as “modal expressions” In the main, his study adopted Lyons’ (1977) linguistic and philosophical proposal as an analytical framework and the approach he adopted was based on the speech act theory and the specification of different utterance types Mathew was successful in presenting modal expressions; however, his study just stopped at the introducing stage

Especially, the polysemy and semantic change of “think” have been

discussed in a lot of studies Among them is Goddard (2003), he investigated the

semantic expansion of the verb “ think” in English, Chinese, Yupik Eskimo, Samoan and Japanese He found out an interesting discovery that “think” has

semantic tendency in psychology and feelings Besides, Iraide (1999) and Evans and Wilkins (2000) studied the semantic change from perception verbs to cognition verbs in some languages in Australia Fortescue (2001), cited in Palmer (2003)

studied the polysemy and gave the list of knowing and understanding in 73 languages, including English He stated Understanding is grasping/seeing/hearing ;

Knowing is touching This is a good idea for us to study the polysemy and semantic

change of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in the study Especially we

need to understand and distinguish which is the meaning of the collocation and which is the meaning of the speaker

Nguyễn Ngọc Trâm (2002) called tôi sợ là , tôi cho là, tôi nghĩ là, tôi tin là, tôi

cho rằng… propositional attitude verbs, but Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008) considered tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi cho rằng…as means of modality and he called them structure witn

propositional attitude verbs and think propositional attitude verb (động từ thái độ mệnh

đề)

Lê Đông and Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2003) presented the conclusion of modality that we should not put all kinds of modality in linguistics into some categories of

logical modality or study modality in only some grammatical devices - mood for

example In contrast of modality and propositional content, there are a lot of ways of understanding They defined modality in broad meaning, i.e., the relationship between the speaker and the content of utterance and in reality it is like the speaker’s degrees of judgement towards the propositional content

In Patard’s (2011) research, its main interest aims at epistemic uses of markers, whereby the epistemic modality is known as indicating “a degree of compatibility between the modal world and the factual world” All contributions; furthermore, solve these problems from a more or less cognitive point of view, with some of them insisting on the need to give a unifying explanation for all usage types, temporal and non-temporal, and all of them agreeing to the premise that the semantics of tense and aspect categories essentially refers to subjective, rather than objective concerns The study also shows one of the first attempts to collect accounts of tense and aspect marking (in various languages) that are explicitly set within the framework of Cognitive Grammar Ultimately, the research aims at contributing to establishing awareness that modal meaning elements are directly relevant to the analysis of the grammar of time

In brief, through above previous studies related to semantics of the study, we

can get the understanding of modus and dictum, degree adverbials, polysemy of

think, propositional attitude structure I think, scale of certainty basing on categories

of epistemic modality… These studies gave us a useful theoretical base for our study in next steps

2.1.3 Pragmatics

In pragmatics, first of all, we have to refer to Grice’s study (1975) with his cooperation principle Next, Grice’s maxims were examined and developed by Lakoff (1977) and Sperber and Wilson (1986) Of course, it is easy to understand the importance of politeness in communication because it exists in every culture; therefore Leech (1983) gave a politeness principle consisting of six maxims Later the politeness theory, a sociolinguistic theory in the pragmatic tradition was developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), who extended Goffman's (1967) notion

of face

Vietnamese linguists have discussed the notion of modality since 1980s First

of all, Hoàng Trọng Phiến (1983) stated that modality is an inherent property of the sentence This implies the speaker’s knowledge to the truth of the proposition or the changes of the hearer’s feelings to what is said Secondly, Đỗ Hữu Châu (1983) emphasized that Modality consists of all semantic features in pragmatics which

show a message together with P of the utterance (“Tình thái bao gồm toàn bộ

những ý nghĩa thuộc phạm vi dụng học và hợp lại thành thong điệp bộc lộ kèm lõi P của câu”) (1983, p.16) Thirdly, in the same line, Hoàng Tuệ (1988) explained the

interpersonal component more clearly that Modality is a concept analysed on the speaker’s attitude in making utterances, i.e the effect in pragmatics, which the

speaker wants to give the hearer in real conversation (“Tình thái là một khái niệm

trong sự phân tích theo cách nhìn, tìm đến thái độ của người nói trong hoạt động phát ngôn, tức cũng là tìm đến tác động ngữ dụng, tác động mà người nói muốn tạo

ra ở người nghe trong thực tiễn hoạt động ngôn ngữ”) (1988, p.22) However, these

researchers have just mentioned general concepts of modality with their own standpoints

Hengeveld (1988) proposed the impact of illocution and modality through a representation of main clauses which can distinguish several layers, each

representing a different mode of speech acts In addition, the study also showed different noun clauses: non-factive, factive, and semi-factive complement Especially, he referred to two communicative strategies: mitigation and reinforcement that are very necessary in communication Besides, he paid attention

to the scope of modal verbs in expressions like I think, I suppose, I believe…modal

adverbs in expressing degrees of commitment of the speaker like in series of modal

adverbs: certainly, probably, possibly… Although his study referred to some

pragmatic features, we recognize that it does not show the harmony of two these modal lexicals Therefore, a study of harmonic combination of CNFVs and EAs is really necessary to explore different pragmatic features of the modal collocations that is very helpful for language learners of English

In Palmer’s study (1990), he showed three types of modality: epistemic,

deontic, and dynamic Especially, he paid attention to discourse-oriented and subject-oriented As a matter of fact, discourse-oriented refers to meanings of

deontic modality as it involves both the speaker and the hearer, whereas oriented focuses on the subject’s ability and desirability rather than judgement or belief, and therefore it is concerned with dynamic modality However, according to Bybee and Fleischman (1995) speaker-oriented modality (subject-oriented) refers to both deontic and dynamic modality Although there is an overlap and difference in these linguists’ pragmatic perspectives, their studies have established a good basic grounding for our research

subject-Among Vietnamese studies, Nguyễn Thị Lương (1995) studied Vietnamese

modal particles ending the sentence in questions: nhỉ, nhé, đi, chứ, ạ Her study

investigated their pragmatic aspect with face and politeness theories, yet her research only paid attention to modal particles in directives of speech act and in deontic modality

Aijmer (1997), Kaltenböck (2010), Karkkainen (2003, 2007, 2010), and Thompson (2002) expressed the state of latent instabilility and especially susceptible to change of grammaticalizing elements, which is the adoption of new

pragmatic functions It is the shift from use as marker of epistemic stance to use as a general pragmatic marker Particularly, comment clauses often undergo a process of

expansion from their prototypical “first person form”, for example, “I think” is very different from variant forms such as I would think, I’m thinking… Van (2010) considered that “I think” has made good progress on the path of grammaticalization

and is changing from a marker of epistemic modality typically showing lack of speaker’s commitment In addition, Aijmer (1997) and Karkkainen (2003) also

claimed that “I think” often goes with modality markers such as probably, maybe,

possibly… which can be expressed by a lack of tentativeness of “I think” “Because

it (I think) may not…adequately bring out the speaker’s uncertainty… Other epistemic markers can be argued to perform that function in the utterance”

(Karkkainen, 2003, p.129)

In the cognitive-pragmatic view, Nuyts (2001) provided a comparative analysis of the functional and structural characteristics of four major lexical devices namely modal sentence adverbs, predicative adjective, mental state predicates, and modal auxiliaries The purpose is to find out which general conceptual and communicative dimensions determine the speaker’s expression of epistemic modality

Declerck (2005) referred to modal uses of indicative tenses that there is a clear-cut distinction which many linguists can see between the English modal system and the tense system in need of qualification In fact, there is a shift of temporal domain from one absolute sector to another, and the shift of domain can be used similarly in order to convey a modal meaning In that case the shift also expresses a contrast between a past intentional world and the speaker’s speech time

world This is possible with verb of cognitive (propositional) attitude such as think,

expect, hope, want… Besides, the shift of temporal perspective also shows

epistemic tentativeness which makes communication more tentative, less direct and therefore usually more tactful and more polite However, the study is only limited in studying modal uses of indicative tenses and obviously there will be more

interesting details if we discuss modal collocations of cognitive non-factive verbs and epistemic adverbs

In Cappelli’s (2005) paper, she also mentioned modulating attitudes via adverbs, which have a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the lexicalization of epistemological evaluation However, she only presented her general overview of adverbs co-occuring with verbs of cognitive attitude and the research also gave the harmorny between these two lexicals in restricted area of pragmatics Later, her

research (2007) mentioned the special status of the relationship between know,

think, and believe within 25 English verbs of cognitive attitude The most important

thing is that she represented the close relationship between epistemicity and evidentiality at both conceptual level and at the level of linguistic usage The next

year, Cappelli (2008) made a micro study of the possibility for the verbs: know,

think and believe to be opposed in the syntactic pattern “I don’t think/ believe so, I know so” considered as antonyms Although her two researches (2007) and (2008)

are separate studies of cognitive attitude verbs, they have made some important contributions to theoretical background of our study

In his study (2008), Nguyễn Văn Hiệp depicted a colourful portray of modality in which he proposed a lot of concerns of modality He realized the importance of modality in daily communication

If we don’t pay attention to all aspects of modality, we can’t understand the nature of language As a means of reflecting the world in social awareness and interaction, the content of sentence is shown as incoherent parts without modality (2008, p.74)

According to him, by contrast, modality can show itself clearly and accurately He proposes oppositions: modality in logic and modality in linguistics, epistemic modality and deontic modality, agent-oriented modality and speaker-oriented modality, modality of locutionary act and modality of illocutionary act… Especially, he presented a general view of all kinds of modal devices This is really

a useful volume for researchers studying modality

To summarise, different pragmatic perspectives by these linguists through the above mentioned studies such as cooperation principle, politeness theory, communicative strategies, and subject-oriented modality… are necessary for our research However, the pragmatic meanings of each category have to base on the interpersonal relationship and other factors around them like context, social distance

2.1.4 A Combination of Three Aspects

In 1960s, two systematic studies of collocations in English carried out were Kim (1963)’s study and Greenbaum (1969)’s research At first, Kim’s (1963) work proposed a series of statistical tables of collocations in alphabetical order of current collocations of noun, adjective, adverb plus preposition/ adverb in contemporary English and made an attempt at distinguishing between different degrees of coherence between the items in collocations but he was unsuccessful because of too many extensive tables of little interest, and the great difference of structure between Korean and English Later, Greenbaum (1969a)’s monograph found out tendencies

and restrictions in the collocability of verb-intensifiers such as certainly, really,

entirely… based on various tests including Evaluation Test, Compliance Test, Completion Test The study established the principle collocate for each adverb and

“also suggested the possibility in some cases of extrapolating from the data to

establish semantic sets of lexical items that can collocate in a particular syntactic relationship with a given item or sets of items” (1969, p 79)

Aijmer (1997), Thompson & Mulac (1991), Van (2011), and Vandenbergen

(2000) expressed that in order to understand I think well, we should study it in three

aspects : syntactics, semantics and pragmatics

+ In syntactics : thanks to the parenthetical ability, we can see the mobility of

I think and its function as modal adverbs

+ In semantics : the subjectivity of the speaker to the content of the proposition

+ In pragmatics : the combination of speaker’s objectivity, conversational implicature, politeness or conversational interaction

The following researches were carried out by using a combination of three aspects

In the study of the association of diverse modal elements within the sentence, Hoye (1997) mentioned modal - adverb collocations This study showed a starting point from more traditional approaches to the subject, where the modal auxiliaries have been the great focus of attention, by analyzing in detail the nature of their association with different categories of modal adverb Modality is notoriously complicated but the present work offers an accessible introduction to the topic, a comprehensive account of modal-adverb combination, and a reappraisal of the English modal system The descriptive framework draws fresh insights from syntactic, semantic and pragmatic approaches to the study of language and communication, and from recent work in corpus linguistics The study consists of contrastive reference to the expression of modality in Spanish and a discussion of modality in such applied contexts as language teaching A main feature is its reliance on authentic spoken and written language data The study is suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students of linguistics, English language, communications studies and related disciplines

Next, Nguyễn Thị Thuận (1998) studied some modal verbs in Vietnamese

such as nên, cần, phải, bị, được in three aspects of syntactics, semantics, and

pragmatics Her study identified all linguistic features of these modal verbs However, she only investigated the Vietnamese modal verbs of deontic modality not epistemic modality

Phạm Thi Ly’s dissertation (2003) gave an interesting contrast of modal lexical devices in Vietnamese and English Especially, she presented a general view of modality in both languages in three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics It is very useful for later researchers to continue their study

Bùi Trọng Ngoãn (2004) is the one to show the general view of all modal

verbs in Vietnamese in syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects with both epistemic and deontic modality His dissertation is really an important piece of research on modality in Vietnamese with a comprehensive picture of modal verbs in Vietnamese

In the cross linguistic studies, Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2004) discussed epistemic modality However, he did the research into grammatical and lexical devices in epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese in aspects of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics but not in view of politeness strategies Furthermore, among Ngũ Thiện Hùng’s later investigations, the ministerial level research (2005) mentioned politeness strategies by using English epistemic markers

Discussing modality, Võ Đại Quang (2009) presented linguistic features of some modal devices in English and in Vietnamese such as modal particles, modal adverbs and intonation in three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics and gave the differences and similarities of these modal lexical devices in Vietnamese and English In fact, the study only showed general linguistic features of the ones but not in detail Especially in his study, he also referred to the possible collocation

of adverbs and cognitive verbs; however, it is just a general introduction Anyhow, his study supposed a basic theoretical ground of modality that has led to the appearance of our research

In Usoniene & Solien (2010), choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuania has been mentioned in details The focus of

contrast is on the modal verb and adverb occurences in English (can/ could/ may/

might…vs maybe, perhaps, possibly) as opposed to the coresponding modal verb and

adverb strategies in Lithuanian (gleti “can/ could/ may/ might”… vs gal, galgi,

galbut, rasi, lyg ir “maybe/ perhaps/ possibly”) Apart from finding out means of

expression in the two languages, the study also shows the frequency of epistemic and non- epistemic use of the modal expressions in the original and in translation

Leiss & Abraham’s (2014) research focused on a general definition of modality or “illocutionary/speaker’s perspective force” that is powerful enough to

describe the entire series of different subtypes and varieties of modalities in different languages The main interest is that modality is all-pervasive in language This viewpoint on modality allows the integration of undercover modality as well as peripheral instances of modality in neglected domains such as the modality of insufficiency, of attitudinality, or neglected aspects like illocutionary force and modality in factive and non-factive complement clauses As a matter of fact, in most languages, modality always consists of modal verbs in both their origin and epistemic meanings, especially they have the main elements between origin and epistemic modality at first Besides, it is argued in most languages how modal verbs and adverbials, next to modal particles, are showed, how they interplay with contextual factors such as social distance, interpersonal relationship There is an important concept or sub-concept of possible world In addition, there is a description and comparison of language groups in Slavic, Germanic, and South East Asian In fact, this is really a useful linguistic research since it mentions modality in such a broad scope in many different languages Consequently, the study will be a useful reference source in theoretical and applied linguistics, typology, the semantics/pragmatics interface, and language philosophy

Recently, the cross linguistic study by Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2015), has presented an analysis and comparison between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality indicated by modal verbs in Cognitive perspective, more importantly in use of force dynamic framework By using the descriptive and contrastive research method, she proposed similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root senses and epistemic senses of modal verbs in force dynamics Especially unlike our research, her study was conducted in a cognitive perspective However, it is also a precious reference for our study on modality

Next, Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà (2016) showed the group of cognition verbs in Vietnamese In her research, all linguistic features of cognitive verbs in Vietnamese are described clearly and compared with the ones of cognition verbs in English Although the comparison between Vietnamese cognitive verbs and English ones is

not completely well-rounded, the research also brings us some linguistic features of Vietnamese cognitive verbs

Last but not least, Trần Hữu Phúc (2017) conducted an investigation into modality expressions used as politeness strategies in English discourse via a corpus-based method In his study, both semantic and pragmatic perspectives of modality expressions on modality were applied to find out the differences between British and American ambassadors in the use of modal forms Luckily, the study is really closely related to our study in pragmatic perspectives in politeness strategies, despite its different research method As a matter of fact, it is quite a useful reference source for our research anyway

In sum, a combination of three aspects may be the best way to conduct a research on modality since we can present an overall view of modality expressions

in three aspects including syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics It means that thanks to the combination, we can depict a comprehensive linguistic portray of the

structure I + CNFV and EA collocations more easily However, it will also be

possible if some linguists choose two of these three aspects to do their research Obviously, in our study, the combination of three aspects such as syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics was applied to find out the interplay among these three linguistic aspects, which is the most important and latest finding in our study

2.2 Theoretical Background

2.2.1 Modality and Epistemic Modality

2.2.1.1 Traditional Logic Modality

Since Aristotle’s time, the term modality has been referred to and known as proposition and actual world Noticeably, the notions of modality are originated from logic Logic takes interest in modality because it is involved in the truth and falsity or validity of propositions expressed in states of affair Modality in logic is

called objective modality The notion of objective modality often signifies logic’s

view on sentence meanings

In traditional logic, there are a lot of ways of classifying judgements by