A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)

A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)A Study of Cognitive NonFactive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations in English (Luận án tiến sĩ)

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG

i

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

ii

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

iii

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

iv

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

v

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

vi

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

vii

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

viii

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

ix

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

xi

xii

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

xiii

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

xiv

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

- 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

Luận án đủ ở file: Luận án full