Epistemic modality in english with reference to the vietnamese equivelents

However, the semantic meaning and syntactic features of epistemic modality are not accessed in a traditional way; they will be focused in the view of pragmatics for their meaning in cont

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH WITH REFERENCE TO THE

VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS (Tính tình thái chân ngụy trong tiếng Anh liên hệ với cách diễn đạt tương

đương trong tiếng Việt) TRẦN THỊ HỒNG

Field: English Language Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc.Prof Dr Ho Ngoc Trung

Hanoi, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH MAIN CLAUSES WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENCE submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2017

Tran Thi Hong

Approved by SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)

Date:………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to a number of people for helping me to make this M.A thesis possible First and foremost, my deepest gratitude goes to Assoc Prof Dr Ho Ngoc Trung, my supervisor, who supported and encouraged me generously throughout this study Without his excellent academic guidance and support, my thesis would not have been possible

My appreciation is also extended to a number of staff members of Faculty of Postgraduate of Hanoi Open University for their assistance in statistical issues and for their assistance in editing work

Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents and my husband for their constant source of love, support and encouragement in times of difficulty and frustration

Despite the fact that the study has been made with great effort, there might still exist inevitable shortcomings here and there in the paper I deeply appreciate any comments and suggestions for the study

ABSTRACT

It can not be denied that modality, which is normally classified into deotic modality and epistemic modality, plays an important role in English language While deontic modality expresses the obligation or necessity, epistemic modality adds different degree of certainty to the speakers’ attitude, belief and commitment to the realis Besides, epistemic modality challenges both speakers and listeners in their communicative strategy such as politeness or hedges Owning to the intergral part of epistemic modality in English, the study is chosen to investigate epistemic modality in both terms of semantic and syntactic features However, the semantic meaning and syntactic features of epistemic modality are not accessed in a traditional way; they will be focused in the view of pragmatics for their meaning in context and in the view

of theme- rheme structure for their occurrence in the utterances, clauses or sentences The contrastive analysis of epistemic modality in English with the Vietnamese equivelents will reveal the similarities and differences between the two languages To some extent, English and Vietnamese share the same matter of epistemic modality regardless of the differences in the markers of the two languages English in this point

of view seems to be more various, expresing larger scale of certainty degree In terms

of syntactic features, epistemic modality is more flexible, i.e easier to move in utterances, clauses or sentences than in Vietnamese The similarities and differences

of epistemic modality in English and Vietnmese set the ground for the survey which will be carried out at NBK high school to find out the common errors of the learners there The suggestions for a better understanding and the implications for teaching and learning English epistemic modality, therefore, will be a valuable source to help the learners learn English better

Key- word: Epistemic modality, syntactic- semantic features, theme- rheme

structure

Hanoi, 2017

Trần Thị Hồng

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Madj: Modal adjective

Maux: Modal auxiliary

MLV: Modal lexical verb

EM: Epistemic modality

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Epistemic gradient

Table 2.2: Theme- Rheme structure

Table 3.1: Position of EM markers in declarative clauses

Table 3.2: EM markers in in Theme- Rheme structure

Table 3.3: The source of information (SOI) of EM

Table 3.4: The scale of objective, subjective and deduction of EM

Table 3.5: The occurrence of EM in English and Vietnamese

Table 3.6: Position of epistemic modality in theme- rheme structure

Table 3.7: Pragmatic features of EM in English

Table 3.8: Pragmatic features of EM in Vietnamese

Table 3.9: Madv and Madj in English and Vietnamese

Table 3.10: The certainty degree of EM in English and Vietnamese

Table 4.1: Errors in using certainty degree of epistemic modality

Table 4.2: Errors in pragmatic meaning

Table 4.3: Errors in syntactic features of epistemic modality

LISTS OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Scale of evidentiality

Figure 3.2: Scale of inferential evidentiality

Figure 3.3: Scale of possibility

Figure 3.4: Scale of certainty

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality

Acknowledgements

Abstract

List of abbreviations

List of tables

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Methods of the study 2

1.5 Scope of the study 3

1.6 Significance of the study 4

1.7 Design of the study 4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Previous studies 5

2.2 Modality 5

2.2.1 Concepts of modality 5

2.2.2 Kinds of modality 7

2.3 Epistemic modality 8

2.3.1 Judgements and evidentiality of epistemic modality 8

2.3.2 Certainty degree of epistemic modality 9

2.3.3 Modal function of epistemic modality 11

2.4 Epistemic modality in the view of pragmatics 11

2.4.1 Epistemic modality and speech acts 13

2.4.2 Presuppositional features of epistemic modality 14

2.4.3 Epistemic modality in communicative contract 14

2.5 Epistemic modality in the view of Theme-Rheme structure 15

2.5.1 The clause concept 15

2.5.2 Theme- Rheme structure 16

2.5.3 Epistemic modality in Theme- Rheme structure 17

2.6 Summary 18

CHAPTER III: ENGLISH EPISTEMIC MODALITY WITH REFERENCE TO

THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS IN SOME BILINGUAL BOOKS 18

3.1 Syntactic and semantic features of epistemic modality in English 18

3.1.1 Syntactic features of epistemic modality in English 19

3.1.2 Semantic features of epistemic modality in English 23

3.2 English epistemic modality with the Vietnamese equivalents 31

3.2.1 Syntactic similarities and differences of English and Vietnamese EM 33

3.2.2 Semantic similarities and differences of EM in English and Vietnamese 38

3.3 Summary 48

CHAPTER IV: COMMON ERRORS MADE BY NGUYEN BINH KHIEM HIGH SCHOOL LEARNERS WHEN USING EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH 49

4.1 Survey questionnaires 50

4.1.1 Subject 50

4.1.2 Questionnaire 50

4.1.3 Procedure 50

4.2 Common errors made by Nguyen Binh Khiem high school learners of English when using epistemic modality in English 50

4.2.1 Errors in semantic features of epistemic modality 50

4.2.2 Errors in symantic features of epistemic modality 52

4.3 Causes of committing errors 52

4.4 Suggestions for learning epistemic modality in English 53

4.4.1 For learners and learning material 53

4.4.2 Suggested exercises 54

4.5 Summary 55

CHAPER V: CONCLUSION 56

5.1 Concluding remarks 56

5.2 Limitation of the study 57

5.3 Suggestions for further study 58 REFERENCE

APPENDIX

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1 1 Rationale for the study

In daily communication, not only do speakers interact with each other by giving and receiving information but they also exchange their attitude and knowledge to the realis One of the effective means used to express the different shades of their attitude and knowledge to the fact is modality, a large branch of English and Vietnamese linguistics The aspect of semantics that involves the factual status of statement is epistemic modality Epistemic modality reveals the speaker’s different degrees of certainty, doubts, possibility, for example The syntactic features of epistemic modality lies in the relation of their complements, i.e epistemic modality markers, modal verbs, for instance with the whole or the part of the clause that contains epistemic meanings

Attitude and knowledge of the participants expressed in communication is very important Which language items used to express it and how to operate the language items is quite hard for Vietnamese learners of English, especially for high school learners of English When learning English, Vietnamese learners focus more on the syntactic function, modal verb structure, for example, than the semantic features of epistemic modality As a result, they are likely unable to make their interaction naturally They meet difficulty expressing their real attitude, thought or belief For

example, instead of saying: “You might be true” to express their degree of doubt, they simply say: “You are true.”

Vietnamese learners of English need to develop the ability to express the degree

of certainty, doubt or the extent of their commitment to an assertion, as well as conveying their attitudes to the listeners in a variety of social contexts English and Vietnamese have various means and devices to express their status but they differ from one to another For example, besides modal verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives, English has modal nouns, which is unfamiliar to Vietnamese

Epistemic modality has been seriously studied by several linguists and grammarians under the light of cognitive, pragmatic and functional grammar perfective

Palmer (2001) investigates epistemic modality on the grounds of “systematized and organized” within the grammatical system of language However, the grammatical ground for epistemic modality can be distinguished by the meaning encoded by grammar and pragmatic principles and inference According to this point of view, the range of the grammatical devices used to indicate epistemic modality or evidence the speaker has for what he or she says must include a whole range of phenomena- syntactic, morphological, lexical and prosodic

This thesis will focus on epistemic modality in the view of pragmatics to investigate all the semantic features of epistemic modality in broader contexts and in the view of functional grammar, Theme- Rheme structure, a clause that has a theme and

a Rheme to find out the occurrences of epistemic modality in the clause and its connection to the rest of the clause

The syntactic and semantic features of epistemic modality will be referenced in the bilingual book, fairy tales: “Happy Prince” by Oscar Wilde, translated by Ngo Thanh Tam, published in 2016

For the above mentioned reasons, the thesis has the title: EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The thesis will look into modality especially epistemic modality in English syntactically and semantically with Vietnamese equivalents in some bilingual story books to find out the similarities and differences in the two languages to help Vietnamese learners study modality in English effectively

The thesis therefore will intend:

- To investigate the syntactic features of epistemic modality in English in the view

of functional grammar Theme- Rheme structure and the semantic features of epistemic modality in the view of pragmatic perspective

- To find out the similarities and differences in meaning and structure of epistemic modality in English through the reference to the Vietnamese sequivalent in some bilingual books

- To give some suggestions for teaching and learning epistemic modality in English effectively

1.3 Research questions

The study is to answer the three questions:

1 What are the syntactic and semantic features of epistemic modality in English?

2 What are the similarities and differences of epistemic modality in English and the Vietnamese equivalents?

3 What factors help Nguyen Binh Khiem high school learners learn epistemic modality in English effectively?

1.4 Methods of the study

The research has been approached by describing the syntactic features of epistemic modality in English in the view of Theme- Rheme structure to find out the positions that epistemic modality often occurs in the clause The semantic features of epistemic modality will be seen in the view of pragmatics to look into the speakers’ attitudes to the facts or realis, whether they are assertions, commitments or

The survey questionnaires are also designed in quantitative method to make it much more resorted to The questionnaires are directly given to 105 grades 12 of the three English specialized classes at Nguyen Binh Khiem high school Based on the collected data, the errors will be analyzed using comparing and contrasting techniques

to find out the similarities and differences in both terms of syntactic and semantic features of English epistemic modality From the features of making errors, some suggestions to reduce the errors are given out then

1.5 Scope of the study

This study focuses on the descriptive account of syntactic and semantic features

of epistemic modality in English based on the classification of Palmer (2001) Modality basically includes two kinds: epistemic and deontic modality Epistemic modality has two sub-types: judgements and evidential The former involves possibility and necessity The latter encodes the grounds on which a speaker makes overly qualified and indirect subcategories Epistemic modality has the declarative as its unmarked member of the modal system Deontic modality contains an element of “will” such as it

is concerned with action rather than with belief, knowledge or truth Deontic can be featured as necessity or obligation

Modality is realized either syntactic or semantic features by different markers

such as modal auxiliaries like can, could, may; adverbs like probably, likely, surely; adjectives like possible, certain, sure; nouns like necessity, probability, possibility; modal words like actually, frankly, undoubtedly, … as well as their relation with other

parts of the sentence

Modality mood, which deals with the syntactic structures, refers to indicative sentence, a request or a command, part of which expresses modality, whereas imperative serve as expressions of deontic modality

In semantic meaning, modality conveys the interpersonal related to the speaker’s own contribution to the representational meaning of the sentence It can express the attitude of the speaker without any necessary implication that the judgment applies to the subject of the sentence or indeed to the speaker (Quirk, 1985)

The application of this work will compare epistemic modality in English with the Vietnamese equivalents in some bilingual story books to find out the similarities and differences between the two languages A survey is also carried out to investigate the use of epistemic modality in English main clauses syntactically and semantically of

105 students coming from 3 different English specialized grades 12 of Nguyen Binh Khiem high school For the national curriculum set by the government, grade 12 students are more familiar to the term “modal verbs” than “modality” or “epistemic

modality” They use some of the epistemic markers such as can, may, might, maybe, probably, surely but they do not know these markers belong to epistemic modality and that I think, I suppose is in the same kind of epistemic modality

The survey questionnaires and the collected data, therefore, will be designed and analyzed respectively to find out their find out their common errors when using epistemic modality in terms of syntactic and semantic features, which might be useful

to give some suggestions for their better learning of epistemic modality in English

1.6 Significance of the study

The study will give an overview on epistemic modality in English both terms of syntactic and semantic features, which hasn’t been researched thoroughly before In addition, the finding of the thesis makes contributions to help Vietnamese learners especially high school students make the similarities and differences between epistemic modality in English and the equivalents in Vietnamese to find out their actual errors when using modality in English main clauses This will enable them to learn English in general and epistemic modality in English in specific more effectively

1.7 Design of the study

This study consists of 5 chapters Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION- gives a brief overview of the study with the rationale for choosing the study, aims, methods, scope, significance and design of the study Chapter 2- LITERATURE REVIEW- presents the previous studies relating to the study area, the theoretical background for the thesis and the description of the research- governing orientations as well as the approaches to the study Chapter 3- ENGLISH EPISTEMIC MODALITY WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVELENT IN SOME BILINGUAL STORY BOOKS – shows the syntactic and semantic features of epistemic modality in English and the comparison of these features with the Vietnamese equivalents in some bilingual story books Chapter 4- COMMON ERRORS MADE BY NGUYEN BINH KHIEM HIGH SCHOOL LEARNERS OF ENGLISH WHEN USING EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH- indicates some common errors made by high school learners of learning English as a foreign language based on survey questionnaires and the implications for learning English in general and for epistemic modality in specific Chapter 5- CONCLUSION- makes a brief summary of the whole study, points out some limitations of the study and gives some suggestions for further studies The Reference comes at the end of the study

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous studies

English epistemic modality has been mentioned and studied by a number of linguistists and grammarians This great branch of language has seriously been investigated by Palmer (2001), Geoffrey Leech (1982), Leo Hoyer (1997), Jeffersen (1924), Anna Maria, Simon Vandenbergen and Karin Aijimer (2007), Do Huu Chau (1983) and Nguyen Hoa (2004)

Palmer (2001) analysed the fundamentals of English mood and modality He also made the primary differences between mood and modality, epistemic and deontic modality Geeffrey Leech (1982) referred to the classification of modality Leo Hoyer (1997) focused on the English epistemic modality devices such as modal adverbs, modal adjectives, modal auxiliaries and modal nouns Jeffersen (1924) distinguished English modal verbs and mood He also pointed out the semantic meaning of some English modal verbs Anna Maria, Simon Vandenbergen and Karin Aijimer (2007) studied the semantic field of modal certainty, in which they mentioned to the different degrees of certainty of some English modal markers as Leo Hoyer; however, they added modal lexical verbs such as reportive verbs, auditory and sensory markers

In Vietnamese, Do Huu Chau (1983) investigated the semantic system and semantic meaning of modality markers including epistemic and deontic modality Nguyen Hoa (2004) mentioned to the two kinds of modality with a deeper analysis of their meaning in main and subordinate clauses

Besides, quite a lot of Vietnamese researchers have found and tend to make comparison between epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese and presented their conclusion, their findings to give out a broader view and a more comprehensive scale of epistemic modality in the both languages

Ngo Thien Hung (1996) investigated English epistemic markers on the view of syntactic and semantic features He looked into the positions and the pragmatic meaning of epistemic markers in the utterances in traditional grammar Hoang Thi Sau (2012) referred to modal adverbs as hedges in verbal communication She exploited epistemic modality on the light of pragmatic context only Luu Quy Duong and Tran Thi Minh Giang (2012) only focused on epistemic modal adverbs English epistemic modality, however, is not seen on the view of functional grammar by Halliday systematically from syntactic to semantic features That is the reason why I have decided to conduct the research entitled: EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN ENGLISH WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EUIVALENTS

2.2 Modality

2.2.1 Concepts of modality

In English, a feature of its language that is used to communicate in actual situations, to express speakers’ general intentions as well as their commitment to different degrees of their belief, obligation, desire, or actuality in an expressed proposition is known as modality The term modality, however, must be distinguished with the term mood Look at the example:

Eg (1) a Mary may leave here soon

b Mary leaves here soon

c It is important that Mary leave here soon

In the example (1a), “may” is recognized as a modal verb, a grammatical point, but when we look at the content or proposition the modal meanings of “may” conveys

in the clause: the speaker’s attitude to the information- the possibility that Mary leaves for London tomorrow, that is modality, not mood

According to Jespersen (1924), the term mood is used to refer to both mood and modality However, the two can be distinguished according to whether they refer to the grammatical expressions of various modalities- mood or the meanings so expressed- modality He also notes that mood is a grammatical notion, whereas modality is a semantic notion relating to such concepts as ‘possibility’, ‘necessity’, ‘permission’, or

‘obligation’, etc

Palmer (2001) suggests that modality is implemented grammatically through three moods namely indicative, imperative and subjunctive These three moods are then implemented as verb inflections The indicative is used in sentences or clauses

that are typically used to make factual statements as in example (1b) The subjunctive

mood is traditionally seen as the form of a verb that it used to speak about hypothetical, desirable or necessary situations as in example (1c) English does not have an imperative mood, but to speak instead of imperative clauses These are clauses that normally lack a subject In grammar and semantics, modality refers to linguistic devices that indicate the degree to which an observation is possible, probable, likely, certain, permitted, or prohibited In English, these notions are commonly expressed by modal auxiliaries, and sometimes it is combined with “not”

Modality, however, is also regarded as pragmatic category so that modal expressions should be studied in their whole contexts of the utterance, but not at the single utterance only (Leo Hoyer, 1997)

Martin J Endley (2010) suggests that the simplest way to explain modality is to say that it has to do with the stance the speaker adopts toward some situation expressed

in an utterance: “… Modality reflects the speaker's attitude toward the situation being described"

Bybee (1985) gives a broader definition about modality He says that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition

The suggestions and definitions about modality are various However, they have

a common idea that modality concern entire statements, not just event or entitles, and it conveys the whole expression in a truth- functional level

Modality is highlighted on the view of its association with entire statements modality concern the factual status of information It shows the relation of actuality, validity, believability of the content of a clause or a proposition As such, modality evokes not only objective measures of factual status but also subjective attitudes and orientation toward the content of a clause or proposition

2.2.2 Kinds of modality

Modality has been classified in different ways Some have been considered under its relation between the speaker’s attitude and the real world Some others have been examined based on its grammatical words and lexical words

modality” and “event modality”, between “containing an element of will” and

“containing no element of will.” He elicits that “propositional modality” is the kind of modality that contains will in its proposition “Event modality”, however, is the kind of having no element of will

Eg (2) a She will come soon

b She comes soon

The example (2a) “She will come soon” has “will” in its clause, which shows the degree of certainty (not absolutely sure), is considered to be Propositional modality

As in (2b) “She comes soon”, which has no “will”, it is a totally declarative

clause, is regarded as an Event modality

Leo Hoyer (2013) and Günter Radden and René Dirven (2007) classifies modality into two types: epistemic and deontic They suggest that epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker's assessment of, or attitude towards, the potentiality of a

state of affairs, and therefore, it relates to different worlds as in “Mary must be right”,

which shows the assessments of potentiality, the world of knowledge and reasoning that

Mary is right Deontic modality is concerned with the speaker's directive attitude towards an action to be carried out, as in the obligation “Mary must go now”

Lyons (1997) reveals his concern about the notions of subjectivity relating to the different phenomenon, including deontic and epistemic modality He considers the subjectivity of the speakers and the objectivity of the realis when interacting In his

words, under one interpretation of the sentence “Thomas may get unmarried”, the

speaker may be understood as subjectively qualifying his commitment to the possibility

of Thomas’s being unmarried in term of his own certainty and the sentence is more or less equivalent to “Perhaps Thomas is unmarried”, i.e “may” is equivalent to

“perhaps”, something not sure, not certain There are, however, situations in which the

possibility of "Thomas’s being unmarried” is presentable as an objective fact The

speaker might reasonably say that he knows, and does not merely think or believe, that

there is a possibility of “Thomas’s being unmarried” Hence, subjective modality is the

expression of the speaker’s beliefs Objective modality, on the other hand, refers to reality, which is part of the description of the world

Langacker (1990) mentions that the notion of subjectivity is referred as the ways

in which speakers can construe conceptualization in alternative ways and more concentrated on the extent to which the conceptualizer or speaker is explicitly present

in the conceptualization or presentation of a concept

In general, these authors all point out the two types of modality under their own approaches Modality, however, whether it is considered under the relation between

“subjectivity” and “objectivity”, with “will” or no “will”, between speaker’s belief and

the world or the relation between speaker’s attitude and the action carried out, the name epistemic and deontic for the two kinds of modality seems to be more terminalized and the relation of them sets the ground for a version of epistemic modality as well

2.3 Epistemic modality

As mentioned above, modality is classified into deontic modality and epistemic modality Deontic refers to the obligation, what expects to be done, meanwhile, epistemic modality express the speaker’s certainty, possibility or doubts

However, epistemic modality will be more focused in this part for a better and deeper understanding about one of the two kinds of modality Epistemic modality with its own features, the degree or the scales will also be discussed in the following part

2.3.1 Judgements and evidentiality of epistemic modality

Palmer (2001) refers to the two kinds of epistemic modality: judgements and evidentials In his view, judgment and evidential epistemic modality show the commitment of the speaker toward the truth of the proposition with different degrees of possibility Judgment epistemic modality involves possibility and necessity, particularly with regard to speculation and deduction on the part of the speaker as subject or perceiver of the information Judgements assert the possibility of the truth of a proposition without any overt indication of the grounds for that assertion Judgements can be classified into necessary judgements and possible judgements based on the degree of confidence, inference, deduction and speculation, or strong and weak judegements

Eg (3) a The nurse may go out to sleep under a great elder tree (8:128)

b You were lovers It must have been a bit of shock (18:35)

In the examples, the two forms “may” and “must have” encode the same epistemic modality but “may” signal a less confidence than “must have”

Evidentials, in contrast to judgements, encodes the ground on which a speaker makes an overtly qualified assertion Evidentials explicitly signal the collateral that the speaker takes as substantiating an assertion Evidentials can be subcategorized into:

direct and indirect evidentials Direct evidentials show the speaker’s first hand evidence with sensory evidence carrying the main weight Indirect evidentials refer to the second hand facts Direct evidential is recognized by an auditory or reportive from a quotative and indirect evidential is realized by hearsay one

Eg (4) a The spring has come at last, said the Giant (8: 66)

b It sounds as though you may have need of me (18: 352)

In (4a), the truth of the event “The Spring has come at last” is asserted on the basic of hearsay, which is said and reported indirectly to the speaker But in (4b) “It sounds as though” lays the ground for the assertion “you may have need of me” The

ground shows the direct auditory encountering with the event

2.3.2 Certainty degree of epistemic modality

For Givon [9], epistemic modality is the way a language expresses the relative validity of propositions, and this depends in turn on how the language and the culture that the language is embedded in interpreting a universal scale of epistemic choice

Givon argues that there are three kinds of propositions, types by their interest certainty and need for substantiation: (1) Epistemic modality with lowest certainty- the doubtful hypotheses are beneath challenge and substantiation; (2) Epistemic modality with medium certainty- the challenge requires supporting evidence; (3) Epistemic modality with high certainty- the presupposition are above the challenge

For the proposition with high certainty, the presupposition refers to this epistemic modality The communicative contract treats information as assumed by the speaker to be known to, familiar to or otherwise unlikely to be challenged the hearer In some languages, given the contingencies of the culture, mystical or revealed knowledge

is above challenge as the culture; mystical of revealed knowledge is above challenge, as

in traditional societies

The proposition with lowest certainty is known as irrealis Under this mode, information is weakly asserted, as hypothesis, possibility, probability, supposition or guess The source of the information is thus largely irrelevant, since the speaker does not intend to defend the information too vigorously against challenge In fact, often the speaker volunteers the information under the irrealis mode precisely in order to solicit challenge, correction or corroboration

For the proposition with medium certainty, Givon [9] argues that evidential requirements are found only in the middle range of the scale, the realis assertion Under this mode, information is strongly asserted, yet it remains open to challenge by the hearer The speaker must then be prepared to defend the information, by citing the source of evidence as in the figure below:

Table 2.1: Epistemic gradient

Proposition Proposition Proposition

10

Beneath Challenge Open to Challenge Above Challenge

Low certainty Middle certainty High certainty

No evidence Evidence Required No evidence

From this construe, all qualified assertion epistemic modality are obviously evidential to some degree The question to be answered is what the evidence is allowed and how it is chosen

Givon [9:43] argues that languages quantify evidence along four gradients: Person: Speaker -> Hearer -> Third person

Sense: Vision -> Hearing -> Other senses -> Feeling

Directness: Sense -> Inference

Proximity: Near -> Far

If a speaker is forced to choose evidence to defend his assertion, he chooses evidence according to the above mentioned four scales and according to the internal order of the gradients, vision over hearing, for instance

Givon provides rules of evidence for his scale and points out that only in the scale of realis- assertion are evidence assumed to be both available and expected, which

is ranked according to the degree of evidentiary strength, thus corresponding closely to subjective certainty

Scale of evidentiary strength of source:

a Direct sensory experience

b Inference from direct sensory experience

c Indirect inference

d Hearsay

In languages with further differences among several possible sensory sources of direct evidence, the grammar of evidentiality tends to rank the senses according to their reliability as source of evidence:

Scale of reliability of sensory evidence:

a Visual experience

b Auditory experience

c Other sensory experience

In the grammar of evidentiality, one also finds the ranking of the participants in the event according to person:

Scale of participants in events:

a Speaker

b Hearer

c Third party

Scale of spatial proximity:

a Near the speech situation

11

b Away from the speech situation

Finally, the grammar of evidentiality also tends to rank the temporal proximity

of the reported event to the speech time, in a rather predictable way:

Scale of temporal proximity:

a Nearer to speech time

b Father away from speech time

The scale of temporal proximity is not independently of the other scales as it often associated with spatial proximity to speech place, thus with the speaker’s direct presence at the reported scene

2.3.3 Modal function of epistemic modality

According to the scale of source of knowledge and strength of knowledge, epistemic modality is mainly conveyed by modal function, which is specifically expressed by modal markers such as modal adverbs, modal adjectives, modal nouns, modal lexical verbs and modal auxiliaries

1 Modal adverbs (Madv): perhaps, probably, maybe, certainly, presumably, truly, really, …: có lẽ, có thể, chắc chắn, dường như, …

2.Modal adjectives (Madj): possible, probable, likely, true, false, necessary, …:

có thể, phải, chắc chắn, đúng, nhất định, …

3 Modal nouns (MN): possibility, probability, certainty, …: có thể, sẽ, phải, …

4 Modal lexical verbs (MLV): think, believe, know, suspect, suppose, assume, presume, guess, doubt…: nghĩ, tin, biết, đoán, ngờ, cho là, …

5 Modal auxiliaries (Maux): will, may, must, should, can, might, ought to, …: có thể, sẽ, phải, …

These grammatical and lexical devices are called epistemic markers in general term In some places, where these means are realized in actual use, they may be called modal adjectives construction or epistemic quantifiers, for instance

2.4 Epistemic modality in the view of pragmatics

Willet (1988) denotes that modality involves all the aspect of meaning in the

scope of pragmatics These pragmatic meanings integrate to form an expressive message accompanying with the proposition

He suggests a distinction between the intraphrasal modality that is the modal meaning integrated in the structure of the clause and the modal meaning over the whole proposition In his words “the modality of the proposition includes the modality involving with descriptive message which consists of objective modality and subjective modality The objective modality and subjective modality may involve the speaker’s

intellectual attitudes to the proposition, denoted by such language units as “I think, I suppose, …”

12

The expressive modality involves the reflection, either conscious or unconscious

of the psychological, social features, the characteristics of profession, region, age group

of the speakers, the listener and their relationship of the participants (intimate, frozen)

The communicative modality involves the reflection, conscious or unconscious,

of the relationship between the message and the situation (where, ritual or unritual), stylistic aspect, the characteristic of the listeners, the speaker’s attitude (willing or reluctant) It also involves the conditions, manner of opening, sustaining and closing in interaction)

Obviously, Willet’s viewpoint has paved the way for us to extend the concept of modality in the view of pragmatics where we deal with factors of communication

According to Searle (1972), pragmatics relates to the observation that, in the context of the human behavioral repertoire, language has a specific role to play, to allow communication with other members of the species

Leech (1983) indicates that pragmatics is the study of how utterances have meanings in situation

Yule (1996) and Richard, Plan & Weber (1995) share the same idea with Leech They points out the role of pragmatics in the study of epistemic modality Pragmatics,

in their point of view, is the study of the use of language in communication and contextual meaning involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how the context influence what is said

When epistemic modality is approached in the view of pragmatics, it will show the relationship between the speaker, the utterance and the context of the utterance Look at the example:

Eg (5) a The book must be on the shelf

b The book may be on the shelf (23:248)

Semantically, (5a) and (5b) contain signals of epistemic modality in their clauses, which express the degree of certainty (5a) and possibility (5b) However, if (5a) and (5b) are examined in their contexts, they show the different context meanings There is evidence from which it follows that the book is on the shelf in (5a) but the speaker finds from available evidence less certain in (5b) so he/she uses “may” to express this shade of meaning

Language, however, is not the only type of communication Human communicates with each other not only by language but also by many other types of communication At least, in terms of the possibility it offers for transmitting complex patterns of information Hence, investigating the semantic features of English epistemic modality, it should be involved in the context that is considered to be the background of the communication

13

2.4.1 Epistemic modality and speech acts

According to Yule G (1996: 47), in attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances The actions via utterances are generally called speech acts

The social ritual constraints help the hearer to interpret a question as a greeting

in an actual situation, and therefore, speaker and hearer in a language community should acquire the convention and rules of communication to interpret speaker’s intent

Austin [1: 94, 120], when a speaker utters a sentence, he performs three acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

Locutionary act: the speaker selects language units as phonetic units, lexical items, grammatical rules and combine these to form an utterance In short, a locutionary act is the act of saying something which is meaningful and can be understood

Illocutinary act: is performed via the communicative force of an utterance An illocutionary act is using a sentence to perform a function Speaker can choose specific language units as indicators to signal the function of the sentence The sentence “She

left early”, the word “probably” can be added to “She probably left early”, probably

signal the function of the sentence as a tentative assertion

Perlocutionary act: is the result or effects that are produced by means of saying

something For example, when the speaker says “John is helpful”, he is willing to help people” can be interpreted as a persuasive statement “John is a right man to make friend with”

Speech act has two kinds of meaning in utterance/ sentence: Locutionary act has the same meaning as a proposition This is the basic literal meaning of the sentence which is conveyed by the particular words and structure which the sentence contains Illocutionary force, whereas, indicates the effect of the sentence on the hearer For example:

The proposition “John comes” can be uttered with many different illocutionary

acts as follows:

Assertive: John comes

Exclamation: John comes

These illocutionary acts are realized in the following performative utterance:

I’m sure John comes

My god! John comes!

In the example, “I’m sure”, “My god”, reveal epistemic modality of the

illocutionary force of the sentence and help the hearer interpret the speaker’s intent

Searle grouped speech acts into 5 major types by their functions: directives, comissives, representatives, declaratives and expressive

Directives: getting the hearer to do something

Eg (6) a Open the door (rather rude)

14

b Please open the door (fairy polite) (23: 245)

Commissives: functions as a promise or refusal for action

Eg (7) a Surely, I’ll phone you tomorrow (certain)

b Maybe, I’ll phone you tomorrow (tentative) (23: 276)

Representatives: state what the speaker believes to be the case or not Statements

of fact, assertions, conclusions, and description

Eg (8) a You are right

b Maybe, you are right (23:286)

Declaratives: bring about a new state

Expressive: speaker expresses feelings and attitudes about something, such as apology, a complaint, to thank someone, … It can also be stronger or weaker

Eg (9) a Your house is really large

b Your house is quite large (23:321)

2.4.2 Presuppositional features of epistemic modality

Willet (2004) notes that when someone says “John is tired”, there are many

presuppositions for the background of the utterance The speaker may be John or someone else Maybe, John is working too hard recently, or he may feel tired with the present work, or maybe he wants to do something for a change

For linguists, presupposition does not refer to all the possible knowledge within

we interpret propositions but only those that are encoded in the linguistic syntactic

system The utterance “John is tired” can be changed by adding some words like “John may be tired”, “John must be tired” The degree of the assertion or the truth of the

utterance has been changed “May” and “must” in the utterances here reveal the features of presupposition whether it is true or not really true The different degrees of presupposition can be called the degrees of possibility for something that is not really true and certainty for something that comes nearer to the truth

2.4.3 Epistemic modality in communicative contract

Givon [8] states that human communication involves an intricate network of conventions concerning what speakers and hearers are entitled to expect of each other when carrying out their respective roles in communication

Epistemic modality at the extreme of the modal range, the communicative contract between speaker and hearer governs the speaker’s responsibilities and reliability or certainty to the communicated information The contract also governs the interaction between speakers and hearers concerning status of the communicated information

Givon [8:164] also suggests that there exist some inferential connections among various propositional modalities, so that the purely epistemic modes shade into socio- manipulative modes: Truth -> knowledge -> certainty -> status -> power

by using hedges or to avoid offending the hearers, they try to maintain the hearer’s face

by using epistemic modality at low degree

2.5 Epistemic modality in the view of Theme-Rheme structure

When considering EM in the view of theme- rheme structure by Halliday (2004), some notions relating to the fields such as clause, theme and rheme should be covered The clause concept, moreover, should be made much clearer in comparison with the one presented by Randolph Quirk (1985)

While Randolph Quirk is considered the founder of traditional grammar with many concepts about language such as sentences, clauses, nouns, verbs, … which seems to be familiar to everyone who studies languages, Halliday becomes a new discover basing on his observation of the function of language or language in functional grammar (language in use) He shows a new view on a language in general and gives out many new concepts in specific However, the new concepts by Halliday sometimes have the analogy with the traditional ones

2.5.1 The clause concept

According to Quirk, a clause is a part of a sentence, conveying an independent supposition The clause elements are subject (S), verb (V), object (O), complement (C), adverbial (A):

Eg (10) What he did make me said (20: 51)

Similarly, Ronal Carter (2001) defines a clause is the basic unit of grammar A main clause is made up of a subject (a noun phrase) and a verb phrase (sometimes followed by other elements, e.g objects, complements, adjuncts):

Eg (11) a They don’t feel well (S- V- C)

b They haven’t posted all the invitations (S- V- O)

c I’ll call you later (S- V-O- A) (21: 37)

He also indicates that a clause is a group of words containing both a subject and

a predicate but cannot always be considered as a full grammatical sentence Clauses can

be either independent clauses (also called main clauses) or dependent clauses (also called subordinate clauses) A main clause contains both a subject and predicate, can stand alone as a sentence A subordinate clause only gives extra information and is

“dependent” on other words to make a full sentence Considering the example:

Eg (12) a They lived in New York (main clause- simple sentence)

b That she got married surprised all of us (subordinate clause)

16

The clause as in Halliday’s view is the mainspring grammatical energy; it is the unit where meanings of different kinds, experiential, interpersonal and textual, are integrated into a single syntagm [2: 50]

Thus, Halliday considers all kinds of sentences and clauses from independent or main clause to dependent or subordinate clauses as in traditional grammar to be the clause only

From the view of Randolph Quirk and Halliday on the clause, the term “main clause”, “subordinate clause” or “clause” refers to the same grammatical point in English language

Hence, when taking epistemic modality into account, different linguists use different terms of “clause” for the same language point like Palmer (2001) He considers main clauses as the markers of modality, whereas subordinate clauses as the propositions

2.5.2 Theme- Rheme structure

Halliday (2004) also observes that in all languages, the clause has the character

of a message: it has some form of organization giving it a status of a communicative event In English, as in many other languages, the clause is organized as a message by having a special status assigned to one part of it On element in the clause is enunciated

as the theme; this then combined with the remainder so that the two parts together constitute a message

He indicates that a message consists of theme and rheme Theme is the element which serves as the point of departure of the message, it is that with which the clause is concerned The remainder of the message, the part in which the theme is developed, is called rheme Theme and rheme seen in a message structure, therefore, form the structure called theme- rheme structure as in the figure 2.1:

Table 2.2: Theme- Rheme structure

Marry bought this saucepan at the supermarket

Marry and Peter live in an apartment in the city centre

When looking into theme only, theme has three types: textual, interpersonal and topical theme Ideational theme relates to the meaning of the particular clause to other part of the text; interpersonal theme often function to code the speaker’s or writer’s personal judgment on meaning; topical theme often functions as the point of orientation for the experiential meanings of the clause

In kinds of sentences or clauses, theme may appear in declarative, exclamative, interrogative or imperative ones In declarative sentences, theme functions as subject (unmarked theme) It may be a nominal group or something other than a subject (marked theme) In exclamative clauses, WH- element, normally nominal group or

17

adverbial group functions as theme In interrogative, the typical function of theme in this kind is to ask a question for all kinds of reasons The natural theme of a question is

“what I want to know” Theme in interrogative is a finite and a subject or a WH- word

In imperative sentence, the predicator (the verb) is regularly found in theme and verbal

group function as predicator plus preceding don’t if negative

Look at the examples for the theme in the 4 kinds of clauses:

Eg (13) a.The two Indians stood waiting (Declarative)

b How cheerfully he seems to grin! (Exclamative) (8: 349)

c Are you interested in syntax? (Interrogative- finite + subject)

d What are you doing here? (Interrogative- finite + subject)

(8: 351)

e Wake me up before the coffee break (Imperative)

f Don’t disturb me while I am taking a nap (Imperative) (8: 356)

2.5.3 Epistemic modality in Theme- Rheme structure

In theme- rheme structure, epistemic modality can be seen in some kinds of theme and some kinds of the clauses but not in all the theme kinds and clauses as mentioned above

In the interpersonal theme, the components of this type relate to modals, which are the markers of epistemic modality More specifically, the modal adjuncts which expresses the speaker’s judgment regarding to relevance of the message such as

probably, possibly, frankly, to be honest, … and mood- marking or a finite

In the kinds of sentences, epistemic modality appears in declarative and often functions as a predicator (the verb) of the sentences These verbs are normally

expressed by modal markers (Maux) such as can, may, might:

Eg (14) a The two Indians may come early

b It might be raining there (8: 271)

Epistemic modality can also be seen in interrogative sentences In this kind, theme consists of a finite and a subject (a polarity) It conveys the idea that what the speaker want to know is the polarity “yes” or “no” EM markers in this kind are usually Madj used as a setting for the speaker’s attitude or opinion about the fact in the followed proposition, for example:

Eg (15) a Are you sure he is a prince? (18: 38)

b Is it true that spring will come soon? (8:72)

For interrogative sentence with WH- questions, theme is a WH- word (unmarked), a nominal group, an adverbial group, or a prepositional phrase function as

an interrogative (WH-) element EM or EM marker, however, is not popular in this kind

of theme

Eg (16) a What are you doing here?

b Then why does she bother? (8: 89)

18

In the interrogative sentences, EM is more seen in the thematic equative, i.e theme is rheme, which expresses some kind of setting for the clause, for instant:

Eg (17) a What he believed is not true

b The fact why she loved her is unknown (8: 236)

Epistemic modality in Theme- Rheme structure shows that the occurrence of epistemic modality or their markers in the kinds of clauses seem to appear more often

in declarative and polarity interrogative clauses This will lay the ground for the investigation of the epistemic modality syntactic features in theme- rheme structure in the next part

2.6 Summary

The concepts and the classification of modality show that modality as epistemic modality reflects the speaker’s attitude to what he or she says On the other hand, epistemic modality expresses the different extent of certainty or possibility to the truth

of a proposition Semantically, epistemic modality has been seen in the view of pragmatics, which refers to not only the meaning of epistemic modality but also to the contextual meaning, the speech acts and the presupposition containing epistemic modality signals Syntactically, epistemic modality on the light of Theme- Rheme structure shows the different positions of epistemic modality markers in a clause as message together with the effects of epistemic modality on the other part of the clause

19

3.1.1 Syntactic features of epistemic modality in English

For the syntactic features of epistemic modality, this part refers to the syntactic positions in Theme- Rheme structure of a clause as message as mentioned in earlier part The syntactic positions of epistemic modality in the clause will focus on the occurrences of modal markers: Madv, Madj, MN, MLV and Maux to find out whether they are situated in Theme or in Rheme The occurrences of EM markers; moreover, will be investigated in the two kinds of clauses: declarative and interrogative clauses as

EM or EM markers more appears in these kinds as explained in 2.5

3.1.1.1 In declarative clauses

In declarative clauses, EM markers take the five positions of theme-rheme structure: the beginning - Clausal Initial (I- position), the middle - Clausal Medial (M1, M2, M3- position) and the final - Clausal Final (F1, F2- position):

Clausal initial - before subject: Thematic (I)

Clausal medial- before modal auxiliaries or auxiliaries (M1)

Clausal medial- after modal auxiliaries or after auxiliaries: Rhematic (M3) Clausal final- after an object or complement: Rhematic (F1)

Clausal medial- modal auxiliaries or lexical verbs (F2)

In declarative clauses, Madvs take all the four positions in theme- rheme structure, but the nominal position for most Madvs is I- position

Eg (18) a Perhaps, that wasn’t wise, Liza

Madj such as possible, probable, likely, true, false, real, necessary, … can be

found in any position in Theme- Rheme structure

Eg (19) a It is true that Mary is going to get married

20

M3

f That he will announce an election for next month is certain

F1 (8: 80)

However, the normal construction for Madj is the Thematic (theme= rheme)

with the structure: It + be +adj that P (It is true/ possible/ necessary/ likely, that + P)

Eg (20) a It is likely that the kids will be late for class

b It is necessary that she should finish the report by noon tomorrow (7: 184)

For modality nouns in English: certainty, truth, likelihood, possibility, probability, guess, chances… can be seen mostly in I- position, rarely in F1- position:

Eg (21) a My guess is that he might have been killed by a shot from behind

From the examples, modal noun takes I- position at most and the common

structure for MN is There + be + MN + P or That + P is/ was + MN (F-position)

In English, modal auxiliaries used to express epistemic modality belong to some

of the modality verbs will, must, can, ought to, should, have to, may, might; however,

these modal verbs are used to express deontic modality, also A specific way to make it different is base on the meaning of each sentences or utterance This will be discussed

in the semantic meaning of EM In Theme- Rheme structure, EM used modal verbs take F2- position only

Eg (22) a This must be a very expressive hotel, Mr Quigly

In theme- rheme structure, modal lexical verbs in English I think, I suppose, I know, I doubt, normally take I-position as in:

Eg (23) a I think she is one of the smartest persons in the world

I (8: 184)

F1 (18: 66)

c A growing boy needs a bit of green or so his mother used to say

F1 (18: 18)

The table below can sum up the positions of EM markers in declarative clause in

Theme- Rheme structure

22

Table 3.1: Position of epistemic markers in declarative clauses

I - position

M1- position

M2- position

M3- position

F1 - position

F2- position

As can be seen from the table, Madv and Madj take all the 6 positions, MN appear only in I- position and M2- position Maux seems to be more in M1 and M2

MLV occurs in M1 and I- position for only the verb hear, F1 and F2- position for both sound and hear MLV- reportive markers occur at I- position and F1- position

3.1.1.2 In interrogative clauses

In interrogative clause, theme consists of a finite and a subject that come first in the sentence As EM or EM markers cannot be found in the theme with WH- element, this part deal only with a polarity theme, i.e a “yes” or “no” questions

For the same structure in polarity interrogative clause, EM markers all, except Maux, take I- position only

For Madv:

Eg (27) a Do you possibly finish the report earlier?

b Could you possibly reply me soon? (8: 312)

For Madj:

Eg (28) a Are you sure that she will return soon?

b Is it possible that she will return soon? (8: 214)

For MN:

Eg (29) a Is it your belief that she will return soon?

b Is it his certainty that they will move to Australia?

c Is your certainty true? (18: 321)

For MLV:

Eg (30) a Do you believe that she will return soon?

b Do you know that people will elect him the president of the club?

(18: 212) For auditory marker, sound is rarely found in interrogative clause

Eg (31) a Do you hear that she will get married to an Australia?

b Did you hear that the man will leave earlier? (18: 76)

For reportive markers:

Eg (32) a Does she say that he went away one hour ago?

23

b Did she say that he had gone away one hour before? (18: 79)

In the two kinds of clause, declarative and interrogative one, EM takes 6 positions in theme- rheme structure, but the most common place for the two clauses is I- position with the occurrence of almost epistemic markers The less common positions are M3 and F2- position because of the habit in language use of the English modal

nouns and because of the function feature the modal verbs, which take only F2-position

but in reality these modal verbs are used more often when expressing modality or epistemic modality The theme- rheme structure of an interrogative stipulates the appearance of theme is also a reason why epistemic markers only take I-position in this kind of theme

The table below shows the positions epistemic markers appear in the Theme- Rheme structure of a declarative and interrogative clause

Table 3.2: Epistemic markers in Theme- Rheme structure:

M1- position Madv, Madj, Maux, MLV

M2- position Madv, Madj, MN, Maux

M3- position Madv, Madj

F1 - position Madv, Madj, MLV, AM, RM

3.1.2 Semantic features of epistemic modality in English

The semantic features of epistemic modality in this part will be considered in the light of pragmatic perspective, which mainly focuses on the contexts the utterances or clauses occur The semantic roles of epistemic modality are also referred to in the extent to what the speakers give an assertion and the choices of the epistemic markers

to show their communicative strategy whether they tend to enhance or threaten the hearers The semantic features also reveal the tendency in using epistemic modality in communication

The context of the clause in communication is the evidence that reveals the speaker’s degree of certainty or possibility when uttering an assertion The evidence in the context may be direct or indirect both expressed through the modal markers the speaker employ for his utterances

3.1.2.1 The evidentiality of epistemic modality

Epistemic modality refers to different degrees of possibility and certainty as mentioned in the early part Look into the examples:

24

Eg (33) a The book may be on the shelf

b The book must be on the shelf

Imagine these clauses are uttered by John and Marry while they are finding the book If John says “The book may be on the shelf.” he has very little or event no signal

to come to the assertion that the book is on the shelf But if he says as in (15.b), he has stronger claim to the assertion of the position of the book because he has strong evidence for his assertion Sentence (15.c) shows the strongest evidence about the place

of the book Epistemic modality in the examples (15.a, b) shows the scale of possibility and reveals the evidence at different level

Besides, the evidence of possibility or certainty points out the source of information whether it is direct or indirect evidence Palmer [19] and Willet [24:27] mention to indirect evidence and indirect or reported evidence

Eg (34) a He did the gardening (I see him doing the gardening.)

b He did the gardening (I have seen the evidence that he did the

gardening: the dirt on his hands, his rubber shoes, the gardening tools in his hands But I did not see him doing the gardening.)

c He did the gardening (I got the information from someone else)

(18: 314)

The examples (34) show that there are five distinctive types of evidence: Visual, Nonvisual, Apparent, Seconhand and Assumed All the examples in (34) illustrate the

proposition “He did the gardening.” with different sources of evidence (34.a) shows

the strongest evidence because the evidence is direct and visual Evidence in (34.b) is visual but not direct, so it is weaker And (34.c) is the weakest for the evidence both nonvisual and indirect

For the strongest evidence as in (34.a), it cannot be dressed up by epistemic modal meaning However, (34.b) can be dressed up by epistemic modality markers that show the different degree of certainty:

For stronger evidence:

He must have done the gardening

He obviously did the gardening

Obviously, he did the gardening

It was certain that he did the gardening

I was sure that he did the gardening

…

For weaker evidence:

He may have done the gardening

He possibly did the gardening

He probably did the gardening

25

There was a possibility that he did the gardening

Probably, he did the gardening

… Whereas, evidence in (34.c) is nonvisual and indirect that reveal the indidrect source of information can be transformed as in the follows:

Someone says that he did the gardening

It is said that he did the gardening

It is reported that he did the gardening

As far as I know, he did the gardening

I suppose that he did the gardening

I think that he did the gardening

The above analysis of evidence in context provides a solution to track the source

of the information The speaker did actually see him doing the gardening as in (34.a) is

a visual evidence (34.b) and (34.c) is less reliable than (34.a) because it lacks direct evidence, hereafter called evidentiality (34.a) and (34.b) show the inference or indirect source of information, which is farer from the truth than the direct one This leads to the conclusion that epistemically modalized sentence like (34.b) and (34.c) constitutes a part of the semantics of epistemic modality Besides, the semantics meaning of epistemic modality in pragmatics also indicates the indirect evidentiality When considering evidentiality as the whole from the strongest evidence to the weakest, Willet (1985) has the scale:

Figure 3.1: Scale of evidentiality

More reliable < -> Less reliable

Visual < Auditory < Nonvisual < - > Inferential > Reportive

Direct evidence Indirect evidence

The scale suggests that the direct evidence consists of visual, auditory and nonvisual, which may be possibly more reliable than inferential and reportive evidence

In English system, there are lexical verbs performing the function of making

visual experience The sensory markers see, seem, look, notice, catch, observe, watch

are used to report visual evidence or that the speaker has when making a realis-

assertion which is open to challenge for evidence Take look as a representative for

visual evidence follows:

Eg (35) a “He looks just like an angel,” said the Charity Children… “How do

you know?” Said the Mathematical Master, “You have never seen one.”

“Ah! But we have in our dreams,” answered the children (8: 6)

The dialogue between the children and the Mathematical Master shows that the children compare their teacher with an angle basing on their dream Although the

26

source of information comes from dream, which is unreal but it is experimental evidence that the children have seen angle and they know how an angle looks like

In English lexical language system, there exist some verbs implying sound or

auditory signals with epistemic meanings as hear, sound

Eg (36) Now when the little Dwarf heard that he was to dance a second time

before the Infanta, and by her own express command, he was so proud

(8: 226)

In (36), the ground for the assertion “he he was to dance a second time…” is signalized by “the little Dwarf heard” The signal indicates the speaker’s direct auditory

commitment to the event and it also points out the source of information

Nonvisual evidentiality shows the less reliability because there is no direct evident for the assertion

Indirect evidence has two types: inference and report It indicates that the source

of information is less reliable as it comes from the second or the third hand

The English system of language, there also has a group of epistemic modal verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives, modal nouns, lexical modal verbs, modal auxiliaries that indicate the various extents to which the speaker’s belief to what he is saying (Quirk [19:511])

These items can be arranged from low to high- degree of possibility as in Figure

1 of the early part but with only two degrees, not three as follow:

Figure 3.2: Scale of inferential evidentiality

Low inference High inference

Low- degree inference can be expressed by Madvs or Madjs doubtless, quite, likely, maybe, perhaps, probably, reputedly, seemingly, apparently, etc

High- degree inference includes Madvs: certainly, definitely, incontrovertibly, indeed, surely, undeniably, undoubtedly, clearly, evidently, obviously, actually, really, etc

The source of information can be indirectly, the evidence of an assertion is indirect, then Willet [24:27] states that reported evidence may be specially marked as second-hand or third- hand (hearsay)

Basing on Willet’s view, we can possibly identify the source of information as secondhand experience reported by someone who can be identified For the first type

we call it report and the second one as hearsay

In English system, the reportive features can be formed with verbs of speaking

types such as say, tell, report, … with the third personal

Eg (37) a She told me you are going away (18: 364)

b She says it might make them better (18: 264)

27

In some cases, the name of the person who feeds the information can be added in order to raise more commitment to the content of the assertion and the assertion is given more pragmatic immediacy when the markers of evidence are postponed to the end

Eg (38) a The captain said I was to call you Jim

b But you’re an old boy, the headmaster said (18: 345)

When the source of information is not transmitted from the speaker, it may be circled around before it is received by the speaker as third- hand knowledge; it is called

hearsay Hearsay is marked by people say, they say, I’ve heard, I’ve read, it seems, rumour has it that, …

Eg (39) People say he imports a great many things (18: 71)

Table 3.3: The source of information (SOI) of epistemic modality

SOI Markers

evidence Low degree High degree

EM markers doubtless, quite,

likely, maybe, perhaps, probably, reputedly,

seemingly, apparently,

certainly, definitely, incontrovertibly, indeed, surely, undeniably, undoubtedly, clearly, evidently, obviously, actually, really

3.1.2.2 The certainty degree of epistemic modality

In the earlier part, modality has been referred as possibility, necessity, certainty, commitment and evidence Palmer and Gívon categorize epistemic modality according

to their degree on or scales of the possibility, necessity, commitment and evidence

Palmer (2001) suggests that epistemic modality should involve any modal system that indicates the degree of commitment by the speaker to what he or she says - the extent to which the truth of a proposition is possible

The truth of a proposition can be shown in the different degrees of possibility which is called possibility- based and can be displayed in the scale as follows:

Figure 3.3: Scale of possibility