A contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the modal verbs can, may, must in english and the equivalent expressions in vietnamese

Certificate of originality

I, Nguyen Minh Hue, hereby claim the originality of my study. Unless
otherwise indicated, this is my own piece of academic accomplishment.
Signature
i
Acknowledgements
I am sincerely grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang, my supervisor, for his wisdom,
critical comments and precious advice spared for me. Without his guidance,
encouragement and critical comments the work would have never been completed.
I owe a debt of gratitude to all my lecturers at the University of Languages and
International Studies - Vietnam National University, Hanoi, for their enthusiastic teaching
and tremendous knowledge that have directly or indirectly enlightened my research paper.
I would like to express my gratitude to all of my colleagues at the ESP Department, ULIS
-VNU, Hanoi for their constant encouragement and the favourable conditions spared for
my study.
Finally, my warmest thanks go to my parents, my husband for their love, support and share
of housework and childcare. Without their help this thesis could not have gained the
current status.
Hanoi, December - 2006
Nguyen Minh Hue
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of originality i
Acknowledgements ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
Part A. Introduction 1
1. Rationale of the study 1
2. Aims of the study 3
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Methodology 3

5. Design of the study 4
Part B: Development 5
Chapter 1: Theoretical background 5
Chapter 2: Investigation 13
Chapter 3: Implications 29
Part C: Conclusion 33
References 35
Sources of example 36
1. Charlotte Bronte. Jane Eyre. Vol 1. (Translated by NguyÔn Anh Kim). 1996.
Vietnam: Literature Publishing House 36
2. Charlotte Bronte. Jane Eyre. Vol 2. (Translated by NguyÔn Anh Kim). 1996.
Vietnam: Literature Publishing House 36
3. website: ine_literature.com/brontec/janeeyre/ 36
iii
Part A. Introduction
1. Rationale of the study
In everyday communication, both the speaker and writer do not simply describe events,
processes or states of affairs. By means of language, they also wish to express their
emotions and attitudes; or to influence in some way the addressee’s beliefs, behaviours.
Usually, the speaker not only says something true, something that will definitely happen or
happened, but also says something he/ she does not know for sure.
1. Tom is happy.
2. Tom seems (to be) happy.
3. I think Tom is happy.
4. Perhaps Tom is happy.
While statement (1) expresses the speaker’s assertion of a fact, statements (2), (3) and (4)
show his indefinite commitment to the proposition “Tom is happy”. The area of semantics
that concerns this expressive and social information of statements is modality.
In comparison with absolute commitments where the speaker definitely asserts, relative
commitments play a very important role in communication. In fact, using too many

absolute commitments probably lessens communicative effects because the speaker will be
seen as a rude or imposing person, disobeying politeness strategies. That’s why the
speakers often hedge, using modalized phrases such as I think (that), I suppose (that) first
to express their subjective attitudes and second to show their politeness to listeners.
Hence, it becomes very interesting and essential to study modality in general and to
investigate how much a speaker commits to what he says in particular. Modality has gained
much popularity among linguists. The different ways in which different langauges allow
speakers to insert themselves into their discourse, expressing their desires or opinions have
become a common subject of study. From syntax to prosody, the study of modality has
spawned innumerable academic papers, namely Bybee (1985), Lyons (1977) and others.
Vietnamese modal system has also been studied by Hoµng Phª (1984) and §ç H÷u Ch©u
(1989).
According to Lyons, a speaker’s qualification of his commitment to the truth of his/ her
proposition becomes an important issue. In Vietnam, there are several English-written M.A
theses on this issue, for example, Modality and Modal Auxiliaries: A systemic comparison
of English and Vietnamese by §ç H÷u HuyÕn (1996), English Epistemic Markers in
Contrastive Analysis with Vietnamese by Ngò ThiÖn Hïng (1996), A Contrastive Study of
the Modal Devices Expressing Possibility in Modern English and Vietnamese by §inh Gia
Hng (2001). Hoµng Thu Giang (2001) also makes a comparison between different types of
modal expressions in English and their Vietnamese equivalents. NguyÔn D¬ng Nguyªn
Ch©u (1999) sets for the discussion on pragmatic interpretation of obligation meanings
expressed particularly by English modals must, should, have to.
1
The researches in English focus on analyzing both the most common form and content of
modality. As a result, a full and specific description of syntactic and semantic features of
English modal verbs can, may, must and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese has not
been given yet. Thus, a research on the meanings expressed by the modal verbs can, may,
must in English in contrastive analysis with Vietnamese seems to be necessary.
Though many pages, chapters, books have been written about the English modal system, it
still remains a complicated and troublesome area of language for linguists and learners of

English. The problem can be traced to the polysemy/ ambiguity of modal meanings.
Semantically, a modal can convey either deontic or epistemic modality. In the sociophysical
(deontic) world, the must in “John must go to all the department parties” is taken as
indicating an obligation imposed upon the person realized by the subject of the sentence by
the speaker (or by some other agents). In the epistemic world, the must in the same
sentence could be read as a logical necessity according to the reasoning I must conclude“
that it is John s habit to go to all department parties (because I see his name on the sign-’
up sheet every time, and he s always out on those nights)’ ”. In addition, there is
considerable overlap between modals. It is hard to discern any semantic difference among
them since modals are almost sustitutable in most contexts, e.g. can and may in “You can/
may leave”. Pragmatically, we can talk about modal meanings in terms of such logical
notions as “permission” and “necessity”, but this done, we still have to consider ways in
which these notions become remoulded by the psychological pressures of everyday
communication between human beings: factors such as condescension, politeness, tact and
irony.
The learning of meanings expressed by modals and how to use them correctly has not been,
then, an easy task for learners of English. Learners are often confused in choosing the
appropriate modal to make themselves understood. This problem is especially more
embarrassing when they encounter different modals conveying similar meanings. Also,
they can produce grammatically correct utterances, but do not understand properly the
social and cultural information each modal meaning conveys. Furthermore, due to the
structuralist approach to grammar teaching, learners can memorize modals with their
meanings given, but do not know how to use them to improve their communicative
competence, say, to mitigate directness, to express politeness, to make assertions in social
interaction.
Despite the fact that earlier researches on modality contribute greatly to helping acquire
English modality usage, it is still considered one of the most difficult aspects of learning
English. The topic of this study was prompted at first by my guide to my students in
improving reading skill and in doing some English-Vietnamese translation. I found that
students still have many problems in understanding the texts, and especially in interpreting

the writer’s opinion and attitude expressed by such typical modals as can, may, must. With
all these reasons, I made up my mind to choose and to go further into the topic: A
2
contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the modal verbs can, may, must in
English and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese.
2. Aims of the study
This study - A contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the modals can, may,
must in English and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese – is focused on
investigating the semantic analysis of modal meanings expressed by can, may, must in
English and their equivalents in Vietnamese. It is aimed at:
- studying some preliminaries and features of modal auxiliaries in English and in
Vietnamese.
- making a comparison between modal meanings expressed by can, may, must in English
and their Vietnamese equivalent expressions.
- offering some suggestions for the application of the study to the teaching of English
modals.
3. Scope of the study
This study is confined to the meanings expressed via the three modal verbs can, may, must
in English, their semantic features and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese.
English modals are widely utilized in both spoken and written discourse and cover various
functional styles. It would be interesting to investigate their uses in them all. However, in
order to make our tasks manageable in keeping the aims of the study, within the time
allowance, it is intended that the most attention is paid to written discourse.
4. Methodology
A combination of different methods of analysis will be used in this study. The first is the
descriptive method. English modals can, may, must will be described in turns in order to
find out their semantic features.
However, the major method utilized in this study is the contrastive analysis between the
meanings expressed via the modal verbs can, may, must in English and the equivalent
expressions in Vietnamese. English modal verbs are chosen as the references and we base

on these instruments to find out all the equivalents in Vietnamese.
To apply these methods and to achieve the study goals, translation is the main technique for
comparison between English modal verbs and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese.
With written discourse, data employed for analysis will be extracted from the novel Jane
Eyre by Charlotte Bronte – a famous writer in the nineteenth century realistic literature of
England. This novel is taken from the website
3
ine_literature.com/brontec/janeeyre/. The reason for choosing Jane Eyre is
that it is a well-known literary work in which can, may and must are widely used so that the
contrastive analysis can be easily done. Based on thirty - eight chapters of this novel and its
translation by TrÇn Anh Kim (1996), the data are chosen at random. Then the data are
analyzed and systematized to work out a fresh insight into the meanings expressed by can,
may, must and their equivalents in Vietnamese.
5. Design of the study
The study is composed of three parts.
Part A is the introduction which presents rationales, literature review, aims, scope of the
study as well as the methodology for the research.
Part B is the main part which consists of three chapters.
Chapter one is about the theoretical background for the research. This chapter is aimed at
establishing the framework of investigation. It chiefly deals with modality and modal verbs
in English and in Vietnamese.
Chapter two is focused on investigating the meanings expressed by can, may, must and on
contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed by can, may, must and the Vietnamese
equivalents cã thÓ, ph¶i.
Chapter three deals with the applicability of the study results to the teaching of can, may,
must to Vietnamese learners of English. It discusses some challenges in teaching and
learning English modals. It also puts forward some suggestions for the teaching of English
modals.
The final part is the conclusion which presents a recapitulation of the study and provides
possible concluding remarks and suggestions for further research.

4
Part B: Development
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
1.1. Concept of modality in English
1.1.1. Definition of modality
From the Latin word modalitas, the quality of modality relates to manners (a way of acting
or speaking), forms (shape, structure), and limits (something that restrains). The term is
used to cover linguistic expression of these concepts other than through the modal
auxiliaries: ‘It will possibly rain later this evening’, ‘I am sure that the plane has landed by
now’, ‘You have my permission to smoke now.’
Modality is central to research done in many disciplines, but rarely receives unified
treatment in logic, in (western) philosophy, or in linguistics. In modern logic, for example,
one generally analyses a single semantic value for a modal verb such as can, may, or must
in English or cã thÓ, cã lÏ or nªn in Vietnamese. As these verbs occur in different contexts
and are sensitive to interaction with time and aspect markers, they can receive different
values.
The modal value of a statement is the way, or ‘mode’, in which it is true or false: e.g.
certainly so, currently so, necessarily so. In logic, modality usually means ‘logical
modality’, that is the logical necessity or possibility of a statement’s truth or falsity.
Nevertheless, logic begins but does not end with the study of truth values. Within truth,
there are modes of truth, ways of being true: necessary truth and contigent truth. When a
proposition is true, we may say whether it could have been false. If so, then it is contigent
true. If not, then it is necessarily true; it must be true; it could not have been false. Falsity
has modes as well: a false proposition that could not have been true is impossible or
necessarily false; one that could have been true is merely contigently false. The proposition
‘New York is a rich city’ is contigently true; the proposition that ‘Two and two is four’ is
necessarily true; the proposition ‘Her husband is female’ is impossible, and the proposition
that ‘Women don’t give births’ is contigently false.
In logic, modality is concerned with how what is said is related to the fact that rather than
with what purpose, attitude or judgement a speaker has in uttering. It is because of this

reason that modality in logic is considered objective modality.
While traditional logic has been more concerned with objective modality, which excludes
speakers, modality in language seems to be essentially subjective, i.e. it refers to the
speaker’s opinion or attitude. This is reasonable because in everyday conversation and in
different contexts, all utterances show the purpose, attitude or assessment of the speaker.
5
Modality in language is, then, concerned with subjectiveness of an utterance. In subjective
modality, speakers express the fact with their own intention or judgement. The subjectivity
is seen in different aspects: speakers’ commitment toward the factuality of what is said,
speakers’ judgement toward a proposition, whether it is positive or negative, advantageous
or disadvantageous etc. It is modality that gives more meanings to utterances. Together with
fast development of semantics and pragmatics, modality has received more linguists’
concerns.
Lyons (1977) says that modality is the speaker’s opinion or attitude towards ‘the
proposition that the sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.’
Palmer (1986) defines modality as semantic information associated with the speaker’s
attitude or opinion about what is said.
According to Frawley (1992), modality semantically reflects a speaker’s attitude or degrees
of awareness of the content of a proposition.
In Vietnam, for the past few years, modality has been the focus of many linguists and
researchers such as Hoµng Phª, §ç H÷u Ch©u and others. Hoµng Träng PhiÕn broadly
explains modality as a grammatical category which appears in all kinds of sentence.
From the definition of modality mentioned above, we can see that to some extent linguists
have one thing in common seeing that modality describes the speaker’s attitude or
judgement toward the proposition and not the proposition itself.
The notional content of modality highlights its association with entire statements. Modality
concerns the factual status of information; it signals the relative actuality, validity, or
believability of the content of an expression. Modality reflects the overall assertability of
an expression and thus takes the entire proposition within its scope. In the utterance ‘It may
be raining’, for example, the speaker is not committing himself wholeheartedly to the truth

of the proposition. He is not making a categorical assertion, but rather modifying his
commiment to some degree by expressing a judgement of the truth of the situation.
1.1.2. Types of modality
Types of modality are classified differently according to different linguists. Von Wright
(1951: 1-2) in “Studying modal logic” distinguishes 4 types: Alethic, Epistemic, Deontic
and Existential. Rescher (1968), apart from these types, refers to one more type it is
temporal modality. Leech and Startvik (1985: 219-221) suggest 2 types: Intrinsic and
Extrinsic modality.
Types of modality in Halliday’s view.
Halliday’s view on types of modality could be summed up as follow.
“Polarity is the choice between positive and negative, as in is/ isn t, do/ don t’ ’ .
6
However, the possibilities are not limited to a choice between yes and no. There are
intermediate degress: various kinds of indeterminacy that fall in between, like “sometimes”
or “maybe”. The intermediate degrees between the positive and negative poles, are known
collectively as modality”. (Halliday, 1985: 85-86)
He further expresses the commodity exchanged & the speech function and the types of
intermediacy in this chart
Commodity
exchanged
Speech function Types of intermediacy
Information Proposition Statement
question
Modality Probability (possible/ probable/
certain)
Frequency (sometimes/
usually/ always)
Goods & services Proposal Command Modulation Obligation (allowed/ supposed/
required)
Offer Inclination (willing/ anxious/

determined)
As can be seen from the chart, in a proposition, the meaning of positive and negative poles
is asserting “It is so” and denying “It isn’t so”. He observes two kinds of intermediate
possibilities: (1) degree of probability (possible -> probable -> certain) which is equivalent
to may be “yes”, may be “no” with different degrees of likelihood attached and (2) degree
of usuality (i.e sometimes “yes” sometimes “no”).
In a proposal, there are two kinds of intermediate possibilities: (1) in a command, the
intermediate points represent degrees of obligation and (2) in an offer, they represent
degrees of described duty.
However, the classification made by Sweetser and Palmer, in my opinion, seems the most
acceptable for its clarity and generalization which can be applied to the linguistic study
from different angles: semantic, logic and pragmatic. They are Epistemic & Deontic
modality. Analyzing such a sentence as “He must be in his office”, we can see this may
have two interpretations, depending on the modality assigned to the modal verb “must”.
In one sense, it means “I am certain that he is in his office” (By my reasoning and
judgement). In another sense, it has the interpretation of “He is obliged to be in his office”
(He has no choice but to be in his office). In the formal sense, the modal auxiliary “must”
is epistemic and in the latter it is deontic.
Lyons (1977: 793) (in conjunction with other scholars) states: “Epistemic modality is
concerned with matters of knowledge, belief” or “opinion rather than fact”. Palmer
(1990:7) considers that epistemic modality in language is often, may be always, subjective
7
in a way it is associated with the deduction of the speakers and not only simply interest in
the subjective judgment in the light of reality.
And “Deontic modality is concerned with the necessity of possibility of acts performed by
morally responsible agents” (Lyons 1977: 823). By means of this, speakers intervene in or
bring about changes in events.
1.2. Modal verbs in English
1.2.1. Concept of modal verbs
Language is not always used just to exchange information by making simple statements

and asking questions. Sometimes, we want to make requests, offers, or suggestions. We
may also want to express our wishes, intentions or indicate our feelings about what we are
saying. In English, we do all these things by using a set of verbs called modal verbs or
modal auxiliaries. The modal auxiliaries such as can, could, may, might, will, would, must,
should and ought to express different types of modal meanings. These modal auxiliaries or
modals for short are one of the most complicated problems of the English verbs. Michael
Lewis (1986: 99) quoted Palmer’s remarks about the modals:
“There is no doubt that the overall picture of the modals is extremely “messy” and untidy
and that the most the linguists can do is to impose some order, point some regularities,
correspondences, parallelisms… This subject is not one that lends itself to any simple
explanation.”
Semantically, modal auxiliaries allow the speaker to introduce a personal interpretation of
the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the event. In other words, modals are one
way for a speaker to encode modality into what (s)he says – such ideas as necessity,
possibility, obligation, etc. Some of the modals may also express the same kinds of
semantic colourings in the subjunctive mood.
1.2.2. Morphological and syntactic features of English modal verbs
(a) Modals do not inflect. This means they have no “-s” form in the third person singular of
the present tense, or no “-ing” and “-ed” forms.
E.g. She can swim very well. (not: She cans …) (19: 121)
(b) They occupy the first place in a complex verb phrase and followed by the form base of a
verb. They do not co-occur.
E.g. I can speak a little Arabic. (19: 121)
You could have let me know you were going out tonight. (19: 121)
(c) Both the present and past forms of modals can be used in past tense sequence.
E.g. I think he may/ might stay now. (19: 331)
(d) They are used as operators in the formation of, for example, questions and negatives.
8
E.g. negatives We might not be home before midnight. (19: 329)
questions May I help you? (19: 329)

1.2.3. Semantic features of English modal verbs
The primary semantic characteristics of modals is that they allow the speaker to express an
attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the situation. This means s/he can
introduce elements of modality such as possibility, necessity, desirability, morality, doubt,
certainty, etc. For example, in making such a statement as “Mr Wilkins must be the oldest
person in the village”, the speaker not only gives the fact about Mr Wilkins, but also
indicates how certain he is about the truth or correctness of the information through the use
of the modal must. In the case of a question, the listener’s opinion is involved, as well as
the person obviously referred to by the sentence. “What should I do?” for example, is
clearly about the speaker, but is also equally importantly about the listener’s judgement or
opinion. Verb phrases containing a modal, therefore, are not about the facts alone, but also
express the speaker’s or listener’s judgement or opinion. Generally speaking, each modal is
fundamentally grounded in the moment of speaking, at the point Now. They are present
form, not in the traditional sense, but because the meaning of each modal may be
paraphrased “in the present circumstances, my judgement is that it is possible/ necessary/
desirable that…” This is different from the conventional view that, for example could is
“the past tense” of can.
In the consideration of meanings of modals, Palmer (1979) assumes that this is a messy
area. While dismissing the idea of the search for a “basic meaning” attributed to each
individual modal he believes that it is possible to search for a set of closely related
meanings: “(This) must not be taken to imply that we cannot look for a fairly generalised
common meaning or a set of closely related meanings for each modal. It is only when
precision is demanded or invariance postulated that the notion of a basic meaning becomes
unrealistic”
In another approach to modal semantics, Dixon (1991: 170) points out that each modal has
a fair semantic range, extending far beyond the central meanings that are indicated. There
is in fact considerable overlap between modals. For instance, the central meaning of can
refers to inherent ability, e.g. John can lift 100 kilos, and of may to the possibility of some
specific event happening, e.g. We may get a Christmas bonus this year. But both modals
can and may refer to a pemitted activity, e.g. John can/ may stay out all night and to some

possibility, e.g. The verb shout can/ may be used both transitively and intransitively‘ ’ . The
best approach to meanings of modals, according to Lewis (1990: 103) is to look for a single
central meaning while at the same time accepting that this may involve recognising a
number of marginal examples.
1.3. Modal verbs in Vietnamese
1.3.1. Some features of the Vietnamese language
9
In order to examine the modal auxiliaries and modality in Vietnamese, it is necessary to
present here some features that are peculiar to the Vietnamese language as these features
are reflected via the modal auxiliaries in Vietnamese.
Firstly, we are all aware that Vietnamese is a non-inflectional language. A word keeps its
own form in various places in a sentence. This feature is also recognized by most linguists
dealing with Vietnamese (Trơng Văn Chình 1970, Nguyễn Kim Thản 1977, Nguyễn Hữu
Quỳnh 1994, Nguyễn Tài Cẩn 1977, etc.). Verbs in Vietnamese have no endings to show
the categories of tense, person and finiteness. When necessary, these categories are
expressed by form word such as pronouns or adverbs. Vietnamese grammar is limited in
rules of word usage. The action is understood as taking place in the past or at present
depending on the adverb of time or adverb of tense aspect in the clause or on the
context.
U nó đã sang nhà cụ Nghị Quế cha?
(Have you gone to see Deputy Quế?) Ngô Tất Tố (1977: 44)
đã: adverb of tense aspect (Nguyễn Kim Thản 1977: 180)
Sang: verb
Secondly, some sentence elements may be missing without changing the meaning when the
context is obvious.
Đi đâu? (Cậu đi đâu đấy? Where are you going?)
Học. (Tớ đi học. Im going to school.)
Thirdly, in Vietnamese there exists a number of words whose meanings are very difficult to
define. Some of these words work as markers of tense aspect đang (happening at the
moment), sẽ (will for future) etc. (Nguyễn Kim Thản 1977: 178), some others as markers

of the imperative hãy (Diệp Quang Ban 1989: 143) e.g. Hãy nói tất cả những gì bạn biết về
cô ấy (Say all you know about her). The combination of these markers with other groups of
words helps to distinguish one group from another. This is the reason why these forms
attracts attention from linguists.
Last but not least, Vietnamese is a tonal language. The arrangement of six tones has great
influence on the intonation and accent of Vietnamese. Intonation exists in every language.
But Vietnamese intonation plays a special role in dividing the grammatical units and
sentences into different types.
1.3.2. Different views on the modal verbs in Vietnamese
Unlike English, in Vietnamese it is difficult to give the criteria for distinguishing the modal
auxiliaries from other auxiliaries, from main verbs or particles.
Linguists hold different views of Vietnamese modal auxiliaries. However, most of them
declare that there do exist modal auxiliaries in Vietnamese.
10
According to Hữu Quỳnh in his book entitled Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt hiện đại, modal verbs
are used to express the speakers attitude towards factual events. Only under some certain
context can main verb be combined with modal verbs.
Trơng Văn Chình (1970) states that a sentence with a modal auxiliary contains objective
and subjective statements as well. By using the modal auxiliary, the speaker expresses his
idea, notion of certainty, doubt or obligation, volition etc. He identifies a number of words
that are considered as modal auxiliaries but he hardly suggests any criteria for
identification. Modal auxiliaries, according to him, are identified by their meanings. Some
verbs such as tin (believe), lo (regret) are modal auxiliaries.
The problem lies in the fact that many languages consist of verbs having modal meanings.
Taking to believe, to fear, to regret in English as examples, they have modal meanings
but they are not modal verbs. The same thing happens in Vietnamese.
Both Hữu Quỳnh and Trơng Văn Chình do not point out criteria for the distinction between
lexical verbs and modal verbs.
Nguyễn Văn Hào (1988) divides modal auxiliaries into two types (i) the modal auxiliaries
expressing volition such as có thể (can), không thể (cannot), dám (dare), toan (intend), định

(intend), phải (must), cần (need), nên (should), muốn (want) (ii) the modal auxiliaries
receiving actions such as bị (usually be + past participle with adversative meaning), đợc
(usually be + past participle with beneficial meaning), chịu đựng (bear, stand) He
distinguishes the modal auxiliaries from other groups of words just as they must be
followed by another subordinate element.
E.g. Bạn Tú đợc cô giáo khen.
(Tu was complimented by the teacher)
Nguyễn Văn Hào (1988: 205)
(đợc: modal auxiliary, cô giáo khen: subordinate element)
Nguyễn Kim Thản, in Động từ tiếng Việt, offers a quite clear and convincing
argumentation on Vietnamese modal verbs. As for him, modal verbs do not indicate actions
or states but the ability, necessity or intention of doing something or the maintenance of the
state expressed by the main verb. Nguyễn Kim Thản lists some of the modal auxiliaries in
Vietnamese such as cần (intend), chịu (bear), có thể (can), dám (dare), định (intend), nên
(should), nỡ (have the heart to force), chực (be about to), khỏi (not have to), phải (must),
toan (intend), muốn (want), cố (attempt)(Nguyễn Kim Thản 1977: 166, 169)
1.3.3. Words or phrases having modal meanings
Besides modal verbs, words belonging to other parts of speech and phrases with modal
meanings can be used. These are có lẽ, chắc, dễ thờng, tất nhiên, thỉnh thoảng, đôi khi,
luôn luôn, thờng xuyên
E.g. Có lẽ ông lên tỉnh trên với cụ nghị nhà tôi. (34: 251)
11
Chắc mình lại ngờ tôi đi buôn với chị ấy thì cũng đánh bạc với chị ấy, phải không?
(33: 266)
Thỉnh thoảng chúng lại nhìn nhau mà cời. (32: 89)
In short, as in other languages, modal verbs in Vietnamese are also widely used as a basic
means to express modal meanings. But they do not act as head element in the verb phrase.
They have to be combined with other verbs to create verb phrases in the sentence.
1.4. Contrastive analysis (CA)
As one of the main aims of this paper is to carry out a contrastive analysis on the meanings

expressed via the modals can, may, must in English and the equivalent expressions in
Vietnamese. Hence, the theoretical account on Contrastive Analysis is necessary.
Regarding the definition of CA, Jame (1980: 3) states: CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed
at producing inverted two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of
languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared.
Of the two types of CA theoretical CA and applied CA, Jame focuses on the second type
which are preoccupied with the problem of how the universal category X realised in
language A as Y, is rendered in language B. He considers CA as a form of interlanguage
study and as a central and substantial component of applied linguistics. As a matter of fact,
CA has had much to offer to practical teaching as well as translation theory, the description
of particular languages, language typology and language universals. In relation to
bilingualism, CA is concerned with how monolingual becomes bilingual or in other words,
it deals with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign language being
learnt (L2). This is because of the fact that the similarities and differences between two
languages have much contribution to foreign language teaching.
According to Jame (1980), Lado (1957), the psychological foundation of CA is Transfer
theory (Transfer is defined as the hypothesis that the learning of L1 will affect the
subsequent learning of L2). They claim that CA is founded on the assumption that L2
learners will tend to transfer to their L2 utterances the formal features of their L1.
There are two types of transfer which may occur during the process of learning a foreign
language by learners who have already possessed a considerable degree of competence in
their first language. The first type is Positive Transfer (or Facilitation). This transfer enables
the learners to acquire the language easier. The second type is Negative Transfer (or
Interference) which is the constraint of L1 or the borrowing of a first language pattern or
rule that leads to an error or inappropriate form in L2.
As one of the goals of CA is the effective teaching and the learning of the L2, to minimize
the negative transfer it would be necessary for teachers to realize the potential transfer
problem areas and support strategies that would help the learners to avoid errors.
12
In a nutshell, CA plays an important role in the teaching and learning of a foreign language.

It is CA which can work out the similarities and differences between two languages
involved, and as a result, it makes it possible to predict trouble areas due to L1 interference,
and therefore, it helps learners overcome the predictable problems.
1.5. Summary
In short, Chapter 1 has briefly referred to the notion of modality and some other notions
related to this. Modality in language is the speakers attitude to the proposition of the
utterance, of the utterance context and to the reality. There are generally two types of
modality: epistemic and deontic modality. Epistemic modality is concerned with matters as
knowledge and belief, expressing judgments about states of affairs. Deontic modality, on
the other hand, is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally
responsible agents. Moreover, modality can be expressed by verbs and by other linguistic
and paralinguistic devices. Also, in this chapter, basic knowledge about modal verbs in
English and in Vietnamese is provided. And finally, to consolidate the analysis and
comments in the later chapters, some issues related to contrastive analysis theory are taken
into account.
Chapter 2: Investigation
2.1. Conventional meanings of English modals can, may, must
This section involves the presentation on conventional meanings of can, may, must in
English. All the examples for illustration would be accompanied by their translation into
Vietnamese in order to facilitate the contrastive analysis thereafter.
2.1.1. Conventional meanings of Can
Ability
E.g. (1) Be seated somewhere; and until you can speak pleasantly, remain silent.
(3: Chapter I)
(Ngồi vào một chỗ, cho đến khi nào mày biết nói năng ý tứ, giờ thì hãy câm mồm đi!
(1:26))
(2) and eyes like Miss Scatcherd's can only see those minute defects, and are blind to the
full brightness of the orb. (3: Chapter VIII)
(Và những con mắt nh cô Xcatsơ thì chỉ có thể nhìn thấy những khuyết điểm vặt vãnh, chứ
nhìn sao thấy nổi ánh sáng rạng rỡ của vì tinh tú. (1: 135))

(3) You think I have no feelings, and that I can do without one bit of love or kindness; but I
cannot live so: and you have no pity. (3: Chapter IV)
13
(Bà nghĩ tôi là kẻ không có tình cảm và tôi có thể sống không cần đến tình thơng, không
cần đợc đối xử tử tế; nhng tôi không thể nào sống nh vậy đ ợc, còn bà là ngời nhẫn tâm. (1:
78))
In (1) and (2) can expresses the ability to perform an action. We use can to talk about
present or general ability; in other words, can is used to say that someone has a particular
skill or ability.
In this use can is more like a full verb than any other modal. There is a past tense form with
past time reference. We use could for general ability to say that somebody could do
something at any time, whenever he/ she wanted.
E.g. (4) She boasted of beautiful paintings of landscapes and flowers by them executed; of
songs they could sing and pieces they could play, of purses they could net, of French books
they could translate; (3: Chapter III)
(Betxi tán dơng những bức họa phong cảnh và hoa lá do chính tay họ vẽ, những ca khúc họ
có thể hát, những vở kịch họ có thể đóng, những cái túi họ có thể đan, những sách Pháp văn
học họ có thể dịch đợc. (1: 58))
We also use can if we are declaring now about the future.
E.g. (5) "If I had anywhere else to go, I should be glad to leave it; but I can never get away
from Gateshead till I am a woman." (3: Chapter III)
(Nếu cháu có một nơi khác thì cháu rất vui lòng từ bỏ nơi đây, nhng cháu không bao giờ
mong ra khỏi Gatơhet nếu cha khôn lớn. (1: 56))
Can is also used to say that someone is aware of something through one of their senses. In
this case, can is used with verbs of sensation but can here seems often to add nothing to the
meaning of the sentence without can. It loses the sense of modality. If someone does
something, he has an ability to do it. The function of can turns into the one of helping the
main verb to denote a state rather than an event.
E.g. (6) Children can feel, but they cannot analyse their feelings; (3: Chapter III)
(Trẻ con có những tình cảm mà chúng không thể phân tích đợc. (1: 55))

Similarly, could is used to say that someone was aware of something through one of their
senses on a particular occasion in the past.
E.g. (7) Leaning a little back on my bench, I could see the looks and grimaces with which
they commented on this manoeuvre: it was a pity Mr. Brocklehurst could not see them too;
(3: Chapter VII)
(Ngồi trên ghế hơi ngả ngời về đằng sau, tôi trông thấy những cái nhìn và nhăn mặt của họ
trong khi họ làm theo lệnh; thật đáng tiếc ông Brôchơn-hơc không đợc chứng kiến cảnh ấy;
(1: 128))
14
Can and could are also used to say that something or someone is capable of having a
particular effect, or of behaving in a particular way. F.R. Palmer (1974: 117) writes: There
is also a use of can to refer to characteristic, but sporadic patterns of behavior, often in a
derogatory sense.
E.g. (8) "Whenever I can be useful, sir." (3: Chapter XX)
(Bất cứ khi nào tôi có thể giúp ích cho ông. (1:421))
The passive with can is possible if the agent is unspecified, ie in agentless passives or when
the agent is anyone (although semantically it is the agent not the subject of the passive
sentence that has or does not have ability).
E.g. (9) "The human and fallible should not arrogate a power with which the divine and
perfect alone can be safely intrusted." (3: Chapter XIV)
(Con ngời yếu đuối không đợc tự ban cho mình một quyền lực mà chỉ những bậc thần
thánh vạn toàn mới có đợc. (1: 271))
Last but not least, ability can bring in the implication of willingness (especially in spoken
English).
E.g. (10) "Can I help you, sir? I'd give my life to serve you." (3: Chapter XIX)
(Tôi có thể giúp đỡ ông điều gì chăng! Tôi có thể hy sinh cả cuộc đời tôi để phục vụ ông.
(1: 390))
Possibility
One common use of can is to express theoretical or general possibility, not the chances that
something will actually happen or is actually true at this moment.

a) Theoretical or general possibility
We use can to say whether situations and events are possible theoretically, in general.
E.g. (11) "Because I have less confidence in my deserts than Adele has: she can prefer the
claim of old acquaintance, and the right too of custom; (3: Chapter XIII)
(Bởi vì tôi không coi mình có quyền nh Ađen đợc. Ađen có thể dựa vào chỗ đã biết ông từ
lâu, và cũng do thói quen nữa (1: 239))
(12) "That sounds a dangerous maxim, sir; because one can see at once that it is liable to
abuse." (3: Chapter XIV)
(Đó có thể là một châm ngôn nguy hại, ông ạ, vì ngời ta có thể nhận thấy ngay rằng nó có
thể đa đến sự lạm dụng. (1: 270))
b) Logical possibility
15
We use can in questions and negative sentences to talk about the logical possibility that
something is true or that something is happening.
E.g. (13) "Can it be you, Jane?" she asked, in her own gentle voice. (3: Chapter IX)
(Kìa, lại có thể là chị , Jên? Cô hỏi tôi, vẫn với cái giọng dịu dàng. (1: 160)
(14) A stranger! no; who can it be? I expected no one; is he gone?" (3: Chapter XIX)
(Một ngời lạ mặt à! Không; ai thế nhỉ? Tôi không chờ đợi ai cả. Ngời ấy đã đi cha?
(1:389))
Can is possible in affirmative sentences with words like only, hardly, scarcely or never,
which have a limited or negative meaning.
E.g. (15) "No; but I can scarcely see what Mr. Rochester has to do with the theme you had
introduced." (3: Chapter XIX)
(Không đâu, nhng tôi không cho rằng ông Rôchextơ có liên quan đến vấn đề cụ vừa nói. (1:
381))
(16) "Yes, Mrs. Rochester," said he; "young Mrs. Rochester Fairfax Rochester's girl-
bride."
"It can never be, sir; it does not sound likely. (3: Chapter XXIV)
(Phải, bà Rôchextơ - ông nói bà Rôchextơ trẻ tuổi, ngời vợ trẻ sắp cới của Fefâc
Rôchextơ.

Không bao giờ có thể nh vậy, tha ông, điều ấy có vẻ nh không thực. (2: 78))
Permission
Can is used to say that someone is allowed to do something.
E.g. (17) you can go and inquire in about a week after you send your letter, if any are
come, and act accordingly." (3: Chapter X)
( sau khi gửi một tuần, mình có thể lại đấy mà hỏi; nếu có th đến, mình sẽ cứ việc theo
đấy mà tiến hành công việc. (1: 172))
(18) As he was returning the box to his waistcoat pocket, a loud bell rang for the servants'
dinner; he knew what it was. "That's for you, nurse," said he; "you can go down; I'll give
Miss Jane a lecture till you come back." (3: Chapter III)
(Lúc ông bỏ hộp thuốc lá vào túi thì vừa lúc tiếng chuông báo giờ ăn của các gia nhân réo
vang, ông cũng biết hiệu chuông này.
- Chuông gọi chị đấy, chị bảo mẫu ạ, chị xuống đi. Trong lúc không có chị ở đây, tôi sẽ
giảng giải cho cô Jên nghe. (1: 54))
In (18), in Vietnamese the words do not show any sense of permission but can itself
implies permission as this is what Mr. Lloyd, an apothecary, sometimes called in by Mrs.
Reed when the servants were ailing, talks to Bessie a servant.
16
Could is used to say that someone was allowed to do something in the past.
E.g. (19) "Oh! I daresay she is crying because she could not go out with Missis in the
carriage," interposed Bessie. (3: Chapter III)
(Chị Betxi nói chêm vào:
ồ, tôi cho rằng cô ấy khóc chỉ vì không đ ợc đi xe với bà chủ đấy thôi. (1: 53))
G. N. Leech states that linguistic law-makers of the past have considered may to be the
correct auxiliary of permission, and have condemned the use of can. English-speaking
schoolchildren used to be rebuked for saying Can I.? instead of May I.? Yet in fact, can
is much more widely used as an auxiliary of permission than may. In asking and giving
permission, can and may are almost interchangeable, the main difference being that may is
more formal, and is sometimes felt to be more polite.
Expressing uncertainty and doubt

Can is used only in interrogative sentences to express the speakers uncertainty and doubt
about something. This use is rather restricted, for it is somehow emotionally colored. To
some extent it shows the impatience or anger of the speaker.
The doubt can be about something in general.
E.g. (20) "Why can she not influence him more, when she is privileged to draw so near to
him?" I asked myself. (3: Chapter XVIII)
(Tôi tự hỏi: Tại sao cô ta không gây đợc nhiều ảnh hởng hơn đối với ông, trong khi cô ta
có u thế đợc gần gũi nh vậy? (1: 359)
(21) "How can she bear it so quietly so firmly?" I asked of myself. (3: Chapter V)
(Tôi tự hỏi: Làm sao mà cô ta lại có thể kiên trì, thản nhiên chịu đựng đợc nh vậy?
(1:106))
Can and negation
In order to convert a sentence containing can into the negative, we only need to add not
right after can. The modal is always negated in any cases. This is, naturally, the case with
the modal that is most like a main verb can in its ability and related uses.
E.g. (22) I cannot precisely define what they expected, but it was something pleasant: not
perhaps that day or that month, but at an indefinite future period. (ability) (3: Chapter X)
(Tôi không sao xác định đợc chúng chờ đợi cái gì, nhng hẳn là một điều gì thú vị, có thể
không phải là cho ngày hôm ấy hoặc tháng ấy, mà là cho một tơng lai không rõ rệt.
(1:195))
17
(23) and John and his wife are very decent people; but then you see they are only
servants, and one can't converse with them on terms of equality: one must keep them at
due distance, for fear of losing one's authority. (permission) (3: Chapter XI)
( còn Jôn và vợ anh cũng đều là những ngời rất dễ chịu, nhng dù sao họ vẫn chỉ là những
kẻ ăn ngời làm, không thể nào trò chuyện bình đẳng với họ đợc, không nên luôn gần gũi
với họ, vì nh vậy họ sẽ đâm nhờn. (1:192))
(24) "No; impossible! my supposition cannot be correct (possibility) (3: Chapter XVI)
(Không, không thể đợc; mình phỏng đoán nh vậy không đúng (1: 304))
2.1.2. Conventional meanings of May

Possibility
We often use may to say that there is a chance that something is true, or that there is a
possibility of something happening or being the case.
E.g. (25) "Well, well! who knows what may happen?" said Mr. Lloyd, as he got up.
(3:Chapter III)
(Ông Lôi đứng dậy nói:
- Đợc, đợc. Ai biết sự việc xảy ra sau này? (1 : 58)
(26) Oh, madam, when you put bread and cheese, instead of burnt porridge, into these
children's mouths, you may indeed feed their vile bodies, but you little think how you
starve their immortal souls! (3: Chapter VII)
(ồ, tha bà, khi bà cho lũ trẻ ăn bánh mì và pho mát, chứ không phải cháo khê, tức là bà
nuôi dỡng cái thể xác tầm thờng của chúng mà không nghĩ rằng bà để cho linh hồn bất diệt
của chúng bị chết đói nh thế nào! (1: 126)
We can also use may for an uncertain prediction or intention. May in this sense usually
refers to a future event when it combines with an event verb.
E.g. (27) Teachers and pupils may look coldly on you for a day or two, but friendly feelings
are concealed in their hearts; (3: Chapter VIII)
(Có thể là các cô giáo nhìn chị bằng con mắt lạnh nhạt độ một hai hôm gì đó, nhng trong
thâm tâm họ vẫn giấu những tình cảm thân yêu; (1: 138))
Might is only used in this way to talk about the past.
E.g. (28) Mrs. Reed might be at that time some six or seven and thirty; (3: Chapter IV)
(Hồi ấy bà chừng ba mơi sáu, ba mơi bảy; (1: 76))
If we put well after may, we are indicating that it is fairly likely that something is the case;
in other words, may well suggests a strong possibility.
18
E.g. (29) "You may well say so, ma'am: it was frightful!" (3: Chapter XXXVI)
(Đúng thế, bà ạ, thật là kinh khủng! (2: 400))
Permission
We can use both may and might to ask for permission to do something or to ask whether
you can help. They are more formal than can and could.

E.g. (30) "May I go up and speak to her?" (3: Chapter IX)
(Tôi có thể đến nói chuyện với Hêlen đợc không? (1: 158))
Moreover, may is used to give permission and may not is used to refer and to forbid.
E.g. (31) "You think too much of your 'toilette,' Adele: but you may have a flower."
(3:Chapter XVII)
(Em lấy một bông cũng đ ợc, nhng em chú ý đến việc trang điểm nhiều quá đấy Ađen ạ! (1:
329))
(32) "You are better, then. You may sit you down in my chair on the hearthstone, if you
will." (3: Chapter XXIX)
(Vậy thì cô đã khá đấy. Cô có muốn ngồi thì ngồi vào ghế của tôi ở bên lò sởi này.
(2:233))
(33) I mention this in your hearing, Jane, that you may not attempt to impose on Mr.
Brocklehurst." (3: Chapter IV)
(Tao nói ra những điều này trớc mặt mày, Jên ạ, để mày đừng có hòng mà lừa dối ông
Brôkơn-hơc. (1: 73))
These are rather formal. In an informal style can and cannot/ can t are more common.
However, many people feel that it is more correct and polite to use may to ask for
permission to do something rather than can.
2.1.3. Conventional meanings of Must
Obligation or requirement
In affirmative statements, we can use must to say what is necessary and to give strong
advice and orders to ourselves or other people. This is especially common in British
English; in American English have to is generally preferred, particularly in speech.
E.g. (34) To this crib I always took my doll; human beings must love something,
(3:Chapter IV)
(Bao giờ tôi cũng đem theo con búp bê vào giờng; đã là con ngời thì phải có cái gì để yêu
(1: 64))
19
(35) "That proves you have a wicked heart; and you must pray to God to change it: to give
you a new and clean one: to take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

(3: Chapter IV)
(Điều đó tỏ rằng cô có một trái tim rất xấu, cô phải cầu Chúa đổi cho cô trái tim khác trong
trắng, vứt bỏ trái tim bằng đá của cô mà thay vào đấy bằng một trái tim bằng thịt. (1: 72))
Moreover, the usual implication of must (= obligation) is that the speaker is the person who
exerts authority over the person(s) mentioned in the clause. Consistent with this principle, I
must and We must convey the idea of self-obligation the speaker exerts power over himself
(and possibly others), eg through a sense of duty, through self-discipline, or merely through
a sense of expediency.
E.g. (36) "But you two are my visitors to-night; I must treat you as such." (3: Chapter VIII)
(Hai em đều là khách của cô tối nay; cô phải đối đãi với các em nh thế. (1:143))
(37) We all must die one day, (3: Chapter IX)
(Một ngày kia rồi tất cả chúng ta ai cũng phải chết (1: 161))
We might use such structures to paraphrase these sentences as It is obligatory that , It is
essential that, or It is necessary to the speaker is urging a general course of action,
rather than urging a particular course of action on the hearer. However, it is hard to draw a
dividing line between this use and that of general obligation: they are two variants of the
same meaning.
Logical necessity
Must is used to indicate that one thinks something is likely or logical.
E.g. (38) "Eat that now," she said: "you must be hungry. Hannah says you have had
nothing but some gruel since breakfast." (3: Chapter XXIX)
(Cô hãy ăn tạm đi, chắc cô đói lắm nhỉ. Già Hanna bảo rằng từ lúc điểm tâm đến giờ cô chỉ
mới ăn có ít cháo bột. (2: 241))
(39) She must be eight or nine years old."(3: Chapter III)
(Cô ấy lên tám hay lên chín rồi chứ còn gì. (1: 54)
Must is used here of knowledge arrived at the inference or reasoning rather than by direct
experience. In each case, a chain of logical thinking can be imagined. Nevertheless,
knowledge acquired indirectly, by inference, is less certain than knowledge derived from
direct experience. Thus logical necessity can easily be weakened to reasonable assumption.
This weakening is evident in remarks like You must be Mr Black (i.e. I assure/ take it that

you are Mr Black).
In addition, must can be used to express the conclusion that something is certain or highly
probable to suggest that there are excellent arguments for believing something. Based
20
on particular facts or circumstances, we use must to show that we believe something is the
case or something is certain to happen.
Must and negation
British people can use must not/ mustn t to say that things should not be done, or tell people
not to do things. Actually, must not is used to say much more firmly that something is
unacceptable or undesirable.
Can t is also possible, and is normal in American English.
E.g. (40) And before I could draw breath, "I must not forget I have a word to say
respecting her." (3: Chapter VII)
(Tôi cha kịp thở ông lại nói:
- Tôi không đ ợc quên rằng tôi có điều cần nói về nó. (1: 130))
2.2. A Contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the modal verbs
can, may, must in English and the equivalent expressions in
Vietnamese
2.2.1. Can, may, must and their equivalents in Vietnamese
2.2.1.1. Vietnamese expressions equivalent to the modal meanings expressed by can
- The modal meanings expressed by can is realized by many Vietnamese equivalents.
a) The first, in expressing ability, can is seen as equivalent to Vietnamese modal auxiliaries
biết or có thể.
(41) Các cô Rit chẳng đánh đàn hay đợc nh cô. Tôi vẫn thờng bảo vệ sự học thì cô sẽ vợt họ
mà, thế cô có biết vẽ không? (1:182)
("The Miss Reeds could not play as well!" said she exultingly. "I always said you would
surpass them in learning: and can you draw?" (3: Chapter X))
(42) Cô đã học tiếng Pháp cha?
- Có, chị Betxi ạ, tôi có thể đọc và nói đ ợc.
- Thế cô có khâu đ ợc loại lụa tơ vải bố không?

- Đ ợc, chị ạ. (1: 182)
( and have you learnt French?"
"Yes, Bessie, I can both read it and speak it."
"And you can work on muslin and canvas?"
"I can." (3: Chapter X))
Có thể is used to indicate the subjective activity of the performer of the action, but it
usually requires one more extra word đợc at the end of the sentence.
21
b) In expressing possibility, can is mostly realized by the auxiliary có thể in Vietnamese.
(43) - Vâng, đi Airơlan. Tôi đã nói ra những điều tôi nghĩ và bây giờ tôi có thể đi bất cứ nơi
nào.(2: 68)
"Yes to Ireland. I have spoken my mind, and can go anywhere now." (3: Chapter XXIII)
c) In expressing permission, can is also realized by the auxiliary có thể in Vietnamese;
and there are cases when no auxiliary is needed since the sense of permission is clearly
shown through the position or the role of the speaker in comparison with that of the hearer.
(44) chị xuống đi (1: 54)
you can go down ( a visitor talks to a servant) (3: Chapter III)
- In denoting negation: Cannot in English is realized by such Vietnamese equivalent as
không biết, không thể, không (thể). đợc, không sao đợc, không thể nào.
(45) Chúng ta càng nói chuyện lại càng có lợi; bởi vì nếu tôi không thể làm cho cô bị sầu
não thì trái lại cô có thể gột rửa đợc cho tôi trong sạch. (1: 282)
( The more you and I converse, the better; for while I cannot blight you, you may
refresh me."(3: Chapter XV))
(46) Mình phải nhớ rằng ông không thể nào đoái hoài tới mình. (1: 338)
(I must remember that he cannot care much for me. (3: Chapter XVII))
(47) Tôi không sao nói rõ đ ợc tình cảm vơng vấn ở cái nghĩa trang âm thầm hiu quạnh (1:
28)
(I cannot tell what sentiment haunted the quite solitary churchyard, (3: Chapter I))
(48) Ngời ta không thể thơng đ ợc một con cóc nh thế. (1: 60)
( but one really cannot care for such a little toad as that." (3: Chapter IV))

(49) và cả đến lời cô khen, dù tôi rất coi trọng, cũng không khích lệ đ ợc tôi để có đợc tính
cẩn thận và biết lo xa. (1: 114)
(and even her praise, though I value it most highly, cannot stimulate me to continued
care and foresight." (3: Chapter VI))
2.2.1.2. Vietnamese expressions equivalent to the modal meanings expressed by may
In expressing possibility and permission, may is mainly realized by the Vietnamese modal
auxiliary có thể or colloquially by cứ and its negation is realized by such equivalents
as không thể, đừng.
(50) Chị cứ đọc khắc biết, cô bạn trả lời và đa cuốn sách cho tôi. (1: 102)
("You may look at it," replied the girl, offering me the book. (3: Chapter V))
22