linguitic means to express modality in offers in english and vietnamese - a contrastive analysis = phân tích đối chiếu các phương tiện ngôn ngữ thể hiện tình thái trong câu đề nghị tiếng anh và tiếng việt

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



NGUYỄN THỊ QUẾ HƯƠNG


LINGUISTIC MEANS TO EXPRESS MODALITY
IN OFFERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE -
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

(Phân tích đối chiếu các phương tiện ngôn ngữ thể hiện tình thái
trong câu đề nghị tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt)

M.A. Minor Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15





HANOI - 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES






NGUYỄN THỊ QUẾ HƯƠNG



LINGUISTIC MEANS TO EXPRESS MODALITY
IN OFFERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE -
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

(Phân tích đối chiếu các phương tiện ngôn ngữ thể hiện tình thái
trong câu đề nghị tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt)

M.A. Minor Thesis





Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Xuân Thơm

HANOI - 2011


- iii -
ABSTRACT
Natural languages offer speakers many and various linguistic devices to facilitate
their communication. That is, these devices are supposed to support the speakers in terms
of sharing information together with expressing their emotions and attitudes. It can be said
that modality is an important part in communicating activities. This study investigates how
speakers of English and Vietnamese express the modal meaning in different offering
strategies in terms of linguistic means. It attempts to seek what is the similarities and
differences of the modal tools in English and Vietnamese offers. Finally, the study
suggests how teachers of English can help learners with the use of modal markers in the
speech act of offering to produce the natural and appropriate utterances.
The study starts with providing some theoretical preliminaries, in which the notion
of modality and offer with its definition, classification and characteristics is presented. The
main part focuses on analysis and comparison of modal linguistic means used in English
and Vietnamese offers. Data used in this study are collected from various sources of
textbooks, especially English practical textbooks, articles, and stories in English and
Vietnamese. To obtain the main objective of the study which is to show the similarities and
differences of the modal tools in the two languages, we take examples in both English and
Vietnamese into consideration.
Finally, some major findings are pointed out. The results show that in offers, both
two languages have three kinds of modal markers, which are lexical markers, grammatical
markers, and prosodic markers. However, the usage of the these markers is not the same in
English and Vietnamese.

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………… ……1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study. 1
3. Research Questions 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Method of the study 2
6. Significance of the study 2
7. Organization of the study 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical background 4
1.1. Modality 4
1.1.1. Definition of modality 4
1.1.2. Classiffication of modality 5
1.1.3. Linguistic means to express modality 8
1.2. Offering as a speech act 13
1.2.1. Speech acts and classification of speech acts. 13
1.2.2 Offering and forms of offers. 16
1.2.2.1. Offering as a speech act 16
1.2.2.2. Forms of offering 18
1.2.2.3. Politeness in offering……………………………………… …… …… 19
1.3. Summary 20
Chapter 2: A contrastive analysis of linguistic means to express modality in
offering between English and Vietnamese. 22
2.1. Modal markers in direct offers. 22
2.1.1. Lexical markers 22

2.1.1.1 Modal Verbs 22
2.1.1.2. Modal particles in direct offers in Vietnamese. 23

- v -
2.1.1.3. Other lexical makers. 25
2.1.2. Grammatical markers 25
2.1.2.1. Imperative mood 25
2.1.2.2. Vocative 27
2.1.3. Prosodic markers - Intonation 28
2.2. Modal markers in conventionally indirect offers 28
2.2.1. Lexical markers 29
2.2.1.1. Modal Verbs 29
2.2.1.2. Modal particles in Vietnamese 30
2.2.1.3. Other lexical markers 31
2.2.2. Grammatical markers 31
2.2.2.1. Interrogative 31
2.2.2.2. Conditional 32
2.2.2.3. Suggestory formula 32
2.2.3. Prosodic markers – Intonation 32
2.3. Modal markers in non-conventionally indirect offers 33
2.3.1. Lexical markers 33
2.3.2. Grammatical markers 34
2.3.3. Prosodic markers 34
2.4. The similarities and differences of using linguistic means to express modality in
offers in English and Vietnamese 34
2.4.1.Similarities 34
2.4.2. Differences 35
2.5. Summary 36
PART C: CONCLUSION 38
1. Conclusions 38

2. Implications 39
3. Limitations 40
4. Suggestions for further study 40
REFERENCES 42
- 1 -

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
A language is used as a means of social interaction and it expresses various social
roles and performs various communicative functions like questioning, requesting, offering
or commanding somebody or telling somebody something. Such types of interpersonal
functions of language are reflected in various sentence types like declarative, interrogative
and imperative and also through the system of modals. The three choices in the mood
system perform various communicative functions like declaring, asking a question, making
a request or giving a command. With these sentence types, modal verbs like 'can', 'may',
'will', 'must' help in expressing various social functions such as making a request, seeking
permission, expressing rights, obligation and possibility. Sentence types, mood choices and
modal verbs are examples of modal markers. Thus, it can be said that modality is directly
related to the social functions of language. The notion of modality as well as linguistic
means to express modality has been studied by a lot of scholars so far; however, research
on the way of using modal tools in a specific kind of speech act has been limited.
Offering is one common type of speech act, which shows consideration towards
each other and therefore it can reinforce social relationship. In different countries, or
cultures, people make offers in different ways. Modality is closely related to the emotion
and attitude of the speaker; therefore, in offering, modal tools are usually used. When
thinking of modality, what appears first in our mind may be the modal verbs, which is a
familiar concept. Besides modal verbs, there are many other lexical markers such as modal
adverbs, modal adjectives…, grammatical markers such as mood and vocative, and
prosodic markers. However, the use of linguistic means to express modality in offering is
not the same in all languages. English and Vietnamese have their own specific features,

which leads to a lot of differences in using language.
For the above reasons, the author would like to choose the topic “Linguistic means
to express modality in offers in English and Vietnamese - a contrastive analysis” with
the attempt to find out the similarities and differences of the modal tools in English and
Vietnamese offers. It’s also hopeful that this minor thesis will be of some help to those
who are interested in this aspect of language.
2. Aims of the study.
The study aims at :
- 2 -

- Exploring the modality markers in making offers in English and Vietnamese.
- Comparing and contrasting the range of modality markers in order to clarify the
similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese and English people use linguistic means
to express modality in offering in their own language and culture.
- Contributing to promoting awareness among foreign language teachers and learners of
the mentioned issue.
3. Research Questions
In general, with the aims above, the following research questions will be addressed:
- What are linguistic means to express modality in offers in English and Vietnamese?
- What are the similarities and differences between linguistic means to express modality in
offers in English and Vietnamese?
4. Scope of the study
The study gives a description and analysis of linguistic means to express modality
in offers in terms of (1) lexical markers, (2) grammatical markers, and (3) prosodic
markers. It centers on the similarities and differences in using modality markers in the
speech act of offering between English and Vietnamese .
The materials on offers in English are taken from some English practical textbooks
such as Functions of English, Headway Intermediate, Life Lines, Streamlines, Business
Objectives… and examples of offers in Vietnamese are taken from some short stories by
Thạch Lam, Nam Cao, Thế Lữ, Nguyễn Huy Thiệp….

5. Method of the study
A combination of different methods of analysis will be used in this study. The first
is the descriptive method. English and Vietnamese modal markers used in offering will be
described in turns in each kind of offering strategy in order to find out their features.
However, the major method utilized in this study is the contrastive analysis
between the use of linguistic means to express modality in offering in English and the use
of them in Vietnamese.
6. Significance of the study
Theoretical significance: This study gives a selected definitions and explanations
by linguists related to the notions of modality and speech act of offering. Through the
study, readers can also see the comparison of this topic between English and Vietnamese.
- 3 -

Practical significance: This study will provide information that can help teachers
and learners of English gain an insight into modality in general and modality in the speech
act of offering in specific, which contributes to the teaching and learning English.
7. Organization of the study
This study consists of three main parts:
PART A: Introduction: This part introduces the rationale, the aims and
objectives, the scope, the method, the research questions and the organization of the study.
PART B: Development: There are two chapters in this part:
Chapter 1 discusses the theoretical background for the study by discussing theory
of modality and offering as a speech act
Chapter 2 focuses on the linguistic means to express modality in offers in English
and Vietnamese. Besides, it also gives the similarities and differences between them.
PART C: Conclusion: This part presents the major findings of the study, the
conclusion of the study, implications and suggestions for further study.
- 4 -

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Theoretical background
This chapter provides the theoretical background including the notions of modality
and the speech act of offering. It consists of two main sections. The first section reviews
the definition, classification of modality and linguistic means to express modality. The
second section reviews the issues on speech act of offering such as definition, classification
and forms of offers.
1.1. Modality
1.1.1. Definition of modality
Research on modality has gone through a long history, appealing to a lot of
linguists, philosophers and logicians; however, there is no agreement about the definition
of modality yet. It has been difficult to delimit the field of modality and modal research to
just a few topics.
Kiefer (1994) holds a philosophical perspective when he talks about modality as
"the relativization of the validity of sentence meanings to a set of possible worlds. Talk
about possible worlds can thus be construed as talk about the ways in which people could
conceive the world to be different". For this reason modality is perceived as a universal
linguistic phenomenon despite the different means in which it is realized.
Modal logic deals with various propositions which are drawn from human attitudes
and experiences from which semantic choices like necessity, possibility, impossibility,
available for utterances, are derived. The method of analysis in modal logic is based on
"the proposal that a proposition can be said to be true in one particular (real or imagined)
world and false in another" (Perkins 1983, p6). Modality is, thus, interpreted in terms of an
event or a proposition and analyzed with respect to the universe in which such events or
propositions are thought of as true or false.
Lyons (1977) pointed out that modality refers to people’s opinions and attitudes
towards propositions expressed with language or circumstances described by propositions.
Most of the grammarians deal with modality in terms of modal verbs. However,
modality is not a formal notion, it is a semantic notion. It is "a conceptual category, a type
of meaning, or complex of meanings, with various reflexes in language" (Khlebnikova

- 5 -

1976, p3). Modality refers to certain meaning categories like question, assertion, request,
ability, wish, permission, possibility, insistence etc.
In Palmer’s theory (Mood and Modality, 1986), modality is defined as semantic
information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said. Whereas,
Bybee (Morphology: A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form, 1985) offers a
broader definition that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition.
Halliday who made a significant contribution to the functional paradigm, believes
that a text is a product of social and cultural context from where it springs. He is of the
opinion that people use language with one another in order to manage their social lives.
Modality is directly related to the social functions of language. Modality, which expresses
different semantic implications like permission, request, obligation, necessity, possibility,
is used to perform different communicative acts. Halliday regards modality a form of
participation by the speaker in the communicative act. Modality is related to the
interpersonal function of the language. In An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1985)
Halliday views that modality represents the speaker’s angle, either on the validity of the
assertion, or on the rights and wrongs of the proposal. It is obviously seen that his
definition of modality does not diverge much from Palmer’s and Bybee’s.
Quirk (1985, p219) regarded modality as the speaker’s judgment on the authenticity
of propositions. Quirk claims that modality can be defined as “the manner in which the
meaning of a clause is qualified so as to reflect the speaker’s judgement of the likelihood of
the proposition it expresses being true”.
In Vietnam, for the past few years, modality has been the focus of many linguists
and researchers such as Cao Xuân Hạo, Hoàng Phê, Đỗ Hữu Châu and others. Hoàng
Trọng Phiến broadly explains modality as a grammatical category which appears in all
kinds of sentence.
Although there are different opinions on the definition of modality, it is not difficult
to see that many linguists share the point of view that modality is directly related to the
social functions of language and speaker’s attitude, as Palmer says: “Modality in language

seems to be essentially subjective, and in reference to the speaker’s opinion or attitude”.

1.1.2. Classification of modality
- 6 -

As mentioned above, modality is not only an appealing but also complicated topic.
However, many linguists have an agreement on the one of the principal divisions, that is
between epistemic and non-epistemic modality.
Wright identifies four types of modality: alethic, epistemic, deontic, and existential.
Alethic modality focuses on truth, epistemic modality on knowing, deontic modality on
obligation, and existential modality on existence (Wright 1951). As a logician, Wright
describes modality within the framework of logic, he fails to offer a description of
modality that reflects language use.
Jennifer Coates (1983) focuses on a linguistic description of modality within the
framework of describing the semantics of the nine modal verbs and one quasi-modal verb
(ought) in contemporary British English in her 1983 book The semantics of the modal
auxiliaries. Coates (1983) identifies two types of modality: epistemic and non-epistemic.
Like the epistemic modality defined by Wright, epistemic modality according to Coates
focuses on “the speakers’ assumptions or assessment of possibilities” as well as “indicates
the speaker’s confidence (or lack of confidence) in the truth of the proposition expressed”
(Coates 1983). Unlike the epistemic modality of logic, however, Coates (1983) argues that
the epistemic modality is more subjective, focusing on the attitude or opinion of the
speaker rather than the truth value of the proposition. In addition to epistemic modality,
Coates also discusses non-epistemic modality with the term “root modality”. However,
unlike with epistemic modality, no definition emerges for non-epistemic modality other
than the caveat that root modality is “more difficult to characterise” (Coates 1983). By not
providing a clear definition in conjunction with the broad encompassment of the term root
modality to include subdivisions most often defined separately in linguistic descriptions of
modality, Coates fails to provide a comprehensive description of modality.
Quirk et al. (1985) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic modality. Extrinsic

modality involves ‘human judgment of what is or is not likely to happen’ (1985) and
covers (epistemic and non-deontic root) possibility, (epistemic and non-deontic root)
necessity and prediction, whilst intrinsic modality involves ‘some kind of intrinsic human
control over events’. Deontic modality and volition are categorized together as intrinsic
modality. As for ability, the authors note: ‘The “ability” meaning of can is considered
extrinsic, even though ability typically involves human control over an action’ (1985). For
Quirk et al., an assertion or question about a being’s ability to do something implies some
- 7 -

sort of judgment about the likelihood of actualization of the situation, and it is this aspect
of ability meaning that informs their categorization of ability as extrinsic.
Palmer (2001) distinguishes between propositional modality, which is concerned
with ‘the speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition,’ and event
modality, which is concerned with whether or not the event referred to in the utterance can
or must be realized. Propositional modality subsumes evidential and epistemic modality,
the essential difference between these being that ‘with epistemic modality speakers express
their judgments about the factual status of the proposition [John may/must/will be in his
office], whereas with evidential modality they indicate the evidence they have for its
factual status’ (Palmer 2001). Within event modality, Palmer distinguishes between
dynamic modality, which covers ability and volition, and deontic modality, which, as usual,
accounts for permission and obligation. Dynamic modality ‘comes from the individual
concerned,’ whilst deontic modality comes ‘from an external source’ (2001).
Dynamic modality is similar to deontic modality except that the control is internal
to the subject (Palmer 2003). Evidential modality is similar to epistemic modality except
that , instead of judgment, evidential modality allows a speaker to offer evidence for the
“truth-value of the proposition” (Palmer 2001). Palmer (2003) also addresses the
distinction between the realis and the irrealis stating that only the irrealis expresses
modality. Despite the exclusion of the realis as a type of modality, Palmer offers the most
comprehensive and most reflective description of the modality of Modern English.
Palmer’s classification of modality in modal system

Types
Functions
Examples
Propositional
Epistemic
Evidential
Event
Deontic
Dynamic

Judgement
Evidence

External conditions
Internal conditions

Perhaps this book will be useful.
He is said to be extremely rich.

John must come in now.
Mary can speak French.

Halliday (2000) considers the mood system as a crucial and inseparable part of the
interpersonal meta-function, in which modality and polarity are closely related. Polarity is
“the choice between positive and negative”, as in yes or no, and modality has more to do
- 8 -

with the “intermediate degrees” between the positive and negative poles, such as
sometimes or maybe (Halliday, 2000). Halliday defines modality as the interpersonal
component of a dynamic discourse, from which a speaker’s attitude or judgment is

exposed, be it an inclination or obligation. By four sub-categories of type, orientation,
value and polarity, the modality system can be generated into 144 categories and they
could specifically describe all the variants occurring in the mood system. However, as far
as this paper is concerned, a general distinction is made on type only; that is, modalization
and modulation are two basic concerns in the current study, as shown in the table:
Halliday’s modality system of modalization and modulation.
Types of Modality
Tendency
Example
Modalization


Modulation
Probability

Usuality
Obligation

Inclination
They may have known it.
They certainly knew.
It sometimes happens.
You are required to do so!
You should be patient.
She can perform Beijing opera.
She wants to perform Beijing opera.

Modality as the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and opinions
of a speakers and, more significantly, a description of the types of modality incites
controversy among linguists and logicians. Although many scholars have proposed

descriptions of the types of modality in language, no two agree on a single analysis. From
the initial alethic, epistemic, deontic, and existential modalities proposed by Wright to the
moat recent epistemic, deontic, dynamic, and evidential modalities proposed by Palmer, no
scholar yet to offer a fully comprehensive description of linguistic modality. Even Palmer,
whose analysis best reflects the modality expressed in actual language use, however fails to
acknowledge that all language use expresses speaker subjectivity by denying the realis as a
type of modality.
1.1.3. Linguistic means to express modality
Modality is expressed linguistically by a number of devices like moods, modal
auxiliaries, quasi auxiliaries, adjectival and participial expressions, nominal expressions,
lexical verbs (Perkins 1983). Apart from these grammatical categories, modality is also
- 9 -

manifested in orthographic devices like punctuation, prosodic features like stress and
intonation-contour (Searle 1969). Verbal categories like tense are also used in some cases
to express modality. Lyons says that "reference to the future is often as much a matter of
modality as it is of purely temporal reference" (Lyons 1977:816). In general, modality can
be conveyed by lexicalisation, grammaticalisation, and prosodification (Võ Đại Quang,
2009).
Lexical markers include modal auxiliary verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives,
modal nouns, modal lexical verbs, and hedging devices.
In English, modal auxiliaries play the very important part in conveying modality.
The key way to identify a modal verb is by its defectiveness (it has neither participles nor
infinitives). In addition, modal verbs do not take the inflection -s or -es in the third person
singular, unlike other 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. They are used to express various attitudes like possibility, ability,
willingness, probability, obligation, intention etc. In a study on modality, Võ Đại Quang
has made a list of 13 modal auxiliaries including: can, could, may, might, shall, should,
will, would, must, ought to, used to, need, and dare.

Unlike English, in Vietnamese it is not easy to give the criteria for distinguishing
the modal auxiliaries from main verbs or particles. There are a number of linguists who
have carried out studies on modal verbs in Vietnamese such as Trương Văn Trình, Nguyễn
Văn Hào, Nguyễn Kim Thản…and they hold different views of Vietnamese modal
auxiliaries. Trương Văn Trình (1970) states that by using the modal auxiliary, the speaker
expresses his idea, notion of certainty, doubt or obligation, volition etc. , but according to
Hữu Quỳnh – Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Việt hiện đại, modal verbs are used to express the speaker’s
attitude towards factual events. 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, được, chịu đựng. Nguyễn
Kim Thản offers a clear 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
- 10 -

lists some of the modal auxiliaries in Vietnamese such as cần, có thể, dám, định, nên, nỡ,
khỏi, phải, toan, muốn…(Nguyễn Kim Thản 1977: 166, 169).
Some adverbs can express modality. According to Quirk (1985: 211), modal
adverbs present on the truth-value of what is said, express levels of the speaker’s belief in
the truth of a proposition. They can be placed in almost all positions in a statement;
however their most common position is at the beginning. Some modal adverbs are
certainly, surely, evidently, probably, maybe, perhaps, possibly, actually, presumably,
really, necessarily, hopefully… Võ Đại Quang (2009) divides these modal adverbs into two
groups.
Group A: actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, obviously, plainly, really,
surely, for certain, for sure, of course;
Groups B: frankly, honestly, literally, simply, fairly, just.
Modal adverbs in group A can be combined with any other lexical verbs whereas
modal adverbs in groups B seem to appear with verbs of attitude or cognition.

Examples: Do you actually know her? Did you actually come there?
Do you honestly admire her?
Adjectives can also express modality when they are combined with to + infinitive
or a that clause.
Examples: - It is impossible to run 60 miles per hour.
- It is essential that you drink enough liquid.
Modal adjectives like sure, likely, possible have the similar meaning as the adverbs
surely, possibly. They are used to express the speaker’s not doubting or seeming to doubt
what he believes or knows.
There are nouns that can express modality. They are often followed by a that
clause or to + infinitive.
Examples: - There is a slight possibility, that you get the next train.
- The chance to win is not very good in a casino.
Some modal nouns such as possibility, probability have the same meaning as their
derivations possible, probable, possibly, probably; however, structures with nouns convey
a more formal style. Some other nouns such as risk, chance, notion, opinion, no doubt…
can be seen as devices expressing uncertainty if they appear in their typical constructions.
Examples: In my opinion, he is a good guy.
- 11 -

Modal lexical verbs such as think, suppose, believe, ect. (propositional-lexical
verbs) and feel, look, appear, sound, ect (verbs of senses and perception) also show the
speaker’s opinion and attitude toward the content of the subordinate clause. Palmer
considers think/ suppose/ believe… to be weak assertive, the speaker does not totally
commit himself to the truth content of the proposition.
Examples: - I guess you’re feeling tired after a long day of waiting.
When using verbs of sense, the speaker means to say that he is not certain about
what he is saying.
Examples: - Mary looks ill. (The speaker is not certain but just guesses Mary’s
health basing on her tired face or voice)

Another modal lexical marker is hedges (As far as I know, I may be mistaken,
but…, I am not sure if this is right, but…). These hedging devices are effective means of
conveying the respect of the speaker to the hearer.
Grammatical markers consist of Mood and Vocatives. Grammatical mood can be
defined as a set of distinctive verb forms that express modality. Modality is the
grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitude of the speaker, which includes
opinions about possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire,
and contingency. Mood, in many languages including English, has three categories:
Indicative mood, Subjunctive mood, and Imperative mood. The indicative mood allows
speakers to form sentences that express assertions, denials, and questions of actuality or
strong probability. The subjunctive mood allows speakers to form sentences that express
commands, requests, suggestions, wishes, hypotheses, purposes, doubts, and suppositions
that are contrary to fact at the time of the utterance. The imperative mood allows speakers
to form sentences that make direct commands, express requests, and grant or deny
permission. However, in Vietnamese, the division of mood is different. According to Diệp
Quang Ban (Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Việt, 2005), mood in Vietnamese consists of four types:
declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative. The name of each type of mood is
correspondent to the name of the sentence type in interpersonal function.
Vocative is used to attract the attention of the hearer. Moreover, another important
function of vocatives is that they convey the emotion of the speaker either respectful
distance or familiarity. Vocatives in form of proper names show friendliness; endearments
such as dear, darling, honey, ect. express warmth; and the use of title, occupation or rank
- 12 -

including Mr/ Mrs/ Ms + proper name, Dr., Prof., Prime Minister, expresses respect and
formality to the hearer.
Prosodic markers play a certain role in conveying the speaker’s emotion or
attitude, especially in intonational language like English. It is said that “the way they said
it” is sometimes more important than “what they said”. Connor (1980) defines intonation
as "the way of using tunes to add something to the words, and what it adds is the speaker'

feeling at that moment". Tune is the combination of different "notes of the voice" which go
up and down constantly when people speak. In this way, Connor's tune corresponds to the
pitch patterns of the voice, and intonation is how people use this pitch variation to convey
pragmatic meaning. It is important to note that in his definition, Connor mentions
intonation as the tool to convey speakers' feeling. According to Roach (1991), intonation
has the following functions: attitudinal function, accentual function, grammatical function,
and discourse function. Attitudinal function is the ability of intonation to enables speakers
to express emotions and attitudes when they speak; this adds special kind of meaning to
spoken language, which is the role in conveying modality. Roach (1991) gives a short
description of the four common intonation patterns. According to Roach, the falling tone
signals finality and definiteness. The rising tone is normally employed in general question,
listing, encouraging and when speakers want to signal something "more to follow". The
fall-rise tone conveys uncertainty, doubt, and in requesting. The rise-fall tone conveys the
state of being surprised, impressed. In a study by Võ Đại Quang (2009), four types of
intonation patterns express speaker’s different emotions and attitudes. The Glide-down
employed would mean strong commitment while a Glide-up used would be interpreted as
being suspicious attitude. If the speaker is grumbling, he/she would be likely to use the
Take-off. The Dive expresses the hesitation or irony of the speaker. Besides, other
parameters such as key, loudness and speed are also important in conveying modal
meaning.
In Vietnamese, the system of tones has limited the role of intonation in conveying
modality. Because Vietnamese is a tonal language, (unlike English, which is an
intonational language,) expressing emotion by changing the pitch of the sentence or phrase
would make the meaning of the sentence different; therefore, many particles have arisen
that can be added to the end of the sentence to express emotion. It is the main cause that
leads to the increase in the number of a group of words called modal particles (ạ, nhỉ, nhé,
- 13 -

à…). It can be said that in Vietnamese, modal particles are a useful tools in expressing
speaker’s attitude and feeling. Most of modal particles in Vietnamese do not contain

meaning and they are classified as function words opposite to content words. (Nguyễn Anh
Quế, 1988). Nguyễn Kim Thản (1997) refers them to grammatical words. Hoàng Phê and
others (1998) claim that modal particles can not stand apart from other content words in
sentences, and they show the grammatical relationship among content words. Nguyễn Văn
Chính (2000), Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001) share the same idea that modal particles are
closely related to the context. Their position is flexible, at the beginning, in the middle, or
at the end (usually) of a sentence.
Examples: - Thích quá!
- Anh cứ lấy xe của tôi mà đi.
- Hãy để mình giúp!
1.2. Offering as a speech act
1.2.1. Speech acts and classification of speech acts
Inferring the function of what is said by considering its form and context is an
ability which is essential for successful communication. Speech Act Theory provides us
with a means of establishing the function of what is being said. The theory was developed
from the basic belief that language is used to perform actions.
According to Austin's theory (1962), what we say has three kinds of meaning:
1. Propositional meaning - the literal meaning of what is said
2. Illocutionary meaning - the social function of what is said
3. Perlocutionary meaning - the effect of what is said
According to Austin (1960), Speech acts is a theory of performative language, in
which to say something is to do something. On any occasion, the action performed by
producing an utterance will consist three related acts:
a) Locutionary act is ‘what is said’, the form of uttered; the act of saying
something.
b) Illocutionary act is ‘what is done in uttering the word’, the function of the word,
the specific purpose that the speaker’s have in mind. The illocutionary force is the
speaker's intent, a true 'speech act' (informing, ordering, warning, undertaking…)
For example: the utterance “I swear to give it back next time” is used to perform the
illocutionary act of promising.

- 14 -

c) Perlocutionary act is ‘what is done by uttering the word’; it is the effect on
listener, the listener’s reaction.
For example: the utterance “There is something in your shoulder!” may cause the
listener to panic and to look on his shoulder. The perlocution of this utterance is to cause
those emotion and action.
The classification of illocutionary acts proposed by Searle (1976) is a development
of ideas that appears in Austin’s theory. Speech acts are classified according to the
direction of fit between speech acts and the outside world.
- Declaratives are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their
utterance and bring about correspondence between the propositional content and the world;
thus direction of fit is both words-to-world and world-to-words. The acts of declaratives
are approving, betting, blessing, christening, confirming, cursing, declaring, disapproving,
dismissing, naming, resigning, etc.
Example: I quit from this job. resigning
- Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that express Speaker's belief that p
and have a truth value, show words-to-world fit. The types include arguing, asserting,
boasting, claiming, complaining, criticizing, denying, describing, informing, insisting,
reporting, suggesting, swearing, etc.
Example: I met your parent yesterday. informing
- Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that express Speaker's attitude to a
certain state of affairs specified (if at all) in the propositional content. There is no direction
of fit and propositional content must be related to Speaker or Hearer (1975). The acts are
apologizing complimenting, condoling, congratulating, deploring, praising, regretting,
thanking, etc.
Example: I like your house very much praising
- Directives are those kinds of speech acts that are attempts to get Hearer to do
something, therefore they show world-to-words fit, and express Speaker's wish or desire
that Hearer do A. The acts are advising, asking, begging, challenging, daring, demanding,

forbidding, insisting, inviting, ordering, permitting, recommending, requesting, suggesting,
etc.
Example: Don’t go to the party! Forbidding
- 15 -

- Commissives are those kinds’ acts that commit Speaker to some future course of
action, so they show world-to-words fit, and Speaker expresses the intention that Speaker
do A. The acts are committing, guaranteeing, offering, promising, refusing, threatening,
volunteering, vowing etc.
Example: I will be there at 5 o’clock. Promising
Another classification is given by Bach and Harnish (1984), in which the position
of offers can be recognized in the commissives category. There are four main types of
communicative illocutionary acts.
Constantives (assertives, predictives, retrodictives, descriptives, ascriptives,
informatives, confirmatives, concessives, retractives, assentives, dissentives, disputatives,
responsives, suggestives, suppositives) express the speaker's belief and his intention or
desire that the hearer have or form a like belief.
Directives (requestives, questions, requirements, permissives, advisories) express
the speaker's attitude toward some prospective action by the hearer and his intention that
his utterance, or the attitude it expresses, be taken as a reason for the hearer's action.
Commissives (promises, offers) express the speaker's intention and belief that his
utterance obligates him to do something (perhaps under certain conditions).
Acknowledgments (apologize, condole, congratulate, greet, thank, bid, accept,
reject) express feelings regarding the hearer or, in cases where the utterance is clearly
perfunctory or formal, the speaker's intention that his utterance satisfy a social expectation
to express certain feelings and his belief that it does.
A different approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the basis
of structure, provided by the three basic sentence types in English which relate to the
three general communicative functions (Yule, 1996:54):
______________________________________________

Utterance Sentence type Function
______________________________________________
You wear a seat belt. Declarative Statement
Do you wear a seat belt? Interrogative Question
Wear a seat belt! Imperative Command/Request
______________________________________________
- 16 -

Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we
have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between structure
and function we have an indirect speech act. For example, in English most requests are
done by using declaratives:
Example: It's cold outside:
The utterance above, used as a statement, is a direct speech act (I hereby tell you
that it is cold outside), used as a command/request, it is an indirect speech act (I hereby
request you that you close the window).
One of the most common types of indirect speech acts in English has the form of
interrogative, which is not typically used to ask a question (we don't expect only an
answer, we expect an action).
Example: Could you pass the salt?
Would you open this?
Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English
than direct speech acts.
1.2.2 Offering and forms of offers.
1.2.2.1 Offering as a speech act
There are different types of speech acts and offering is one kind among those which
people use a lot in daily life. According to the definition from Oxford Advanced Learner's
Dictionary, to offer is to say that you are willing to do something for somebody or give
something to somebody. In other words, it is a way that a speaker wants to express a
willingness to help or to serve the hearer. It can be a gift offer, favor offer, food/drink offer

or an opportunity offer. It helps reveal people’s consideration towards each other and
therefore it can reinforces social relationship. People can make offer in many ways which
are influenced by their culture, customs, or personal characteristics. The structural form of
the offer can be in the form of a question, a statement or a polite command.
For a characterisation of the nature of offers, Searle (1976) categorises offers as
commissives since they commit a speaker to some future course of action x - a
categorisation followed by Bach/Harnish (1979). Similarly, Edmondson/House (1981) also
underline the speaker’s role in offering by categorising offers as attitudinal illocutions and,
more specifically, as a type of Willing, as they involve situations in which a speaker
- 17 -

communicates that s/he intends to - potentially at least - perform a future act in the interest
of the hearer. Wunderlich (1977) argues that offers have the standard form: “If you want it,
I shall do a” (original emphasis). For example, the offer, “Do you want a sandwich?”, can
be said to have the standard form, “If you want a sandwich, I’ll make you one.”
In English Speech Act Verb: A Semantic Dictionary (1987) by Anna Wierzbicka,
offer has the following meanings:
- I think of X as something that could be good for you.
- I say: I will cause X to happen if you say you would want me to do it.
- I think that you may want it to happen.
- I don’t know if you want it to happen.
- I assume that you will say if you want it to happen.
Offering implies something like a benefit for hearer. It can be more or less
tentative, but it has a degree of uncertainty “I don’t know if you want me to do it”. As a
result, offers usually call for an answer from the hearer.
There is another idea that offers have a double illocutionary purpose: to let hearer
know of speaker’s willingness to do something for him and to cause hearer to say “yes” or
“no”, to enable speaker to act accordingly. This idea would be supported by the fact that
responses to offers are frequently double “Yes, thank you” or ”No, thank you”.
Offering also shares some features with the speech act of inviting, volunteering and

promising.
The similarity between offering and inviting is that in both cases, the action
envisaged by the speaker will be desirable or beneficial to the hearer. The difference is the
person who perform the action. With offering, the speaker will perform the action, but with
inviting, the hearer will do.
In case of volunteering, both types of speech acts show the speaker’s willingness to
do something not because it is good for him but for other people. However, unlike offering,
volunteering does not have to be directly beneficial for the hearer, or indeed for other
people. We volunteer to do something that has to be done. This may mean that we will free
some other people of the burden of having to do it, and thus benefit those other people
indirectly.
- 18 -

Another speech act which refers to an action by the speaker and which is beneficial
to the hearer is promise. Promises refer to actions situated in distant or indefinite future and
they are more hypothetical than offers, which refer to the present or the immediate future.
On the other hand, the action envisaged in an offer is conditional and dependent on the
hearer’s response; whereas, in case of a promise, the action is presented as certain, because
the hearer’s attitude is taken for granted.
1.2.2.2. Forms of offering
In terms of strategy, offers can be made by using three kinds of offering strategies:
direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and non-conventionally indirect
strategies. Direct strategies are realized by offers syntactically marked (Imperatives) or by
other verbal means that name the act as an offer (Let me , I’ll …., I would like to …or I
can……). Conventionally indirect strategies realize the act by reference to contextual
preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalized in a given language.
(Suggestory formulae: “How about going out for dinner tonight?” or Query preparatory:
Can I…., May I …, Shall I…., Would you like to….). Non-conventionally indirect
strategies are not conventionalized in the language and hence require more inferencing
activity for the hearer to derive the speaker’s intent (We’re having a party tonight. Are you

free?)
In terms of forms, offers are grouped in three major categories with seven types.
Three major categories are offering in forms of questions, statements, and imperatives;
seven types are offering in forms of tentative questions, permission questions, elliptical
questions, Wh-questions, tag questions, statements and imperatives.
1. Offering in form of Tentative Questions begins with the auxiliary “shall”, “would”, or
“do”.
Examples: Shall I get you an envelop?
Would you like me to repair it?
Do you want me to check for you?
2. Offering in form of Permission Questions uses the modals such as “may”, or “can”
Examples: May I help you?
Can I get you anything to drink?
3. Offering in form of Elliptical Questions can be used in informal situations in which the
relationship between the speaker and the hearer is quite close.
- 19 -

Example: Tea?
4. Offering in form of WH – Questions usually begins with “how” and “what”. Offers with
“how” seem to be softer more pleasant to hear and are used when the speaker and the
hearer are not in close relationship.
Examples: How about my getting it for you?
What about some more wine?
5. Offering in form of Tag Questions is not varied. There is only one form of tag question
with “shall I” which can be seen in daily conversations.
Examples: I’ll answer it, shall I? (Swan, M. 1990, p.108)
6. Offering in form of Statements is employed with the structure “will/shall + V”, the
subject of the statement is “I”, and sometimes “if you like” is added at the end of the
statement.
Examples: I’ll get you a cup of tea.

I’ll do the the washing up if you like.
7. Offering in form of Imperatives is considered as of less formality. These offers are
usually said with a falling intonation and added “please” at the end of the utterance.
Example: Let me help you.
According to a study by Hoàng Thị Thu Lan (2000), in English, the most popular
offer form is offer in form of Tentative questions, the second popular offer form is offer in
form of Statements. The least popular offer form is offer in form of Tag questions.
1.2.2.3. Politeness in offering
Politeness is a universal phenomenon in every society. Brown and Levinson built
their theory of politeness on the basis of the concept ‘face’. According to them, “face is the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (1987). This definition is
explained more by Yule (1996) as “face means the public self-image of a person. It refers
to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to
recognize.” Face includes two types: “positive face” and “negative face”, which are two
related aspects of the same entity and refer to two basic desires or wants of any individual
in any interaction. “Negative face” refers to “The want of every competent adult member
that his actions be unimpeded by others”. “Positive face” refers to “The want of every
member that his wants be desirable to at least some others”. In other words, negative face
is the wish and need to be independent and free to do things and not to be interfered and
- 20 -

imposed by others. Positive face is the wish and need to be shared, respected, appreciated,
accepted, liked, and treated as a member of the same group. These two types of face are
two mutual sides, but not separate. That is to say, a violation of negative face can lead to
the loss of positive face and vice-versa.
Lakoff (1975) suggests that “politeness is developed by society in order to reduce
friction in personal interaction” and comprises three rules of politeness: 1. Don’t impose;
2. Give options and 3. Make the receiver feel good. The first rule, “Don’t impose”, is
associated with distance and formality. The speaker shows his/her politeness by asking for
permission or apologizing in advance to lessen the imposition on the hearer when requiring

the hearer to do something. The second rule, “Give options”, is associated with deference
and accounts for cases in which the linguistic manifestations of politeness appear to leave
the choice of confirming or not to the addressee. Her third rule, “Make the receiver feel
good”, accounts for the case in which the speaker employs devices which will make the
addressee feel liked and wanted.
Most scholars, basing on the investigation of English, have argued that the degree
of indirectness determines the degree of politeness to a great extent. The main reason for
this argument reasonably originates from the concept of Western individualism. It is
widely accepted that most English speaking societies place a higher value on privacy and
individuality (the negative aspect of face) so individual’s freedom and independence is
highly respected, especially in offering - a kind of directive speech acts. However,
indirectness with the concept of non-imposition is not necessarily politeness in Vietnamese
culture which prefers a show of solidarity and sincerity. Offering is seen as an act to help
and support each other without any idea about imposition or non-imposition.
Generally speaking, speakers from different cultures use different politeness
strategies in offering as well as in other kinds of speech acts.

1.3. Summary
This chapter consists of two sections. The first section presents several points of
views related to definition and classification of modality, and common linguistic means to
express modality. Noticeably, most authors agree that modality expresses speaker’s
attitude and opinions towards what is said or towards the hearers. Modality is conveyed
through lexical markers, grammatical markers, and prosodic markers. However, because