LV An investigation into the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of deontic markers

1

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains
no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by
which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.
No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgements in the
thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in
any other tertiary institution.
Da Nang, 2006
HỒNG ÁI NGA

33


1

ABSTRACT
This study attempts to investigate the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of
deontic markers (DM ) in English and Vietnamese. The study explores the use of
modal devices expressing obligation and permission in modern English and
Vietnamese novels and short stories. The study is carried out through the adoption
of descriptive, quantitative, qualitative and contrastive approaches.
The most important and significant aspect of the study, the similarities and
differences between English and Vietnamese ways of expressing deontic modality
in the view of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics, is presented in order to help
learners have better use of language in communication. The findings of the study
show the frequency and variety in terms of occurrence of deontic forms. On the
basis of the findings, some teaching implications consisting of teaching strategies
and some suggested exercises have been put forward.

34


1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP......................................................................... i
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................iii
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1

1.1 Rationale ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Justification of the Study ..................................................................................... 4
1.3 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Questions.............................................................................................. 4
1.5 Organization of the Study .................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 6
2.1 Review of Previous Studies ................................................................................. 6
2.2 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Some Background Concepts ..................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Concepts of Modal Verbs ......................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Types of Modality ................................................................................... 11
2.2.4 Linguistic Realization of Deontic Modality ............................................ 15

2.2.5 Deontic Modality in the View of Pragmatics ......................................... 18
2.2.6 Linguistic Communication ..................................................................... 22
2.3. Summary .......................................................................................................... 27

35


1

CHAPTER 3:

METHOD AND PROCEDURE ........................................ 28

3.1 Aims and Objectives of the Study ..................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Aim of the Study ..................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Objectives of the Study............................................................................. 28
3.2 Research Methodology ...................................................................................... 29
3.3 Research Procedures .......................................................................................... 30
3.4 Description of Population and Sample ............................................................. 30
3.5 Data Collection ................................................................................................. 31
3.6 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 31
3.7 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 4:

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ 33

4.1 Syntactic Representation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese ...................... 33
4.1.1 UCDM Consisting of a Complete Sentence ........................................... 33
4.1.2 UCDM Consisting of an Incomplete Sentence ....................................... 41

4.1.3 UCDM Containing Subordinate Acts ..................................................... 45
4.1.4 Summary .................................................................................................. 46
4.2 Semantic Characteristics of DM in English and Vietnamese ........................... 49
4.2.1 The Presentation of Semantic Features of English Modals ..................... 49
4.2.2 Specific Realizations of UCDM Expressing the Notions of
Obligation and Permission ...................................................................... 57
4.2.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 72
4.3 Pragmatic Interpretation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese ....................... 76
4.3.1 The Affect of Social Distance (Solidarity) in UCDM in English
and Vietnamese ...................................................................................... 76
4.3.2 Power Relationship in UCDM in English and Vietnamese ..................... 84
4.3.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 92

36


1

4.4 Result Discussion................................................................................................ 93
4.4.1 Syntactic Features of UCDM as Communicative Acts in English
and Vietnamese ....................................................................................... 93
4.4.2 Semantic Features of UCDM in English and Vietnamese ...................... 96
4.4.3 Pragmatic Features of UCDM in English and Vietnamese .................... 98
4.4.4 Summary ............................................................................................... 101

CHAPTER

5:

CONCLUSIONS

AND

IMPLICATIONS

FOR

LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING ........................................... 103
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 103
5.2 Implications for Language Learning and Teaching ........................................ 108
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research .................................................................. 110

REFERENCES
APPENDICES

37


1

ABBREVIATIONS
DM

: Deontic Markers

D&C

: Directives and Commissives

FTA

: Face Threatening Acts

H

: Hearer

IFIDs

: Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices

S

: Speaker

UCDM

: Utterances Containing Deontic Markers

38


1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Summary of the Similarities and Differences in the Syntactic

Page
48

Representation of UCDM in English and Vietnamese.

Table 4.2: Summary of the Typical Semantic Meaning of 11 Modal Verbs

56

Found in UCDM in English and Vietnamese

Table 4.3: Summary on the Performative Verbs of UCDM in English and

74

Vietnamese.

Table 4.4: Summary of the Representation of DM for the Six Functions

75

of UCDM in English and Vietnamese.

Table 4.5: Relative Frequency (%) of English and Vietnamese Deontic

95

Markers under Syntactic Features.

Table 4.6: Summary of Polite Markers & Mitigating Words in UCDM in
English and Vietnamese.

39

102


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE
It is obvious that the main function of language is to serve as the instrument
for the transmission of information. In everyday communication, speakers do not
simply describe some event, process or state of affairs. Moreover, “the transmission
of descriptive information is usually not an end in itself” (Lyons, 1977). Speakers,
by means of language, also wish to express their emotions and attitudes, or to
influence in some way the addressee’s beliefs and behaviours. They often qualify
their statements with respect to believability, reliability and general compatibility
with accepted fact, for example It must be raining; or else, intervene in the speech
event by laying obligation or giving permission: We must copy this out again; You’d
better come, too. This area of semantics that concerns those expressive and social
information of statements is modality. Since the semantic field of modality has, for
most linguists, covered a wide range of attitudinal notions of speech event, a
number of types of language forms can represent its concepts, among which the use
of moods, modal verbs, performative verbs as well as particles are very common in
English and Vietnamese .
Though many pages and 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 or
ambiguity of modal meanings. Semantically, a modal can have both deontic and

epistemic meaning. 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
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

40


1

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
substitutable in almost contexts, such as should and ought to in I should/ ought to
finish this essays tonight. Pragmatically, we can talk about modal meanings in terms
of such logical notions as permission, obligation and prohibition performed by
speech acts of directives and commissives, but this done, we will have to consider
ways in which these notions become remoulded by the psychological pressures of
everyday communication between human beings: factors such as the effect of social
distance, the power relationship between interlocutors, politeness, directness,
indirectness , mitigating devices and hedges. The appropriate use of the linguistic
means to the context is the matter of culture- specifics. A good knowledge of such
factors plays an important role in sustaining communication and good relationship
between interlocutors.
In foreign language classes, focus is given on the teaching and learning of
the linguistic forms and functions. The pragmatic use of them in communication has
completely been ignored or not fully been introduced and practised. Moreover, the
socio-cultural factors and routines of the community using the language have not
been mentioned. As a result, there is a gap between classroom interactions and the

authentic use of language in communication and thus learners with good knowledge
of a language may fail in his real communication
The learning of meaning of modal verbs, performative verbs and particles
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 lexical devices to
express certain notion of modality. When I say, “John may go home now” to give
John permission to leave, or when I advise, “Elena should go home. She looks
tired.” I am using deontic modality.
These descriptions raise several considerations. One of them is that I used the
same modal may in John may go home now to give John permission to leave

41


1

(deontic) and to tell my listener that I am not certain if John is leaving (epistemic),
which may cause ambiguity. This ambiguity is found throughout the modal system
and is one of the reasons that classroom activities and exercises focusing on
modality can be so difficult to develop.
This problem is especially more embarrassing when they encounter different
modals conveying the same meaning. 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 modal words with their accompanying meanings,
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.
Besides the modals, there are other means expressing deontic modality: the notions
of obligation, prohibition, permission, performed by speech acts of directives,
commissives such as performative verbs, particles and the imperative mood.

Although Palmer’s notional categories make sense, I found that it was
difficult to process the grammatical patterns in the language data used to illustrate
the categories. Part of my difficulty may be attributed to the fact that I believe
modality needs to be studied in the context of use, i.e., natural texts, not isolated
sentences; and also, I believe that a thorough study of all grammatical expressions
of modality and mood must be done within a single language before the results are
compared and contrasted cross-linguistically. Such linguistic and methodological
viewpoints have revealed that a fully complete study on approaches to syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic analysis of modal meanings is essential, especially for
learners of English as a foreign language.
On recognizing of the needs for such a study, I decided to make an
investigation into deontic markers in English and Vietnamese. It is hoped that the
study is an attempt to consider problematic aspects of deontic modality with the
respects to semantic, syntactic and pragmatic features of English DM in comparison
with Vietnamese ones to serve better communication as well as the teaching. The

42


1

investigation will be a significant task contributing to the study of English as a
foreign language, especially to learners of both languages.
1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
Although many linguists have studied English deontic modality, they have
paid attention to studying modal verbs in terms of semantics and syntactics. In fact,
the contrastive analysis on the means of expressing deontic modality in English and
Vietnamese is of great demand. This is the first thesis studying DM in English and
their Vietnamese equivalents that has realised the deontic forms and discovered the
similarities and differences between English means of expressing obligation,

permission, and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactics, semantics and
pragmatics. This study will be a contribution to pragmatic competence that benefits
Vietnamese learners and helps Vietnamese learners of English as well as foreign
learners of Vietnamese to achieve high efficiency in communication.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study investigates lexical devices (modal verbs, performative verbs, and
particles), and mood (especially imperatives)

that are used to express deontic

modality in English and Vietnamese literary works. These devices are examined
and categorized in accordance with grammatical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
aspects. The study also mentions some functions concerning directives and
commissives such as requirements, prohibitives, requests, advisories, suggestions
and permissives with different structures and modal devices in relation to different
relationship between interlocutors. Due to the limited time, these devices

are

explored in English and Vietnamese texts and conversations from literary works.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The findings are discussed in relation to the following research questions of
the study:
1. What principal modal devices are commonly used as English and
43


1

Vietnamese DM?
2. What are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of DM in English
and Vietnamese?
3. How are the DM distributed in literary works in English and Vietnamese?

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This paper includes the following parts:
- Chapter 1 introduces the rationale of the study, presents the aims and objectives,
the scope, the justification and the organization of the study.
-

Chapter 2 is the literature review which includes previous studies and the

linguistic concepts of modality, types of modality,

notions of possibility and

necessity as semantic category of deontic modality, linguistic realizations of DM in
English and Vietnamese. Besides, the theory of speech acts, principles of politeness
and mitigation to express obligation and permission in social interaction are
discussed.
- Chapter 3 mentions the method and procedure, research questions, description of
population and samples, data collection and procedure of studying modal lexical
devices, imperative mood in English and Vietnamese and their semantic, syntactic,
pragmatic features.
- Chapter 4 presents the findings and discussions consisting of the linguistic
features of DM that are the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features, the
frequency of occurrence of DM in English and Vietnamese.
- Chapter 5 is the conclusion which draws the similarities and differences on

syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features

in English and Vietnamese; the

implications, the limitations of the study and some suggestions for further study

44


1

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
A large number of linguists have investigated the English modal system in
terms of grammar, semantics, and pragmatics. Quirk’s study may be one of the most
useful treatments of English modals within grammatical scope. It presents all
characteristics of modal usage such as morphological, syntactic and main uses. His
research serves as the basic groundwork for the consideration of meanings of
modals must, should, ought to, have to, can, may, will, would, shall, could, might in
the light of deontic markers in this paper.
There are also a wide variety of researches on meanings of English modals.
Those that count are Modality and the English Modals by Palmer (1990) and
Meaning and the English Verbs by Leech (1987) . Palmer puts forward the
investigation on identifying the central meaning of modals and discusses the
similarities and differences between the use of modals in denoting notions of
modality. Meanwhile, Leech mentions pragmatic elements of modal meanings and
suggests that they should be taken in consideration in using English modals. Also,
Dixon (1992) in A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles

provides a fresh look at parts of English grammar, in which modals are considered
as secondary verbs due to their dependent semantic roles in verbs phrases.
Furthermore, it should take into accounts of viewpoint of Lyons (1962) in
Semantics and Sweetser (1976) in From Etymology to Pragmatics. Lyons provides
basic ideas on modality, in which modals are seen as a means to express modal
meanings. Sweetser, on the other hand, sets forth discussions of approaches to
pragmatic interpretation of modal semantics in terms of speech acts.

45


1

In 1999, Nguyen Duong Nguyen Chau presented a M.A thesis about modal
verbs must, should, have to expressing obligation. Her investigation focused on the
semantic and pragmatic features of these three English modals.
Tran Thi To Nga (2002) with the thesis “An Investigation into the Syntactic
and Pragmatic Features of Directives in English and Vietnamese” described and
analysed the syntactic and pragmatic features of directives in English and
Vietnamese. At the same time, she presented the differences and similarities
between English and Vietnamese in the syntactic and pragmatic perspectives of
directive speech act.
Though there have been so many investigations on modals, such researches
are general discussions of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features of English
modal system. There have not been so far a specific study which attempts to apply
certain fully complete approach of syntactic and semantic analysis as well as
pragmatic features of deontic modality expressing the notion of obligation and
permission so as to help learners of English have a thorough insight into this
problematic

area of language. For this reason, the study on the markers of

expressing deontic modality in English and their Vietnamese equivalents seems to
be a significant task, contributing to the study of languages in general and the study
of English as a foreign language in particular, especially to learners of both
languages.

2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presents the theoretical background of the study. The first part
deals with preliminary information closely related to the study such as concepts of
modality, notions of possibility and necessity as semantic category of deontic
modality, linguistic realization of deontic modality in English . The second part
discusses the deontic modality in the view of pragmatics, in which the theory of
speech acts , of politeness especially mitigation devices reducing the speaker’s
obligation are taken in consideration.

46


1

47


1

2.2.1 Some background concepts
2.2.1.1 Sentences and Utterances
Longman Applied Linguistic Dictionary (1996) defines sentences (in
grammar) as the largest unit of grammatical organization within which, parts of

speech and grammatical classes (word, phrase and clause) are said to function. In
English, a sentence normally contains one independent clause with a finite verb.
Utterance in discourse is defined as what is said by one person before and after
another person beginning to speak.
The utterance, in general, is not identical with the “sentence”. Firstly, the basic
criterion for a sentence is grammatical correctness, while that of an utterance is its
acceptability or meaningfulness in the context. That can explain the existence of
utterances in form of incomplete sentences or of more than one sentence. Secondly,
sentence meaning is free from context, whereas utterance meaning is context
dependence. A sentence may have different meanings in different contexts. In short,
utterances are sentences in context.

2.2.1.2 Proposition and Modality
In a sentence, there are two semantic components. One is what Jespersen
(1909:313) refers to as “the content of the sentence” and the other is the speaker’s
attitude or opinion. In other words, they are proposition and modality. The former
contains information and the latter makes it more meaningful and informative.
Let look at the following two examples:
(a) John may be in his office.
(b) John must be in his office.
Both utterances carry the same content or proposition, that is “John – in his
office”. However, it is the presence of modal markers may and must that
differentiates their meanings. In (a) the speaker only speculates on John’s presence
in his office and therefore, John may be somewhere else. While in (b) the speaker is

48


1

much more certain about John’s presence in his office. By saying (b), he shows
strong commitment to the truth of what he says.
The notion 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.
Thus, Palmer defines modality as semantic information associated with the
speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said. Bybee (1995) gives a broader
definition: What the speaker is doing with the whole proposition. Though these
definitions diverge on the particulars, they agree that modality concerns entire
statements, not just events or entities, and its domain is the whole expression at a
truth-functional level.

2.2.1.3 Mood and Modality
A good starting point is Jespersen (1909)’s discussion of mood. He says of
the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods. They express certain attitudes of
mind of the speaker towards the contents of the sentence (uncertainty, necessity,
possibility, etc.). Further, it is very important that we speak of “mood” only if the
attitude of mind is shown in the form of the verb: mood thus is a syntactic, not a
notional category.
Modality is “the system expressing mood”. In case of grammar, the
constituent consists of the elements of tense, mood, and aspect. In logic and
semantics, the classification of propositions according to whether they are
necessary, possible, contingent, obligatory etc.

2.2.2 Concepts of Modal verbs
2.2.2.1 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

49


1

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.
Modals are one way for a speaker to encode modality into what (s)he sayssuch ideas as necessity, possibility, obligation, etc. Here is a list of the modals used
in English. Of the same pair, one is root modal and the other is distal one. Distal
modal will be more polite than its root one.
can / could

may / might

shall / should

will/ would

2.2.2.2 Semantic features of modal verbs
According to Lewis (1990: 101), the primary semantic characteristic 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 question as What should I do?. It is clearly about the
speaker, but is also equally importantly about the listener’s judgement or opinion.
In an 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: John can lift 100 kilos, and any of
may to the possibility of some specific event happening: We may get a Christmas

bonus this year. But both modals can and may refer to a permitted activity: John
can / may stay out all night .

2.2.2.3 Modal verbs and pragmatic analysis
The previous part has presented modal verbs as modality markers. Hence the
question is how these units perform their function in a broader context outside the
system of language, i.e in the pragmatic context.
As Sweetser (1990:65) states, modals are an area of language where speakers
can either simply describe or mould real-world modality. Just as “You must speak

50


1

English” could be either words used to impose or describe an obligation. The
interpretation of such an utterance depends on pragmatic factors involved in
identifying the source or imposer of modality. It is in this case that general
principles of expression of modality in terms of speech acts should be taken in
consideration.
On the other hand, one of the factors that makes the interpretation of
meaning of modals problematic and causes difficulties in accounting for the use of
these words is that their meaning has both a logical and pragmatic element.
According to Leech (1987), we can talk about modals in terms of such logical
notions as permission, necessity, obligation and so on, but when this done, we have
to still consider ways in which these notions become remoulded by the
psychological pressure of everyday communication between human beings: factors
such as power relationship, social distance, politeness, tact, irony.
For the purpose of dealing with semantic structure of modals, therefore, it is
necessary to consider pragmatic aspects governing the use and interpretation of

modals in social interaction, which are speech acts and theory of politeness.

2.2.3 Types of modality
The distinction that Jespersen draws between the two kinds of modality
(“containing an element of will” and “ not containing an element of will”) is closely
paralleled in Lyon’s (1977:452) reference to “the speaker’s opinion or attitude
towards the proposition describes”.
Steele et al. (1981:21) implicitly make the same distinction: “Elements
expressing modality will mark any of the following: possibility or the related notion
of permission; probability or necessity or the related notion of obligation, certainty
or the related notion of requirement”. The remarks in Steele et al. can be illustrated
from English; the following sentences can be interpreted either in terms of
possibility, probability and necessity, or in terms of permission, obligation and
requirement. (the glosses are rough paraphrases):

51


1

He may come tomorrow. (Perhaps he will / he is permitted)
The book should be on the shelf. (It probably is / Its proper place is)
He must be in his office. (I am certain that he is / he is obliged to be)
There is no doubt that the English modals have both epistemic and deontic
interpretations, and it would appear from the glosses that both interpretations are
available for a single form.
However, although the same forms are used, there are often quite clear formal
distinctions between epistemic and deontic use. In English, for example, the
negative form mustn’t is generally used only deontically, as in he mustn’t be in his
office. The only way of expressing the negative of epistemic must is to use can’t: He

can’t be in his office.

2.2.3.1 Epistemic and Deontic modality
In discussing modality, it is common to make a distinction between
epistemic and deontic modality. Lyons recognized these two kinds of modality,
using Von Wright’s term: “Epistemic modality is concerned with matters of
knowledge, belief” (1962:793) or “opinion rather than fact” (1962:681) and
“Deontic modality is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed
by morally responsible agents” (1962:823).
Semantically, the two kinds of modality are quite different. According to
Palmer (1986:121), epistemic modality is concerned with language as information.
It expresses speaker’s commitment to the truth of what he says. On the other hand,
deontic modality is concerned with language as action. It is the device that helps to
express speaker’s attitude towards possible actions, for example:
(c) He may stay at home.
Depending on its context, we can interpret (c) in two ways: he is permitted to
stay at home and perhaps he stays at home. In the first case, may expresses
permission and therefore it is deontic modality. In the second case, may reveals the
speaker’s belief and it is epistemic modality.

52


1

2.2.3.2 Defining deontic modality
According to Lyons (1977:793), deontic modality is concerned with the
necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents. By means
of this, speakers intervene in or bring about changes in events.
To use Chung and Timberlake’s (1985) account, deontic modality expresses

the imposition of a state of affairs on individuals, or with the modality as deixis, the
imposition of an expressed world on a reference world.
Deontic modality, in one form or another, is related to all the following:
orders, rights, willing, duty, exhortation, permission, requirements and even ability.
These concepts comes into two basic categories: obligation and permission .
Within the scope of the study, a version of obligation and permission is dealt
with so as to lay the foundation for later discussion on its semantic and pragmatic
aspects.

2.2.3.3 Deontic and performative
Deontic modality is essentially performative. By using a deontic modal, a
speaker may actually give permission may, can, could ; lay an obligation must or
make a promise or threat will, shall.
The criterion of being performative may be starting-point for defining the
deontic modals. They give (or refuse ) permission, lay an obligation, or make a
promise. Moreover, there will normally be no past tense forms, for by their nature
performatives cannot be in the past; the act takes place at the moment of speaking.

2.2.3.4 The notions of possibility and necessity as semantic category of deontic
modality
The notions of possibility and necessity, traditionally associated with modal
logic, are also central to the discussion of modality. They are relevant to epistemic
modality as well as to Von Wright’s alethic. They can also be used to describe

53


1

deontic modality, since to give permission is to make an action possible and to lay

an obligation is to make it necessary.
With respect to the notion of obligation, Lyons (1977: 824) suggests that it
seems preferable for linguists to take a maximally view of what constitutes
obligation, drawing no distinction, in the first instance at least, between morality,
legality, and physical necessity. In the analysis of lexical structures of particular
languages, on the other hand, distinctions need to be drawn between various kinds
of obligation; many of these are culture-dependent and correlated with
institutionalized beliefs and norms of conduct. Nevertheless, he also assumes that
there is some universally valid notion of obligation which may be variously
categorized and differentiated in terms of its course and sanctions in different
cultures.
According to Lyons, an utterance expressing obligations may refer to either a
restricted or unrestricted obligation. This distinction can be accounted for by
quantifying the worlds in which the obligations holds. An unrestricted obligation is
concerned in the sense that it holds at all times and in all possible worlds. This kind
of obligation often derives its validity from ominitemporally or eternally applicable
principles governing social behaviour. Such principles would be analogous to the
so-called laws of nature or moral and legal obligations in the form of directives
issued by parents, priests, judges or by some higher, and ultimately sovereign,
authority who establish and maintain norms of conduct within the society.

2.2.3.5 Summary
The term deontic ( from the Greek “deon”: “what is binding”) is now quite
widely used by philosophers to refer to a particular branch or extension of modal
logic: the logic of obligation and permission. There are certain obvious differences
between alethic and epistemic necessity, on the one hand, and what we might call
deontic necessity (i.e. obligation), on the other. Logical and epistemic necessity , as
we have seen, have to do with the truth of propositions; deontic modality is

54

1

concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible
agents. When we impose upon someone the obligation to perform or to refrain from
performing a particular act, we are clearly not describing either his present or future
performance of that act. There is a sense in which the sentence we utter can be said
to express a proposition; but it is not a proposition which describes the act itself.
What it describes is the state-of-affairs that will obtain if the act in question is
performed; and we have already seen that directives can be analyzed, along these
lines, as utterances which impose upon someone the obligation to make a
proposition true (or to refrain from making it true) by bringing about (or refraining
from bringing about) in some future world the state-of-affairs that is described by
the proposition.

2.2.4 Linguistic realization of deontic modality
Modality, conceived as a general notional category present in all languages
and therefore subject to a cross-linguistic comparison, indicates the attitude of the
speaker towards the propositional content of the utterance. It can be expressed in a
variety of forms, either grammatical or lexical, mood, modal verbs, modal uses of
tenses, sentential adverbs, particles, periphrases (verbal, adjective and nominal
expressions), or via intonation.
Deontic modality can be expressed by different devices such as syntactic,
lexical and morphological devices. On the scope of this research, only syntactic and
lexical devices are investigated.

2.2.4.1 Linguistic realization of deontic modality in English
Deontic modality is marked in various ways, especially by lexical devices
(modal verbs, performative verbs) and by mood.

55


1

+ Lexical devices
- Modal auxiliary verbs: can, could, will, would, must, shall, should, may ,
might, ought to, and semi- modal had better. (For more features of modal verbs,
see 2.2.2)
- The lexico-modal auxiliaries composed of be or have, and usually another
element + infinitive (have got to, be bound to, ...)
- Performative verbs: allow, beg, command, forbid, guarantee, promise,
suggest, warn, etc. (For more performative verbs, see table 4.3, p. 76)
+ Mood
Mood relates the proposition to its context in the speech event. Each mood
type is basically associated with an illocutionary act. For instance, the declarative
mood is mainly used to perform a statement, the interrogative a question and the
imperative an order, a request or command…
The imperative is the maximally explicit form of expressing obligation, but
also the unmarked- or minimally marked-form. It is also used for expressing
direction (Turn left at the supermarket); advice (See a doctor about that cough);
appeal (Be a blood donor); permission (Come in!); prayer (Forgive us our
trespasses); warning (Watch out for falling rock); requests (Pass the salt); offers
(Have some more coffee); instructions (Open your books).

2.2.4.2 Linguistic realization of deontic modality in Vietnamese
Vietnamese also owns a system of lexical devices in four grammatical
groups:
+ Modal auxilaries: cấm, khuyên, bắt buộc, yêu cầu, đề nghị, kiến nghị, ra

lệnh, cho phép
+ Modal lexical verbs:
- Obligation : phải, cần, nên
- Prohibition: dám, nỡ, đành, đang tâm, không được, đừng

56


1

- Permission : có thể, được
- Exemption: khoan, không thể
- Advice: nên, thử, khoan, phải
- Suggestion, proposal: nên, cần, phải

+ Modal adverbs: Hãy, đừng, chớ
+ Modal particles: à , ạ, sao, nhỉ, nhé, nghe , cho, với, mà…
- Command: đi, đã, thôi, chứ, mà
- Request: xem, coi
- Suggestion: nào, nhé
- Entreating/ Begging: vôùi , mà
Particles play a
Vietnamese.

very

important

role

in

expressing

modality in

Vietnamese linguists identify and recognize a special word class

expressing modal meanings: modal particles which can partly be realized by such
items as chăng, đâu, nhỉ, etc.

Hoàng Trọng Phiến (1980:51) also offers the

following remarks:
In different languages, modality is expressed differently. Modality can often
be expressed by intonation, verbs, word order and such modal particles as : à, ư,
nhỉ, nhé, sao, chăng, ru, chăng tá.
Authors of “Ngữ Pháp Tiếng Việt” (1983) classify “particles” into a word
class which is neither within the scope of content words nor function words, and
which is different from pronouns. Particles express the speaker’s attitude. They
neither take the function of topic and comment, nor take the function of head and
modifier. They are often added to sentences to express surprise, doubt, irony, joy,
politeness or special affirmation…
In summary, modality is not, then, necessarily marked in the verbal element
nor is there any obvious reason why it should be, apart from the fact that the verb is
the most central part of the sentence.
57