LV A STUDY OF PROCLAIM MARKERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. RATIONALE
When people use language to communicate, both in everyday
conversations and in writing such as novels, reports, letters, etc. they not only
desire to give the descriptive information but they also show their attitudes,
evaluation to the content of their statement and to the hearers or readers. In
making their statements as claims of knowledge or feelings, the
speakers/writers can adjust and negotiate the arguability of their utterances.
While doing so, the speakers may choose to shape their position in verbal
interaction as to be likely accepted by the hearers or readers as far as the
reliability of information is concerned. And by doing so, their claim can be
supported and the others’ claims denied. Every language offers various ways
of performing these functions. According to the speaker’s purpose toward the
dimension of their attitude to their claim, these functions can be labelled
proclaim or disclaim. Under the Appraisal framework initiated by James
Martin [26], Proclaim is first introduced as a fairly new name for
communicative categories and is seen as a member of Engagement
subsystems which carries all properties of a linguistic unit. So what is it?
In every day speech or in written texts, the speakers may choose to
modify their claim with a particular linguistic device so as to avoid the
challenge from the hearers or readers. By doing so, they are performing a
proclaim. Let me examine the following examples
(1) “He wants to buy me out?”
“Yes, But of course, I told him you wouldn’t sell.”

[114]

2

(2) But I do contend that if Ellen deceived me in this matter, it was a piece
of unwarranted cruelty, and as man to man I ask you, if you can, to
relieve me of this horrible suspense.

[78]

(3) Quang với Hiền, hai đứa lưu ban thì tất nhiên không thể làm tổ trưởng
được rồi. Cuối cùng tụi tôi đùn cho thằng Đại.

[41, p.30]

(4) Năm ấy nước sông Nhĩ Hà lên to. Thảo nào mấy nghìn gốc nhãn trồng
trên mặt đê quanh vùng vụ đó sai quả lạ.

[43, p.91]

In (1) and (2) above, the claims can be received and interpreted as with
more force and certainty. These additional meanings apart from the core
meaning encoded in the proposition are signalled by of course and do contend
which are called Proclaim Markers (Hereafter PM).
In (3) the writer based on the assumption that student repeaters could
neither be good at subjects nor behave well and that a group leader must be a
typical and model student. Therefore, by using “tất nhiên” he wanted to draw
the reader’s support to his proposition - to vote for Đại. As in (4) the writer
would like the readers to agree with his proposition and not to be rejected by
preceding the human’s experience - the knowledge of the world - rising river

water carries nutrient to nourish the longan trees well. “thảo nào” in this
current location confirms his belief in his statement.
So far much has been written on the related semantic areas such as
modality, evidentiality, and hedges in English and Vietnamese. Although
Proclaim can be considered as one of the basic purposes of modulating the
speaker’s or writer’s claim, little has been done on Proclaim concerning the
linguistic realizations and its semantic functions.
With the assumptions that such PMs as of course, I do contend, tất
nhiên, thảo nào, and other members of PMs may cause some difficulties to


3

those who use English in everyday speech as well as in argumentative essays,
I therefore try to carry out a research on this in a hope that it may help
Vietnamese learners of English to enhance their competence in spoken and
written communication and achieve cooperation in interaction.
1.2. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
The research of PMs on the aspects of syntax, semantics and
pragmatics makes an attempt to contribute to the understanding of proclaim
markers in different types of discourses in English and Vietnamese. The
similarities and differences between the two languages analysed in the study
may be of great benefit for Vietnamese learners of English. An insight of
these markers along with appropriate practice can help them improve in
practising language skills, especially in translation. Vietnamese learners of
English may base on the findings of this study in order that they can enhance
their competence to naturally express the information as well as the
attitudinal, dialogistic and intertextual positioning in both languages.
1.3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.3.1. Aims

The aim of this study is to investigate the structural, semantic, and
pragmatic characteristics of proclaim markers in English and Vietnamese.
1.3.2. Objectives
This study is intended to achieve these following objectives:
• Giving a description of English and Vietnamese proclaim markers with
reference to structures, semantics and pragmatics.
• Finding out the similarities and differences between proclaim markers
in English and their Vietnamese equivalents.


4

• Giving suggestions for teaching and learning proclaim markers.
1.4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study will do research on 50 representative proclaim markers in
lexical devices in form of adverbial disjuncts in English and Vietnamese
discourse.
1.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To achieve the aims and objectives mentioned above, I put forwards the
following research questions:
• What are the typical characteristics of Proclaim markers in terms of
syntax, semantics and pragmatics?
• What are the differences and similarities of Proclaim markers in
English and Vietnamese in terms of syntax, semantics and pragmatics?
• What are the learners’ difficulties in comprehending and using PMs in
English?
1.6. ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY
The study consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter one, the introductory chapter, represents the rationale for the
research, the general purpose of the study, the justification, scope and

organisation of the study.
Chapter two gives an overview of how proclaim markers are
approached from different perspectives. Furthermore, the chapter mentions a
number of such relevant concepts as dialogistic position, epistemic modality,
evidentiality, force dynamics, speech act and politeness principles.
Chapter three brings out the methods of collecting and analysing data.


5

Chapter four describes and contrasts the proclaim markers in English
and Vietnamese in terms of structural features, semantic functions and
pragmatic functions so as to draw out their similarities and differences.
Chapter five is the summary of the development of the study. This
section also raises some implications for English teaching and learning, some
limitations and gives some suggestions on further research.


6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Proclaim, a subcategory of Engagement under the Appraisal framework
proposed by Martin and his group of researchers [26], concerns with the
diverse range of resources by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the
arguability of their utterances, which has been analysed in the literature under
headings such as modality, evidentiality, polarity, hearsay, concession,

hedges, boosters and metadiscursives.
The notions of modality, evidentiality and polarity have been discussed
in the literature by Palmer [20], Lyons [18], Coates [8], Chafe [6] and Hanns
[10]. However, Proclaim, a fairly new concept for some of us, is one key of
engagement resources just mentioned under the Appraisal framework
proposed by Martin [26].
So far, little has been written about this linguistic phenomenon and thus
this is a derelict field for exploration. As for disclaim or disclaimers, I just
mention here a very early work by Hewitt [11]. This paper introduces, defines
and discusses a new concept - Disclaimer as an interactional tactics employed
by actors faced with upcoming events or acts which threaten to disrupt
emergent meanings or discredited situational identities. Its function is to
predefine such problematic events for others in a manner which reduces
salience as interactional cues.
Another study that relates to the issues of Disclaimers is “Formulaic
Disclaimers” by Overstreet, Maryann and George Yule [25, pp.45-60]. In this


7

paper, the author describes the form and functions of a formulaic construction
used as a disclaimer in contemporary English. These two studies can be
viewed as primarily pragmatics oriented and treat Disclaimers as serving
social functions.
Among the cross linguistic studies that deal with issues of proclaims
and proclaim markers, it can be noted by Bui Thi Huynh Tran’s graduation
paper for B.A. degree “Proclaim and Disclaim (English vs. Vietnamese) [5].
This study mainly looked into the semantic and pragmatic features of
Disclaim and Proclaim in both spoken and written discourse (English and
Vietnamese), especially speech acts which are structured with evaluative

disjuncts and conjunctions. This research paper was an attempt to find out the
implicature, presupposition or assumption of Disclaim and Proclaim in
English and Vietnamese, investigated and decided which are their equivalent
features in pragmatics in Vietnamese. However, at such a level of B.A.
degree, the work just gave general points of the proclaim.
The latest study of the matters of Proclaim and Disclaim markers
should be mentioned here is M.A. Thesis by Ho Long Ngoc (2006) [12] with
the title “A Study of Disclaim Markers in English and Vietnamese”. This
thesis examined described the disclaim markers in English and Vietnamese in
terms of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects. The study investigated a
wide range of linguistic devices to mark the speaker/writer’s disclaim with
different structures of verbs, adverbs, adjectives and nouns in the two
languages. The findings were about the information status of the proposition
mentioned in the disclaim as unexpected, new desirable or undesirable which
anticipated the speaker/writer’s attitudes to this proposition against an
assumption expected in both the speaker’s and hearer’s minds. In this study,


8

the addresser’s reactions to the proposition in the disclaim also reflected
themselves in the politeness strategies in communicative interaction.
Hence, issues about Proclaim and proclaim markers are still unsolved
questions. The concept of proclaim and its characteristics in syntax, semantics
and pragmatics are still inaccessible to many of us. Therefore, I need to make
clear the definition of Proclaim and its related concepts.
2.2. PROCLAIM AND RELATED CONCEPTS
2.2.1. The notion of proclaim
Keys engagement resources include meanings which can be grouped
together under the headings: Disclaim, Proclaim, Probabilise, and Attribute.

According to Martin [26], under “proclaim” (which includes Expect and
Pronounce) we are concerned with formulations which can be interpreted as
heading off contradiction or challenge from potential dialogistic respondents.
They are meanings which increase the interpersonal cost of any such
contradiction by adding additional support or motivation for the current
proposition/proposal.
To facilitate my searching for those linguistic units that function as a
proclaim I assume that Proclaim is a kind of speech act that functions to
signal the speaker/ writer’s support to anticipate a prevention of any challenge
of doubt or undesirable assumption from the hearer/ reader.
In this sense, any kind of linguistic devices that are used to signal the
function as adding this supportive meaning to the proposition are called
Proclaim markers (PM) and will be examined in this study.


9

2.2.1.1. Expect
P.R.R. White [29] claims that through values of Expects, the
speaker/writer represents the current proposition/proposal as uncontentious
within the current speech community, as a “given”, as being in accord with
what is generally known or expected. Let’s consider the example below about
the use of “of course”.
(5) Mrs Parry thought that this pastoral was in some ways, rather like the
Tempest. Mr. Stanhope, of course, was not as good as Shakespeare,
because Shakespeare was the greatest English poet, so that Stanhope
wasn’t.

[143]

Here the writer represents himself/herself as simply agreeing with the
reader, as recounting a view (Mr. Stanhope was not as good as Shakespeare,
because Shakespeare was the greatest English playwright) which is already
held by the dialogistic partner and by people in general. The location of the
current proposition within a dialogistic exchange is thus employed to increase
the cost of any subsequent challenging or rejecting of the proposition.
2.1.1.2. Pronounce
Under “Pronounce”, according to P.R.R. White [29], we are concerned
with formulations by which speakers/writers interpolate themselves directly
into the text as the explicitly responsible source of the utterance. This
“pronouncement” may take the form of an explicit interpolation of the
speaker into the text (‘I’d say this will lead to mistrust’), an intensifying
comment adjunct (‘Really, this will lead to mistrust’), stress on the auxiliary
(‘This did lead to mistrust’), or through structures such as ‘It’s a fact that…’.
Such formulations are dialogistically prospective. The author thereby
increases the interpersonal cost of any rejection/doubting of their utterance in


10

future communicative exchanges, rendering such direct challenge to the
author’s dialogistic position. Of course, through such a strategy, by
confronting the possibility of rejection, the author integrates that possibility
into the text and thereby acknowledges the dialogistic diversity of meaning
making in socially diverse social contexts.
2.2.2. The notion of “Dialogism”
The notion of “dialogism” is set out in the work of Bakhtin [4] and
Voloshinov [24]. The following quotation sums up this perspective:
The actual reality of language-speech is not the abstract system of
linguistic forms, not the isolated monologic utterance, and not the

psychological act of its implementation, but the social event of verbal
interaction implemented in an utterance or utterances.
Thus, verbal interaction is the basic reality of language.
Dialogue, in the narrow sense of the word, is of course only one of the forms –
a very important form, to be sure – of verbal interaction. But dialogue can also
be understood in a broader sense, meaning not only direct, face-to-face,
vocalised verbal communication between persons, but also verbal
communication of any type whatsoever. A book, i.e. a verbal performance in
print, is also an element of verbal communication. … [it] inevitably orients
itself with respect to previous performances in the same sphere… Thus the
printed verbal performance engages, as it were, in ideological colloquy of a
large scale: it responds to something, affirms something, anticipates possible
responses and objections, seeks support, and so on.

[28]

P.R.R. White [29] also claimed that the resources included within
Engagement are all “dialogistic” in this sense - they are all means by which
speakers/writers represent themselves as engaging in a “dialogue” to the
extent that they present themselves as taking up, acknowledging, responding


11

to, challenging or rejecting actual or imagined prior utterances from other
speakers or as anticipating possible responses from other speakers/writers.
2.2.3 Epistemic modality and evidentiality
Hanns [10] claimed that there is a distinction between marking the
source of the information and the degree of commitment a speaker places in
his/her utterance (epistemic). Epistemic modality evaluates evidence and on

the basis of the evaluation assigns a confidence to measure to the speaker’s
utterance. An epistemic modal will be used to reflect the degree of
confidence. In his viewpoint, an evidential asserts that there is evidence for
speaker’s utterance but does not interpret the evidence any way.
Palmer [20], in his book on Mood and Modality (1986) viewed that
evidentiality is part of the epistemic modal system. According to him,
epistemic modality divides into two subcategories: judgement and evidence.
Opinions and conclusions involve judgement by the speaker but reports
indicate the kind of evidence. Both judgements and evidentials can be seen as
devices for the speakers to indicate that he wishes to modify his commitment
to the truth of his speech utterance. Let me take the following examples
(6) “I shall cause all my relatives and my acquaintances in Persia to know
of it, and I will take such an oath that they will certainly believe,” the
Prince answered.

[141]

(7) For a long moment Romano stared into the fire. “But one who had such
evidence - one who had, perhaps, assisted in the arrest of the guilty such a one would be forced to linger here?” “For a time. And he would
undoubtedly be commanded to return for the trial.”

[78]

The semantic process of restriction (or focus) involves the same items
which function as emphasizers, but now the adverbs draw attention to the


12

modal by actually focusing upon it. Restriction is not readily distinguishable

from emphasis for this reason. In the above examples the adverb has its focus
on the modal which it thus clearly highlights.
2.2.4. The semantic mechanism of the claim of truth with PMs
In the foregoing section I have presented the role and function of PMs
as epistemic markers as well as that of evidence as the semantic background
for the speaker’s assertion of a proposition in his/ her claim. The question
here is how the notion of epistemic modality acts as a basis for a claim of
truth about the state-of-affairs mentioned in the proclaim. For the analysis of
the semantic mechanism of the claim of truth with PMs I would like to start
with a view of modality as Epistemic Deixis with the convergence and
divergence of the expressed world and reference world. As Chung and
Timberlake [7, p.387] state, through modality, language can encode the
comparison between an expressed world described by a particular speaker
with a reference world as the world of present state of actualized events. By
this view, a modalized utterance is made about the possibility of a state-ofaffairs mentioned in the proposition with reference to the present state of the
actualized events and in this sense “the expressed world”, the state-of-affairs
in the asserted proposition, is the modal equivalent of the deictic located
point. The reference world, normally the actual world or speech, is the modal
counterpart of the spatial and temporal reference point, “the here-and-now.”
As Frawley [9, p.388] states, with the parameters remoteness and
direction, epistemic values can be established to mark the distance between
the actual world (the present) and the non-actual world where the latter is
away from or approaching to the former. As an epistemic version of deixis,
with the values for deictic points understood as the speaker’s belief, these


13

points can be interpreted as degrees of commitment and likelihood of the
actualization of a state-of-affairs.

Following Frawley, I assume that the coincidence or convergence of
the expressed world and the reference world results in the notion of actual
modality or realis, and the divergence of these two worlds yields the so-called
non-actual world or irrealis. Accordingly, the extent of the divergence of the
two worlds with various epistemic stances can be translated into different
degrees of epistemic values such as possibility, evidence, commitment, and so
on.
From these assumptions about the convergence of the expressed world
and the reference world along the two parameters remoteness and direction I
can say that a modalized utterance as proclaim conveys that the speaker/
writer views the state-of-affairs in proposition as the expressed world in the
complete convergence or full coincidence with the reference world.
Accordingly, what is presented in the proposition of the proclaim can be
judged as true basing on the evidence as part of the reality in the reference
world. The semantic mechanism for the assertion of truth of proposition can
be represented in figures 2.1. and 2.2. below
Expressed world
State-of-affairs

Reference world
Present state of actualized event

P

Reality

counterfactual ----- possibility ----- probability ------ certainty ------- fact
Irrealis modality
Figure 2.1.: Irrealis modality

14

Expressed world

Reference world

State-of-affairs

Present state of actualized event

P

Reality

(evidence) ----- (evidence) ----- (evidence) -----

Realis modality
Figure 2.2.: Realis modality

2.2.5. Speech acts
2.2.5.1. Yule’s theory
Since proclaim is considered as a kind of speech act that functions as to
fulfil the speaker’s communicative purpose, I would like to review some
aspects related to speech act theory so that I will have a clearer understanding
about the structure of proclaim as a speech act. Speech act theory has aroused
the widespread interest with an enormous literature on the subject. In this
chapter I cannot review all the works within linguistics but Yule’s theory
which my research will be based on.
Yule’s [25, p.47] claimed that “Actions performed via utterances are

generally called speech acts….” Normally, kinds of speech acts derive from
speaker’s communicative intention, such as apology, complaint, compliment,
invitation, promise, or request. Furthermore, he introduced three related acts
performed by producing an utterance:
a. locutionary act: produces a meaningful linguistic expression
b. illocutionary act: an utterance with some kind of function in speaker’s
mind.


15

The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an
utterance.
c. perlocutionary act: the utterance on the assumption that the hearer will
recognise the effect that the speaker intended.
However, briefly, the term “speech act” can be meant only the
illocutionary force of an utterance.
Yule [25, pp.53.54] classified speech acts according to general
functions:

declarations,

representatives,

expressives,

directives,

and

commissives. In the scope of this study I will deal with mainly proclaims in
the form of representatives or assertive and expressives, and these functions
of speech act will be treated as the ones with performative force rather than
constative utterances.
Hurford [14] gives a definition of proposition that I explicitly
mentioned declarative sentences, but propositions are clearly involved in the
meanings of other types of sentences, such as interrogatives and imperatives.
Normally, when a speaker utters a simple declarative sentence, he commits
himself to the truth of the corresponding proposition: i.e. he asserts the
proposition.
2.2.5.2. Performatives
a. Performatives and constatives
On making the overt distinction between performative and constative
sentences, Ross in [22, pp. 321-345] claimed that performative sentences are
those which not only can serve as linguistic communicative (i.e. convey
information), but can also constitute actions that are in a sense independent of


16

their communicative function; constative sentences are those which can be
viewed as simply communicating information, for example
(8) I admit I was hasty. (Performative utterance)

[13, p.236]

(9) I think I was wrong. (Constative utterance)

[13, p.236]

A major difference between such sentences is that whereas constative
sentences may be true or false, performative sentences “have, instead of truth
values, various conditions pertaining to appropriateness of use”.

[22, p.322]

b. Characteristics of performatives
According to Leech G.N. [17, pp.183-184] syntactically, a regular
illocutionary performative utterance has the following distinguished features:
(i) The verb of the main clause is an illocutionary verb.
(ii) This verb is in the simple present tense.
(iii) The subject of this verb is in the first person.
(iv) The indirect object of this verb, if one is present, is you.
(v) Optionally, this verb is preceded by the adverb hereby.
(vi) The verb is followed (except in elliptical cases) by a reported-speech
clause.
From what is presented in features (i) - (vi) it can be inferred that
illocutionary verbs are performative verbs, as Hurford & Heasley [13, p.237]
defined, “a Performative Verb is one which, when used in a simple positive
present tense sentence, with a 1st person singular subject, can make the
utterance of that sentence performative.”


17

2.2.6. Force dynamics
In Speech Act theory, the notion of force is regarded as a way of
indicating that different utterances have different properties. Meanwhile, in
linguistic theory, a richer notion of force, suggested by Leonard Talmy [27,
p.50] still exists, namely Force Dynamics. Talmy used Force to explain the

operators of possibility (modals: CAN, MAY, MUST, WOULD, COULD,
etc.) in natural language. In other words, semantically, he viewed root
modality which denotes real-world obligation, permission, or ability in terms
of force dynamics; that is, in terms of linguistic treatment of force and barriers
in general [23].
Sweetser E. [23, p.69] also considered the epistemic world as having a
force-dynamic structure parallel to that of the real world. Thus, the speech
act’s own internal force-dynamic structure is reflected in the use of modal
verbs.
2.2.7. Politeness principles
In the scope of the research associated with cooperative interaction, it is
crucial to touch upon cooperative and politeness principles which have
received much attention lately.
Leech [17] stated his principle of politeness as the following: once
other things being equal, minimise the expression of beliefs which are
unfavourable to the hearer and at the same time (but less important) maximise
the expression of belief or beliefs, which are favourable to the hearer. He also
proposed six Interpersonal Maxims, adapted as follows:
a. Tact Maxim:
Minimise hearers’ costs; maximise hearers’ benefit.


18

b. Generosity Maxim:
Minimise your own benefit; maximise hearers’ benefit.
c. Approbation Maxim:
Minimise hearers’ dispraise; maximise hearers’ praise.
d. Modesty Maxim:
Minimise self-praise; maximise self-dispraise.

e. Agreement Maxim:
Minimise disagreement between yourself and others;
maximise agreement between yourself and others.
f. Sympathy Maxim:
Minimise antipathy between yourself and others;
maximise sympathy between yourself and others.
2.3. SUMMARY
This section has presented a literature review of Proclaim. Its working
definition has been built under the Appraisal framework by P.R.R. White. The
related aspects considered as the preliminary information for the analysis of
proclaim in the next chapters are also discussed, including Hanns and
Palmer’s views of epistemic modality and evidentiality, Yule’s theory of
speech acts, Talmy’s notion of force dynamics and Leech’s politeness
principles. On the preliminary information about Proclaim, I will present my
method of study and result of study in the next chapters.


19

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN
This study is carried out through a descriptive and qualitative approach.
English is chosen as L2 and Vietnamese as L1.
3.1.1. Research methods
A contrastive analysis of proclaim markers in different kinds of English
and Vietnamese discourse will be conducted so as to draw out some
implications with particular reference to the teaching and learning of proclaim

markers. English is chosen as the target language (L2) and Vietnamese the
source one (L1).
3.1.2. Procedures
The following are detailed procedures to be taken:
1) Collecting data
The sampling is made with the searching for PMs of a wide range of
linguistic structures in various genres of discourse. These PMs can be found
in instances of utterances in the two languages. They are collected from
different sources such as novels, articles in newspapers, argumentative essays
and on the internet as well.
2) Setting up smaller corpora for PMs according to the style
This is done with the identification of the style of PMs not only in
spoken but also in written English and Vietnamese. For some PMs I will


20

decide whether they are more formally used in argumentative essays or
informally used in dialogues of every speech.
3) Classifying proclaim markers
This is done in terms of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features. In
reference to the linguistic structures of PMs, the semantic category they
belong to and the pragmatic functions they perform, I put them into
distinctive groups.
4) Describing and comparing proclaim markers in English with their
counterparts in Vietnamese.
This is executed with an interpretive contrastive analysis where I try to
identify the similarities and differences of PMs in the two languages. A
comparison is made after a description of PMs in each of the three linguistic
aspects.

5) Discussing the findings.
6) Suggesting some implications for English teaching and learning.
3.2. DATA COLLECTION
A corpus of 500 samples of English proclaim markers and 500 samples
of Vietnamese proclaim markers were set up for each language. The data
were mainly collected from conversations, interviews or essays reproduced in
novels, short stories, newspapers by native speakers/writers of English and
Vietnamese.
3.3. DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION AND SAMPLES
Samples of the study were lexical expressions including words, phrases
and clauses realised as proclaim markers grouped under the broad class of
adverbial disjuncts. They were collected from different types of discourse in


21

both English and Vietnamese, e.g. novels, short stories, articles, and
transcription of interviews, ; not only from paper books and newspapers but
also on the internet. Here are my initial word lists of adverbial disjuncts for
investigation.
Table 3.1. The PMs in English
VERBS

NOUNS

ADJECTIVES

ADVERBS

Acknowledge

As a matter of fact

Certain

Actually

Admit

Claim

Clear

Admittedly

Affirm

In fact

Sure

Certainly

Agree

No doubt

True

Clearly

Assert

No wonder

Naturally

Claim

Of course

Really

Concede

Fact

Surely

Confess

Truth

Undoubtedly

Contend

As for the Vietnamese list of lexical devices I include here a class of
lexical units functioning as adverbs in English. Ngu Thien Hung [3] proposed
that these are structures which exist as a perfect whole and can hardly be

divided apart into lexical and grammatical constituents. This kind of structure
is called epistemic markers. Generally, it is hard to recognise the head word in
this structure. He suggests that this structure functions like an adverb and can
be called quasi-adverbials. Hoàng Tuệ [2] called it adverbials or adverbial
equivalents (phó từ or trạng ngữ and ngữ tương đương với phó từ, trạng từ).
Another Vietnamese linguist, Diệp Quang Ban [1] put this lexical device into
“phụ ngữ câu”. For the facilitation of terminological terms, I would like to use


22

the technical term “adverb” here for the Vietnamese set phrases which share
nearly all the linguistic features of adverbs in English.
Table 3.2.: The PMs in Vietnamese
VERBS

NOUNS

ADJECTIVES

ADVERBS

Chắc chắn

Chắc chắn

Hiển nhiên

Dĩ nhiên

Công nhận

Thực tế

Tất nhiên

Đúng là

Rõ ràng

Đúng rồi/ vậy

Thừa nhận
Thú nhận

Hèn chi/ gì

Công nhận

Quả nhiên
Quả thật/ thực
Tất nhiên là
Thảo nào
Thật/Thực tình
Thật vậy
Quả là

3.4. DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analysed and interpreted contextually. Such pragmatic
factors as the relationships between speakers and hearers, social status and

principles of politeness were taken into consideration. The most relevant
interpretation of the proclaim markers present in the utterance were then reexamined in reference to the meaning of each component of these proclaim
markers. This is to consider whether there is a divergence between the
semantics and the pragmatics of proclaim markers in a particular context.


23

The analysis also looks into the contribution of each component into
the shaping of the semantics of a proclaim marker: which element is the core
of the meaning of a proclaim marker and which is the specifier or modifier?
The occurrence of instances of style and content disjuncts of different
kinds are counted to set up their frequency in discourse. With this result, the
difference in distribution of style and content disjuncts are established in
comparison between English style and content disjuncts and their Vietnamese
counterparts.
The results of the analysis are then presented in mainly qualitative
manner (in words and nominal scales). Frequency of style and content
disjuncts in discourse are tabulated.
3.5. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
As presented above, the data collection is mainly based on written and
spoken discourses by native speakers of English and Vietnamese, and the data
ensures to include variants in each language which align to objective findings.
However, due to the manual counting process and rather small corpus, the
reliability of the research is, to some extent, not as expected.


24

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the data analysis.
The result of the analysis is accounted on the syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic basis. The presentation of the linguistic features of PMs is made
both in English and Vietnamese.
4.1. SYNTACTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE
This section shows how PMs are formed and how they behave
syntactically in the clausal structure. First PMs are analysed in reference to
the compositional structure of themselves and how their actual positions in
the structure of clause reflect their syntactic roles in the utterance. The
syntactic analysis is closely associated to the identification of the location of
PMs in the structure of functional layers of an utterance.
PMs are distinguished in three positions for the declarative form of the
clause of a simple sentence as follows:
Initial position:

before the subject

Medial position:

immediately before auxiliary or after auxiliary verb

Final position:

after an intransitive verb, an object or a complement

4.1.1. Adverbial structures of PMs in English and Vietnamese

Adverbials in English and Vietnamese were found to be realised in a
wide range of syntactic forms: single adverbs, adverbial phrases, and
prepositional phrases which will be dealt with respectively.


25

PMs of this kind in English are actually, admittedly, certainly, clearly,
factually, naturally, predictably, really, surely, undeniably, undoubtedly, quite
certainly, quite naturally, etc.
Typically, their common positions are in the initial position of the
clausal structure, for example
(10) Certainly tears are given us to use. Like all good gifts, they should be
used properly.

[146]

(11) Surely man was not created to be an idle fellow; he was not set in this
universal orchard to stand still as a tree.

[84]

In Vietnamese: đúng là, đúng rồi, đúng thế, đúng vậy, hèn chi, hèn gì,
quả nhiên, tất nhiên là, quả thực là, rõ ràng, thảo nào, thật tình, thật vậy, can
be considered markers functioning as adverbials in English.
(13) Sinh, đúng là Sinh đang đứng bên cối nước, cái mũ nồi đen đen trên
đầu, đèn pin cắp trên nắp, lộ ra một khe sáng bé xíu.

[37, p.136]

(14) Vừa đặt chân đến làng Giữa hôm qua, nhưng cô bắt đầu cảm nhận
được nỗi vất vả của cuộc sống nơi đây. Thảo nào Khanh cứ bảo: “Em
về rồi khắc biết. Anh chẳng muốn giới thiệu trước đâu.”

[42, p.55]

(15) Rõ ràng tình yêu ấy không phải hướng về ông, mà hướng về chính gã
đệ tử “truyền nhân y bát” của ông.

[40, p.51]

4.1.2. Adjective structures of PMs in English and Vietnamese
In this study, proclaim markers are examined in the structure “verb +
adjective + complement”. The structure is usually used to convey the level of
personal certainty. With a first person pronoun subject it shows the
speaker/writer’s strong belief about the information. In English, they are I am
certain, I’m sure, it’s clear, or it’s natural.