tính tình thái trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt nghiên cứu từ góc độ tri nhận doctor thesis linguistics 62 22 15 01

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ THU THỦY

MODALITY
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:
A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
A Thesis Submitted in Full Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 62 22 15 01
Supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang
Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

Hanoi, 2015


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, certify my authority of the dissertation report submitted entitled
“Modality in English and Vietnamese: A Cognitive Perspective” in full fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without
due acknowledgements in the text of the dissertation.

Hanoi, 2015

Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Upon reaching this time, I have been fortunate to have benefited from encouragements
and financial supports by my colleagues and Bacninh Teacher Training College where I have
been working for nearly 20 years.
I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my research supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Vo Dai Quang and Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van, for their long lasting supervision, great
encouragements, invaluable guidance and endless support during my research. They give me
a lifetime unforgettable memory of their benevolence, patience, intelligence, diligence and
erudition.
My special thanks are expressed to professors and doctors at the University of Languages
and International Studies, Vietnam National University (VNU): Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa; Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien; Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang; Prof. Dr. Tran Huu Manh; Dr. Ha Cam Tam;
Dr. Nguyen Huy Ky; Assoc.Prof. Dr. Le Van Canh, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Van Phuoc, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Phan Van Que, Assoc. Prof. Dr. To Nu My Nhat, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Van Trao, Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Assoc.Prof. Dr. Hoang Tuyet Minh, Assoc.Prof. Dr. Ngo Huu
Hoang, Dr. Pham Thi Thanh Thuy, Dr. Huynh Anh Tuan, Dr. Do Thi Thanh Ha, Dr. Nguyen Duc
Hoat, Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa; Prof. Dr. Nguyen Duc Ton; Dr. Sao Chi, etc. for their long
lasting support, great encouragements and useful advice during the time the study was carried
out. I have also benefited from the assistance of other scholars. I would particularly like to
acknowledge the efficiency and expertise of Prof. Dr. Jack C Richards, Prof. Dr. Alexander
Arguelles, Dr. Melchor Tatlonghari during the time I started to conduct my thesis at SEAMEO
Regional Language Center, Singapore.

I also owe many thanks to my students, colleagues and friends who patiently listened to
my frustrations, and provided me with a lot of encouragements, understanding and
collegiality. Their valuable backing indicates the significance of my study. Finally, my

wholehearted appreciation goes to my husband, Mr Nguyen Van Ban, and my two children:
Nguyen Xuan Thang and Nguyen Bich Thuy, my parents, my brothers and sisters; for their
emotional and material sacrifices as well as their understanding and unconditional supports.
Their encouragements and financial aids make all my endeavours worth doing.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study is an attempt to describe, analyse, compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese root
and epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, more
specifically in terms of force dynamic framework. The study is both descriptive and
contrastive in nature. The main aim of the research is to find similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese root senses (including obligation, permission, ability and
volition) and epistemic senses (including necessity, probability and possibility) of modal
verbs from force dynamics.
The main data used in this study are taken from the two corpora: one in English with a total of
500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119
social science texts on the ground that (1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to find examples
of root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese to serve the purposes
of the study and (2) it is the social science field that the researcher often deals with. The texts are
research articles published in English and Vietnamese journals respectively in 7 disciplines:
education, psychology, social science, economy, linguistics, culture and law, from 2000 upwards.
The data collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed in order to find similarities
and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in
terms of force dynamics in case that English is considered as a source language and Vietnamese
as a comparative one. With the help of the corpus-based analysis - the TexSTAT-2 programme,
frequency occurrences and KWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of various modals are
discussed in order to show their relative importance in expressing root and epistemic senses in the
two languages in question. The findings of the study show that both English and Vietnamese

writers/ conceptualizers use the modality of obligation, permission, ability, volition, necessity,
probability, and possibility with different force structures and barriers to express their different
opinions or attitudes towards the propositions/ state of affairs or events. It can be inferred from
the results of the study that there exists one common core across English and Vietnamese modal
verbs, i.e., the force opposition between the Agonist and the Antagonist. The force can be the one
which impinges upon the participant or the state of affair or the event, making the situation
necessary (e.g. must in English and phải in Vietnamese). The force may be the one that prevents
the participant or the situation from taking place (e.g. can’t in English and không thể in
Vietnamese). There may be absence of force, or removal of restraint or no barrier so something is
possible (though not necessary) (e.g. can in English and có thể in Vietnamese). However, there
are a number of

iii


differences between the two languages under study when the conceptualizers/ writers express
their own embodied scientific experiences in communication by using various modals with
different levels of strength of cognitive, sociophysical and rational forces. One of the typical
differences is that in English, low strength forces of modals such as can, could, may, might,
predominate over median (will/ would/ should/ ought) and high strength (must/ have to/
need/ cannot), which indicates a tendency for modality to be used to mitigate than to
strengthen assertations in academic writing. In contrast, in Vietnamese, high strength modals
(phải, cần, không thể) predominate over median (nên, sẽ, muốn, định, toan) and low (có thể),
which can be inferred that the Vietnamese writers/ conceptualizers when writing their papers
in social science journals have a tendency of expressing strong obligation and necessity. The
overweight of high dynamic value in Vietnamese may be due to the fact that the three major
philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have exerted their influence
on the “subjective culture” of the Vietnamese. (cf. Bochner 1986 & Marr 1981, cited in Ellis
1994 & T.N.Thêm 1998: 25).
It is hoped that the findings from this study will make a contribution to further understanding

of root and epistemic modality in English compared to Vietnamese in terms of force
dynamics and their equivalence and non-equivalence in the expressions of obligation,
permission, ability, volition (in sociophysical interactions and relations), and the modality of
necessity, probability and possibility (in reasoning domain). Moreover, the findings of
similarities and differences between the two languages will be useful in language teaching
and learning and translation from English into Vietnamese and/or vice versa.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY………………………………………
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………...
TABLE OF CONTENT ……………………………………………………
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………...
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………
ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………...
1.1.

Rationale ……………………………………………………………….

1.2.

Scopes of the Study …………………………………………………….

1.3.

Aim and Objectives of the Study ………………………………….....

1.4.

Research Questions ……………………………………………………

1.5.

Methods of the Study …………………………………………………..

1.6.

Contribution of the Study ……………………………………………...

1.6.1. Theoretical Significance of the Study ……………………………….
1.6.2. Practical Significance of the Study ………………………………….
1.7.

Structure of the Dissertation ………………………………………….

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………….
Chapter I: Literature Review ……………………………………………..
1.1.

Introduction …………………………………………………………….

1.2.

Modality from the Traditional Point of View ………………………..

1.2.1. The Concept of Modality …………………………………………..
1.2.2. Types of Modality …………………………………………………….
1.2.2.1. Agent-oriented Modality vs. Speaker-oriented Modality …………...
1.2.2.2. Extrinsic Modality vs. Intrinsic Modality …………………………...
1.2.2.3. Deontic Modality, Dynamic Modality and Epistemic Modality ……
1.2.2.4. Root Modality vs. Epistemic Modality ……………………………...
1.3.

Modality in Scientific Writing …………………………………………

1.4.

Modality Viewed from Force Dynamics in Cognitive Perspective ….

1.4.1. Definitions of Terms …………………………………………………
1.4.1.1. Linguistic Universals ……………………………………………….
v
1.4.1.2. Cognitive Linguistics ……………………………………………….


1.4.1.3. Cognitive Semantics ………………………………………………..
1.4.1.4. Cognitive Grammar …………………………………………………
1.4.2. Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics ………………………….
1.4.2.1. Language is all about meaning ……………………………………..
1.4.2.2. Grammar and Meaning are indissociable …………………………..
1.4.2.3. Language, Cognition and Culture …………………………………..
1.4.3. Force Dynamics and Modality ………………………………………

25

1.4.3.1. The Notion of Force Dynamics ……………………………………...
1.4.3.2. Force-dynamic Parameters ………………………………………….
1.4.3.3. Features of Force ……………………………………………………
1.5. Root and Epistemic Modality in English ……………………………..

33

1.5.1. Modality and Modal Verbs ………………………………………….

33

1.5.2. Root Modality ………………………………………………………...
1.5.2.1. Obligation ……………………………………………………………
1.5.2.2. Permission …………………………………………………………..
1.5.2.3. Ability ………………………………………………………………
1.5.2.4. Volition ……………………………………………………………..
1.5.3. Epistemic Modality ………………………………………………….
1.5.3.1. Necessity …………………………………………………………….
1.5.3.2. Probability …………………………………………………………..
1.5.3.3. Possibility ……………………………………………………………
1.6. Root and Epistemic Modality in Vietnamese …………………………

45

1.6.1. Modality and Modal Verbs ………………………………………….
1.6.2. Root Modality ………………………………………………………..
1.6.2.1. Obligation ……………………………………………………………
1.6.2.2. Permission …………………………………………………………..
1.6.2.3. Ability ……………………………………………………………….
1.6.2.4. Volition ……………………………………………………………..

1.6.3. Epistemic Modality ………………………………………………….
1.6.3.1. Necessity ……………………………………………………………
1.6.3.2. Probability …………………………………………………………..
1.6.3.3. Possibility ……………………………………………………………

1.7.

vi
Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………..

Chapter II: Research Methodology ………………………………………..


2.1.

Introduction ……………………………………………………………

2.2.

Research Questions …………………………………………………….

2.3. Methods of the study …………………………………………………..
2.4.

Data collection …………………………………………………………

2.5.

Corpus - aided analysis ………………………………………………..

2.6.

Cognitive Framework …………………………………………………

2.7.

Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………..

Chapter III: Root Modality in English and Vietnamese …………………
3.1.

Introduction …………………………………………………………….

3.2.

General Findings ………………………………………………………

3.3.

Obligation in English and Vietnamese ……………………………….

3.3.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..
3.3.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….
3.4.

Permission in English and Vietnamese ……………………………….

3.4.1. Form ………………………………………………………………….
3.4.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….
3.5.

Ability in English and Vietnamese ……………………………………

3.5.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..
3.5.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….
3.6.

Volition in English and Vietnamese ………………………………….

3.6.1. Form …………………………………………………………………...
3.6.2. Meaning ………………………………………………………………
3.7.

Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………….

Chapter IV: Epistemic Modality in English and Vietnamese ……………
4.1.

Introduction ……………………………………………………………

4.2.

General Findings ……………………………………………………….

4.3.

Necessity in English and Vietnamese …………………………………

4.3.1. Form ………………………………………………………………….
4.3.2. Meaning ………………………………………………………………

4.4.

Probability in English and Vietnamese ………………………………

4.4.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..
vii
4.4.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….
4.5.

Possibility in English and Vietnamese ………………………………..

4.5.1. Form …………………………………………………………………..


4.5.2. Meaning ……………………………………………………………….
4.6.

English and Vietnamese Modal Verbs in Different Disciplines ……..

4.7.

Concluding Remarks……………………………………………… 139

PART THREE: CONCLUSION ………………………………………….
1. Recapitulation …………………………………………………………… 143
2. Implication ……………………………………………………………….. 148

2.1. For English Language Learning and Teaching …………………………. 148
2.2. For Language Research …………………………………………………. 149
3. Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………... 150

4. Suggestions for Further Study …………………………………………. 150

Articles related to the study ……………………………………………… I
References ………………………………………………………………….. II
Appendix A: Titles of English Texts in the English Corpus …………….. XVII
Appendix B: Titles of Vietnamese Texts in the Vietnamese Corpus …… XXV
Appendix C: String Matching of Modal Verbs in E and VNese Corpora XXXIII
Appendix D: Tables ………………………………………………………. LXV

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Data in English and Vietnamese Corpora
Table 2.2 Distribution of Root and Epistemic Modality in the two Corpora


Table 2.3 Categories of Low-Median-High FD in English and Vietnamese
Table 2.4 Categories of Root Senses in English and Vietnamese
Table 2.5 Categories of Epistemic Senses in English and Vietnamese
Table 3.1 Distribution of 4 Root Senses in the E and Vietnamese Corpora
Table 3.2 Distribution of Low-Median-High FD in the E & VN Corpora
Table 3.3 Distribution of E and VNese Modals in Root & Epistemic Senses
Table 3.4 Distribution of E & VNese Modal Verbs in the Two Corpora
Table 3.5. Distribution of Co-occurrence of Modal Verbs in the Vietnamese Corpus
Table 3.6. Distribution of Obligation Realized by Modal Verbs in the E & VNese Corpora
Table 3.7 Distribution of Permission realized by Modal verbs in E&VNese Corpora
Table 3.8 Distribution of Ability realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora
Table 3.9 Distribution of Volition realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora

Table 4.1 Distribution of 3 Epistemic Senses in the E & VNese Corpora
Table 4.2 Distribution of Necessity realized by E &VNese Modal verbs

Table 4.3 Distribution of Probability Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs
Table 4.4 Distribution of Possibility Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs
Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in 7 Disciplines
Table 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in 7 different disciplines

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Cultural thought patterns (Kaplan, 1966: 15)
Figure 1.2. Force Dynamic Entities (Talmy, 2000a: 414)
Figure 1.3. The basic steady-state force-dynamic patterns (Talmy 2000a: 415)
Figure 1.4. Compulsion (Johnson, 1987: 45)


Figure 1.5. Blockage (Johnson, 1987: 46)
Figure 1.6. Counterforce (Johnson, 1987: 46)
Figure 1.7. Removal of Restraint (Johnson, 1987: 47)
Figure 1.8. Enablement (Johnson, 1987: 47)
Figure 1.9. Langacker’s basic epistemic model (1991a: 242)
Figure 1.10. Langacker’s (1991a: 277) Dynamic Evolutionary Model
Figure 2.1. String Matching of Must in the English corpus
Figure 2.1. String Matching of Phải in the English corpus
Figure 3.1. “Narrow scope” deontic should/ ought (Pelyvás 2006: 144)
Figure 3.2. (Agonist) need not VP (Talmy 2000a: 454)
Figure 3.3. Deontic must (Pelevás 2008)
Figure 3.4. 1 (Agonist) must not VP (Talmy 2000a: 454)
Figure 3.5. 1 (Ago) has to VP (Talmy 2000a: 447)
Figure 3.6. Nên for obligation
Figure 3.7. CN + không cần + V
Figure 3.8. Deontic phải for strong obligation
Figure 3.9. 1 (Ago) can’t VP (Talmy 2000a: 456)

Figure 3.10. Deontic may (Pelyvás 2006: 140)
Figure 3.11. 1 (Ago) may not VP (Talmy 2000a: 447)
Figure 3.12. Có thể for permission
Figure 3.13. Blockage không thể
Figure 3.14. 1 (Agonist) can VP (Talmy 2000a: 445)
Figure 3.15. May- ability (Pelyvás 2006: 140)
Figure 3.16. Có thể for ability
Figure 3.17. WILL – ‘Wish’, ‘CHOOSE’ (‘Narrow scope’) (Pelyvás 2008)
Figure 4.1. Epistemic must (Pelyvás 2008)
Figure 4.2. Epistemic phải
Figure 4.3. ‘Wide scope’ deontic should/ought (Pelyvás 2006: 145)
Figure 4.4. Epistemic will (Pelyvás 2008)
Figure 4.5..Epistemic nên
Figure 4.6. Epistemic sẽ
Figure 4.7. Epistemic may (Pelyvás, 2006: 147)
Figure 4.8. Có thể for possibility

x


ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations are used chiefly in glossed language data examples:

Adv: Adverb

Adj: Adjective

CA: Contrastive analysis

CG: Cognitive grammar

CL: Cognitive linguistics

CN: Chủ ngữ

CS: Cognitive Semantics

Eng: English

FD: Force Dynamics

Fig: Figure

Mil: million

Lm: landmark

L1: First language

L2: Second language

No: Number

Occ: occurrences

OS: Objective Scene

KWIC: Key Word In Context

S: Subject

SoA: State of Affair

Txt: Text

Tr: trajector

VP: Verb Phrase

VNese: Vietnamese
Abbreviations in the two corpora

EEco: English economics

VEco: Vietnamese economics

ECult: English culture

VCult: Vietnamese culture

EEdu: English education

VEdu: Vietnamese education

ELaw: English law

VLaw: Vietnamese law

ELing: English linguistics

VLing: Vietnamese linguistics

EPsyc: English psychology

VPsyc: Vietnamese psychology

ESoci: English social science

VSci: Vietnamese social science

xi


PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Modality as expressed by modal verbs is an interesting, but complicated linguistic phenomenon
in both English and Vietnamese. Up to now, modality in the English language has been studied by
a number of researchers such as Langacker (1987, 1991ab, 2003, 2008, 2013),Talmy (1985,
1988, 2000a), Taylor (2002), Sweetser (1987, 1990), Johnson (1987), Coates (1983, 1995),
Mulder (2007), Pelyvás (1996, 2000, 2006, 2008), Mortelmans (2006, 2007), Halliday (1994),
Declerck (2011), Linden (2012) and some others. Modality in the Vietnamese language has been
investigated by a number of Vietnamese researchers such as C.X. Hạo (2004), N.T. Hùng (1994),
Đ.H. Châu (1996), V.Đ. Quang (2008), N.T. Thìn (2003), N.M. Thuyết & N.V. Hiệp (2004), D.Q.
Ban & H. Dân (2000), N.T. Thuận (2003), P.T.T. Thùy (2008), N.T. Hùng (2002, 2003), N.V.
Hiệp (2007, 2009), B.M. Tóan & N.T. Lương (2010), D.Q. Ban & H.V. Thung (2012), B.T.
Ngoãn (2004), B.T. Đào (2014), etc. However, there has been almost no research on discussing
and analyzing root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from
Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of force dynamics. Therefore, this study is an
attempt to describe, analyze, compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese root modality (including
obligation, permission, ability and volition) and epistemic modality (including necessity,

probability and possibility) as realised by modal verbs from force dynamics (i.e., with regard to
linguistic treatment of forces and barriers). The study mainly follows the narrow definition of
modality defined by Lock (1996: 193), i.e. “A narrow definition of modality encompasses only
modal auxiliaries and their uses …”. Modals in this study mainly refer to Langacker’s study
(2003: 3), i.e., modals “are grammaticalized grounding elements, in which the ground - the
speech event and its participants - are ‘offstage’ and subjectively construed’ and have ‘two
crucial properties: (1) they are force- dynamic and
(2) the event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’ (Langacker

1999: 308).
The study is primarily an empirical investigation of modality phenomenon (modal verbs) based
on two corpora: one in English with a total of 500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the
other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119 social science texts on the ground that
(1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to find examples of root and epistemic senses of

modal verbs in English and Vietnamese to serve the purposes of the study and (2) it is the
social science field that the researcher often interacts with. The data collected are then

-1-


quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed so as to find similarities and differences between
English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics
in case that English is considered as a source language and Vietnamese as a comparative one.
The findings of the study are mainly discussed in terms of force dynamics proposed by some
reputed researchers such as Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003); Langacker (1991ab); Johnson
(1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002) and Pelyvás (2006).
In fact, the study intends to find the equivalence and non-equivalence between English and
Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs from the two main dimensions of
experience: (1) sociophysical area which consists of physical interactions as well as social

relations, practices, and institutions and (2) the epistemic senses of argument, theorizing, and
other activities of reasoning (cf. Johnson 1987 & Sweetser 1990) so that it will help improve
the teaching and learning English in the Vietnamese context.
1.2. Scopes of the Study
This study is to compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses as
realized by modal verbs from cognitive analysis frameworks with a view to helping
Vietnamese learners of English to overcome the difficulties if any, related to this language
phenomenon, in their process of language learning and acquisition.
In order to make the task manageable in keeping up with the aim of the study, delimitation is
necessary. The study focuses mostly on a representative sample of modal verbs in English and
Vietnamese. The basic claim here is that these verbs can express both root modality and
epistemic modality which are considered as two main types of modality. The study mainly
follows Lock’s (1996) definition of modality, which is claimed that modality is mainly realised
by modal verbs and their uses. Some researchers such as Hermeren (1978) points out that only
articles, certain prepositions, conjunctions and pronouns rank higher than the modals in the
frequency table compiled from the million-word Brown University corpus. Moreover, works
done by Leech, Rayson & Wilson (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), and N.T.T. Thủy (2012) show that
the main means of expressing modality in English is the set of modal auxiliary verbs. Recently,
much of the research on modality within a cognitive perspective has indeed focused on modals,
more specifically, on the English modals, for instance: Langacker (1991a), Talmy (1988, 2000a,
2003); Johnson (1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002); Pelyvás (2003, 2006), Mortelmans
(2007), Tyler (2008) and Mulder (2007); and this language bias has undoubtedly shaped the
typical intepretation of modality. Therefore, the main focus in this study lies on

-2-


describing and analysing root and epistemic modality as realized by the core English modal
verbs such as can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should; and semi-modals such
as ought to, have to and need with examples mainly taken from the 500 000-word corpus

including 91 English social science texts. Have to is included in this set on the ground that
(1) it is ‘not true modal but no discussion of must or of the modals of obligation and
necessity would be complete without reference to it.’ (Coates, 1983: 52) and (2) it is the most
common form in both American English and British English according to Mairs’ (2006)
investigation into modal frequency. Though dare and had better are semi-modals, they are
excluded from this list since dare is ‘rare and apparently on the decline’ (Coates, 1983: 5)
and had better is ‘actually declining’ (Leech 2003: 229). Note that in the English corpus of
this study, there is no occurrence of dare and had better. Thus, dare and had better are
intentionally ignored in this study, but need to is discussed in Chapter III & IV, because the
analysis of the modals of obligation and necessity is not adequate without it and the use of
need to is increasing especially in American English (cf. Mairs 2006). Also, the usages of
will, would and shall that express pure tense or mood will be disregarded in this study. Ought
to is sometimes considered as a maginal case, but apart from the to-infinitive, it presents no
problem with the formal charateristics of a modal auxiliary verb.
With respect to Vietnamese, studies conducted by some researchers such as C.X.Hạo (1997,
2004), N.V.Hiệp (2007, 2009); D.Q.Ban & H.Dân (2000), D.Q.Ban & H.V.Thung (2012),
N.T.Thìn (2003), Đ.H.Châu (1996), Đ.H.Châu & B.M. Toán (2001), V.Đ.Quang (2008),
N.T.Thuận (2003), N.T.Hùng (1994), N.T.Hùng (2002, 2003), V.Đ.Nghiệu (1998), B.T.Ngoãn
(2002, 2003), H.V.Thông (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), N.T.T.Thuỷ (2011, 2012), B.T.Đào (2014)
show that modality in Vietnamese language can be expressed by different linguistic expressions,
such as modal verbs (nên, cần, phải, có thể, sẽ, etc.); epistemic lexical verbs (tin, đoán, nghĩ, đồ,
etc.); modal adjectives (chắc, đúng, etc.); modal adverbs or modal set expressions (có lẽ, dường
như, có khi, biết đâu, etc.); modal nouns (khả năng, tin đồn, etc.); and modal particles (như, nhỉ,
đấy, chứ, à, á, ạ, etc.). It is almost impossible to discuss all these types of Vietnamese modal
expressions within the scope of this study. Moreover, P.T.T.Thùy’s PhD dissertation (2008), and
N.T.T.Thuỷ’s survey (2012) show that Vietnamese modal verbs are considered as the most
frequent modal expressions in academic writing. Therefore, the study is limited to discuss and
analyse root and epistemic modality as realized by Vietnamese modal verbs such as nên, cần,
phải, có thể, sẽ, định, muốn, toan, dám, with examples mainly taken from the 500, 000-word
corpus of 119 Vietnamese social science texts.

-3-


The main claim here is that (1) these Vietnamese modals seem to be equivalent of the above
English modals; (2) by referring to other scholars’ research such as N.K.Thản (1999: 174178); D.Q.Ban & H.Dân (2000: 57-58), D.Q.Ban & H.V.Thung (2012: 104-105), N.T.Thuận
(2003: 30-31), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), V.Đ.Quang (2008), B.T.Ngoãn (2002, 2003), B.T. Đào
(2014) the researcher can identify and categorize root and epistemic senses of modal verbs;
and (3) the reseacher has to synthesize and analyze different meanings of modal verbs.
In this study, the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is considered as a theoretical framework since the
CL account “differs radically from traditional perspective by emphasizing that language is a
reflection of general cognitive processes, not a separated/ isolated system with its own systems of
rules” (Tyler, 2008: 459-60). In comparison with formal approaches, CL “stands out by resisting
the imposition of boundaries between language and other psychological phenomena.
… Rather than a distinct, self-contained entity (separate “module” or “mental faculty”),

language is viewed as an integral facet of cognition” (Langacker, 2013: 7-8). Cognitive
Linguistics is “an approach to language that is based on experience of the world and the way
we perceive and conceptualize it.” (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996: xxi). The foundational point of
CL ‘is simply that language is all about meaning.’ (Depraetere & Reed, 2006: 3)
Some Cognitive researchers such as Mortelmans (2007: 881) argue that ‘the cognitive linguistic
concepts of force dynamics, …. have proved to be highly powerful tools to discover

common cores in a wide variety of modal expression types’. Therefore, the researcher based
on the notions of force dynamics (opposition) proposed by Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003);
Langacker (1991ab, 2003, 2008, 2013); Sweetzer (1990); Johnson (1987); Taylor (2002);
Pelyvás (1996, 2003, 2006, 2008) to discuss and analyse the root and epistemic senses of
English and Vietnamese modal verbs.
The data submitted to the English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality are mostly
taken from the two corpora: one in English and the other in Vietnamese. With the help of the

corpus-based analysis - the TexSTAT-2 programme, the study seeks to find the frequency and
KWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of English and Vietnamese modal auxiliary
verbs. Moreover, string matching of each modal verb in English and Vietnamese social
science texts is illustrated in Appendix C, pp. XXXIII - LXIV of the study.
The main emphasis of the study is to explore the equivalence and non-equivalence of root and
epistemic senses of modal verbs between English and Vietnamese languages in terms of force
dynamic analyses. However, it cannot be said that all English and Vietnamese social science

-4-


texts share such similarities and differences in every context. And finally, the study puts
emphasis on some major findings, their implications and gives some suggestions for
avoidance and for further research.
To a large extent, the study does not mention the following issues: (1) The mood system,
which deals with the syntactic structure of the sentence and not necessarily with what the
speaker is doing and which consists of indicatives, imperatives and subjunctives; (2) Other
types of modal expressions such as modal adjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modal
adverbs, modal particles; and (3) The intonation or prosodic features as the focus of the study
is on written texts. However, they will be dealt with or touched if necessary.
1.3. Aim and Objectives of the Study
The ultimate aim of the study to show how force dynamics framework is used as a powerful
tool to describe, analyze and compare/contrast modality in English and Vietnamese in order
to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modality as realized
by modal verbs so that it can help improve improve teaching and learning English in
Vietnamese context.
Therefore, the objectives of the study are:
- to identify and describe root and epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs in

English and Vietnamese from the Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of

force dynamics;
- to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and

epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs from force dynamics frameworks.
1.4. Research Questions
In order to achieve the above aim and objectives, the study seeks to answer the following
research questions:
1. How are root and epistemic senses of modality as realized by modal verbs in English

and Vietnamese in terms of force dynamics?
2. What are the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and

epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from force dynamics perspective with
reference to the frequency occurrences of modal verbs?

-5-


1.5. Methods of the Study
The study is aiming at comparing/ contrasting English and Vietnamese root and epistemic
senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics. Therefore, the principal method applied
for the study is the contrastive analysis (CA), which is defined by Richards et al. (1992: 83)
as ‘the comparison of the linguistic system of two languages’. During the comparison and
contrast, English is considered as the source language and Vietnamese as a language of
reference. Therefore, in this study, it is assumed that the notions of force dynamics are first
used to describe and analyse root and epistemic modality realized by English modals and
then they will be adapted to deal with those of the Vietnamese language.
The study was also conducted with the help of corpus-aided analysis of English and
Vietnamese social science texts in order to find out the frequency and KWIC (key word in
context) concordance of a certain modal verb. The analysis of the study is undertaken by

blending the quantitative research approach with the more qualitative research approach. The
quantitative approach gives a statistical overview of large amounts of the texts in question more precisely, large numbers of tokens of the English and Vietnamese modal verbs in the
authentic social science texts in the two corpora (a 500 000 - word corpus in English and a
500000 - word corpus in Vietnamese), whereas the qualitative one refers to the close,
detailed examination of particular stretches of the modal verbs in terms of forces and
barriers. It may be possible to better understand the processes at play in the texts and to gain
access to non-obvious meanings of the key words.
The study is an attempt to contribute to the application of the Cognitive linguistics as a
theoretical background to compare/ contrast the two languages: English and Vietnamese in
terms of modality expressed in authentic social science texts on the ground that: (1)
Language is claimed to be best studied and described with reference to its cognitive,
experiential and social contexts. (Kemmer, 2000); (2) Cognitive linguistics ‘highlights
recurrent, meaningful linguistic patterns and organising principles found at all “levels” of
language’ (Tyler 2008: 461); and (3) Language has ‘two basic and closedly related functions:
a semiological function, allowing thoughts to be symbolized by means of sounds, gestures, or
writing as well as interactive function …” (Langacker, 1998: 1).
With respect to corpus-based research in this study, it is argued by some researchers such as
Gonzales-Marquez et al. (2007: 149) that “Cognitive linguistics considers itself to be a nonobjectivist theory of language, whereas the use of corpus materials involves an attempt to

-6-


maximalize the objective basis of linguistic descriptions”. According to them, there are two
compelling reasons for Cognitive linguistics to embrace corpus research: (1) The growing
tendency in Cognitive linguistics is assumed to stress its essential nature as a usage-based
linguistics. We cannot have usage-based linguistics unless we study actual usage – as it appears in
corpora in the form of spontaneous, non-elicited language data, and (2) the very emphasis that
Cognitive linguistics places on the fact that our knowledge of the world is an active construal
rather than a passive reflection of an objectively given world, favours an interest in differences of
construal between cultures, social groups, or even individuals. (ibid.)

Contextual analysis of authentic social science texts was also done in order to identify the
purposes and meanings of modal verbs in a particular case. Since the two said corpora are not
so large, a close reading of the whole texts could be undertaken. This is useful because it
allows a more detailed look at the authentic materials, taking into considerations single
words as well as strings of words and their collocations. The purpose of this level of analysis
is to take into account root and epistemic senses realized by different modal verbs used in
different contexts.
Moreover, it is necessary for the researcher to consult supervisors, other researchers and
colleagues with a view to accomplishing and improving the quality of the study. It is also
important to state that the above methods are not conducted isolatedly but interactively and
cooperatively.
As stated above, the study does not concern the following issues: the mood system; modal
adjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modal adverbs, modal particles; the intonation or
other prosodic features. However, they will be dealt with or touched when necessary.
1.6. Contribution of the Study
1.6.1. Theoretical Significance of the Study
The study hopes to make a contribution to
The development of the Cognitive perspective to describe and analyze an interesting, but
complicated language phenomenon, i.e. modality in general, and modal verbs in particular, in
two languages: English and Vietnamese;
The development of the corpus-aided approach to find out the frequency and collocations
of modal verbs appearingin English and Vietnamese social science texts;
The development of the contrastive and comparative analysis of English and Vietnamese
modality from Cognitive perspective, more specifically, in term of force dynamics.

-7-


1.6.2. Practical Significance of the Study

The study wishes:
to provide a systematic description and analysis of modals in English and Vietnamese in
terms of force dynamics;
to assist writers who are not native speakers but who are seeking to publish their research
papers in English journals;
to discover what lies behind the differences in modality between English and Vietnamese
in order to raise awareness as well as interest in learning and teaching foreign languages in a
way that one should take the social and cultural differences between one’s mother tongue and
his/ her target language into consideration.
1.7. Structure of the Dissertation: Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the study
consists of 4 chapters:
Chapter I first presents a brief discussion of the concept of modality from traditional point of
view. Then it investigates the two main types of modality: root and epistemic modality. Next,
an overview of Cognitive linguistics is presented, which serves as a theoretical background.
And lastly, it provides force dynamic frameworks of modal verbs.
Chapter II starts with restating the research questions. Then, it describes the principal method
of the study, the data collection, the corpus-aided analysis and the Cognitive analysis
framework.
Chapter III concentrates on the contrastive/ comparative analysis of root senses of modal
verbs in English and Vietnamese. It intends to find the similarities and differences between
English and Vietnamese modality in the expression of obligation, permission, ability and
volition in terms of force dynamics with reference to frequency occurrences of English and
Vietnamese modal verbs, respectively.
Chapter IV focuses on finding the similarities and differences between English and
Vietnamese epistemic modality (with regard to necessity, probability and possibility) realised
by modal verbs in terms force dynamics with reference to frequency of English and
Vietnamese modal verbs. In chapter three & four, the analysis of root and epistemic senses of
modals will be done together with the corpus-based analysis of English modals in the English
corpus and Vietnamese modals in the Vietnamese corpus. String matching of each modal
verb in the English and Vietnamese corpus will be illustrated in accordance with KWIC (Key

Words In Context) concordance.

-8-


PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter I: Literature Review
1.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to discuss the wide-ranging literature on modality, and distills the notions
and categories that are useful to the present study of constrasting/ comparing root and
epistemic modality realised by modal verbs found in English and Vietnamese social science
articles in terms of force dynamics from Cognitive perspective. The literature on modality
has typically concentrated on the category of modal verbs, with the English modal auxiliaries
as the prototypical cases (or as the source) and the Vietnamese modal verbs as the
comparative ones. This bias can be found both in language-specific accounts (e.g. Palmer
1990, Coates 1983, Sweetser 1990, Johnson 1987, Taylor 2002, Talmy 2000a, Langacker
1991b, 1999, Huddleston 1984, Downing & Locke 1992) and in cross-linguistic studies (e.g.
Palmer 1986, Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994), although lately some linguists have taken a
broader perspective, like Nuyts (2001) on epistemic modality, and Linden (2012) on modal
adjectives. This chapter begins with describing and analysing the concept of modality, types
and meanings of modality from traditional point of view. It is due to the fact that the
semantic category of modality is not as easily defined as tense or aspect (Bybee, Perkins &
Pagluica 1994: 176) and “modality and its types can be defined and named in various ways,”
and that “there is no one correct way” (Van der Auvera and Plungian, 1998, cited in
Mortemans, 2007: 869). Then it will present an overview of the Cognitive perspective. And
lastly, it provides force dynamic frameworks of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in
English and Vietnamese.
1.2. Modality from the Traditional Point of View
1.2.1. The Concept of Modality
Traditionally, the concept of modality and the modal concepts of possibility, probability and

necessity, according to Hoye (1997), go back to Aristotle and classical Greek philosophy.
These notions seem to derive from the fact that human beings often categorize their attitudes
and experiences in terms of the ways things might or must be or might have been, other than
they actually are or were. Therefore, this part gives a summary of some authors’ point of
views of modality such as Jesperson (1949), von Wright (1951), Rescher (1968), Bybee
(1985), McCarthy (1994), Lyons (1977) and Palmer (1986).

-9-


According to Jesperson (1949, cited in N. Hòa, 2004: 175), modality is defined as ‘an
interesting issue, which can be divided into two kinds: the first contains an element of will,
which corresponds to deontic modality and the second contains no element of will, i.e.
epistemic modality’. Although Jesperson’s proposals of two types are of great importance,
they contain little theoretical significance. They are purely notional, and both of his choice of
the sub-categories and his criteria for them may be seriously questioned (cf. Palmer, 1986).
Von Wright (1951, cited in Palmer, 1986) in a pioneering work on modal logic classifies four
different ‘modes’: (1) the alethic mode or modes of truth; (2) the epistemic modes or modes
of knowing; (3) the deontic modes or modes of obligation and (4) the existential modes or
modes of existence. The most important distinction here is that between epistemic and
deontic modality, which correspond, very roughly, to Jesperson’s two types.
Within a logical framework, Rescher (1968) proposes a more extended modality system which
consists of not only ‘elethic’ modalities relating to the notion of truth value, ‘epistemic’
modalities relating to knowledge and belief, ‘deontic’ modalities relating to duties, but also
‘temporal’ modalities, ‘boulomaic’ modalities, ‘evaluative’ modalities, ‘likelihood’ modalities and
‘causal’ modalities. He further argues for three types of ‘conditional’ modality. According to
Rescher (1968: 24-6), ‘A proposition is presented by a complete, self-contained statement which
taken as a whole, will be true or false’. He then continues, “When such a proposition is itself
made subject to some further qualification of such a kind that the entire resulting complex is itself
once again a proposition, then this qualification is said to represent a modality to which the

original proposition is subjected.” Palmer (1986) argues that Rescher’s definition of modality
would raise serious theoretical problems and would be too wide.
Perkins (1980) establishes his classification of the types of modality by reference to Rescher’s
conceptual domain of modality. He reduces Rescher’s eight categories to four: epistemic
modality which is defined in terms of rational laws; deontic modality which is defined in terms of
social laws; dynamic modality defined in terms of natural laws and temporal modality.
Searle’s (1979) approach to modality is different from the above discussions. He concerns the
issues of modality in terms of speech act theory. According to him, there are five categories of
illocutionary acts: (1) assertives: where we tell our hearers how things are; (2) directives: where
we get them to do things; (3) commisives: where we commit ourselves to doing things;
(4) declaration: where we bring about changes in the world with our utterances; and (5)

expressives: where we express our feelings and attitudes. While assertives are described in

-10-


terms of the speaker’s belief or commitment to the truth of a proposition, directives and
commissives correspond very largely to deontic modality. Commissives are speaker-oriented
whereas directives are hearer-oriented. Declaratives come close to assertives and therefore
they are connected to epistemic modality. Expressives may belong to epistemic modality.
Modality, in Bybee’s point of view (1985), in a broad sense is what the speaker is doing with
the whole proposition whereas modality in Pamper’s (1986) view point is defined as
semantic information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what s/he says.
(Cited in N. Hòa, 2004).
McCarthy (1994: 94) defines “modality as a kind of thought often consisting of the closed
class of modal verbs (must, can, will, may, etc.) and being treated as part of grammar of
English, but a large number of lexical words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs) carry the
same or similar meanings to the modal verbs”.
Lyons (1977) recognizes two kinds of modality using von Wright’s terms: Epistemic

modality and deontic modality. While the term ‘epistemic’ coming from a Greek word
meaning “knowledge” is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief or opinion rather than
fact, the term ‘deontic’ coming from a Greek word relating to the imposition of obligations is
concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents.
Modality is claimed to express subjectivity of the speaker (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986).
However, Palmer (1986) argues that it is not possible to decide whether modals are
subjective or not, as in ‘You must leave at once’. This sentence can indicate that it is the
speaker’s insistence or general (objective) necessity for leaving, or it is indeterminate
between the two readings. It is in principle not possible to justify the one interpretation rather
than the other. Therefore, it needs a specific context to clarify its meaning. ‘You must leave at
once’ could be construed in an alternative analysis, i.e., in terms of force dynamics from
Cognitive perspective.
The definition of modality applied in this study is used most widely, agreeing with the view of
Lyons (1977: 452), i.e. modality is defined as “the speaker’s opinion or attitude toward the
proposition that sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.’ Moreover, the
study mainly follows the narrow definition of modality defined by Lock (1996: 193), i.e. “A
narrow definition of modality encompasses only modal auxiliaries and their uses...” For the
purpose of the study, modality will be considered as a semantic system expressed by the modal
verbs which enable a speaker/ conceptualizer to signal and express his/ her own point of

-11-


view, his/ her opinion or his/ her commitment to the truth of the proposition/ state of affair or
the event.
When modality is treated as a purely logical notion, it concerns logical possibility and
necessity. In these logical discussions, one finds inquiries into the nature of terms such as
“possible” and “necessity” in statements of the following sort: “It is necessary that p = it is
impossible that not - p = it is not possible that not - p,” and, “It is necessary that not - p = it is
impossible that p = it is not possible that p” (Johnson, 1987: 48-49).

In contrast with this logical analysis of modality, there are “other senses of modal verbs that
are intimately related to our everyday experience, insofar as they represent our pervasive
experience of things, events and relations as being actual, possible or necessary”. (Johnson
1987: 49). Together with Johnson (1987), some cognitive linguists such as Talmy (1988,
2000a & b), Sweetser (1990), Taylor (2002), Langacker (1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1999, 2003)
developed an alternative analysis of semantics of modals based on force dynamic
frameworks. Therefore, modals in this study “are grammaticized grounding elements, in
which the ground - the speech event and its participants - are ‘offstage’ and subjectively
construed’ (Langacker 2003: 3), and have ‘two crucial properties: (1) they are forcedynamic and (2) the event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’
(Langacker 1999: 308). The force dynamics are ‘inherent in the conceptualizer’s mental
activity, hence subjectively construed in the strong sense.’ (ibid.)
In what follows, the researcher will demonstrate the description and analysis of English and
Vietnamese modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, more
specifically in terms of force dynamics.
1.2.2. Types of Modality
In this section, some main types of modality such as epistemic modality vs. deontic modality;
root modality vs. epistemic modality; agent-oriented modality vs. speaker-oriented modality;
extrinsic modality vs. intrinsic modality will be discussed with reference to some researchers
including Bybee & Fleischman (1995), N.V. Hiệp (2009), Palmer (1986, 1990), Nuyts (2001,
2006), Coates (1983), Bybee et al. (1994), Biber et al. (1999), Perkins (1980, 1983),
Huddleston (1980), Linden (2012), Declerck (2011), Johnson (1987), Talmy (1988, 2000ab),
Sweetser (1990), Taylor (2002), and Langacker (1990, 1991ab, 1999, 2003).

-12-


1.2.2.1. Agent-oriented Modality vs. Speaker-oriented Modality
Agent-oriented modality applies to ‘all modalities in which conditions are predicated on an agent
(obligation, desire, ability, permission and root possibility)’ (Bybee & Fleischman, 1995:
5) while speaker-oriented modality applies to a whole proposition and communicates the

speaker's stance concerning its truth (Palmer, 1990). Agent-oriented modality can be
expressed by lexical or grammatical morphemes. Some of the most semantically specific
notions in this set include necessity, ability, desire and obligation as in [1.1]:
[1.1] All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the falculty concerned before
entering for exam (Root – obligation) (Coates 1983: 35)
While ‘agent-oriented modality reports the existence of internal and external conditions on
an agent’ (Bybee et al. 1994: 179), speaker-oriented modalities allow the speaker to impose
such conditions on the addressee. (ibid.) The grammatical terms for speaker-oriented
modality may encompass imperative (the form used to issue a direct command), prohibitive
(a negative command), optative (the wish or hope of the speaker in a main clause), hortative
(the speaker is encouraging someone to action), admonitive (the speaker is issuing a
warning) and permissive (the speaker is granting permission) (ibid.). Speaker-oriented
modality is meant to include directives as well as utterances in which the speaker grants the
addressee permission as in [1.2]
[1.2] You can start the revels now. (Root – ability) (Coates 1983: 88)
1.2.2.2. Extrinsic Modality vs Intrinsic Modality
Extrinsic modality refers to extra-propositional modality, expressing the speaker's attitude
towards the content of a proposition. It covers the area of epistemic modality. For Biber et al.
(1999: 485) it "refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments
of likelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction" and is synonymous with epistemic
modality. However, intrinsic modality forms part of the semantic content of the proposition;
it covers the area of root modality. Biber et al. (1999) do point out that each modal has both
intrinsic and extrinsic modality. While ‘intrinsic modality refers to actions and events that
humans (or other agents) directly control: meanings relating to permission, obligation, or
volition (or intention)" and is synonymous with deontic modality, “extrinsic modality refers
to logical status of events or states” (Biber et al. 1999: 485).

-13-