A comparative study of english and vietnamese modal verbs based on the novel gone with the wind and its vietnamese translated version

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE MODAL VERBS BASED ON
THE NOVEL “GONE WITH THE WIND” AND
ITS VIETNAMESE TRANSLATED VERSION
(So sánh động từ tình thái tiếng Anh với những tương
đương trong tiếng Việt dựa trên tiểu thuyết “Cuốn
theo chiều gió” và bản dịch sang tiếng Việt)
DAO THI HONG
Field: English Language
Code: 8.22.02.01
Supervisor: Assos. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Dang Suu

Hanoi, 2020


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report
entitled a comparative study of English modal verbs and their Vietnamese
equivalents based on the novel “gone with the wind” and its Vietnamese translated
version submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
in English Language. Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s
work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi, 2020

Dao Thi Hong

Approved by

SUPERVISOR

Assos. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Dang Suu
Date:……………………

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from
several people. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
Assoc. Prof. PhD. Nguyen Dang Suu my supervisor, who has patiently and
constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating
ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an
academic researcher. My thanks also go to the faculty of English at Hanoi Open
University for their enthusiasm and encouragement in this study. Finally, I am
greatly indebted to my family and my friends for the sacrifice they have devoted to
the fulfillment of this academic work.
Dao Thi Hong

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of originality..............................................................................................i
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................... ii
Table of contents ....................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of abbreviation ................................................................................................. vii
List of tables ............................................................................................................ viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
1.1. Rationale ...........................................................................................................1
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study .....................................................................2
1.2.1. Aims of the study .....................................................................................2
1.2.2. Objectives of the study .............................................................................2
1.3. Research questions ...........................................................................................2
1.4. Methods of the study ........................................................................................3
1.5. Scope of the study ............................................................................................3
1.6. Significance of the study ..................................................................................4
1.7. Structure of the study........................................................................................4
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................5
2.1. Review of Previous Studies ..............................................................................5
2..2. Concept of modality ........................................................................................9
2.2.1. Definition of modality ..............................................................................9
2.2.2. Types of modality………………………………………………….......11
2.3. Modal verbs in English...................................................................................13
2.3.1. Concept of modal verbs ..........................................................................13
2.3.2. The syntax of English modal verbs ........................................................14
2.3.3. The semantics of English modal verbs ...................................................15
2.4. Modal verbs in Vietnamese ............................................................................19
2.4.1 Concept of Vietnamese modal verbs .......................................................19
iii


2.4.2. The syntax of Vietnamese modal verbs .................................................19
2.4.3. The semantics of Vietnamese modal verbs ............................................21
2.5. Contrastive analysis (CA) ..............................................................................23
2.6. Summary.........................................................................................................24
Chapter 3: SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE MODAL VERBS BASED ON THE NOVEL “GONE WITH

THE WIND” AND ITS VIETNAMESE TRANSLATED VERSION...............25
3.1. Syntactic features of English modal verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents
...............................................................................................................................25
3.1.1. Affirmatives with modal verbs ...............................................................27
3.1.2. Negatives with Modal verbs ...................................................................28
3.1.3. Questions with Modal verbs ...................................................................29
3.2. Semantic features of English modal verbs and their Vienamese equivalents 30
3.2.1. Conventional meaning of modal verbs...................................................30
3.2.1.1. Conventional meaning of can/ could………………………...……....30
3.2.1.2. Conventional meaning of may/ might…………………………...…..35
3.2.1.3. Conventional meaning of must …………………………………...…36
3.2.1.4. Conventional meaning of will/ would …………………………...….37
3.2.1.5. Conventional meaning of shall/ should …………………………......39
3.2.2. Modal verbs and their equivalents in Vietnamese .................................41
3.2.2.1. Can/ could and their equivalents in Vietnamese .................................41
3.2.2.2. May/ might and their equivalents in Vietnamese ................................44
3.2.2.3. Must and their equivalents in Vietnamese ..........................................45
3.2.2.4. Will/ would and their equivalents in Vietnames.................................48
3.2.2.5. Shall/ should and their equivalents in Vietnamese..............................51
3.3. Discussion on the similarities and differences between English modal verbs
and their Vietnamese equivalents ..........................................................................53
3.3.1. On the syntactic and semantic similarities .............................................53
3.3.1.1. Similarities of the syntactic features………………………………...53
3.3.1.2. Similarities of the semantic features………………………………...54
3.3.2. On the syntactic and semantic differences .............................................56
3.3.2.1. Differences of the syntactic features………………………………...56

iv

3.3.2.2. Differences of the semantic features………………………………..57
3.4. Implications ………………………………………………………………..58
3.5. Summary ........................................................................................................61
Chapter 4: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................62
4.1. Recapitulation .................................................................................................62
4.2. Concluding remarks........................................................................................62
4.3. Limitation of the study ...................................................................................63
4.4. Suggestions for further research .....................................................................63
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................64
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................i

v


ABSTRACT
This study is an attempt to explore and investigate the syntactic and semantic
similarities and differences between nine English modal verbs and their Vietnamese
equivalents based on the novel “Gone with the wind” and its Vietnamese translated
version. The main aim of the research is to find similarities and differences between
the two languages and give some suggested implications for teaching English modal
verbs to Vietnamese learners in an effective way. The main data used in this study
is taken from the novel Gone with the wind by Margaret Mitchell – an American
novelist and journalist and its translation by Tran Duong Tuong (1932) – a
Vietnamese translator and writer. The data collected were then descriptively and
qualitatively analyzed to find similarities and differences between English and
Vietnamese modal verbs. The findings of the study showed that both English and
Vietnamese modal verbs have the characteristics to form different types of
sentences: Affirmatives, negatives and interrogatives. Both English and Vietnamese
modal verbs are used to describe obligation, permission, ability, necessity,
probability, and possibility etc. However, there are some major differences in

Vietnamese modal verbs, modal particles and equivalent idioms which are
grammaticalized and lexicalized functioned as pragmatic particles conveying subtle,
diversified pragmatic information are placed at the end of the sentence such as à, ư,
nhỉ, nhé, thôi, nấy, chứ, cũng nên, etc. In English, modal verbs can be transformed
to express time of action, for instance, can (present action) – could (past action).
While in Vietnamese, time localization of action is expressed by means of lexical
meaning sẽ, cũng, đã, lại đang, đều… It is hoped that the findings from this study
will contribute to further understanding of syntactic and semantic features of
English modal verbs compared to Vietnamese. 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.
Hà Nội, ngày 8 tháng 12 năm 2020
Học viên

Đào Thị Hồng

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATION
CA. :
e.g. :
Etc. :
i.e. :
LI. :
L2. :
N1 (CN). :
p. :
SL. :
TL. :

VP. :

Contrastive analysis
Exempli gratia ( for example)
Et cereta
That is
the first language
the foreign language being learnt
Noun (chủ ngữ)
Page
Source language
Target language
Verb phrase

vii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: The commodity exchanged & the speech function and the
types of intermediacy
Table 2.2: Modal auxiliaries have corresponding present and past forms
Table 3.1. The findings of English modal verbs in the data.
Table 3.2. The syntactical structures of Vietnamese modal verbs
Table 3.3: The findings of can and could in the data
Table 3.4. The findings of may and might in the data
Table 3.5. The findings of must in the data
Table 3.6. The findings of will and would in the data
Table 3.7. The findings of shall in the data
Table 3.8. The findings of should in the data

12
15
26
26
44
46
48
51
54
54

viii


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
In the current time of world-wide explosion of information and cross-cultural
communication, there is an urgent need for the Vietnamese peoples to learn and use
the English language efficiently as an international means of communication. Their
sincere desire is to express various aspects of the languages, the cultures, and the
knowledge of the Vietnamese peoples’ lives. In everyday communication, they do
not simply describe events, processes or states of affairs. By means of language,
they also wish to express their emotions and attitudes; or to influence in some way
the addressee’s beliefs, behaviours. Usually, the speaker not only says something
true, something that will definitely happen or happened, but also says something he/
she does not know for sure. The area of semantics that concerns this expressive and
social information of statements is modality.
It is very interesting and essential to study modality in general and to
investigate how much a speaker commits to what he says in particular. Modality has
gained much popularity among linguists. The different ways in which different

languages allow speakers to insert themselves into their discourse, expressing their
desires or opinions have become a common subject of study. From syntax to
semantics, the study of modality has spawned innumerable academic papers,
namely Bybee (1985), Lyons (1977 ) and others. Vietnamese modal system has also
been studied by Hoang Phe ( 1984) and Do Huu Chau (1989). The researches in
English focus on analyzing both the most common form and content of modality.
As a result, in Vietnam, many scholars have also studied modality in general and
types of modality. However, no attempt has been made to conduct a comparative
study on linguistic means of indicating modality in English and Vietnamese. Thus, a
full and specific description of syntactic and semantic features of English modal
verbs and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese seems to be necessary.
In teaching modal verbs at my high school, I realize that a great number of
my students have a lot of difficulties in learning and using English modal verbs.
Distinguishing among modal verbs and translating modalized expressions from
English into Vietnamese also makes them confused. This problem is especially
more embarrassing when they encounter different modals conveying similar
meanings. They can produce grammatically correct utterances, but do not
understand properly the social and cultural information each modal meaning

1


conveys. Furthermore, due to the structuralist approach to grammar teaching,
learners can memorize modals with their meanings given, but do not know how to
use them to improve their communicative competence, to mitigate directness, to
express politeness or to make assertions in social interaction. With an attempt to
help my students learn English better, I made up my mind to choose and to go
further into the topic: A comparative study of English and Vietnamese modal verbs
based on the novel “Gone with the wind” and its Vietnamese translated version.
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study

1.2.1. Aims of the study
This study is an attempt to study modal verbs in English and in Vietnamese
so as to find out the similarities and differences between the two languages and give
some suggested implications for teaching English modal verbs to Vietnamese
learners in an effective way based on the novel ‘Gone with the wind’ and its
Vietnamese- translated version.
1.2.2. Objectives of the study
To achieve the above-mentioned aim, the study must fulfil the following
objectives:
- Exploring syntactic and semantic features of English modal verbs and their
Vietnamese equivalents based on the novel ‘Gone with the wind’ and its
Vietnamese- translated version.
- Investigating the syntactic and semantic similarities and differences between
English modal verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents.
- Suggesting some implications for teaching modal verbs in English to
Vietnamese learners in an effective way.
1.3. Research questions
The study is to answer the following questions:
- What are syntactic and semantic features of modal verbs in English with
reference to Vietnamese equivalents based on the novel ‘Gone with the wind’ and
its Vietnamese- translated version?
- What are the similarities and differences of modal verbs between English and
Vietnamese?
- What are some suggested implications for teaching modal verbs in English
to Vietnamese learners in an effective way?

2


1.4. Methods of the study

This paper used the descriptive and qualitative method of writing and
quantitative description of the data. It is qualitative in nature because it depends
heavily on the researcher’s own interpretation of translation texts. Qualitative
methods offer the opportunities to gain insight into the data during the analysis
process (Creswell, 2014). Descriptive and contrastive methods are adapted in this
study to have in-depth data analysis and to compare and contrast the strategies used
for dealing with on-equivalence problems.
With written discourse, data employed for analysis will be extracted from the
novel Gone with the wind by Margaret Mitchell – an American novelist and
journalist. This novel taken from the website ine/free979801825-download. The reason for choosing Gone with the wind is that it is a
well-known literary work in which modal verbs are widely used so that the
contrastive analysis can be easily done. Based on sixty - three chapters of this novel
and its translation by Tran Duong Tuong (1932), the data are chosen at random.
Then the data are analyzed and systematized to work out a fresh insight into the
syntax and semantics expressed by modal verbs and their equivalents in
Vietnamese.
1.5. Scope of the study
This study focuses on the descriptive account of syntactic and semantic features
of modality in English and Vietnamese used in the novel ‘Gone with the wind’.
According to Timberlake (2007) and Coates (1987), modality in English may
be expressed grammatically or semantically by auxiliaries (modal verbs), verbs,
adjectives, nouns or adverbs. Hiệp (2007) states that means of expressing modality
can be categorized grammatically and lexically. Prosody is also of modality in
language as Palmer (2001, p. 6) asserts ‘prosody is a separate study and only rarely
interacts in a systemic way with grammatical systems of modality”. However, due
to the scope of this present study, we only focus on nine modal verbs which are can
/could, may /might, must, shall /should, will /would" in term of syntactic and
semantic features and translation equivalents.
1.6. Significance of the study
Theoretically, the study primarily contributes to explore and investigate the

syntactic and semantic features of English and Vietnamese modal verbs. Through
the study, readers can also see the comparison of modal verbs between English and

3


Vietnamese.
Practically, the amount of knowledge provided in the thesis is likely to
suggest some implications for teaching modal verbs in English to Vietnamese
learners in an effective way.
1.7. Structure of the study
This present study consists of four chapters in a close link together.
Chapter one is introduction, the initial part briefly introduces the rationale of
the study and the background to which the study is set up. The aim and objectives of
the study are discussed in the second part followed by the scope of the study and a
brief introduction of the methods. The design of the study is proposed as the last
part of this chapter.
Chapter two presents the theoretical framework and the literature review of
the study. First, the previous studies on this topic are reviewed. Next, it sought to
review the concepts of modality. After that, it discusses the syntax and semantics of
modality in English. Lastly, it attempts to represent the syntax and semantics of
modality in Vietnamese.
Chapter three presents the findings and discusses the findings in comparisons
with previous empirical studies. This chapter aims at answering the research
questions and validating the findings of the study.
Chapter four recaps the whole study project and restates the findings before
proposing some suggestions depending on the findings and the limitations as well as
further research directions are offered.

4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins with a review of related research in hope of revealing the
gaps that need filling for this present research. The section 2.2 discusses the
theoretical background and some operational definitions for this study in sections
2.3 and 2.4.
2.1. Review of Previous Studies
In this section, other research works related to the theme under study before
the current thesis are reviewed. The review of concepts and theoretical frameworks
is employed as tools for the current research.
Modal verbs are frequently used in every day communication. They have
simple forms, but a wide variety of semantic connotations and communicative
functions. In previous studies, modal verbs were studied from different
perspectives. From the perspective of formal linguistics, researchers focused on the
relationship among tense, voice and modality of modal verbs (Clinque, 1999). From
the perspective of semantics (Leech, 1981), researchers focused on the relationship
between contexts and modal verbs. Recently, second language acquisition (SLA)
researchers (Gibbs, 1990; Kärkkäinen, 1992) and corpus linguists (Millar, 2009;
Römer, 2011) paid their attention to the use of modal verbs by learners and native
speakers. With the development of computer technology and corpus linguistics,
studies on modal uses by second language learners can be based on corpus data
analysis. This present study attempts to explore the use of modal verbs in English
writing by EFL (English as a foreign language) learners based on the corpus data
comparison.
In the paper in the Journal of Linguistics printed in Great Britain, Boyd and
Thorne (1969) propose an analysis of the semantic structure of modal verbs in
English. Central to this analysis is the notion of 'speech act', which derives
principally from the work of J. L. Austin (1975). The authors extend the notion of
speech act to the analysis of modal sentences. That is to say the authors treat the

modal verbs as indicating the illocutionary potential of the sentences in which they
occur.
On contrasting the semantics of the modal auxiliaries of German and
English, Bouma (1973) attempts to show that the model which I developed
elsewhere to explain the semantic structure of the German modal system is also
generally applicable to the modals of English. The theory underlying his approach is

5


based on the notion of (grammatical) meaning found in Joos (1964) and Jakobson
(1971). The modal auxiliary system in both languages is seen as a grammatical
category (relative assertion) which stands in specific opposition to the absence of a
modal in a sentence (factual assertion). The general grammatical meaning conveyed
by the modal auxiliary category is that the speaker sees the event as standing in a
potential relation to reality.
In the new edition of Mood and Modality, Palmer (2001) draws on a wealth
of examples from a wide variety of languages to investigate the category of modal
verbs in detail. He discusses familiar features in a number of mainly European
languages, and also looks at fewer familiar features including 'evidential’ systems
and the contrast of realis/irrealis, both to be found in unrelated languages.
In Vietnam, several scholars have made studies of modality and modals in
general. Huệ (2006) conducted a contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via
the three modal verbs can, may, must in English, their semantic features and the
equivalent expressions in Vietnamese. With written discourse, data employed for
analysis will be extracted from the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte - a famous
writer in the nineteenth century realistic literature of England. Semantically, the
English modals can, may, must express the notion of ability, possibility, permission
and obligation. Can and may refer to different types of possibility: can shows
theoretical possibility whereas may talks about factual possibility. Each modal

conveys itself the modal meaning that the speaker implies. Must is used when it
involves the speaker-imposed compulsion. It brings the subjective obligation. It is
discovered that these modals do not simply convey only one meaning, but there
exists a wide range of meanings. The specific modal in a certain situation makes
clear which meaning is intended. Compared with English modal verbs can, may,
must, Vietnamese modal verbs are quite ambiguous in nature. Có thể does not tell
whether it is theoretical or factual possibility whereas can and may tell us quite well
certain type of possibility. Importantly, in clarifying and judging the linguistic
features of Vietnamese modal verbs phải and có thể, the study has revealed the
differences in the type of possibility. Có thể does not make clear whether it is
theoretical possibility or factual possibility. The study, to some extent, displays the
ambiguous features in meaning of Vietnamese modal verbs which consequently
result in the confusion and difficulty encountered by learners in mastering English
modal verbs.

6


Đào (2013) has attempted to carry out a contrastive analysis of deontic modality
expressions in terms of syntactic and semantic features in English and Vietnamese.
In doing this the author has treated three specific types of deontic: commissives,
voilitives and directives in 421 declarative and interrogative sentences in English
and 422 declarative and interrogative sentences in Vietnamese. The main findings
of the study show that while categories of deontic modality are universal across
languages, linguistic means available to speakers of different languages may differ,
for example, Vietnamese has an intricate system of sentence or utterance particles
which have no equivalences in English. Furthermore, English and Vietnamese also
differ in the frequencies of usage of such linguistic means in expressing deontic
modality.
Thuỷ (2015) attempted to describe, analyze and 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 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 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

7


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). 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.
In conclusion, studying all things about modal verbs will be too broad themes
and, therefore, it is an impossible task for any researchers. In previous studies, from
the perspective of formal linguistics, researchers focused on the relationship among
tense, voice and modality of modal verbs (Clinque, 1999). From the perspective of
semantics, researchers focused on the relationship between contexts and modal
verbs (Leech, 1981; Thomas, 1983). In Vietnam, most of the scholars focused on
one type of modal verbs: Dao (2013) focused on the contrastive analyses of deontic
modality, Thuy (2015) study on epistemic modality, and Lien (2010) analyzed the
necessity, certainty and ability perspectives of English modals. Especially, Hue
(2006) conducted a contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the three
modal verbs can, may, must based on the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte.
However, no attempt has been made to conduct a comparative study on linguistic
means of indicating modality in English and Vietnamese. My study primarily
contributes to explore and investigate the syntactic and semantic similarities and
differences between nine English modal verbs and their Vietnamese equivalents
based on the novel “Gone with the wind” and its Vietnamese translated version.
The amount of knowledge provided in the thesis is likely to suggest some
implications for teaching modal verbs in English to Vietnamese learners in an
effective way.

8


2.2. Concept of modality
This section will discuss the definition of modality in English and in
Vietnamese and the theoretical background to the study of modal verbs.
2.2.1. Definition of modality
Traditionally, the concept of modality and the modal concepts of possibility,
probability and necessity. 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.
According to Palmer (2001), 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.
Perkins (1983) establishes his classification of the types of modality by
reference to conceptual domain of modality. He suggested four categories:
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 (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 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 a broad sense is what the speaker is doing with the whole
proposition whereas modality in the view point is defined as semantic information
associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what s/he says.

9


McCarthy (1991, p. 91) 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, 2001). However, Palmer (2001)
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, p. 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, p. 193), “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 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

10


- 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, p. 49). Langacker (1991, 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’, and have ‘two crucial properties: (1) they are force- dynamic and (2) the
event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual’ (Langacker,
2003, p.3).The force dynamics are ‘inherent in the conceptualizer’s mental activity,
hence subjectively construed in the strong sense.’ (ibid.)

In Vietnam, for the past few years, modality has been the focus of many
linguists and researchers such as Hoang Phe, Do Huu Chau and others. Hoang
Trong Phien broadly explains modality as a grammatical category which appears in
all kinds of sentence.
From the definition of modality mentioned above, we can see that to some
extent linguists have one thing in common seeing that modality describes the
speaker’s attitude or judgement toward the proposition and not the proposition
itself. The notional content of modality highlights its association with entire
statements. Modality concerns the factual status of information; it signals the
relative actuality, validity, or believability of the content of an expression. Modality
reflects the overall assertability of an expression and thus takes the entire
proposition within its scope. In the utterance ‘It may be raining’, for example, the
speaker is not committing himself wholeheartedly to the truth of the proposition. He
is not making a categorical assertion, but rather modifying his commitment to some
degree by expressing a judgement of the truth of the situation.
2.2.2. Types of modality
Types of modality are classified differently according to different linguists.
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Startvik (1985, pp. 219-221) suggest 2 types:
Intrinsic and Extrinsic modality.
Halliday ’s view on types of modality could be summed up as follow.
“Polarity is the choice between positive and negative, as in is/ isn’t, do! don’t.

11


However, the possibilities are not limited to a choice between yes and no. There are
intermediate degrees: various kinds of indeterminacy that fall in between, like
“sometimes or “maybe”. The intermediate degrees between the positive and
negative poles, are known collectively as modality” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014,
pp. 85-86).

He further expresses the commodity exchanged & the speech function and
the types of intermediacy in this chart:
Table 2.1. The commodity exchanged & the speech function and the types of
intermediacy ( Halliday. M.A.K, 1985)
Commodity
exchanged

Speech function

Types of intermediacy

Probability(possible/
probable/ certain)

Statement
Modality
Information

Proposition

question
Frequency(sometim
es/ usually/ always)

Proposal
Goods

Obligation(allowed/

Command

supposed/required
Modulation

& services

Offer

Inclination(willing/
anxious/determined)

As can be seen from the chart, in a proposition, the meaning of positive and
negative poles is asserting “It is so” and denying “It isn’t so”. He observes two kinds of
intermediate possibilities: (1) degree of probability (possible -> probable -> certain)
which is equivalent to may be “yes”, may be “no” with different degrees of likelihood
attached and (2) degree of usuality (i.e sometimes “yes” sometimes “no”).
In a proposal, there are two kinds of intermediate possibilities: (1) in a
command, the intermediate points represent degrees of obligation and (2) in an
offer, they represent degrees of described duty.

12


However, the classification made by Sweetser and Palmer, in my opinion,
seems the most acceptable for its clarity and generalization which can be applied to
the linguistic study from different angles: semantic, logic and pragmatic. They are
Epistemic & Deontic modality. Analyzing such a sentence as “He must be in his
office”, we can see this may have two interpretations, depending on the modality
assigned to the modal verb “must”.
In one sense, it means “I am certain that he is in his office” (By my

reasoning and judgement). In another sense, it has the interpretation of “He is
obliged to be in his office”. (He has no choice but to be in his office). In the formal
sense, the modal auxiliary “must” is epistemic and in the latter it is deontic.
Lyons (1977, p. 793) (in conjunction with other scholars) states: “Epistemic
modality is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief” or “opinion rather than
fact”. Palmer (1990, p. 7) considers that epistemic modality in language is often,
may be always, subjective in a way it is associated with the deduction of the
speakers and not only simply interest in the subjective judgment in the light of
reality.
And “Deontic modality is concerned with the necessity of possibility of acts
performed by morally responsible agents” (Lyons, pp. 1977-823). By means of this,
speakers intervene in or bring about changes in events.
2.3. Modal verbs in English
2.3.1. Concept of modal verbs
Language is not always used just to exchange information by making simple
statements and asking questions. Sometimes, we want to make requests, offers, or
suggestions. We may also want to express our wishes, intentions or indicate our
feelings about what we are saying. In English, we do all these things by using a set
of verbs called modal verbs or modal auxiliaries. The modal auxiliaries such as can,
could, may, might, will, would, must, should and ought to express different types of
modal meanings. These modal auxiliaries or modals for short are one of the most
complicated problems of the English verbs. Lewis (1986, p. 99) stated “There is no
doubt that the overall picture of the modals is extremely “messy” and untidy and
that the most the linguists can do is to impose some order, point some regularities,
correspondences, parallelisms... This subject is not one that lends itself to any
simple explanation.”

13

Semantically, modal auxiliaries allow the speaker to introduce a personal
interpretation of the non- factual and non-temporal elements of the event. In other
words, modals are one way for a speaker to encode modality into what (s)he says
such ideas as necessity, possibility, obligation, etc. Some of the modals may also
express the same kinds of semantic colorings in the subjunctive mood.
2.3.2. The syntax of English modal verbs
According to Michael Swan (2016, p.68), the syntax of modal verbs in
English is as follows:
(a) Modals do not inflect. This means they have no “-s” form in the third
person singular of the present tense, or no “-ing” and “-ed” forms.
e.g. She can swim very well. (NOT: She cans ...)
(b) They occupy the first place in a complex verb phrase and followed by the
form base of a verb. They do not co-occur.
e.g. “He may come” or “He will come” instead of “He may will come”
(c) Both the present and past forms of modals can be used in past tense
sequence.
e.g. I think he may/ might stay now.
(d) They are used as operators in the formation of, for example, questions
and negatives.
e.g. negatives: We might not be home before midnight.
questions: May I help you?
(e) There are some modals such as ‘will’ and ‘would’ differ from main verbs
and other auxiliaries in that ‘will’ and ‘would’ can form contraction with subject
pronouns. Contractions with ‘will’ are: I’ll, you’ll, he’ll, she’ll, it’ll, they’ll. Those
with would are: I’d, you’d, he’d, she’d, it’d, we’d, they’d. But it is worth mentioning
that these contractions are never used in sentence final position.
(f) Only some of these modal auxiliaries have corresponding present and past
forms as follows:
Table 2.2: Modal auxiliaries have corresponding present and past forms
(Swan, 2016)

Present

Past

Can

Could

May

Might (could)

14


Shall

Should

Will/ ‘ll

Would/ ‘d

Must

Would/ ‘d

2.3.3. The semantics of English modal verbs
According to Quirk, R., Greenbaum (1973, p.52), the semantics of modal
verbs in English is as follows

2.3.3.1. Conventional meaning of can/ could
Can and could are used to describes ability, possibility and permission.
CAN
(1) Ability= be able to, be capable of, know how to
E.g: He can speak English but he can’t write it very well (‘He is able to speak/
capable of speaking ...’)
(2) Permission = be allowed to, be permitted to (Can is less formal than may
in this sense)
E.g: Can/ May I smoke in here? (‘Am I allowed to smoke in here?’)
(3) Theoretical possibility contrast
E.g: Anybody can make mistakes
The road can be blocked (‘It is possible to block the road’)
COULD
(1) Past ability
E.g: I never could play the banjo
(2) Present or future permission
E.g: Could I smoke in here?
(3) Present possibility (theoretical or factual)
E.g: We could go to the concert
The road could be blocked
(4) Contingent possibility or ability in unreal conditions
E.g: If we had more money, we could buy a car
Note
[a] Ability can bring in the implication of willingness (especially in spoken
English):
Could you do me a favour?
[b] Past permission is sometimes expressed by could:

15

This used to be the children’s room but they couldn’t make a noise there because of
the neighbours
More generally, the past can/could for permission and possibility is could
have+ V-ed:
Tonight, you can dance if you wish but you could have danced last night equally
[c] With some perception verbs, can Vcorresponds to the progressive aspect
be V-ing with dynamic verbs:
I can hear footsteps; who’s coming?
2.3.3.2. Conventional meaning of may/ might
May and might are used to refer to possibility and permission.
MAY
(1) Permission =be allowed to (In this sense may is more formal than can.
Instead of may not or rare mayn't, the stronger mustn't is often used in the negative
to express prohibition.)
You may borrow my car if you like
You mustn’t / may not/ are not allowed to borrow my car
(2) Possibility (usually factual)
The road may be blocked (‘ It is possible that the road is blocked’; less probably:
‘It is possible to block the road’)
MIGHT
(1) Permission (rare)
Might I smoke in here?
(2) Possibility (theoretical or factual)
We might go to the concert
What you say might be true
2.3.3.3. Conventional meaning of must
Must is used to describes obligation and necessity.
(1) Obligation or compulsion in the present tense (=be obliged to, have (got)
to); except in reported speech, only had to (not must) is used in the past. There are

two negatives: (1) =‘not be obliged to’: needn't, don't have to; (2) = ‘be obliged not
to’: mustn't.
You must be back by 10 o’clock
Yesterday you had to/ must be back by 10 o’clock
Yesterday you said you had to/ must be back by 10 o’clock

16