Epistemic modality manifested in conversation in the thorn birds = tính chân nguỵ biện được thể hiện qua lời thoại trong tác phẩm tiếng chim hót trong bụi mận gai

epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

vinh university
Foreign language department
--------------------------

Nguyễn thị phơng thảo

Epistemic modality manifested in conversations in
The Thorn Birds
(Tính chân nguỵ đợc thể hiện qua lời thoại trong t¸c
phÈm “tiÕng chim hãt trong bơi mËn gai”)

summary graduation thesis
Field: linguistics

Vinh – 2007
Acknowledgement
My graduation thesis has been completed with great support from my
teachers, friends and family members.
First of al, the study would have never finished without the enthuastic
guiding of my supervisor, Dr. Ngô Đình Phơng who has given me a lot of
significant advices as well as critical comments on my thesis.
Nextly, I would like to express my deeply gratitude towards the full help of
some teachers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages; esp. Mr. Trần Bá Tiến, M.A.

1


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

who lends me some valuable reference books and responds enthuastically to my
consultations with useful explanations and advices.
Last but not least, I would certainly never forget the warmly
encouragement of my dedicated friends and all of members in my family who play
as spiritual factors during my studying process.
Vinh, May
15, 2007

Nguyễn Thị Phơng Thảo

Abbreviations
S.P :
E.g :
H
:
S
:
i.e .:
et. al.:
Esp. :

Speech Act
For example
Hearer
Speaker
That is to say
and others
Especially

2

epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

table of contents

Page
Acknowledgement........................................................................................
..

i
Abbreviations................................................................................................

....

ii

Table
of
content.................................................................................................. iii
Part
I:
Introduction...........................................................................
1
1.
Rationale............................................................................................................
1
2.
Aims
of

the
study...............................................................................................
2
3.
Scope
of
the
study..............................................................................................
2
4.
Methods
of
the
study..........................................................................................
3
5.
Design
of
the
study.............................................................................................
3
Part
II
:
development.........................................................................
5
Chapter 1: Theoretical
background.............................................. 5
1.1.
Concept

of
modality...........................................................................................
5
1.1.1.
Definition............................................................................................................. . 5

3


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

1.1.2.
Types
of
modality................................................................................................ 6
1.1.2.1.
Deontic
modality................................................................................................. 8
1.1.2.
2.
Epistemic
modality............................................................................................. 10
1.1.3.
Realizations
of
modality..................................................................................... 15
1.1.3.1.
Verbs
expressing
modal

meanings...................................................................... 15
1.1.3.2.
Other
means
of
expressing
modal
meanings....................................................... 16
1.2.
Speech
Act........................................................................................................... 17
1.2.1.
Speech
Act
performance...................................................................................... 17
1.2.1.1.
Definition...........................................................................................................
18
1.2.1.2.
Locutionary
act,
Illocutionary
act,
Performation
act......................................... 18
1.2.2.
Speech
act
classification..................................................................................... 20
1.2.3.

Indirect
Speech
act............................................................................................. 20
1.2.3.
Relationship
between
Speech
act
and
Modality.................................................. 21
Chapter 2: Epistemic modality manifested in
conversations
in
“The
Thorn
Birds”......................................................................................
23
2.1.
Modal verbs.................................................................................................
23
2.1.1. Can/Could.....................................................................................................
23
2.1.2. May/ Might...................................................................................................
25

4


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

2.1.3. Will/ Would..................................................................................................
26
2.1.4.
Shall/
Should
/Ought
(to)...............................................................................
27
2.1.5. Must..............................................................................................................
28
2.2.
Adverbs.........................................................................................................
33
2.3.
Adjectives.......................................................................................................
35
2.4.
Nouns............................................................................................................
35
2.5.
Personal relationship......................................................................................
37
Chapter
3:
Implication.......................................................................
39
3.1.
The
problems.....................................................................................................
39

3.2.
Implication.........................................................................................................
40
Part
III:
conclusion.........................................................................
43
References
Appendix
suggested Exercises

5


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Part I: Introduction
1. Rationale:
The basic fuction of laguage, as Robin (1952) proposes, is communication in
which people exchange information and express their opinions and attitudes. And
in English the term used to convey attitudes or feeling is called Modality.
It is fact that nowhere modality can be used popularly and vividly than in
conversation language. It occurs frequently in everyday conversations and in
literary works as well. And the latter one truly, attracts us most. Moreover, as far
as learning- teaching English is concerned, from a small survey it is alarm that a
high rate of Vietnamese learners of English are lack of the English modality’s
theoritical background. That matter inspires us to explore how modality is
performed in English with hope to reduce this challenge.
For those reasons presented above, we decide to choose the topic “ Epistemic
modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Bird” as the theme for our

thesis.
2. Aims of the study:
To explore how modality is expressed in English language
appropriately.
6


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

To investigate the way characters in a literary work operate modality
in their conversations.
To offer some implications for learning and teaching English and
some suggestions for further study.
3. Scope of the study:
Modality has two main types deontic and epistemic.However, our thesis only
deals with one of them, that is epistemic.English modality’s realizations are very
wide including all word forms: adjective, adverbs, verbs, nouns and a number of
subordinate clauses. Yet we only consider it in four word forms.The data is based
on the utterances in conversations among characters in “The Thorn Birds” written
by an amateur writer in 1976.Clearly, nowhere is better for the characters to
express their feelings and attitudes toward every incident than in conversations
which therefore, are reliable source of data for modality in general and epistemic
in particular.
4. Methods of the study:
The thesis is finished with the following methods:
Synthetic.
Analytical.
5. Design of the study:
The thesis comprises three main parts:
Part I: Introduction

This part includes five sub- parts : the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design
of the study.
Part II: Content
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
Chapter 2: The study of epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The
Thorn Birds”
Chapter 3: Implication for teaching – learning English Modality to Vietnamese
learners of English.
Part III: Conclusion
This part summarize somewhat has discussed in the above two parts and showing
some restriction of the thesis.
-

7


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Part II : development
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
1.1. Concept of modality:
1.1.1. Definition:
Modality,in general, means the commitment of the S towards what he is saying.
It involves,according to Downing and Lock (1995:382), the other terms such as
possibility, probability, necessity, volition, obligation, permission, doubt, wish,
regret, design, and temporal notions such as usuality. Then, Steel et.al.
(1981:21)explicit them: “Element expressing modality will mark any of the
following: possible or the related notion of permission, probability or the related
notion of obligation, certainty or the related notion of the requirement.”
1.1.2. Types of modality:

Many linguists are interested in classifying modality. Finally, most of linguists
come to agreement that modality consists of two main kinds: deontic and
epistemic.
According to,Lyons (in conjunction with other scholars) :
Epistemic modality which is concerned with matters of
knowledge, belief (1977: 793) or “opinion rather than fact
(1977: 681) and “Deontic modality which is concerned with the
necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally
responsible agents. (1977:832).
1.1.2.1. Deontic modality:
As far as grammar is concerned, directives and commissives, as Searl
(1979:14) noted, are grammar types of deontic. Both are concerned with “fitting
the world to the word”

8


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

1.1.2.1.1. Directives (hearer- oriented)
Its realizations are mostly reflected in some basic modal verbs: may, might,
must, can, could, ought to, should. Among those, “may, might, can, could”
generally indicate the possibility or ability and the others show the
necessity/obligation . In saying “you may /must arrive on time” the S wants to
impose the possibility /necessity of arriving on time upon his hearer.
1.1.2.1.2. Commissive (speaker- oriented):
It is defined by Searl (1983:166) as” where we commit ourselves to do
thing”. Here the event via an utterance will be performed by the S, not the H.
“Will” or “shall” are often be used in this case to show the S’s commitment
toward an action such as a threat or a promise happening in the future.

1.1.2. 2. Epistemic modality:
This term derived from Greek word meaning “understanding or “knowledge”
(Lyons uses these terms in his definition about modality) refers to the type of
modality that indicates the degree of commitment by the S to what he
says.Epistemic is concerned with the truth ,belief and knowledge. And it is
categorized into two kinds: judgments and evidentials.
1.1.2.2.1. Judgment:
It involves necessity or possibility and has two degrees: a “weak” one and a
“strong“ one. Correlatively, there are two typical representatives: may and must
1.1.2.2.2. Evidentials:
Following the typology of Aikhenvald (2003, 2004) there are two broad types of
evidential marking.
- Indirectivity marking (type I)
- Evidential marking (type II)
Aikenvald defines that the first indicates whether evidence exists for a given
statement but doesn’t specify what kind of evidence (such as the evidence is
visual, reported, or inferred) whereas the second specifies the kind of evidence
that may be direct or indirect evidence.
1.1.3. Realizations of modality
1.1.3.1. Verbs expressing modal meanings:
Lexical verbs, Lexical-modal auxiliaries, Modal auxiliaries, Semi-modals
1.1.3.2. Other means of expressing modal meanings:
Modal adverbs, Modal adjectives, Modal nouns, Intonation, Modality in
subordinate clauses.
1.2. Speech Act:

9


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

G.Yule defined S.A as “Actions performed via utterances are generally called
Speech Acts and, in English, are commonly given more specific labels, such as
apology, complaint, invitation, promise, or request”
The action performed via an utterance always consists three related acts:
The first is named “locutionary” which involves the basic act of an utterance or
produces
a meaningful linguistic expression.What participants intend to achieve via
language in a communication process is called “Illocutionary act”. The
illocutionary act will have some effect on the H. This effect is Perlocutionary
act.
1.2.2. Speech act classification:
Searl gives classification system including five types: assertives (representatives),
directives, commissives, expressives, declaratives.
1.2.3. Relationship between Speech act and Modality:
The reason we consider speech act as a great background is that they have
close relationship. And as Lyons (1977:725) noted, the theory of S.A derived from
Austin (1962) is used as a “framework for the discussion of mood and modality”.
Furthermore, like modality, S.A is also concerned with a relation between the
speaker and what he says. Especially , two types of modality use four five basic
categories of illocutionary act for their sub-division on the side of grammatical
realization: deontic with directives and commissives; epistemic with assertives
and declaratives: “there is no epistemically stronger statement than a categorical
assertion”.

10


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Part I: Introduction
1. Rationale
Language whose basic function, as Robin (1952) proposes, is “very similar in different
societies, though with different linguistic conventions, in all part of the world, because all
people have similar needs, similar relationships, and in general share the same world” (cited in
F.R. Palmer 1998:3).This idea must be shared by the fact that language is created as a necessary
demand of human life with the final aim ,that is for communication in which people exchange
information and express their opinions and attitudes.
And in English the term used to convey attitudes or feeling is called Modality. However, as
a matter of fact all of the foreign language learners are aware that “language determines the
nature of each society’s world and that languages’ differences, therefore, imply different
“worlds” (cited in Palmer, 1998:4). In other words, each society owns each language feature of
expression. In comparison with Vietnamese modality, English’s does not stand outside that rule.
Beside some similar realizations such as intonation, modality in Vietnamese is mostly
investigated in modal words (eg: à, ừ, nhỉ, nhé, chăng...) or supported words (eg: đÃ, míi, chØ,
m·i, ®Õn...)... whereas in English it is mainly conveyed via modal verbs such as “can, could,
may...”. And I am sure that many learners have not known that beside modal verbs, English
modality is realized by a quite broad system including nouns (possibility, likelihood...),
adjectives (certain, sure...), adverbs (possibly, certainly...) and even some certain subordinate
clauses. This difference may challenge the Vietnamese learners of English. That matter inspires
us to explore how modality is performed in English with hope to reduce this challenge.
It is fact that nowhere modality can be used popularly and vividly than in conversation
language. It occurs frequently in everyday conversations and in literary works as well. And the
latter one truly, attracts us most.
Literature is, as being judged, the mental production of human beings. And the fact that,
the more a literary work reflects the present life truefully and vividly, the more successful it will
get, since it is said art is for life, not for art itself. Therefore language, especially, daily language
in the art works will also be presented nearly as it is running. And conversational language in a
great novel, apparently, is reliable for our observation.

11


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

For those reasons presented above, we decide to choose the topic “. Epistemic modality
manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Bird” as the theme for our thesis.
2. Aims of the study
The thesis has been done with the following aims:
To explore how modality is expressed in English language appropriately.
To investigate the way characters in a literary work operate modality in their
conversations.
To offer some implications for learning and teaching English and some
suggestions for further study.
3. Scope of the study
Modality has two main types deontic and epistemic. Deontic indicates the S/H’ action via
utterances, whereas epistemic implies the S’s commitment to the truth of the whole proposition.
However, our thesis only deals with one of them, that is epistemic.
English modality’s realizations are very wide including all word forms: adjective, adverbs,
verbs, nouns and a number of subordinate clauses. Yet we only consider it in four word forms.
The data is based on the utterances in conversations among characters in “The Thorn
Birds”- one of the great works of every time, surprisingly, written by an amateur writer in 1976.
Being different from some previous works, all whose theme is also about the history of a
family, but they almost reflect the development and the degeneration of the bourgeoisie class;
“The Thorn Birds” is the story of three generations in a labour family named Cleary. The next
generations, instead of refusing the tradition values left by the previous, inherit and develop
those. Simultaneously, getting good characteristics of family such as hard- working,
independence, steady enough to pass hard life, they also make some positive changes to catch
up with the development of the age. If Fiona- the first generation is brave enough to suffer from
every misfortune but give no struggle for the fate, her daughter Meggie- a modern girl tries to

get her happiness from the hand of God-having a baby with a priest who she loves, and JustineMeggie’s daughter has a quietly different moral standard...There are many characters in the
novel but the noble ones are Fiona (Fee), Meggie, a priest named Ralph and most of the
incidents are surrounded by the love story full of hindrance but romantic between Meggie and
Ralph.
The development of the novel is not only exposed via the meticulous description of the
novelist but importantly, by the conversations among the characters. And clearly, nowhere is
better for the characters to express their feelings and attitudes toward every incident than in
conversations which therefore, are reliable source of data for modality in general and epistemic
in particular.
4. Methods of the study
The thesis is finished with the following methods:
Synthetic.
Analytical.

12


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

5. Design of the study
The thesis comprises three main parts:
Part I: Introduction
This part includes five sub- parts: the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design of the
study.
Part II: Content
This is the nuclear part of the whole study containing three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
This chapter makes an overview of the theories on Modality, and Speech Act, which are
treated as the major grounds for the analysis work.
Chapter 2: The study of epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

This chapter finds out how one of types of modality, that is epistemic, is employed in
conversation made by the characters in a great novel named “The Thorn Birds”. Of a great
number of the realizations of modality, the thesis only investigates fours basic ones: verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, nouns. Verbs are limited within ten modal verbs. Unsurprisingly, the
analysis result shows the highest proportion taken buy verbs.
Chapter 3: Implication for teaching – learning English Modality to Vietnamese learners of
English.
This chapter consists of two sections. The first one shows some problems that Vietnamese
learners occasionally meet when using modality, esp. epistemic by making an analyze from the
exercises system finished by about 120 students from Ha Huy Tap school. The causes will be
indicated then. Some suggested solutions as well as exercises related to modality lay the next
section.
Part III: Conclusion
This part summarize somewhat has discussed in the above two parts and showing some
restriction of the thesis.

13


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Part II: development
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
1.1. Concept of modality
1.1.1. Definition
The term “modality” can be understood widely. It, in general, is grammaticalized by a modal
system which is formally associated along with tense, aspect and voice; particularly in English,
it is specialized in modal verbs system such as will, can, must, may...In terms of semantic, the
notion, however, is related to attitudes and opinions, speech acts, subjective, non-factivity and
non-assertion which mean “the ideas that are concerned with the statements that are not used to

make statements of facts”(Palmer, 1998: 4).For those, modality could be defined as the
grammaticalization of S’s (subjective) opinions and attitudes.
It is roughly impossible for the linguists to standardize a criteria system of modality for every
language because modality, in fact, can be performed differently within different languages.
Yet, most of them, luckily, share common sense for its definition though they may convey it in
some different terms.
According to Bybee (1985), modality is related to “what the speaker is doing with the whole
propositions”. It can be interpreted from this statement that how the speaker solves with what he
is speaking. In respond to what Bybee states, Pamper (1986) offers a clearer definition in which
he concentrates on semantic field –“...is associated with S’s attitude or opinion about what is
said”. With the same view, Downing and Lock define modality as follow:
Semantic categories by which speakers express their attitude toward the event
contained in the proposition as possibility, probability, necessity, volition,
obligation, permission, doubt, wish, regret, design, and temporal notions such as
usuality. (1995:382).

In an effort to explicit some terms mentioned in the above definition, Steel et.al. (1981:21)
make another proposal: “Element expressing modality will mark any of the following: possible
or the related notion of permission, probability or the related notion of obligation, certainty or
the related notion of the requirement.” And then they give some illustration:
He may come tomorrow.
(Perhaps he will/ He is permitted)
The book should be on the shelf. (It probably is/ Its proper place)
He must be in the office.
(I am certain that he is/ He is obliged to be)
In another different view, Jasper would like to point out the different between mood and
modality that is very useful to the other researchers because there is a great confusion between
them. As for him, “... mood, thus, is a syntactic, not a notional category (i.e grammar
phenomenon)”, whereas “modality is some sort of semantic issue as it reflects S’s attitude or
knowledge about the factual status of a proposition”. By the way, Palmer (1986) also makes a

distinction between modality and proposition that is related to the terms “locutionary and
illocutionary” proposed by Austin. According to him, “proposition is about what we say

14


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

(locutionary) and then modality is what we want to do with what we say (illocutionary) thanking, making a promise, making a complaint or an accusation ...”
Above all, those linguists share a common thing which then was generalized briefly by
Ngun Hoµ.
“Modality is described as the expression of the S’s attitude or opinion
toward the content of proposition”.
(Understanding English Semantics - 2004 p. 176)
Furthermore, according to Cao Xuân Hạo ... the content of a proposition is divided into two
parts: the first is called dictum ... the second is named modus (or modality)”. Thus, researching
modality is to consider two parts: the dictum means what is said and the modus deals with how
is said that is the S’s cognitive, emotive... attitude about what is said. For example, the dictum
“he is ill” could be paired with various types of modus, such as:
Eg: I think that he is ill
I hope that he is ill.
He must be ill.
1.1.2. Types of modality
Many linguists are interested in classifying modality. Among them Jespersen (1924:320)
realises modality into two sub-categories:
- One of them contains an element of will: Hortative, Precative, Advisory, Obligative,
Permissive, Optative (realizable), Promissive, Intentional, Jussive.
- The other named “no element of will”:
Necessitavite, Assertive, Presumtive, Dubitative, Potential, Hypothetical, Concessional,
Apodictive, Conditional.

However, his proposals are judged to have so much limitation, esp. containing little of
theoretical significance, except for his recognition of two types and its terms are used to realise
“deontic” and “epistemic” then.
Von Wright later, distinguishes modality under four “modes”:

15


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Alethic
Epistemic
Deontic
Existential
necessary
verified
obligatory
universal
possible
---permitted
existing
contingent
undecided
indifferent
---impossible
falsified
forbidden
empty
More complicated, besides alethic, deontic, and epistemic, Rescher adds more three
types into his list: “temporal” with aim to distinguish tense from modality (It is

sometimes/mostly...); “boulomaic” (it is hoped/feared/regretted...); and “evaluative” (it
is a good /perfectly wonderful...) and “causal”. Unfortunately, this consideration is not
appreciated highly because they relate with actual states of affairs that can be true or
false. Despite of those limitation of some previous researchers in classifying modality,
some interesting things in their studying are still rather valuable for the later ones.
Finally, most of linguists come to agreement that modality consists of two main
kinds: deontic and epistemic.
According to Downing and Lock, S uses epistemic to comment on the content of the
clause, and non-epistemic or deontic to refer to obligation and permission and thanks to
them S is able to carry out two important communication functions: to comment on and
evaluate an interpretation of reality; to intervene in and bring about changes in events.
Lyons (in conjunction with other scholars) also agrees with this division but he definites
them under another terms.
Epistemic modality which is concerned with matters of knowledge,
belief (1977: 793) or “opinion rather than fact (1977: 681) and “Deontic
modality which is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts
performed by morally responsible agents. (1977:832)

Lyons’s remark seems to be more satisfactory because it can generalize all of the main
characters of two types. When S uses epistemic, he is expressing his opinion or attitude
toward the event that he believes or knows. That is to say, S commits to the truth of the
utterance. Whereas S uses deontic to convey the action done by the H or by himself. In
addition, being ambitious to show the real meaning behind those two terms, Palmer
affirms that on the side of semantic view, two basic kinds of modality belong to two
worlds: the world ‘perception” or “epistemic” and the world “deontic” or “real’ or
“root”. Linguists have characterized as root those meanings which denote real world
obligation, permission, or ability (as in a ) and as epistemic those which denote
necessity, probability, or possibility in reasoning(as in b)”
a. John must be home by ten. Mother won’t let him stay out any later. (Obligation)
b. John must be home already. I see him coat. (Possibility)

(Sweetser, 1990: 49)
1.1.2.1. Deontic modality
It is characterised by Jesperson as “containing an element of will” that is
concerned with action by other or by speaker himself. The actions may be:
Obligation: You must finish this work before I come back.
Permission: May I come in?

16


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Ability:
She can sing.
Necessity: It is necessary to visit him today.
Obviously, only after the moment of speaking, the action must be able to performed; as
a result, deontic is often related to the future.
As far as grammar is concerned, directives and commissives, as Searl (1979:14)
noted, are grammar types of deontic. Both are concerned with “fitting the world to the
word”
1.1.2.1.1. Directives (hearer- oriented)
Searl (1983:166) defines directives as “where we try to get our hearers to do
things”. Hence, in directives the hearers will be the performers.
Its realizations are mostly reflected in some basic modal verbs: may, might, must,
can, could, ought to, should. Among those, “may, might, can, could” generally indicate
the possibility or ability and the others show the necessity/obligation. In saying “you
may /must arrive on time” the S wants to impose the possibility /necessity of arriving on
time upon his hearer.
In terms of negative form, there are also some interesting things to explore. When
“mustn’t” is used to express for obligation, there may be a positive towards a negative

course of action (there is necessity not to ...) and vice verse a negative obligation
towards a positive course of action (there is no necessity to...) when “needn’t” is used:
Eg: John must come tomorrow.
John mustn’t come tomorrow. (There is necessary not to come)
John needn’t come tomorrow (There is no necessary to come)
Yet there is no complete set for “may”, S uses “may not “ only to deny permission (It is
not possible for...) but no form for negative action (possible for not)
John may come tomorrow.
John may not come tomorrow. (It is not possible for John to come tomorrow)
Except for the case in which “not” is stressed to give permission “not to act”
You may (can) come or you may (can) not come, as you wish.
(= It is possible you not to come)
Compared with “must“, by using “ought to” the S admits the possibility that the event
may not take place.
Eg: John ought to/ should come, but he won’t.
And “ought to” can refer to past events, whereas “must” can not:
John ought to/ should have come
“Must have” could be interpreted only epistemically, never deontically.
“Might” which according to Palmer expresses a stronger kind of deontic than “may”
is often used in question as a more tentative, more polite form for asking permission or
to make a quite suggestion.
Eg: Might I come late tomorrow? (asking permission)
You might have told me the truth. (a suggestion)
“Could” can be used to replace “might” in the above example.

17


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Besides, “imperative” can be seen as a sub-system of directive or an unmarked
member of deontic system. The H has to judge the force of his obligation act from the
circumstances. For instance:
Eg:
Stand at ease !
(in the army)
Take down this poem! (teacher at class)
Sit at the table!
(parents to children)
1.1.2.1.2. Commissive (speaker- oriented)
It is defined by Searl (1983:166) as” where we commit ourselves to do thing”. Here
the event via an utterance will be performed by the S, not the H. “Will” or “shall” are
often be used in this case to show the S’s commitment toward an action such as a threat
or a promise happening in the future.
Eg:
I will help you do housework. (a promise)
You shall be shot if you move. (a threat)
1.1.2. 2. Epistemic modality
This term derived from Greek word meaning “understanding or “knowledge”
(Lyons uses these terms in his definition about modality) refers to the type of modality
that indicates the degree of commitment by the S to what he says. In other word it deals
with the certainty of sentence. Consider the following illustration:
Mary must be a good student.
Mary may be a good student.
In the first sentence, the S shows his strong ensurance for the fact that “Mary is a good
student”, but “weaker” commitment in the second because he is not sure whether Mary
is a good student or not.
Thus, epistemic is concerned with the truth, belief and knowledge. And it is
categorized into two kinds: judgments and evidentials.
Again, Palmer in his research indicates four basic ways in which S may present what

he is saying not as a fact:
(i) That he is speculating about it.
(ii) That he is presenting it as a deduction
(iii)
That he has been told about it.
(iv) That it is a matter only of appearance, based on the evidence of senses.
And in respond to those above, there are also correlative subordinate sentences
introduced by “that” to express the degree of S’s commitment to the truth of the
proposition.
(i) It is possible that..../I think that....
(ii) It is to be concluded that.../ I conclude that
(iii)
It is said that .../X said that ...
(iv) It appears that...
Those belong to opinion (i) (iv), conclusion (ii), and report which may be termed
Speculative, Deductive, Quotative.
Judgment containing opinion and conclusion involves Speculative and Deductive.
The rest one Quotative which implies a report is a member of Evidentials.

18


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

1.1.2.2.1. Judgment
It involves necessity or possibility and has two degrees: a “weak” one and a “strong“
one. Correlatively, there are two typical representatives: may and must
Eg:
He may be there now. (It is possible he is there now)
He must be there now. (It is necessary that he is there now)

May and must carry Speculative and Deductive like the comment of Coates:
In its most normal usage, epistemic “must” conveys the speaker confidence
in the truth of what he is saying, based on a deduction from facts known to
him (which may or may not specified).
(1983: 41)
May and might are the modals of epistemic possibility, expressing the
speaker’s lack of confidence in the proposition expressed.
(1983: 131)

In terms of negation, positive judgments can be made about negative propositions and
negative judgments about positive ones. “May not” can be used for the former and “can
not” for the latter:
Eg:
He may be there.
He may not be there.
He can not be there.
The second of these expresses “It is possible that he is not there”, the third is “It is not
possible that he is being there”. Yet there is no similar set for “must”. Instead, “can’t”
and “may not” can replace it to express such meaning above but in reverse order:
“can’t” to express the former case, “may not” for the latter case.
He may be there.
He can’t be there.
He may not be there.
From the above illustration, it is easy to realise the logical relations between possibility
and necessary since “not possible” is equivalent to “necessary not” and vice verse.
However, for Lyons (1977: 802): “....possibility rather than necessary should be taken as
primitive in the analysis of epistemic modality”.
Especially, differ from deontic, in epistemic “may” and “must” have no past tense
forms that are used to refer to past time. “May have” and ‘must have” occur but make
present time judgments about past events. It is the proposition not the modality that is

past.
Eg: He did not go to school yesterday. He must have done. I am sorry for him.
In his research, Palmer mentions about the usage of “must and may” under the term of
“inference and confidence”. He quoted the comments of Coates (1983: 41) on “must”:
“the S’s confidence in the truth of what he is saying based on a deduction from facts
known”, on “may” “the S’s lack of confidence in proposition expressed...” These
statements show the close relationship between the degree of S’s confidence and
available information.
With “must”, there are some indications of the facts on which the inferences are
based. An example by Coates (1983: 41) is:

19


epistemic modality manifested in conversations in “The Thorn Birds”

Eg: “His teeth were still chattering but his forehead, when I felt, it was hot and
clummy.” He said “I must have a temperature”.
With “may”, in contrast, there is little sense of inference or reference to known facts.
Besides “may” and “must”, Palmer also introduces “will”, ”might” and “would” as
another realization of epistemic. Among those, “will” falls between “weak” may and
‘strong” must.
Eg:
He is not at school now. He will stay at home.
“Will” often seems, like “must”, indicate that the judgment is based on known facts.
However, according to Palmer it is not the system of Deductive or Speculative but
Assumptive. “Might” and “would” are used as “tentative” forms:
Eg:
John might be there by now.
They would be on holiday now.

1.1.2.2.2. Evidentials
Following the typology of Aikhenvald (2003, 2004) there are two broad types of
evidential marking.
- Indirectivity marking (type I)
- Evidential marking (type II)
Aikenvald defines that the first indicates whether evidence exists for a given statement
but doesn’t specify what kind of evidence (such as the evidence is visual, reported, or
inferred) whereas the second specifies the kind of evidence.
Indirectivity is indeed only popular in some certain languages. It is used to
“indicate whether evidence exists for a given source of information – thus they contrast
direct information (reported directly) and indirect information (reported indirectly,
focusing on its reception by the speaker / recipient)...” This opinion seems coincide with
Quirk’s classification named “Personal modality” which is more comprehensive.
“Personal modality” means the S, during his speech, can participate by offering his
comment on its content. And he divides its markers into two sub-groups.
The first of them expresses comment on the extent to which he believes that what he
is saying is true. It is sub- divided in three instances:
(i) They express primarily a subjective view on the truth of what is said:
certainly, admittedly, surely, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably
Eg: Undoubtedly, he is a liar.
(ii) Markers of degrees of convictions as open to objective evidence: clearly,
evidently, obviously, plainly.
Eg: Obviously, John does not want to meet me.
(iii) Markers of reality or lack of reality in what is said: actually, officially,
technically, theoretically.
Eg: Actually, English is the most popular language in the World.
(Quoted in NguyÔn Hoµ, 2004: 183)
The second type conveys S’s comment on the truth value of what is said. It can carry the
attitude of the S without any necessary implication that the judgment implies to the
subject of the sentence or indeed to the speaker.

Eg: Luckily, he catched the robber.

20