A Study On Deontic Modality Expressing Means In English And Vietnamese Declarative And Interrogative Sentences.pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES    BÙI THỊ ĐÀO A STUDY ON DEONTIC MODALITY EXPRESSING MEANS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE DECLARATIVE AND INTERROGAT[.]

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES  BÙI THỊ ĐÀO A STUDY ON DEONTIC MODALITY EXPRESSING MEANS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE DECLARATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES (NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN DIỂN ĐẠT TÌNH THÁI CHỨC PHẬN TRONG CÂU TƯỜNG THUẬT VÀ CÂU HỎI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT) Field: English Linguistics Code: 62.22.15.01 A dissertation submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at Vietnam National University, Hanoi Supervisors: Prof Dr Tran Huu Manh Dr Nguyen Duc Hoat HANOI, February 2014 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES  BÙI THỊ ĐÀO A STUDY ON DEONTIC MODALITY EXPRESSING MEANS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE DECLARATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES (NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN DIỂN ĐẠT TÌNH THÁI CHỨC PHẬN TRONG CÂU TƯỜNG THUẬT VÀ CÂU HỎI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT) Field: English Linguistics Code: 62.22.15.01 A dissertation submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at Vietnam National University, Hanoi HANOI, February 2014 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY A dissertation submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at Vietnam National University, Hanoi Hanoi, February 2014 Bùi Thị Đào i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to Prof Dr Nguyễn Hòa, Assoc Prof Dr Lê Hùng Tiến who awoke in me the interest in language, provided me with a basic knowledge of linguistics and advised me to take it seriously in my academic study To my supervisors, Prof Dr Trần Hữu Mạnh and Dr Nguyễn Đức Hoạt, I gratefully acknowledge a special indebtedness and sincere thanks for their insightful comments, kindhearted guidance and knowledgeable suggestions My deepest gratitude also goes to Prof Dr Hoàng Vân Vân, Assoc Prof Dr Phan Văn Quế, Dr Đỗ Tuấn Minh, Dr Kiều Thị Thu Hương, Dr Đỗ Thanh Hà, Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm for their enthusiastic support and invaluable remarks on my initial proposal Their comments significantly contributed to improving the quality of this research I am particularly indebted to Assoc Prof Dr Vũ Thị Thanh Hương, Prof Dr Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, Assoc Prof Tôn Nữ Mỹ Nhật, Dr Nguyễn Huy Kỷ, who generously shared the views and materials during the process of preparing this research I have also greatly benefited from discussions with them I take this opportunity to thank all the lecturers and members at CFL - VNU, Hanoi for their whole hearted support and guidance Thanks are also due to my colleagues, friends for their great support and encouragement throughout my study My special thanks and love go to my parents, my husband, my daughter and son, my brother and sisters who have supported me in the completion of this dissertation ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the study Aim of the study Scope of the study Methodology 4.1 Methods of the study 4.2 Data collection procedures 4.2.1 Description of corpus 4.2.2 Compilation of a corpus procedure 4.3 Data analysis 4.3.1 Describing the data 4.3.2 Comparing the two sources of data Structure of the study 3 5 6 9 11 CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Historical perspectives of modality 1.2 Modality 1.2.1 Definitions and different viewpoints 1.2.2 Types of modality 1.3 Deontic modality 1.3.1 Definitions and various viewpoints 1.3.2 Types of deontic modality 1.4 Types of deontic modality in English 1.4.1 Commissives 1.4.2 Directives 1.4.2.1 Deliberatives 1.4.2.2 Imperatives 1.4.2.3 Jussives 1.4.2.4 Obligatives 1.4.2.5 Permissives 1.4.2.6 Precatives 1.4.2.7 Prohibitives 1.4.3 Volitives 1.4.3.1 Imprecatives 1.4.3.2 Optatives 1.5 Types of deontic modality in Vietnamese 1.5.1 Commissives (tình thái cam kết/ hứa hẹn) 1.5.2 Directives (tình thái cầu khiến) 1.5.2.1 Deliberatives (yêu cầu) 1.5.2.2 Imperatives (mệnh lệnh) 1.5.2.3 Jussives (khuyến lệnh) 1.5.2.4 Obligatives (ép buộc) 1.5.2.5 Permissives (cho phép) iii 12 12 16 16 21 24 24 26 28 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 34 36 36 37 37 38 38 38 39 40 40 41 1.5.2.6 Precatives (khẩn cầu) 1.5.2.7 Prohibitives (cấm đoán) 1.5.3 Volitives (tình thái ý nguyện) 1.5.3.1 Imprecatives (khơng mong muốn/nguyền rủa) 1.5.3.2 Optatives (ước vọng/ mong mỏi) 1.6 Contrastive framework 1.7 Summary CHAPTER COMMISSIVES AND VOLITIVES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 41 41 42 42 42 43 45 46 2.1 Commissives in English and Vietnamese 2.1.1 Modal verbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.1.1 Syntactic features 2.1.1.2 Semantic features 2.1.2 Hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese commissives 2.1.2.1 Syntactic features 2.1.2.2 Semantic features 2.1.3 Performative verbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.3.1 Syntactic features 2.1.3.2 Semantic features 2.1.4 Modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.4.1 Syntactic features 2.1.4.2 Semantic features 2.1.5 Modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.5.1 Syntactic features 2.1.5.2 Semantic features 2.1.6 Expletives in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.6.1 Syntactic features 2.1.6.2 Semantic features 2.1.7 Modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese commisives 2.1.7.1 Syntactic features 2.1.7.2 Semantic features 2.2 Volitives in English and Vietnamese 2.2.1 Syntactic features 2.2.2 Semantic features 2.3 Summary 47 47 48 50 53 54 56 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 64 66 66 67 68 69 70 73 73 74 77 CHAPTER DIRECTIVES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 80 3.1 Modal verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 3.1.1 Syntactic features 3.1.2 Semantic features 3.2 Hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 3.2.1 Syntactic features 3.2.2 Semantic features 80 81 85 102 102 102 iv 3.3 Performative verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 3.3.1 Syntactic features 3.3.2 Semantic features 3.4 Modal words 3.4.1 Syntactic features 3.4.2 Semantic features 3.5 Modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese directives 3.5.1 Syntactic features 3.5.2 Semantic features 3.6 Modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese directives 3.6.1 Syntactic features 3.6.2 Semantic features 3.7 Modal nouns in English and Vietnamese directives 3.7.1 Syntactic features 3.7.2 Semantic features 3.8 Particles 3.8.1 Syntactic features 3.8.2 Semantic features 3.9 Modal idioms in English and Vietnamese directives 3.9.1 Syntactic features 3.9.2 Semantic features 3.10 Expletives in English and Vietnamese directives 3.10.1 Syntactic features 3.10.2 Semantic features 3.11 Modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese directives 3.11.1 Syntactic features 3.11.2 Semantic features 3.12 Summary CHAPTER 104 104 106 109 111 113 116 116 117 118 118 119 120 121 123 123 125 125 129 130 131 133 133 134 135 135 135 139 CONCLUSIONS 142 6.1 Recapitulation Contributions Pedagogical implications Limitations of the study Suggestions for further research 142 146 147 149 150 REFERENCES i APPENDIX A x APPENDIX B xxv v LIST OF FIGURES Fig 1.1 Types of modality Fig 1.2 A spatial model tense, aspect and modality Fig 1.3 Description of modality Fig 2.1 Set model for modal verbs, auxiliary verbs and verbs Fig 2.2 String matching of WILL in the English corpus Fig 2.3 String matching of SHALL in the English corpus Fig 2.4 String matching of WOULD in the English corpus Fig 2.5 String matching of SẼ in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 2.6 String matching of THINK in the English corpus Fig 2.7 String matching of PROMISE in the English corpus Fig 2.8 String matching of CERTAINLY in the English corpus Fig 2.9 String matching of PROBABLE in the English corpus Fig 2.10 String matching of SURE in the English corpus Fig 2.11 String matching of IT in the English corpus Fig 2.12 String matching of IF in the English corpus Fig 2.13 A distribution of linguistic means of expressing commisives in English Fig 2.14 A distribution of linguistic means of expressing commisives in Vietnamese Fig 2.15 A contrastive analysis of commissives in English and Vietnamese Fig 2.16 A distribution of linguistic means of expressing volitives in English Fig 2.17 String matching of HOPE in the English corpus Fig 2.18 String matching of WISH in the English corpus Fig 2.19 A contrastive analysis of volitives in English and Vietnamese Fig 3.1 String matching of MUST in the English corpus Fig 3.2 String matching of HAVE TO in the English corpus Fig 3.3 String matching of HAD TO in the English corpus Fig 3.4 String matching of PHẢI in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.5 String matching of WOULD in the English corpus Fig 3.6 String matching of MUỐN in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.7 String matching of MAY in the English corpus Fig 3.8 String matching of MIGHT in the English corpus Fig 3.9 String matching of CÓ LẼ in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.10 String matching of SHOULD in the English corpus Fig 3.11 String matching of OUGHT TO in the English corpus Fig 3.12 String matching of NÊN in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.13 String matching of CAN in the English corpus Fig 3.14 String matching of COULD in the English corpus Fig 3.15 String matching of CÓ THỂ in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.16 String matching of NEED in the English corpus Fig 3.17 String matching of CẦN in the Vietnamese corpus Fig 3.18 A distribution of linguistic means of expressing directives in English Fig 3.19 A distribution of linguistic means of expressing directives in Vietnamese Fig 3.20 A contrastive analysis of directive expressions in English and Vietnamese vi 12 17 19 47 50 51 52 53 56 59 62 65 65 67 70 71 72 72 74 75 75 76 86 86 86 88 89 90 91 91 92 94 94 95 96 97 98 98 99 137 138 139 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Types of modality Table 1.2 Palmer’s theoretical framework for deontic modality Table 1.3 Means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese Table 3.1 Types of English modal verbs Table 3.2 Directives in the interrogatives in English and Vietnamese Table 3.3 Directives in the declaratives in English and Vietnamese Table 3.4 The distribution of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese Table 3.5 The distribution of hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese Table 3.6 The distribution of performative verbs in English and Vietnamese Table 3.7 Distribution of Vietnamese modal words Table 3.8 The distribution of modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese Table 3.9 The distribution of modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese Table 3.10 Distribution of Vietnamese particles Table 3.11 The distribution of modal idioms in English and Vietnamese Table 3.12 The distribution of Expletives in English and Vietnamese Table 3.13 The distribution of modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese vii 23 27 44 81 84 84 100 102 106 114 117 119 126 132 134 135 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used chiefly in glossed language data examples: Ibid Aux S Mod V O MW HV VP MN C D V ECMAux1 ECMAux4 ECPV18 CADV23 ECADJ34 ECE15 ECMC34 EDMAux4 EDHV4 EDPV31 EDAdv25 EDAdj23 EDMN35 EDP18 EDMI12 EDMC23 EV2 VCMAux1 VCPV1 VCMC1 VDMAux5 VDPV8 VDMW42 VDAdv22 (VDMN10) VDP8 VDMI14 VDE17 VDMC36 EV26 the same author/ resources auxiliary subject modal verb verb object modal word hedge verb verb phrase modal noun commissive directive volitive English commissive modal auxiliary in English story English commissive modal auxiliary in English story English performative verbs in English story English modal adverbs in English story 23 English commissive adjective in English story 34 English commissive expletives in English story 15 English commissive modal conditionals in English story 34 English directive modal auxiliary in English story English directive hedge verbs in English story English directive performative verbs in English story 31 English directive modal adverbs in English story 25 English directive modal adjective in English story 23 English directive modal nouns in English story 35 English directive particles in English story 18 English directive modal idioms in English story 12 English directive modal conditionals English story 23 English volitives in English story Vietnamese commissive modal auxiliary in Vietnamese story Vietnamese commissive performative verbs in Vietnamese story Vietnamese commissive modal conditionals in Vietnamese story 11 Vietnamese directive modal auxiliary in Vietnamese story Vietnamese directive performative verbs in Vietnamese story Vietnamese directive modal words in Vietnamese story 42 Vietnamese directive modal adverbs in Vietnamese story 22 Vietnamese directive modal nouns in Vietnamese story 10 Vietnamese directive particles in Vietnamese story Vietnamese directive modal idioms in Vietnamese story 14 Vietnamese directive expletives in Vietnamese story 17 Vietnamese Directive Modal Conditionals in Vietnamese story 36 Vietnamese Volitive in Vietnamese story 26 viii (2.51) They wish to present you with a certain sum as compensation (Họ muốn đền bù cho cháu khoảng đó.) In (2.50) and (2.51), the utterances express the speaker’s attitude of hope or wish towards the hearer In Vietnamese, there are few deontic expressing means that are used to express volitive meanings except modal conditionals, accounting for only cases of all modal expressions in the whole Vietnamese corpus Among cases of expressing volitives, there is only one case of expressing imprecative with … as illustrated by (2.52) and the latter is optative with mong, cầu, ước, ao ước, chúc, as shown in the following examples: (2.52) Nếu rớt, tao không (EV26) (If I failed, I would not come back.) (2.53) Cầu trời phù hộ cho anh (EV1) (May God bless you.) (2.54) Chúc anh thi tốt nhé! (EV4) (I wish you good luck in the coming exam.) It is seen that example (2.52) expresses the speaker’s fear or misfortune of that utterance Examples (2.53), (2.54) express the speaker’s attitude of hopes or wishes concerning that utterance In brief, as has been seen, a similarity of the two languages in the usage of modal conditionals expressing volitive meanings though Vietnamese only use cases ranking a tenth of 96.43% in comparison with percentage of modal conditionals in English, as displayed in Fig 2.19 below: Fig 2.19 A contrastive analysis of volitives in English and Vietnamese 76 Fig 2.19 shows that English and Vietnamese are similar in the use of imprecatives that expresses misfortunes, as in the sentence: “Có lẽ bạn thắng lần sau.” (Perhaps you'll win next time); or “có lẽ em khơng qua đau này.” is equivalent with “I may not overcome this pain.” Both English and Vietnamese express optative meaning through lexical verbs wish, hope as shown in examples above However, in Vietnamese, there are various ways to express optatives such as mong/ cầu/ ước/ chúc (from examples (2.48) to (2.54)) while in English, they only use wish/ hope to indicate optatives This is a significant difference in the usage of lexical means in English and Vietnamese 2.3 Summary In brief, this part has made a contrastive analysis on commissive and volitive expressing means in English and Vietnamese With respective to syntactic features, English and Vietnamese modal verbs may occur in the same syntactic environment or simply the same construction in the declaratives to express commissives This construction consists of three parts: S + mod + main verb, as illustrated by examples (2.55), (2.56) Before or after each part another element may occur, functioning as an attribute, adverbial, or object (if the main verb is transitive), etc but this structure is optional Subjects, modal verbs, and main verbs are the essential elements Thus, this is a similarity between English and Vietnamese This can be exemplified by the examples in English and Vietnamese as follows: (2.55) in English I shall go down to Hampshire quite easy in my mind now (ECAux33) S mod main verb (2.56) In Vietnamese Anh tìm cách giảm bớt cho em cậu (VCAux5) S mod main verb 77 However, in the interrogatives, in English, the word order of the subject and the modals is the opposite of that in Vietnamese The modal verb in English is moved to pre-subject position or, simply, the subject follows the modal verb while the modal verb in Vietnamese is optionally followed by the subject and sometimes is expressed in the combination with final particles, as in “Shall I + V”, “Em + V… nhé/ nhá/ đấy” Hedge verbs in the declaratives in English are similar to those in Vietnamese In contrast, hedge verbs in the interrogatives in English are different from those in Vietnamese In English, an auxiliary verb used precedes subject to make an interrogative “Aux + S + … ?” (do in (2.18) can only be used as an auxiliary) while in Vietnamese it maintains the subject-predicate relationship in combination with interrogative words in final position “ S + có … khơng ?” Most of the performative verbs in Vietnamese constructions not have non-finite forms and they are not inflected in the third person singular of the present tense A clear difference between the two patterns of performative verbs is that Vietnamese structures are normally used in combination with a final particle while English structures are not used The constructions of modal adverbs and modal adjectives are different from those in Vietnamese Modal adverbs in English are normally followed by a bare infinitive of the verb while modal adverbs in Vietnamese are usually followed by a clause or a modal verb that modify the whole sentence Modal adjectives in English are normally followed by the forms of “be” (is/ are) while modal adjectives in Vietnamese are usually followed by a clause or a verb phrase that modify the whole sentence The expletive it in English can follow a verb and considered as an object of the sentence while in Vietnamese expletives allow double verbs “đi rửa mặt”, and its usage is considered an empty word “cho mát” referring to the situation in that utterance English speaker is hardly used the expletive like that However, there is no significant difference between modal conditionals in English and in Vietnamese except the equivalent translation in Vietnamese “nếu … thì” compared with the structure “if + clause, will +V…” in English 78 Volitive constructions in English are also different from those in Vietnamese To express optative, in English, volitive structures are very polyfunctional with a variety of patterns such as “wish to + V”, “hope to + V” or “I wish you/I were”, … In Vietnamese, in contrast, only attitudinal or intentional verbs such as “ước gì, chúc, hi vọng,…” are used to precede sentences With regard to semantic features, in English the use of linguistic means to express commissives cover deontic modal auxiliaries, hedge verbs, modal adverbs, modal adjectives and modal conditionals Vietnamese are also similar to English in the usage of modal auxiliaries (will/shall and sẽ), hedge verbs (think and nghĩ) and modal conditionals (if and …thì) indicating a promise, a threat or a commitment However, the devices of modal auxiliaries, hedge verbs and modal conditionals expressed in Vietnamese are used in low frequently in comparison with those in English (9 devices compared with 56 devices in overall) This is also a clear difference in the uses of commissive means in English and Vietnamese The above findings provide empirical evidence that English and Vietnamese volitive expressing means share the same meaning in the usage of optatives with hope and wish though Vietnamese speakers are very polyfunctional in the usage of the words mong/ cầu/ ước/ chúc to express a hope or a wish However, English speakers use modal auxiliary may not or adverb perhaps to express imprecative sense, Vietnamese speakers use conditional sentences “nếu …thì” to express imprecatives This is a significant difference in the usage of means of expressing volitives in English and Vietnamese 79 CHAPTER DIRECTIVES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE This chapter presents a contrastive analysis of linguistic means of expressing directives in English and Vietnamese From the data provided in the English and Vietnamese corpus, the author checks and clarifies the directive expressing means consiting of modal verbs, hedge verbs, performative verbs, modal words, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, particles, modal idioms, expletives, and modal conditionals taken from 421 declaratives and interrogatives in 50 English stories and 422 declaratives and interrogatives in 50 Vietnamese stories with the purpose to find out the similarities and differences among them As mentioned in Chapter two, to identify lexical means of expressing directives, the author rereads fifty English stories to find addressing terms or pronouns used in those stories such as the addressing terms between fathers and children, husbands and wives, uncles and nephews, or bosses and staffs etc These addressing terms will help to realize communicative forces as well as the equivalences and non-equivalences in translation of different contexts in the stories Of 421 declaratives and interrogatives in 50 English stories, there are only 282 declaratives and 32 interrogatives expressing directive meanings In Vietnamese, in contrast, there are 367 declaratives and 38 interrogatives indicating directive meanings of 422 declaratives and interrogatives in 50 Vietnamese stories These declaratives and interrogatives conveying directive means will be clarified in details in English and Vietnamese as follows: 3.1 Modal verbs in English and Vietnamese directives The following classification of modal verbs is based on Li (2004) since his classification can be applied effectively for the study languages in linguistics in general, and for the purpose of the author’s reseach in particular In this part, the author only provides a general classification of modal verbs as a basic framework for a detail analysis of modal verbs that collected from the result of the study The criteria that modal verbs are clarified can be summed up as following: 80 Sub-categories Lexical forms Primary auxiliaries BE HAVE is, are, am, was, were has, have, had DO Central modal verbs Finite Non-finite be, being, been do, does, did WILL SHALL CAN MAY MUST will, would shall, should can, could may, might must OUGHT (TO) HAVE (GOT) TO NEED (TO) ought has/have/had (got) to need Table 3.1 Types of English modal verbs (Source: Li, 2004: 36) 3.1.1 Syntactic features As described in section 2.1.1 in chapter 2, the structures of modal verbs in the declaratives in English and Vietnamese are similar: S + Mod + V However, the patterns of modal verbs in the interrogatives are expressed in various ways of the type: Mod + S + V, as in the following examples: (3.1) Will you Mod S tell me something about yourself? (DMAux26) V (Anh kể với em đôi điều anh chứ?) (3.2) Could you Mod S copy a small paper for me this morning? (DMA26) V (Anh phơ tơ cho em bảng nhỏ sáng không?) 81 (3.3) May I Mod S go out? (DMA26) V (Con chút nhé?) In English there are plenty of examples of interrogative may/ could/ must/ can/ have to/ will/ would/…can having the 1st and the 2nd person subject and being used as polite requests (3.1, 3.2) These may be used to ask for permission politely Frequently, the permission is not to be denied, but it is polite to ask for it before acting The word orders of the subject and the modals are opposite of those in Vietnamese In Vietnamese modal verbs used to express directives are normally found in the following pattern and example (3.4) as follows: S + (mod) + … + particles (3.4) Em S V chút nhé? (DMA8) P (Could I be out for a while?) English and Vietnamese modal verbs show many differences in the negation to express directives One of the differences is the placement of the negative markers in the negative forms of modal verbs in English compared with Vietnamese, as illustrated by (3.5), (3.6) below: (3.5) You mustn’t S Mod go now? (EMax34) V (Anh chứ?) 82 (3.6) Mày S Mod đến (VDAux17) P (You musn’t/ don’t have to come!) As has been seen, the difference of placement is taken place in the negative forms with necessity modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, i.e., deontic necessity modals must not in English and in Vietnamese In both examples (3.5), (3.6), the negator structurally negates the necessity modal, but semantically negates the main verb This difference is observed to express directives not only with must not and in these two languages, but also with many other necessity modals, such as may/ might/ need to/ should, and ought to in Vietnamese This is a clear difference between English and Vietnamese Moreover, a significant difference from modal verbs in English and Vietnamese is that the Vietnamese modal verbs not have inflectional forms of past tense forms To indicate a weaker strength of modality, Vietnamese resorts to two means One is to use other modal verbs, i.e khơng nên/ khơng phải or có lẽ (should not/ must not or may/ might in English) The other means is to use final particles to lessen the strength of the directives In English, nevertheless, there is a group of tentative forms i.e would/ could/ might/ should/ may/ can is used in combination with past tense or past participle forms It can thus be said that English and Vietnamese modal verbs are very different in the use of modal verbs in the interrogatives and declaratives, as summaried in Tables 3.2, 3.3 below: 83 Language English Vietnamese Elements to be Contrast Operator + S + … ? - S + có … khơng? (do , have, be) - S + có phải là… khơng? - S + có phải (đã) … không? Primary auxiliaries - S + … (rồi ) phải không? INTERROGATIVES - S + chưa? S + … chưa? Ending with “ yet “ Can / could (may) might + I + V- inf ? - S + V … không ạ? - S + V … nhé/chứ/nghen? - Để + S + có… khơng? Modal auxiliaties - S + V + … nào? Must + I + … ? S + V … + không/à? Can / could / will / would + you - S+V…được không ạ/ ạ? - S+V … nhé/ nha / nghen? - Shall + We + V_inf - S + V … có … không? - S + V … / nhỉ? - S + có nên + V … khơng? S+V+…? - S + V … /nhỉ Table 3.2 Directives in the interrogatives in English and Vietnamese Language English Vietnamese DECLARATIVES Elements to be contrast Positive declarative questions Negative declarative questions Positive declaratives S + V + …? S + V + n’t + …? S+ Mod + V - Có phải … không? … chứ/ nhé? không / … à/ ư/ sao? … phải không/ không? - … chứ/ Table 3.3 Directives in the declaratives in English and Vietnamese 84 3.1.2 Semantic features Modal verbs in English are found at the highest rate in overall, accounting for 181 devices (57.64%) denoting in grades of obligatory and necessity MUST/ HAVE TO/ HAD TO According to Quirk et al (1985: 225), must is always in simple present and non finite form Rothstein & Thieroff (1999: 138) indicate that must is a general term used in formal environment denoting "necessity" and it can substitute have to, have got to, need The modal verb must expresses strong necessity to something, with such shades of meaning as obligation, duty, responsibility, requirement; and is expressed in proper context with adverbs of time refering to the future such as "tomorrow, soon, next week, right now, now." van der Auwera & Plungian (1998: 81) state that must is also used stronger, stricter, and more categorical than have to when indicating the speaker’s action that is absolutely necessary, and must can be used to express an obligative relating to the speaker’s authority that means “I require you to…” Palmer (1990: 70) claims that it is possible for must to express obligation without the implication of the speaker’s involvement, and must reports what someone else, probably a university rule or deontic requires It can be pharaphrased as ‘It is necessary for …’ This use is observable in assertion, where there is little or no implication of the speaker’s authority Li (2004: 59) also offers that must is often used in a weaker sense with some verbs in dialogues, such as ‘I must say (admit, be honest, ask you, confess, concede, or mention)’ and “You must remember (admit, realise, understand)” At this point “the speaker either imposes the obligation on himself” or asks the hearer “to behave in a similar fashion” Quirk et al (1985: 225) suggest that when used in the first person, singular or plural, must “denotes the speaker’s necessity or wish/ desire to something” If the hearer is in the position to lay the obligation, must is far more likely In addition, the obligation that is expressed in the past can be rendered by structure “must + perfect infinitive”, and denoted in the future by a variety of means: will/must have (got) to It depends on what the speaker wants to show or emphasize 85 In this study, must/ have/ has/ had to is the most commonly used of all the modal verbs, accounting for 117 hits (79.1%) of directive expressing means in comparation with 429 hits (must), 51 hits (have to) and 51 hits (had to) in the English corpus, as shown in Fig 3.1, Fig 3.2 and Fig 3.3 below: Fig 3.1 String matching of MUST in the English corpus Fig 3.2 String matching of HAVE TO in the English corpus Fig 3.3 String matching of HAD TO in the English corpus 86 Must and have/ had to express strong obligation and necessity meanings Must is most commonly used to convey certainty and authority, accounting for 107 cases of all modal verbs, and is used stronger, stricter, and more categorical than have to (2 cases) and had to (8 cases) when indicating the speaker’s action that is absolutely necessary, as shown in (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9) below: (3.7) I must go home now, for dad is very ill (EDMAux 34) (Anh phải nhà bố ốm nặng.) (3.8) In order to give you an idea of the facts, you must go back to the commencement of the affair (EDMAux 27) (Để lấy ý kiến kiện, anh phải quay lại phòng nội vụ.) (3.9) I had to follow him up the oak staircase (EDMAux1) (Tôi phải theo lên cầu thang làm gỗ sồi.) Examples (3.7) and (3.8) express speaker’s authority and certainty towards the hearer In (3.9), the speaker imposes the obligation on himself, there is no doubt about that duty, he is forced to it Thus, the function of must and had to are certainly used for obligative meanings Besides, necessity meaning of must/ had to is used to figure out or debate a matter in speaker’s mind, as in the following examples: (3.10) She had to leave the dance (EDMAux4) (Cô ta phải rời buổi khiêu vũ.) (3.11) She must go downstairs to telephone to the country (EDMAux4) (Cô ta phải xuống cầu thang để điện thoại nước.) In examples (3.10) and (3.11), the speakers use necessity must when trying to perform an act It means “It is essential/ necessary for her to that” In Vietnamese, Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008: 131-134) states that phải indicates obligative which conveys a source of authority directly from the speaker, and phải also indicates “necessity” of 87 an action that one has to perform” In this section, phải emerges as the first most normal modal auxiliary (1598 cases) in the whole Vietnamese corpus, as seen in Fig 3.4 However, phải only occupies 13 cases (52%) in terms of directive meanings, as in (3.12), (3.13) below: Fig 3.4 String matching of PHẢI in the Vietnamese corpus Phải indicates obligative which conveys a source of authority directly from the speaker as in the following example: Tải FULL (201 trang): https://bit.ly/3izm4UG (3.12) Em phải đến ngay! (VDMAux5) Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net (You must come right now.) Phải denotes necessity of an action that one has to perform, as shown in the example below: (3.13) Vậy mai anh phải uống thuốc chữa bệnh (VDMAux8) (You must take medicine for cure.) WOULD Would shows the highest rate in comparison with all modal auxiliaries in the English corpus, accounting for 1034 hits as is seen in Fig 3.5 However, would is emerged as the second most common (20 cases with 11.69%) expressing a precative in terms of directive meanings as illustrated by (3.14), (3.15), (3.16), (3.17) below: 88 Fig 3.5 String matching of WOULD in the English corpus (3.14) Would you like to go and see it now? (EDMAux3) (Em có muốn xem khơng?) (3.15) I would like to go to India myself? (EDMAux4) (Con muốn Ấn Độ khơng?) (3.16) Wouldn't you like to go now to the seaside, instead of waiting? (EDMAux4) (Con không muốn biển dạo thay đợi à?) (3.17) You would have handed over to the secretary, and the secretary would have given it to me? (EDMAux23) Tải FULL (201 trang): https://bit.ly/3izm4UG Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net (Lẽ anh nên nộp cho thư ký thư ký đưa lại cho chứ?) Example (3.14) is considered as a polite suggestion or an offer ‘whether the hearer would like to go?’ Example (3.15) is used as a polite suggestion or an offer in the interrogatives that ‘whether the speaker can go alone?’ Similarity, example (3.16) is also a polite suggestion, and (3.17) is an offer in the negative and declarative questions In Vietnamese, muốn (would) emerges the third highest frequency of modal auxiliaries in the Vietnamese corpus, with 737 hits, as shown in Fig 3.6 However, muốn is less commonly used in terms of directives It only accounts for devices in overall, as illustrated by (3.18), (3.19) as following: 89 Fig 3.6 String matching of MUỐN in the Vietnamese corpus Muốn is used to convey speaker’s desire towards a proposition, as illustrated by the following example: (3.18) Không, anh muốn thay đổi khơng khí chút (VDMAux5) (No, I would only like to change the atmosphere for a while.) Muốn expresses necessity of an action that the addressee has to perform as a request, as in the example below: (3.19) Mày muốn hỏi tao hỏi đại đi, tao ngồi lâu rồi! (VDMAux5) (Don’t hesitate to ask me I have been waiting here for long.) SHOULD/ OUGHT TO Quirk et al (1985: 227) and Coates (1983: 59) explain that should is not a tentative form of shall, but a synonym to ought to Should and ought to have the same meaning and can replace one another in many cases Should/ ought to is used to express obligation, recommendations, or giving pieces of advice Quirk et al (1985: 227) also state that in the deontic meaning, should can be substituted for ought to, but not to differ in meaning at all, and if the action was accomplished, though it wasn’t necessary, the speaker uses should or ought to with the perfect infinitive to show the obligation or necessity 90 6812938 ... two languages, a comparative and contrastive study on the similarities and differences of deontic expressing means in 421 declaratives and interrogatives in English and 422 declaratives and interrogatives...VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES  BÙI THỊ ĐÀO A STUDY ON DEONTIC MODALITY EXPRESSING MEANS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE DECLARATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE. .. analyze and describe linguistic means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese  To compare and contrast linguistic means of expressing deontic modality in terms of grammatical