Rationale
Modality, expressed through modal verbs, is a complex linguistic phenomenon in both English and Vietnamese Numerous researchers, including Langacker, Talmy, Taylor, Sweetser, Johnson, Coates, Mulder, Pelyvás, and Mortelmans, have explored modality in the English language, contributing to a deeper understanding of its nuances and applications.
Research on modality in the Vietnamese language has been conducted by several scholars, including C.X Hạo (2004), N.T Hùng (1994), Đ.H Châu (1996), V.Đ Quang (2008), N.T Thìn (2003), and others like N.M Thuyết & N.V Hiệp (2004), D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000), N.T Thuận (2003), P.T.T Thùy (2008), N.T Hùng (2002, 2003), N.V Hiệp (2007, 2009), and B.M Tóan & N.T Lương, contributing to a deeper understanding of modality in this linguistic context.
This study addresses the lack of research on the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from a cognitive perspective, particularly focusing on force dynamics It aims to describe, analyze, and compare English and Vietnamese root modality—encompassing obligation, permission, ability, and volition—as well as epistemic modality, which includes necessity, probability, and possibility, as expressed through modal verbs Following Lock's (1996) narrow definition of modality, this research emphasizes modal auxiliaries and their functions It draws on Langacker's (2003) characterization of modals as grammaticalized grounding elements that operate within a force-dynamic framework, where the speech event and its participants are subjectively construed and largely 'offstage.'
(2) the event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’ (Langacker 1999: 308)
This study conducts an empirical investigation into the phenomenon of modality, specifically focusing on modal verbs It analyzes two distinct corpora: one comprising 500,000 words from 91 social science texts in English, and the other consisting of 500,000 words from 119 social science texts in Vietnamese.
This study serves as a valuable resource for researchers exploring the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in both English and Vietnamese It focuses on the social science field, where the researcher frequently engages The collected data undergoes quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify similarities and differences in the force dynamics of modal verbs between English, treated as the source language, and Vietnamese, used for comparison The findings are primarily discussed through the lens of force dynamics, referencing prominent scholars such as Talmy, Langacker, Johnson, Sweetzer, Taylor, and Pelyvás.
This study aims to explore the equivalence and non-equivalence of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, focusing on two key dimensions of experience: (1) the sociophysical area, which encompasses physical interactions, social relations, practices, and institutions, and (2) the epistemic senses related to argumentation, theorizing, and reasoning activities By examining these aspects, the research seeks to enhance English teaching and learning in the Vietnamese context.
Scopes of the Study
To effectively manage the study's objectives, it is essential to establish clear delimitations, focusing primarily on a representative sample of modal verbs in both English and Vietnamese The central thesis posits that these verbs convey two primary types of modality: root modality and epistemic modality This study aligns with Lock’s (1996) definition of modality, emphasizing that it is predominantly expressed through modal verbs and their applications Research by Hermeren (1978) indicates that modal verbs rank just below articles, specific prepositions, conjunctions, and pronouns in frequency, based on the Brown University corpus Furthermore, studies by Leech, Rayson & Wilson (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), and N.T.T Thủy (2012) confirm that modal auxiliary verbs are the primary means of expressing modality in English Recent cognitive-focused research on modality has particularly concentrated on English modals, as highlighted by scholars such as Langacker (1991a) and Talmy.
This study focuses on analyzing root and epistemic modality as expressed by core English modal verbs, including can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should, and semi-modals such as ought to, have to, and need The analysis is based on a 500,000-word corpus comprising 91 English social science texts Notably, "have to" is included due to its significance in discussions of obligation and necessity, as it is the most frequently used form in both American and British English However, semi-modals like "dare" and "had better" are excluded from this analysis, with "dare" being rare and declining, and "had better" not fitting the primary focus of the study.
In this study, the modals "dare" and "had better" are excluded due to their absence in the English corpus analyzed (Leech 2003: 229) However, "need to" is examined in Chapters III and IV, as it is essential for a comprehensive analysis of obligation and necessity, particularly given its rising usage in American English (Mairs 2006) Additionally, the study will not focus on the uses of "will," "would," and "shall" that merely indicate tense or mood While "ought to" is sometimes viewed as marginal, it does not pose issues regarding the formal characteristics of modal auxiliary verbs, aside from its to-infinitive form.
With respect to Vietnamese, studies conducted by some researchers such as C.X.Hạo (1997,
2004), N.V.Hiệp (2007, 2009); D.Q.Ban & H.Dân (2000), D.Q.Ban & H.V.Thung (2012), N.T.Thìn (2003), Đ.H.Châu (1996), Đ.H.Châu & B.M Toán (2001), V.Đ.Quang (2008), N.T.Thuận (2003), N.T.Hùng (1994), N.T.Hùng (2002, 2003), V.Đ.Nghiệu (1998), B.T.Ngoãn
Modality in the Vietnamese language is conveyed through various linguistic expressions, including modal verbs (such as nên, cần, and phải), epistemic lexical verbs (like tin and đoán), modal adjectives (e.g., chắc), modal adverbs, modal nouns, and modal particles While it is challenging to cover all types of Vietnamese modal expressions comprehensively, research indicates that modal verbs are the most prevalent in academic writing This study focuses specifically on analyzing root and epistemic modality as expressed by Vietnamese modal verbs, including nên, cần, and có thể.
This article argues that Vietnamese modals correspond to English modals, drawing on research from various scholars including N.K Thản (1999), D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000), and others to identify and categorize the root and epistemic meanings of these modal verbs The researcher synthesizes and analyzes the diverse meanings of these modals to enhance understanding of their usage.
In this study, the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is considered as a theoretical framework since the
Cognitive Linguistics (CL) fundamentally contrasts with traditional views by asserting that language is a manifestation of overarching cognitive processes rather than a distinct system governed by its own set of rules (Tyler, 2008: 459-60) Unlike formal approaches, CL distinguishes itself by rejecting the separation of language from other psychological phenomena.
Language is not a separate module or mental faculty but an integral aspect of cognition (Langacker, 2013) Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes that language is shaped by our experiences and the way we perceive and conceptualize the world (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996).
CL ‘is simply that language is all about meaning.’ (Depraetere & Reed, 2006: 3)
Cognitive researchers, including Mortelmans (2007), highlight the effectiveness of cognitive linguistic concepts like force dynamics in uncovering commonalities among various modal expressions Building on Talmy's notions of force dynamics and contributions from scholars such as Langacker, Sweetzer, Johnson, Taylor, and Pelyvás, this research aims to analyze the root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in both English and Vietnamese.
This study analyzes the frequency and context of English and Vietnamese modal auxiliary verbs using data from two separate corpora Utilizing the TexSTAT-2 program for corpus-based analysis, it aims to identify the Key Word In Context (KWIC) concordance of these verbs Additionally, the string matching of each modal verb in social science texts from both languages is detailed in Appendix C, pp XXXIII - LXIV.
This study investigates the similarities and differences in the root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese through force dynamic analyses It highlights that not all social science texts in these languages exhibit the same patterns across various contexts Additionally, the research presents key findings, discusses their implications, and offers recommendations for avoiding common pitfalls and for future research directions.
The study primarily overlooks several key areas, including the mood system, which pertains to the syntactic structure of sentences, encompassing indicatives, imperatives, and subjunctives Additionally, it does not address other modal expressions such as modal adjectives, nouns, hedging devices, adverbs, and particles Furthermore, the research focuses on written texts, neglecting the intonation and prosodic features However, these topics may be addressed as needed throughout the study.
Aim and Objectives of the Study
This study aims to demonstrate the effectiveness of the force dynamics framework as a tool for analyzing and comparing modality in English and Vietnamese By examining the similarities and differences in modal verbs between the two languages, the research seeks to enhance the teaching and learning of English within the Vietnamese context.
Therefore, the objectives of the study are:
- to identify and describe root and epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from the Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of force dynamics;
- to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs from force dynamics frameworks.
Research Questions
In order to achieve the above aim and objectives, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1 How are root and epistemic senses of modality as realized by modal verbs in English and Vietnamese in terms of force dynamics?
This article explores the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality as expressed through modal verbs, focusing on the force dynamics perspective It examines the frequency of modal verb occurrences in both languages, highlighting how these linguistic elements function to convey necessity, possibility, and certainty By analyzing the usage patterns of modal verbs, the study reveals distinct cultural and grammatical influences that shape modality in English and Vietnamese, providing insights into their comparative linguistic structures.
Methods of the Study
The study utilized a corpus-aided analysis of English and Vietnamese social science texts to examine the frequency and KWIC (key word in context) concordance of specific modal verbs By integrating quantitative and qualitative research approaches, the analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the data The quantitative method offered statistical insights into the prevalence of modal verbs within a substantial corpus, consisting of 500,000 words in English and corresponding texts in Vietnamese.
The study utilizes a 500,000-word corpus in Vietnamese, focusing on a qualitative analysis of modal verbs to explore underlying forces and barriers This approach enables a deeper understanding of the textual processes and uncovers subtle meanings associated with key terms.
This study aims to enhance the understanding of Cognitive Linguistics by comparing and contrasting modality in English and Vietnamese within authentic social science texts It is grounded in the premise that language is best understood through its cognitive, experiential, and social contexts (Kemmer, 2000) Furthermore, Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes the identification of meaningful linguistic patterns and organizing principles across all language levels (Tyler, 2008) Additionally, language serves two interconnected functions: a semiological function that allows thoughts to be expressed through sounds, gestures, or writing, and an interactive function (Langacker, 1998).
Cognitive linguistics, as argued by researchers like Gonzales-Marquez et al (2007), positions itself as a non-objectivist theory of language, yet it benefits from corpus-based research to enhance linguistic descriptions This approach is essential for usage-based linguistics, which relies on actual language usage found in corpora, showcasing spontaneous, non-elicited data Furthermore, Cognitive linguistics emphasizes that our understanding of the world is an active construction influenced by cultural and social differences, prompting a deeper exploration of these variations Additionally, contextual analysis of authentic social science texts allows for a detailed examination of modal verbs, focusing on their meanings and purposes Despite the smaller size of the analyzed corpora, close reading facilitates an in-depth understanding of individual words and their collocations, aiming to uncover the root and epistemic meanings of different modal verbs in varying contexts.
To enhance the quality of their study, researchers should actively consult with supervisors, fellow researchers, and colleagues It is crucial to emphasize that these methods are implemented interactively and collaboratively, rather than in isolation.
This study excludes several topics, including the mood system, modal adjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modal adverbs, modal particles, and prosodic features like intonation However, these elements may be addressed as needed throughout the analysis.
Contribution of the Study
Theoretical Significance of the Study
The development of the corpus-aided approach to find out the frequency and collocations of modal verbs appearingin English and Vietnamese social science texts;
The development of the contrastive and comparative analysis of English and Vietnamese
Practical Significance of the Study
This article systematically analyzes modals in English and Vietnamese through the lens of force dynamics It aims to assist non-native writers in publishing their research in English journals while exploring the underlying differences in modality between the two languages Additionally, it seeks to raise awareness and interest in foreign language learning and teaching, emphasizing the importance of considering social and cultural differences between a speaker's native language and their target language.
Structure of the Dissertation
This chapter begins with a concise exploration of the traditional concept of modality, followed by an analysis of its two primary types: root modality and epistemic modality It then introduces an overview of Cognitive Linguistics, establishing a theoretical foundation for the discussion Finally, the chapter examines the force dynamic frameworks associated with modal verbs.
Chapter II starts with restating the research questions Then, it describes the principal method of the study, the data collection, the corpus-aided analysis and the Cognitive analysis framework
Chapter III focuses on the comparative analysis of the root meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese It aims to identify the similarities and differences in how both languages express modality, specifically in terms of obligation, permission, ability, and volition The analysis considers the force dynamics and examines the frequency of occurrences of modal verbs in both English and Vietnamese.
Chapter IV examines the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese epistemic modality, focusing on necessity, probability, and possibility as expressed through modal verbs and their force dynamics This chapter, along with Chapter III, will analyze both root and epistemic senses of modals through a corpus-based approach, comparing English modals in the English corpus and Vietnamese modals in the Vietnamese corpus The analysis will include string matching of each modal verb, presented using the KWIC (Key Words In Context) concordance format.
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter explores the extensive literature on modality, focusing on the distinctions and categories relevant to comparing root and epistemic modality expressed through modal verbs in English and Vietnamese social science articles, analyzed through the lens of force dynamics from a cognitive perspective The literature predominantly emphasizes modal verbs, treating English modal auxiliaries as the primary examples and using Vietnamese modal verbs for comparative analysis This tendency is evident in both language-specific studies, such as those by Palmer (1990) and Coates.
The concept of modality has been explored extensively in linguistic studies, with researchers such as Sweetser (1990), Johnson (1987), and Taylor (2002) contributing to traditional perspectives, while others like Nuyts (2001) and Linden (2012) offer broader insights into epistemic modality and modal adjectives This chapter aims to describe and analyze modality, highlighting its diverse types and meanings Unlike tense or aspect, modality is a complex semantic category that is not easily defined, as noted by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994), who emphasize that modality can be categorized and named in various ways.
“there is no one correct way” (Van der Auvera and Plungian, 1998, cited in Mortemans, 2007:
869) Then it will present an overview of the Cognitive perspective And lastly, it provides force dynamic frameworks of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese.
Modality from the Traditional Point of View
The concept of modality, encompassing possibility, probability, and necessity, traces its roots back to Aristotle and classical Greek philosophy, as noted by Hoye (1997) These modal notions arise from the human tendency to categorize attitudes and experiences based on how things could or must be, rather than their actual state This article summarizes the perspectives of various authors on modality, including Jesperson (1949), von Wright (1951), Rescher (1968), Bybee (1985), McCarthy (1994), Lyons (1977), and Palmer (1986).
Modality, as defined by Jesperson (1949, cited in N Hòa, 2004: 175), is an intriguing concept divided into two categories: deontic modality, which involves an element of will, and epistemic modality, which does not While Jesperson's classification is significant, it lacks depth and raises questions about his sub-categories and criteria (Palmer, 1986) In contrast, Von Wright (1951, cited in Palmer, 1986) offers a more comprehensive framework in modal logic, identifying four modes: alethic (truth), epistemic (knowing), deontic (obligation), and existential (existence) The key distinction lies between epistemic and deontic modality, aligning closely with Jesperson's initial classifications.
In his 1968 work, Rescher introduces an expanded modality system that encompasses various types of modalities These include 'elethic' modalities, which pertain to truth values, 'epistemic' modalities that focus on knowledge and belief, and 'deontic' modalities related to duties and obligations.
The article discusses various types of modalities, including 'temporal', 'boulomaic', 'evaluative', 'likelihood', and 'causal' modalities, along with three types of 'conditional' modality Rescher (1968) defines a proposition as a complete statement that is either true or false, and suggests that when a proposition is further qualified, it introduces a modality to the original statement However, Palmer (1986) critiques Rescher's definition, arguing that it may lead to significant theoretical issues and is overly broad.
Perkins (1980) simplifies Rescher's eight categories of modality into four distinct types: epistemic modality, which relates to rational laws; deontic modality, linked to social laws; dynamic modality, associated with natural laws; and temporal modality In contrast, Searle (1979) approaches modality through the lens of speech act theory, identifying five categories of illocutionary acts: assertives, which convey how things are; directives, aimed at prompting actions; and commissives, where speakers commit to certain actions.
In the study of language, different speech acts serve distinct purposes: declarations effect changes through utterances, expressives convey feelings and attitudes, assertives reflect the speaker's belief in a proposition's truth, and both directives and commissives align with deontic modality—where commissives focus on the speaker's intentions and directives on the listener's actions Declaratives are closely related to assertives, linking them to epistemic modality, while expressives may also fall under this category Bybee (1985) views modality broadly as the speaker's intention regarding the entire proposition, whereas Pamper (1986) defines it as the semantic information tied to the speaker's attitude or opinion about their statements (cited in N Hòa, 2004).
According to McCarthy (1994: 94), modality refers to a specific type of thought that primarily involves a limited set of modal verbs such as must, can, will, and may, which are integral to English grammar However, many lexical words—including nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs—also convey meanings similar to those of 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
The concept of "knowledge" pertains to beliefs and opinions rather than factual information, while "deontic," derived from Greek, relates to the obligations of morally responsible agents Modality reflects the speaker's subjectivity (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986), yet Palmer (1986) contends that determining the subjectivity of modals is complex For instance, the statement "You must leave at once" may express either the speaker's insistence or an objective necessity, making it difficult to favor one interpretation without additional context Thus, understanding such statements often requires a specific situational backdrop, and they can also be analyzed through the lens of force dynamics from a cognitive perspective.
In this study, modality is defined in accordance with Lyons (1977), who describes it as the speaker's opinion or attitude toward the proposition expressed in a sentence or the situation it describes Additionally, the research adheres to Lock's (1996) narrower definition of modality, focusing on its specific implications in communication.
Modality is defined as a semantic system primarily expressed through modal verbs, allowing speakers to convey their viewpoints, opinions, and commitment to the truth of propositions or events.
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
In logical statements, the concepts of "necessity" and "possibility" are closely intertwined, as illustrated by the equivalences: "It is necessary that p" implies that "it is impossible that not p," and conversely, "It is necessary that not p" indicates that "it is impossible that p" (Johnson, 1987: 48-49).
Modal verbs encompass meanings closely tied to our daily experiences, reflecting our perceptions of reality, possibility, and necessity (Johnson, 1987) Cognitive linguists, including Talmy, Sweetser, Taylor, and Langacker, propose a semantics of modals grounded in force dynamics, suggesting that modals serve as grammaticized grounding elements where the speech event and participants are conceptually 'offstage' (Langacker, 2003) These modals possess two key characteristics: they are force-dynamic, and the events they refer to remain potential rather than actual (Langacker, 1999) This force dynamics are deeply rooted in the conceptualizer's mental processes, emphasizing their subjective interpretation (Langacker, 1999).
This article explores the description and analysis of modality in English and Vietnamese, focusing on the role of modal verbs through a cognitive lens, particularly emphasizing force dynamics.
This article explores key types of modality, including epistemic versus deontic modality, root versus epistemic modality, agent-oriented versus speaker-oriented modality, and extrinsic versus intrinsic modality It references significant research contributions from scholars such as Bybee & Fleischman (1995), N.V Hiệp (2009), Palmer (1986, 1990), and Nuyts (2001).
2006), Coates (1983), Bybee et al (1994), Biber et al (1999), Perkins (1980, 1983), Huddleston (1980), Linden (2012), Declerck (2011), Johnson (1987), Talmy (1988, 2000ab), Sweetser (1990), Taylor (2002), and Langacker (1990, 1991ab, 1999, 2003)
1.2.2.1 Agent-oriented Modality vs Speaker-oriented Modality
Agent-oriented modality applies to ‘all modalities in which conditions are predicated on an agent (obligation, desire, ability, permission and root possibility)’ (Bybee & Fleischman, 1995:
5) while speaker-oriented modality applies to a whole proposition and communicates the speaker's stance concerning its truth (Palmer, 1990) Agent-oriented modality can be expressed by lexical or grammatical morphemes Some of the most semantically specific notions in this set include necessity, ability, desire and obligation as in [1.1]:
[1.1] All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the falculty concerned before entering for exam (Root – obligation) (Coates 1983: 35)
Modality in Scientific Writing
or state of affair or event (ibid.) One of the most productive hedging devices is using modal expressions, more specifically modal verbs
Adams Smith (1984) discovered that in research articles, half of the authors' comments utilized modal verbs, while the other half employed adjectives or adverbs of probability Rezzano (2004) identified modal verbs, especially "may" and "can," as the primary means of expressing low degrees of certainty in English research articles, with "can" frequently indicating possibility, aligning with Coates' (1995) observations on the increasing epistemic usage of this modal in American English Thùy's PhD dissertation (2008) highlighted that both English and Vietnamese economic research articles exhibit a high frequency of modals, though their functions differ between the two languages.
Researchers like Thompson (1996) highlight that speakers can indicate varying degrees of certainty regarding propositions (e.g., "it will rain" vs "it may rain") and levels of pressure in commands (e.g., "you must leave" vs "you should leave") Halliday's three-value system (low-median-high) provides a framework for analyzing a speaker's commitment to their statements, which is significant in text analysis across different contexts For instance, academic writers must carefully assess how firmly they present claims, while advisors need to gauge the pressure they exert on others Modality sources can originate directly from the speaker or reflect the views of others, making it essential to understand whose perspective is being conveyed in certain genres Additionally, several factors influence the use of modality in academic writing.
Cultural differences significantly impact communication styles, as language serves as a crucial vehicle for culture (Hofstede, 1986) Vietnamese learners, rooted in a collectivist culture (Gudykunst, 1998), express their thoughts and ideas differently compared to individuals from individualistic cultures, such as those in Australia, Great Britain, and the USA (Hofstede, 1986).
With regard to culture and thinking, some researchers such as N.Đ Tồn (2002: 346) states that
Research indicates that Vietnamese cognitive processes are characterized by a specific, action-oriented, and visual thinking style, often described as a natural language of images and symbols This contrasts with the logical thinking prevalent in Western cultures T.N Thêm (1998) highlights that agriculture-rooted cultures, including Vietnamese culture, exhibit holistic, dialectical, subjective, emotional, and experiential thinking Furthermore, N.Đ.Tồn's study (2009) reveals that Vietnamese people tend to perceive their surroundings in a manner that moves from near to far, from parts to the whole, and from concrete to abstract concepts.
L.T Thắng (2005: 75) also argues that “in Vietnamese when one thing is being described in relation with another, it seems to be described by an “invisible” observer, (i.e., the observer is not directly involved in this situation) Rather than that, this observer always compares his/her position with the thing to see whether it is either higher or lower so that the observer can choose the most appropriate spatial words to describe such thing/ entity”
(2) Secondly, in terms of thinking and writing, according to Kaplan (1966, 1986, 1987), different cultures produce distinctive approaches to thinking and writing, just as they each
Cultural thought patterns significantly influence language use, as highlighted by Kaplan (1966) He argues that the ability to write effectively in one's native language does not guarantee the same skill in a second language Kaplan identifies a linear thought pattern prevalent in Western cultures, particularly in English writing, which progresses directly from a central idea to supporting explanations and examples In contrast, he describes a common Oriental approach characterized by indirectness, where sentences revolve around the topic, often defining concepts by what they are not, and typically refrain from making explicit judgments or conclusions.
Vietnamese communication often involves indirect methods, commonly referred to as “vòng vo tam quốc” or beating about the bush, as noted by T.N Thêm (1998: 158) This approach reflects an Oriental communication style, contrasting with the direct and straightforward manner typically seen in Western cultures.
Vygotsky (1979, cited in Ellis, 1994: 16-17) emphasizes the inseparable relationship between language, culture, and thought, asserting that individual and social contexts are interdependent components of a unified interaction system He argues that cognitive development is fundamentally a process of cultural acquisition.
Modality Viewed from Force Dynamics in Cognitive Perspective … 21 1 Definitions of Terms
1.4.1 Definitions of Terms 1.4.1.1 Linguistic Universals Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language This implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis; the set of rules is what is known as universal grammar It is claimed that ‘every speaker knows a set of principles which apply to all languages and also a set of PARAMETERS that can vary from one language to another, but only within certain limits.’ (Richard et al 1992: 392)
Cognitive researchers, including Evans and Green (2006), highlight the fascination among linguists across various theoretical backgrounds regarding the potential existence of linguistic universals They explore the characteristics of these universals and examine the intricate relationship between thought and language.
This study explores the cross-linguistic similarities and variations in the conceptualization of space and time, focusing on the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese While there are fundamental similarities in how different languages represent these domains, significant variations also exist The author aims to analyze these patterns through the lens of the force dynamic framework from a cognitive perspective.
1.4.1.2 Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive Linguistics which ‘emerged in the 1970s as a result of a general dissatisfaction with the dominant Chomskyan paradigm of the time.’ (Taylor 2002: 31), refers to a modern school of linguistic thought and practice Cognitive linguistics (CL) is concerned with the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience (Evans, 2007) Cognitive linguistics is “an approach to language that is based on our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it” (Ungerer and Schmid 1996: x-xiv)
Cognitive linguists argue that language is both embodied and situated within a specific environment, reflecting a moderate extension of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that language and cognition mutually influence each other, shaped by users' experiences and surroundings (Geeraerts, 2006) Cognitive linguistic practice encompasses two primary domains: cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar.
Cognitive semantics posits that meaning is rooted in conceptualization, emphasizing the investigation of knowledge representation and meaning construction (Langacker, 2011; Evans, 2007) The core idea is encapsulated in the slogan: "meanings are in the head" (Gördenfors, 2007) In this framework, semantics is understood as a mapping between linguistic expressions and cognitive entities, highlighting the intrinsic connection between language and thought.
Cognitive semantics is guided by four key principles: (1) Conceptual structure is embodied, emphasizing the 'embodied cognition thesis'; (2) Semantic structure mirrors conceptual structure, indicating that language refers to the speaker's mental concepts rather than directly to external entities; (3) Meaning representation is encyclopaedic, suggesting that semantic structure encompasses a wide range of knowledge; and (4) Meaning construction is conceptualization, meaning that language does not inherently encode meaning, but rather serves as prompts for constructing meaning (Langacker, 1987).
Semantic structures represent the conceptualizations triggered by linguistic expressions, highlighting that linguistic meanings are influenced by subjective perceptions rather than just objective realities The interpretation of situations varies based on individual perspectives, allowing us to conceive and depict the same scenario in multiple ways, a phenomenon referred to as construal.
1.4.1.4 Cognitive Grammar Some researchers such as Taylor (2002), Evans & Green (2006), T.V Cơ (2007, 2009), L.T.Thắng (2005), N.T.Thắng (2009) state that Cognitive Grammar is the name which Langacker has given to a theory of language which has been developing since the mid-1970s The theory’s central claim – that grammar is inherently meaningful – is thereby shown to be viable Cognitive grammar (CG) treats human language as consisting solely of semantic units (the concepts), phonological units (the sounds) and symbolic units (grammar, lexicon, morphology) (Conventional pairings of phonological and semantic units) CG belongs to the wider movement known as CL, which in turn is part of functional tradition (Langacker, 2013: 7-8) ‘Within functionalism, Cognitive grammar stands out by emphasizing semiological function of language It fully acknowledges the grounding of language in social interaction, but insists that even its interactive function is crucially dependent on conceptualization.’ (ibid.) The basic claim in CG is that grammar is conceptualization Langacker (1998: 3) claims that
Conceptualization is a broad term that encompasses various mental experiences, highlighting the dynamic interaction of embodied minds with their environment A key assertion by Langacker (2013) is that grammar is inherently symbolic, where a symbol represents the connection between a semantic structure and a phonological structure, enabling one to evoke the other For instance, the lexical item "must" exemplifies this symbolism, as it embodies a pairing of meaning and phonological form.
1.4.2 Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics 1.4.2.1 Language is all about meaning
Cognitive linguists, like Geeraerts (2006), assert that the fundamental principle of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is that "language is all about meaning." This perspective encompasses several key tenets: (1) Linguistic meaning is perspectival, shaping our understanding of the world rather than merely reflecting it (2) It is dynamic and flexible, adapting to context and usage (3) Linguistic meaning is encyclopedic and non-autonomous, intertwined with our overall human experience rather than existing as a separate cognitive module (4) Finally, it is grounded in usage and experience, emphasizing that meaning is rooted in actual language use and our experiential reality, making CL a usage-based model of grammar.
Geeraerts (2006: 4-5) claims that since linguistic meaning is based on usage and experience, there are at least two main aspects to this broader experiential grounding of language meaning:
Our organic nature as embodied beings shapes our perception of the world, which is reflected in our language Additionally, our cultural and social identities are intertwined with language, revealing the historical and cultural experiences of both groups and individuals These linguistic expressions vary significantly across different cultures.
1.4.2.2 Grammar and Meaning are indissociable Cognitive grammar claims that ‘all valid grammatical constructs are symbolic, hence reducible to form-meaning pairings.’ (Langacker, 2013: 6) From this view in cognitive linguistics, the basic unit of language is a form-meaning pairing known as a construction
Cognitive Grammar (CG) posits that grammar and meaning are inseparable, with grammar serving as a framework for structuring and symbolizing conceptual content, lacking independent existence (Langacker, 1994) According to Langacker (1991a), there are three primary units in CG: semantic units (concepts), symbolic units (grammar, lexicon, and morphology), and phonological units (sounds) The symbolic units act as a bridge connecting the semantic and phonological aspects, emphasizing the integral relationship between grammar and meaning.
“symbolic” in nature: it reduces to the structuring and symbolization of conceptual content’ (Langacker, 1994: 590)
1.4.2.3 Language, Cognition and Culture Langacker (1994: 26) states that “Language, cognition and culture are not separate, non- overlapping entities However, language and culture overlap extensively, and both are facets of cognition.” He then continues arguing that in identifying language and culture as facets of cognition, the role of context and social interaction in their formation and maintenance, interpretation and continuous adaptation cannot be denied or diminished as “a major and essential portion of ongoing cognition resides in apprehension of physical, social, cultural and linguistic context” (ibid.)
Root and Epistemic Modality in English
The evolution of English modals can be traced back to non-modal lexical items that originally conveyed physical strength or social obligation For example, "may" and "might" are believed to originate from "magan," meaning "be strong," while "must" is derived from "moste," the past tense of "mot." This historical development illustrates how the meanings and uses of these non-modal forms gradually expanded from root modal meanings to include epistemic meanings.
In 1990, it was argued that historical changes are driven by a cognitive pattern where language from the external world is used to articulate aspects of our internal mental experiences This perspective suggests that our reasoning processes are influenced by compulsions and barriers similar to those affecting our real-world actions Furthermore, it is emphasized that while physical barriers are not objectively similar to mental processes, there exists a shared structure between our experiences of the physical world and the epistemic domain, facilitating metaphorical mappings between the two.
Characteristics of the English modal verbs
English modal auxiliary verbs, as defined by Coates (1983), possess unique characteristics, including direct negation (e.g., can’t, mustn’t), inversion without "do" (e.g., Could I?), and the ability to function in code (e.g., Mary can play the piano, and so can Jane) They also allow for emphasis (e.g., Peter MUST go home now), lack a third-person singular form (*coulds, *mays), do not have non-finite forms (*to could, *to must), and cannot co-occur (*may could, *can must) Mortelmans (2007) further explains that these modals serve grounding functions, requiring them to precede the clausal head and preventing their occurrence within it Their lack of participial and infinitival forms aligns with their role in grounding finite clauses, while the absence of a third-person singular marker situates the state of affairs in immediate reality This study analyzes modal verbs such as may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should/ought, need, and must/have to through the lens of force dynamics from a cognitive perspective, acknowledging that have to and need are essential for a comprehensive understanding of obligation and necessity (Coates, 1983) Although ought is sometimes viewed as a marginal case, it shares all formal characteristics and belongs to the same semantic set.
Root modals, as highlighted by Sweetser (1990), Talmy (1985, 1988), and Langacker (1991), demonstrate a distinct force-dynamic character, particularly regarding obligation and permission Langacker (1999) notes that these modals illustrate force-dynamic relationships within social interactions, with a spectrum from absence of barriers (e.g., "may") to compulsion (e.g., "must") This force is predominantly social for root modals, while epistemic modals reflect mental dynamics Furthermore, Langacker (2011) emphasizes that root modals focus on effective control over real-world events, whereas epistemic modals pertain to the evolution of our understanding The differentiation between root and epistemic modals is exemplified in Langacker's work (1991a).
The distinction between root and epistemic modals can be challenging to identify For example, in the sentences provided, root modals express necessity or permission, as seen in "This noise must cease immediately" and "You may leave the table now." In contrast, epistemic modals convey possibility or probability, such as "It must be lonely there at night" and "There may be some snow by tomorrow morning." Notably, the inclusion of adverbs like "absolutely" can alter the interpretation of a modal, shifting "He absolutely will not agree to it" from a statement of simple future intent to one that emphasizes volition and resolve.
Langacker (1990, 1991a, 1999, 2003, 2007) characterizes English modals as “grounding predications,” suggesting that the distinction between root and epistemic meanings is independent of their grounding status However, Goossens (1996, cited in Mortelmans 2007) critiques this uniform view, arguing that the grounding relation of English modals is not always subjectively construed as Langacker proposes While Goossens acknowledges the grounding nature of epistemic modals, which inherently involve the speaker as a reference point, he posits that root modals only exhibit grounding in deontic contexts where the speaker assumes authority over permission or obligation This distinction relates to Achard’s concept of a stronger speaker role, which connects to the subjective realignment of modal force and highlights the process of subjectification (Achard, 1998, cited in Mortelmans 2007: 880).
1.5.2 Root Modality This section will discuss root senses including obligation, permission, ability, and volition (cf Incharralde, 1998) According to Taylor (2002: 406), the traditional distinction between the
The distinction between "root" (or "deontic") and "epistemic" uses of modals relates to the source of their force Root modals derive their force from the physical world, psychological intentions, desires, plans, and societal norms, laws, and moral values In contrast, epistemic modals are based on logic, reasoning, and common sense.
According to Talmy (1988), both deontic and epistemic thought are influenced by analogies to physical barriers and forces Sweetser (1990: 52) proposes a hierarchy of obstacles, suggesting that physical obstacles are prioritized over social and logical obstacles.
The word "may" effectively conveys physical strength and capability, aligning with Talmy’s (2000) interpretation of it as a potential barrier that is absent This perspective can be seen as a restatement of the conventional analysis Similarly, "must" represents a compelling force that directs an individual toward a specific action Talmy views "must" as a barrier that limits one's actions to a single choice, resulting in a similar physical outcome as force or constraint However, "must" carries the weight of an imperative, serving as a compulsion rather than merely a negative restriction.
Modal verbs convey forces or barriers in their present form, while their distal forms express these forces conditionally or in the past (Sweetser 1990: 55-8) The presence of the speaker and hearer in the semantic structure of modals is not always necessary; if included, it can lead to ambiguity among numerous structures, although these participants are typically grammatically defined (ibid.) Talmy (2003: 441-2) further analyzes this by highlighting the core force-dynamic reference in modals during their basic "deontic" usage.
[1.17] John can/may/must/should/ought to/would/need not leave the house (Talmy, 2003:
In Talmy's analysis of force dynamics, the Agonist faces "active social pressure" that aims to maintain their position (Talmy 1988: 79) He expands the concept of modal verbs to include less grammaticalized forms like "have to," granting them "honorary" modal status Additionally, English modals exhibit two usages that permit nonsentient subjects, challenging the notion of psychological reference As noted by Talmy (2000: 441-442), one such usage is exemplified in specific contexts.
[1.18] The cake can/may/must/ should/need not stay in the box
In [1.18], the focus is on a non-sentient subject that does not act as the true Agonist; instead, the real Agonist is a sentient entity that remains unexpressed Consequently, the phrase "The cake must stay in the box" can be more precisely rephrased to reflect that individuals are responsible for allowing the cake to remain in the box.
1.5.2.1 Obligation The modality of obligation can be realized in modal verbs such as must, have to, should, ought to, had better, need According to Sweetser (1990), the root sense of must can be construed as denoting a compelling force that moves a subject toward an act This sense, however, matches precisely the image schema for COMPULSION as in Figure 1.4 (pp.29) which is well- described by Johnson (1987: 51-52) Given this image schema, the force can be interpreted in different ways It may be physical force, as in [1.19]; parental authority, as in [1.20]; “peer pressure,” as in [1.21]; or moral authority understood as a universal force acting on the human will, as in [1.22]:
[1.19] You must cover your eyes, or they will be burned (Johnson 1987: 52)
[1.20] Johnny must go to bed; his mother said so (ibid.) [1.21] He must help in the blood drive, or his friends won’t respect him (ibid.)
The expressions "have to" and "have got to" indicate an external obligation, with "have to" being suitable for both formal and informal contexts, while "have got to" is more informal "Had to" signifies a past obligation, whereas "don’t have to" indicates a lack of obligation.
[1.23] You have to do your homework before you watch television (ibid, p 56)
“A force of (parental) authority compels you to do your homework.”
The modal verbs "should" and "ought to" express obligation and advice, indicating what is considered right or best to do While both terms suggest recommendations, "should" reflects a speaker's personal opinion, making it less forceful than "must." In contrast, "ought to" carries a stronger connotation, rooted in objective reasoning.
[1.24] He should go to bed early
[1.25] She ought to make her bed (ibid., p 56) Read as “Certain forces (family obligation) influence her toward the act of making her bed.”
Use need to as in [26] to say that it is necessary to do something
[1.26] He needs to throw a party every month (ibid., p 56) Read as “Some internal conditions (his wanting to be liked, etc.) force him to throw parties regularly.”
Root and Epistemic Modality in Vietnamese
1.6.1 Modality and Modal Verbs The results of the works done by B.M.Tóan & N.T.Lương (2010), N.T.Thìn (2003), D.Q.Ban
& H.Dân (2000), and Đ.H Châu & B.M.Toán (2001) show that there are two main types of modality in Vietnamese language: the subjective modality and the objective modality
Subjective modality includes two main subtypes:
Subjective modality in Vietnamese reflects the speaker's attitudes, psychological states, and emotions toward a proposition The language offers various expressions to convey high belief, such as "quả thật" and "chắc chắn." For low belief, doubt, or uncertainty, speakers may use markers like "chẳng lẽ" and "có lẽ." To express surprise or suddenness, terms like "té ra," "ồ," and "ơ" are utilized Expressions of gladness and happiness can be conveyed through phrases such as "may quá" and "ơn trời," while worries are articulated with phrases like "e rằng" and "không khéo."
Subjective modality reflects the speaker's judgment regarding a proposition, allowing them to convey personal assessments such as satisfaction, happiness, admiration, or criticism When expressing judgments about reality, terms like "đáng lẽ" and "lẽ ra" are commonly used, while phrases such as "được cái" and "phải mỗi tội" help articulate positive and negative evaluations Additionally, to assess quantity or figures, expressions like "mỗi" and "chỉ có/thôi" are employed, highlighting the speaker's subjective perspective on various states of affairs.
Some authors such as D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000), N.T Thìn (2003) and B.M Tóan & N.T Lương (2010) claim that objective modality consists of affirmative and negative modality:
(1) Affirmative modality seems to confirm that the statement/ proposition is right or real in the reality (with affirmative modality markers/ devices such as đúng, đúng là, etc.) and
Negative modality indicates the non-existence of a situation or proposition Common markers of negative modality include terms such as "không," "chưa," "chẳng," "chả," "đâu," "đâu phải," "không phải," "đâu có," "mà," and "không bao giờ" (B.M Tóan & N.T Lương, 2010: 202).
According to D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000), modality can be categorized into objective and subjective types Objective modality refers to statements whose truth can be verified, divided into affirmative modality, which confirms the truth of a situation, and negative modality, which denies its existence In contrast, subjective modality reflects the speaker's personal attitudes or opinions and cannot be objectively verified This type of modality, often referred to as probability or possibility modality, conveys the speaker's beliefs and assessments From a pragmatic perspective, subjective modalities function as hedging devices, exemplified by terms like "hình như" and "có lẽ."
In addition to objective and subjective modality, which are closely linked to logic, there are two additional meanings that can be incorporated into sentence modality.
Modality of opinion refers to the speaker's expression of their viewpoint regarding the content of a sentence This can include various hedging devices or modal expressions, such as "As far as I know" or "I think."
The modality of a speaker's relationship with the hearer reflects how the speaker establishes social connections and expresses themselves, playing a crucial role in communication This modality often includes vocatives and specific modal particles like à, á, ạ, ừ, and ư N.T Thìn (2003) concurs with D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000) that modality encompasses both objectivity and subjectivity, but she expands on objective modality by categorizing it into four main types.
(1) Inevitability or randomness of the relations between S (speaker) and P (proposition), which are realised by modalizers such as tất yếu, tất nhiên, tình cờ, etc
(2) Realis or irrealis of the relations between S and P, which is expressed by modal particles such as không, chưa, chẳng, etc.;
(3) Probability of the event, which is predicted by (S-P) with modal expressions like không thể, chắc chắn, nhất thiết, etc.; and
Modal particles like "vẫn," "còn," "nữa," and "mãi" indicate the continuum, repetition, and degree of a proposition in a sentence These particles should be used in conjunction with the central predicates to convey the intended meaning effectively.
N.T Thìn (2003) emphasizes that subjective modality highlights the relationship between the speaker, the utterance, and the listener, making it inherently subjective In contrast, this subjective modality stands in opposition to intellectual information, which represents objective reality.
Subjective modality in the Vietnamese language is primarily expressed through various means, including modal verbs (e.g., nên, cần, phải), epistemic lexical verbs (e.g., tin, đoán, nghĩ), modal adjectives (e.g., chắc, đúng), modal adverbs and expressions (e.g., có lẽ, dường như), modal nouns (e.g., khả năng, tin đồn), and modal particles (e.g., như, nhỉ) This study focuses on analyzing key Vietnamese modal verbs to explore the similarities and differences in root and epistemic modality between English and Vietnamese from a Cognitive perspective, particularly regarding force dynamics Notably, there has been a lack of research on Vietnamese modal verbs within this framework, prompting the author to draw on the concepts of force dynamics established by prominent cognitive linguists such as Talmy and Langacker.
2006), Sweetser (1987, 1990), Johnson (1987), Mulder (2007), Taylor (2002), Mortelmans
(2006), Pelyvás (1996, 2000, 2006, 2008) to describe and analyze Vietnamese root and epistemic modals The study also bases on the results of some Vietnamese researchers such as N.K Thản (1963, 1999), N.M.Thuyết & N.V Hiệp (2004), N.V.Hiệp (2007, 2009), D.Q Ban
According to H.V Thung (2012), D.Q Ban & H Dân (2000), N.T Thuận (2003), and V.Đ Quang (2008), Vietnamese modal auxiliary verbs possess distinct properties Firstly, a modal verb can pair with a lexical verb to convey the speaker’s desires, wishes, or opinions regarding reality, with the main verb being optional in context Secondly, modal verbs illustrate the relationship between the subject and the lexical verb that follows, forming a verb phrase that serves as the predicate Lastly, in terms of syntax, a modal verb is positioned before another verb or noun, with the subjects of both verbs sharing the same reference, resulting in a co-referent structure.
CN + Modal verb + {VP/ N/ Subject-V clause}
In interrogatives, the modal verb can be placed between có …… không? or đã … chưa? Eg: - Đồng chí có muốn viết thư cho họ không?
- Tôi rất muốn (N.K Thản, 1999: 176) According to some Vietnamese researchers such as N.K Thản (1999: 174-178), D.Q Ban &
H Dân (2000: 57-58) and D.Q Ban & H.V Thung (2012: 104-105), Vietnamese modals, which belong to dependent verbs, express different types of modal senses They are as follows: a Modals denoting necessity: cần, nên, phải, cần phải … E.g: Người ta bầu tôi thì tôi phải đứng ra Bố dạy gì tôi? (D.Q Ban & H.V.Thung 2012:
105) (They elected me, I have to stand out What do you teach?)
Trong bài viết này, chúng ta khám phá các động từ khiếm khuyết trong tiếng Việt, cụ thể là các động từ chỉ khả năng như "có thể", "không thể", "chưa thể" Ví dụ, câu "Tôi quyết viết cho anh Không thể nói hết với anh được" thể hiện quyết tâm và giới hạn trong việc giao tiếp Bên cạnh đó, các động từ chỉ ý chí như "định", "toan", "nỡ", "dám" cũng đóng vai trò quan trọng trong việc diễn đạt mong muốn và dự định của người nói.
E.g: Còn bây giờ, Đông có định giúp đỡ tôi không? Có định đưa tay ra cho tôi không, hay là rụt tay lại? (ibid.) – (Will you help me now, Dong? Do you want to give me your hand or do you want to pull your hand away?) Tôi toan đi (I intend to go.) (N.T Cẩn, 1996: 256) d Modals denoting wishes: mong muốn, mong, muốn, ước, ước muốn … E.g: Tôi muốn gặp đồng chí Phòng (ibid., p 106) – (I want to meet comrade Phong.) e Modals denoting passiveness, suffering (or compulsion): bị, mắc, phải, được, chịu, …
E.g: Bà phải hầu hạ ông cho tới chết mới xong (ibid.) – You have to serve him until he dies.)
Vietnamese authors, including N.V Hiệp (2009), categorize modality meanings into two main types: root modality and epistemic modality Root modality encompasses deontic modality, which signifies obligations and permissions, and dynamic modality, relating to abilities In contrast, epistemic modality deals with reasoning aspects such as necessity, probability, and possibility Additionally, root modalities function as lexical predicates that express force or obligation, while epistemic modalities are viewed as combinations of logical operators.
In the following pages, the study will use the force dynamic framework proposed by Talmy
Methods of the study
The study aims to explore the similarities and differences between the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from a cognitive perspective, particularly focusing on force dynamics The primary method utilized is contrastive analysis (CA), defined by Fisiak (1981) as a linguistic sub-discipline that compares two or more languages to identify their differences and similarities Johansson and Hofland (1994) emphasize that contrastive linguistics systematically compares languages to describe their features In this research, CA is viewed as a linguistic endeavor that produces inverted, contrastive typologies based on the premise that languages can be effectively compared.
In comparing English and Vietnamese, the focus is on their differences rather than similarities, as noted by James (1980: 2-3) Both languages are treated equally in this analysis, with English serving as the source language and Vietnamese as the reference language.
This study explores the concepts of force dynamics from a cognitive perspective to analyze the root and epistemic modality of English modal verbs, subsequently adapting these concepts to the Vietnamese language To achieve this, a combination of descriptive, comparative, and contrastive methods is employed.
The study utilized corpus-aided analysis of English and Vietnamese social science texts to examine the frequency and KWIC (keyword in context) concordance of a specific modal verb By integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview, with the quantitative approach offering statistical insights into extensive text data.
The study analyzes a significant number of English and Vietnamese modal verbs found in authentic social texts from two corpora This quantitative approach is complemented by a qualitative examination that closely investigates specific instances of modal verbs, focusing on their nuances and implications By doing so, the research aims to uncover deeper insights into the underlying processes of the texts and reveal subtle, non-obvious meanings associated with key terms.
The study's data are analyzed from a cognitive perspective, focusing on force dynamics, which is supported by the work of notable researchers like Talmy (2000a), Langacker (1991a), and others Cognitive linguistics posits that language is best understood within its cognitive, experiential, and social contexts (Kemmer, 2000) It emphasizes meaningful linguistic patterns and organizing principles across all language levels (Tyler, 2008) Additionally, language serves two interrelated functions: a semiological function that symbolizes thoughts through sounds, gestures, or writing, and an interactive function (Langacker, 1998) While cognitive linguistics is rooted in the functionalist tradition, it distinctly highlights the semiological aspect of language and the essential role of conceptualization in social interaction.
Cognitive linguistics, as noted by Gonzales-Marquez et al (2007), positions itself as a non-objectivist theory of language, yet it recognizes the importance of corpus-based research to enhance the objectivity of linguistic descriptions This approach is justified by two key reasons: first, the discipline increasingly emphasizes its usage-based nature, necessitating the analysis of actual language use found in corpora, which capture spontaneous, non-elicited data Second, Cognitive linguistics underscores that our understanding of the world is an active interpretation rather than a mere reflection of an objective reality, which encourages exploration of varying interpretations across different cultures, social groups, and individuals.
A contextual analysis of authentic social science texts was conducted to explore the purposes and meanings of modal verbs Given the manageable size of the two corpora, a close reading of the entire texts was feasible This approach enables a detailed examination of the authentic materials, focusing on individual words, phrases, and their collocations The analysis aims to uncover the root and epistemic meanings conveyed by various modal verbs in different contexts.
The study excludes the examination of the mood system, modal adjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modal adverbs, modal particles, intonation, and other prosodic features; however, these topics will be addressed as needed throughout the analysis.
Data collection
The study utilizes two extensive corpora, each comprising approximately 500,000 words; one in English featuring 91 social science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 119 texts These academic corpora include journal articles across seven diverse social science categories: psychology, education, culture, economics, law, linguistics, and general social science The selected data adhere to four key criteria: authenticity, accessibility, reputation, and variation.
This research focuses on collecting real-life examples of language usage from social science journals, specifically excluding natural and hard science publications The data is sourced from seven reputable English-language journals published in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where English is the primary language, as well as seven Vietnamese-language journals The sample analyzed is deemed authentic and not simulated, as it is derived from well-respected journals edited by distinguished professors from renowned institutions, including the University of Connecticut, the University of Colorado, and various universities in Vietnam.
The Academy of Social Sciences and Linguistics Institutes in Vietnam are renowned for their scholarly contributions, with authors typically holding advanced degrees such as master's or doctoral qualifications These writers, including associate professors and professors, uphold a high level of accountability for the claims made in their articles, research papers, and written texts, ensuring the integrity and reliability of their work.
Accessibility encompasses both material and content accessibility For the English data, the majority of articles were sourced from the Directory of Open Access Journals in either PDF or HTML format In contrast, all Vietnamese articles were obtained from the National Library in Hanoi Selection criteria included a minimum length of 2,000 running words, publication dates ranging from 2000 to 2011, and representation of the academic genre, ensuring they were tailored for an academic audience.
Reputation plays a crucial role in data collection, reflecting how much the readership values academic journals The data for this thesis has been sourced from reputable institutions in the social sciences, including the Institute of Linguistics, the Institute of Social Science Information in Vietnam, the University of Connecticut, the University of Colorado, and the Australian National University.
This criterion assesses the breadth of articles and social science texts gathered from diverse journals and sources to enhance generalization By collecting a wide range of materials, researchers can prevent the risk of drawing conclusions based on a limited and inadequate corpus.
The selected corpus excludes any text that does not meet specific criteria, ensuring that only relevant material is included All figures, tables, acknowledgements, and references have been removed, with the remaining content organized according to the standard structure of introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion as originally presented by the authors For detailed information on titles and authors, please refer to Appendix A (pp XVII-XXIV) for the English corpus and Appendix B (pp XXV-XXXII) for the Vietnamese corpus.
Table 2.1 below shows the titles of journals, the number of the texts and the number of words in each journal
Titles of Journals No of Txts
Titles of Journals No of Txts
1.Advances in Social work (ESoci 1- ESoci 13)
13 59 325 1.Thông Tin KH Xã Hội - Journal of Social Science Information (VSci 1-VSci 17)
2.Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement(EEdu14- Eedu 26)
13 71 605 2.Tạp Chí KH Giáo Dục - Journal of Education Science (VEdu 18 – VEdu 35)
3.Australian Journal of Psychology (EPsy 27 – EPsy 39)
13 59 471 3.Tạp Chí Tâm Lý - Journal of
4.Colorado Research in Linguistics (Eling 40- ELing 52)
13 80 325 4.Tạp Chí Ngôn Ngữ - Journal of
5.The Journal of American Popular Culture (ECult 53 – 65)
13 62 586 5.Văn Hoá Dân Gian - Journal of
6.Journal of Case Research in Business and Economics
13 61 424 6.Quản lý kinh tế - Vietnam
Economic Management Review (VEco 87– VEco 103)
7.Connecticut Public Interest Law (Elaw 79 – ELaw 91)
12 105 534 7.Nhà Nước và Pháp Luật - State and Law Review(VLaw 104- 119)
Table 2.1 Data in English and Vietnamese Corpora
The data sources for this research encompass a selection of peer-reviewed journals dedicated to publishing empirical, conceptual, and theoretical articles related to social work practice, research, education, psychology, linguistics, culture, economics, and law These journals serve as a platform for scholarly exchange, facilitating the dissemination of research findings and ideas that enhance knowledge and inform practices within the social sciences Articles are accepted based on their relevance, clarity, methodological rigor, and utility for advancing social science research and practice.
1 Advances in Social Work (ESoci): This journal is commited to enhancing the linkage among social work practice research and education This journal seeks to publish empirical, conceptual and theoretical articles that make substantial contributions to the field in all areas of social work including clinical practice, community organization, social administration, social policy, planning and programme evaluation The journal provides a forum for a scholarly exchange of research findings and ideas that advances knowledge and inform social practice Advances in Social Work is a peer reviewed journal that publishes original work Articles are accepted on the basis of appropriateness, clarity, sound methodology and utility for social work practice, research and education
2 Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement (JSAAEA) (EEdu): This is an online and freely accessible interdisciplinary journal providing a forum for scholars and writers from diverse fields who share a common interest in Southeast Asian Americans and their communities JSAAEA is an official publication of The National Association for the Education and Advancement of Cambodia, Laotian, and Vietnamese Americans (NAFEA), with support from the department of Bicultural-Bilingual studies and the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Texas, San Antonio
3 Australian Journal of Psychology (EPsy): This journal is the premier scientific journal of Australian Psychological Society It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles of all topics within the broad scope of discipline The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with the reviewers and associates editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication
4 Colorado Research in Linguistics (ELing): This journal is published by the University of Colorado This journal is the working paper journal of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Colorado All the articles published in this journal are both editorial and blind peer- reviewed
5 Americana – The journal of American Popular Culture (ECult): This journal is published quarterly Each of the regular issues (Fall, Spring, Summer, Winter) contains a number of articles and shorter papers focussing on some elements of the tweentieth or tweenty-first century American studies, especially pertaining to popular culture 1900 to present This journal is a peer-review scholarly publication and publishes only 10% of submissions All the articles are double blind reviewed by the Advisory Board of Americana
6 Journal of Case Research in Business and Economics (JCRBE) (EEco): This journal is published by Academic and Business Research Institute (AABRI) It publishes original unpublished case studies related to contemporary business issues Cases discuss issues in profit, non-profit and public organizations Cases incorporating proprietary information must be accompanied by a release signed by an appropriately authorized organization representative All AABRI journals are both editorially and blind peer reviewed
7 Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal (ELaw): The publisher of this journal is the University of Connecticut, USA This journal is scholarly journal that publishes works by professors, judges, practitioners and students The journal’s primary purpose is to further the discussions of the legal aspects of public interest issues, especially those confronting under- represented individuals
Corpus - aided analysis
This study conducts a contrastive and comparative analysis of modal verbs to identify the similarities and differences between root and epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese Utilizing corpus-aided analysis, the research examines the frequency and KWIC concordance of modal verbs from two corpora, with detailed examples provided in Appendix C The selected examples are deemed sufficient for the study's objectives, as they offer a reliable check against personal biases and prevent the use of fabricated instances This corpus-based approach allows for quantifiable findings and facilitates the exploration of associations between semantic and syntactic categories, ultimately leading to more accurate qualitative results Additionally, compiling linguistic corpora serves to create reliable descriptions of language structure.
This study focuses on the comparative and contrastive analysis of root and epistemic modality expressed through modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, utilizing specialized corpora The research employs the TextSTAT-2 software for text analysis, conducting searches for key lexical elements, including English modal auxiliaries such as can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, ought to, need, and must, as well as Vietnamese modal verbs like nên, cần, phải, có thể, sẽ, định, toan, and muốn.
The program generates a comprehensive list of occurrences for selected words, such as "can" and "could," displaying a context of 50 words on either side, with the option to expand this range This feature enables users to analyze the context surrounding each instance before categorizing it appropriately For example, it differentiates between the modal verb "need" in "He need go out" and its use in lexical encoding, such as "He needed some money." Additionally, words that share forms with modal verbs, like "can" (tin), "may" (the month), "might" (power), "will" (desire), "'d" (had), and "need" (noun), are excluded from analysis In the Vietnamese corpus, terms like "phải" (noun), "cần" (noun), "có thể" (adverb), and "nên" (connector/adverb) are similarly discarded, as illustrated in the accompanying figures.
Figure 2.1 String Matching of MUST in the English Corpus
Figure 2.2 String Matching of PHẢI in the Vietnamese Corpus
Data processing results are stored in a database for effective sorting and analysis While computer-aided analysis is utilized, manual analysis is often favored for its personalized approach, particularly in identifying modal devices.
This study employs corpus-aided analysis using the TexSTAT-2 program to statistically calculate and classify English and Vietnamese modal verbs, focusing on root and epistemic modalities The findings for English are compared to those for Vietnamese through various percentage computations within the corpus A detailed analysis will explore the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modal verbs in terms of their root and epistemic senses, framed within the force dynamic framework, ultimately leading to meaningful conclusions.
Table 2.2 below shows the distribution of root and epistemic senses of English and Vietnamese modal verbs in the two corpora
Table 2.2 Distribution of Root and Epistemic Modality in the two Corpora
The study employs a descriptive method to analyze root and epistemic modality as expressed through modal verbs in English and Vietnamese social science texts, focusing on force dynamics The researcher identifies four categories of root modality—obligation, permission, ability, and volition—and three categories of epistemic modality—necessity, probability, and possibility—based on an analysis of 5,545 modal verbs in English and 5,301 modal verbs in Vietnamese.
The researcher categorizes instances of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in both English and Vietnamese, utilizing distinct forms for each language In this system, letters denote the language and the specific category of social science texts, while numbers identify the individual text For instance, "EEco 69" refers to English Economics text 69 in the English corpus, whereas "VPsy 36" indicates Vietnamese Psychology text 36.
36 All the English and Vietnamese texts are clearly specified in each case in the appendixes such as the writer’s name of the text and the year of publication.
Cognitive Framework
This study conducts a contrastive analysis of root and epistemic modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, utilizing a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative statistical analysis of modal frequencies with qualitative descriptions of specific modal usages This methodology aims to enhance the understanding of the underlying processes in the texts and reveal subtle meanings of key terms.
This article compares the strength of force dynamics in root and epistemic modality between English and Vietnamese, using English as the base language The analysis is grounded in the extensive research conducted by prominent linguists such as Talmy (1988, 2000, 2003), Sweetzer (1990), Johnson (1987), and Taylor, highlighting the significance of understanding these modalities in both languages.
In recent studies, including the works of Langacker (1991a, 1991b, 2006, 2008) and Pelyvás (1996, 2000, 2006), as well as Mortelmans, dynamic analyses have been conducted on the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English, with a comparative focus on Vietnamese The research draws examples of root and epistemic modality primarily from social science texts in both English and Vietnamese.
The comparison of English and Vietnamese modal verbs can be framed through the concept of strengths of force, as highlighted by Langacker (1999), who notes that the properties of modal verbs are force-dynamic and subjective to the conceptualizer's mental activity Different speakers utilize various modal verbs with distinct strengths of force depending on the context Taylor (2002) identifies "must" as having a high strength of force, while "should" is considered to have a lower strength However, he does not rank other modals such as "can," "could," "may," "might," "will," "would," and "shall." Consequently, the researcher proposes employing Halliday's low-median-high values to categorize these modal verbs effectively.
In 1994, a study was conducted that utilized a framework for analyzing low, median, and high force dynamics, as illustrated in Table 2.3 This framework is adapted from Halliday’s three values of modality and Rezzano’s categories of modal verb analysis.
English Modal Verbs Vietnamese Modal Verbs
Low may, might, can, could có thể
Median will, would, shall, should/ ought to nên, không nên, sẽ, định, muốn, dám High must, cannot, have to, need phải, cần, không thể
Force dynamics plays a crucial role in the grammatical representation of modals in both English and Vietnamese, highlighting their unique characteristics in root and epistemic usages This study identifies four root senses—obligation, permission, ability, and volition—and three epistemic senses—necessity, probability, and possibility—as key categories for comparison The analysis focuses on form-meaning pairings and force dynamics, particularly the interaction between the Agonist, which represents the subject of the modal verb, and the implicit Antagonist, which can include various influences such as instructions, legal constraints, ethical considerations, or physical barriers.
The interaction between the Agonist and Antagonist can originate from various sources In the case of root modals, the force stems from physical laws, psychological intentions, desires, and societal norms, laws, and moral values (Taylor 2002: 406) Conversely, epistemic modals derive their force from logic, reasoning, and common sense.
Table 2.4 below shows the categories of root senses in English and Vietnamese
Obligation Form: 1 (Ago) + must/ have to/ need/had better/ should/ ought to +
Meaning: To express strong/ irresistible obligation/ compulsion with high/ low strength of forces in the sociophysical world
E.g: I had to leave (Taylor 2002) Read as: “The Agonist’s (I or the speaker) disposition to stay is overcome by an unnamed Antagonist Or some external force of authority compels me to leave.”
The force interaction between the Agonist and Antagonist is high
The structure N1 (CN) + nên/ cần/ phải + VP is used to convey varying degrees of obligation or compulsion influenced by sociophysical factors The terms nên, cần, and phải represent three levels of obligation: low, median, and high, respectively, highlighting the strength of the obligation in different contexts (cf Thuận 2003).
E.g: Tôi phải dạy sớm để đi làm đúng giờ (I have to get up early to go to work in time) Read as: “The sociophysical force of the unnamed Antagonist (e.g going to work in time) overcomes the Agonist’s (I or the speaker) disposition to stay in bed.” The force interaction between the Agonist and Antagonist is high
Permission Form: 1 (Ago) + can/ could /may/ might + VP
Meaning: To express absence/ removal of external or internal restraint or compulsion (cf Johnson
1987) E.g I can’t leave (Taylor 2002) Read as: Or “The Agonist (I) has a
Form: CN + có thể/ không thể + VP Meaning: To express removal of restraint or no external/internal obstacle/ blockage or no compulsion/ force of social or moral authority
E.g: Chị có thể thức bao lâu tùy ý chị (Hiệp 2007:8) - You can stay up late as long as you like Read as: “There may be tendency toward the action of leaving, but some factor opposes that tendency (an unnamed Antagonist), and the latter is stronger, blocking the event.”
The interaction force is significant, as the lack of sociophysical external pressure from an unidentified Antagonist allows the Agonist (Chị) to stay up late, making it a possibility rather than a necessity.
The force interaction in this case is low
Ability Form: 1 (Ago) + can/ could + VP
Meaning: To express ability/ potentiality or capacity to act or internal power to act/perform
1990) Read as “Some potentiality enables me to lift 50 pounds.”
The strength of force interaction in this case is low
Form: CN + có thể/ không thể + VP Meaning: To express ability/ potentiality or capacity to act or internal power to act/perform
E.g: Tôi có thể nhấc được 30 cân – I can lift 30 kilos
Read as “Some potentiality enables me to lift 30 kilos.”
The strength of force interaction in this case is low
Volition Form: 1 (Ago) + will/ shall/ would
+ VP Meaning: To express willingness and intention
1990) Read as “The present state of affairs will proceed to the future of John’s arrival.” The force strength here is median
Form: CN + định/ sẽ/ muốn/ toan/ dám +
VP Meaning: To express willingness/ wants/ wishes/ intention
E.g: Cuối tuần này nó sẽ về quê chơi
- He’ll come home this weekend
Read as “The present state of affairs will proceed to the future of his going home this weekend.” The force strength here is median
Table 2.4 Categories of Root Senses in English and Vietnamese
Modals in their epistemic senses are not applicable to sentient entities during social interactions; instead, they pertain to beliefs within an inferential framework, as noted by Talmy (2000a).
The categories of epistemic senses in English and Vietnamese are shown in Table 2.5 below
Necessity Form: 1 (Ago) + must/ can’t/ needn’t/ will + VP
Meaning: To express strong necessity/ commitment/ confidence; irresistible forces/ compulsion in argument, theorizing & reasoning
E.g: That has to be true (Taylor 2002)
Read as: “The force of reason overcomes a fact’s appearance of being true.” Or “The available evidence compels/ forces me (the speaker) to conclude that that is true.”
In this context, the relevant force is a rational compulsion rather than a physical one, as noted by Johnson (1987) The terms "have to" and "must" signify an irresistible force that compels the speaker or audience to reach a specific conclusion.
Form: CN + cần/ phải + VP
Meaning: To denote strong necessity/ commitment/ confidence; irresistible forces/ compulsion in argument, theorizing & reasoning
E.g: Anh ta chắc phải là nhà ngoại giao tài ba – He must be an excellent diplomat Read as “The available evidence compels/ forces me (the speaker) to conclude that he is an excellent diplomat.” Or “The force of reason overcomes a fact’s appearance of his being an excellent diplomat.”
Concluding Remarks
This chapter restates the research question, outlines the study's aims, and describes the methodology employed to achieve these objectives The research is characterized as descriptive, comparative, and contrastive, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative approaches The qualitative aspect involves an in-depth analysis of specific modal verb usages through force dynamic analyses, while the quantitative aspect focuses on the frequency of English and Vietnamese modal verbs in expressing four root senses and three epistemic senses, as identified in the two corpora.
This study presents a contrastive framework highlighting four primary senses of root modality and three senses of epistemic modality in both English and Vietnamese, as outlined in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 Further clarification and detailed analysis of these modalities will be provided in Chapters III and IV.
IV A certain modal sense, (Eg permission), can be expressed by a number of modal verbs and a certain modal verb (Eg may) can express more than one meaning Due to the limitation of the study, other means of expressing modality such as modal adjectives, modal adverbs, modal nouns, hedging devices, lexical verbs, modal particles, the intonation/ prosodic elements and mood system, are left out of the comparative and contrastive analyses of the study.
Root Modality in English and Vietnamese
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the comparative analysis of root senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, aiming to identify the similarities and differences in expressions of obligation, permission, ability, and volition The study examines the force dynamics and frequency of occurrences of modal verbs in both languages, with English serving as the source language and Vietnamese as the comparative language It includes a corpus-based analysis of English modal verbs such as can, could, may, might, will, would, shall, should, must, and need, alongside Vietnamese counterparts like nên, cần, phải, có thể, sẽ, định, muốn, toan, and dám, along with their collocations in respective corpora.
This article explores modal senses, including obligation, permission, ability, and volition, using examples from English and Vietnamese corpora It highlights the frequency of modal verbs in both languages and presents a string matching analysis of these verbs The findings are illustrated through KWIC (Key Words In Context) concordance, with detailed examples available in the Appendix.
C, pp XXXIII - LXIV in the study
The study's findings were analyzed in relation to force dynamics, referencing influential researchers such as Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003), Langacker (1991ab, 2003, 2006), Johnson (1987), Pelyvás (2006, 2008), Sweetzer (1990), and Mortelmans.
In their research, Mulder (2007) and Taylor (2002) emphasize the implementation of a conceptual model that prioritizes English as the primary language, with Vietnamese serving as a comparative framework This approach highlights the significance of English as the foundational language for analysis and understanding.
Pelyvás (2008) emphasizes that the root domain, particularly in deontic contexts, is fundamentally shaped by the interactions among the participants involved in the deontic situation This interplay is crucial for grasping the potential for purposeful actions linked to typical deontic modal meanings, even though these meanings are often inadequately reflected in the grammatical structure of the clauses that feature the modals.
General Findings
This article analyzes English and Vietnamese root modality from a cognitive perspective, revealing similarities in how writers express obligation, permission, ability, and volition in academic communication Utilizing corpus-based analyses through the TexSTAT-2 program, it highlights the distinct conceptual structures and varying strengths of modal forces employed by both English and Vietnamese authors to convey their attitudes, opinions, experiences, and judgments regarding propositions and events in their research articles.
Root modality, encompassing expressions of obligation, permission, ability, and volition, is a linguistic universal found in both English and Vietnamese Modal verbs serve as the most effective tools for conveying modality in these languages, as supported by research from Hermeren (1978), Leech, Rayson & Wilson (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), and N.T.T.Thủy.
In both English and Vietnamese, the use of modal verbs reflects a subjective interpretation of entities, propositions, and situations A comparative analysis of corpuses in social science texts reveals that both languages exhibit a similar frequency of modal verbs Specifically, English features 5,545 occurrences of modal verbs per 500,000 words, slightly surpassing Vietnamese, which has 5,301 occurrences in the same word count.
In academic writing, both English and Vietnamese authors often employ modal verbs to convey their subjective viewpoints and attitudes towards specific propositions or states of affairs The grounding relationships indicated by these modal verbs tend to be implicit, unmentioned, and less emphasized, resulting in a high degree of subjectivity in their expressions (Langacker, 2006).
Modal verbs express subjective opinions more effectively than other modal expressions like adverbs or adjectival modals The degree of subjectivity and strength of these modal verbs varies significantly based on the communication context According to Halliday (1994) and Rezzano (2004), modal verbs in English and Vietnamese can be classified into three levels: low, median, and high.
A common core exists in both English and Vietnamese modals, centered on the force opposition between the Agonist (the subject) and the Antagonist This force can compel a participant or event, creating a necessary situation, as seen with the modal "must" in English and "phải" in Vietnamese Conversely, it can also prevent an event from occurring, illustrated by "can’t" in English and "không thể" in Vietnamese Additionally, the absence of force allows for possibilities without necessity, represented by "can" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese.
Nevertheless, the results of the study in Table 3.1 seem to show that there are a number of differences between the two languages in terms of root senses from force dynamics
Table 3.1 Distribution of 4 Root Senses in the English & Vietnamese Corpora
In a comparative analysis of modal verb usage, English writers demonstrate a significantly higher frequency of root modals indicating obligation, permission, ability, and volition, with 3,257 occurrences out of 5,545 words, accounting for 58.74% In contrast, Vietnamese writers use these modals less frequently, with only 1,846 occurrences out of 5,301 words, representing 34.82% This indicates that English writers more extensively employ modal verbs to articulate their academic experiences, effectively linking them to various physical, sociophysical, and psychological influences, whether barriers are present or absent.
In a comparative analysis of modal senses, English demonstrates a higher prevalence of modals indicating volition, accounting for 36.42% of occurrences with 1,247 tokens Conversely, Vietnamese writers favor modals of obligation, which total 898 tokens, reflecting a tendency to express compelling forces—whether internal, external, physical, sociophysical, cultural, moral, or psychological—that drive actions in academic writing This distinction highlights the contrasting approaches of English and Vietnamese conceptualizers, with the former emphasizing purposeful actions and the latter focusing on the necessity of compliance.
Modality serves as the intermediary between positive and negative poles, influencing how individuals express their attitudes, experiences, and judgments regarding possibilities and necessities (Halliday, 1994) Corpus-aided analysis suggests that Vietnamese writers tend to favor non-modalized expressions to assert their views on works However, this tendency may vary across contexts, as the meaning of expressions encompasses both subjective and objective elements (Langacker, 2006).
Table 3.2 below shows the distribution of low-median-high force dynamics in the English and Vietnamese corpora
Table 3.2 Distribution of Low-Median-High FD in the English & Vietnamese Corpora
The analysis reveals significant differences in modality usage between English and Vietnamese writers In English, low-value modality (such as can/could and may/might) dominates, comprising 45.43% of occurrences, indicating a tendency to mitigate rather than strengthen assertions This prevalence of low-force dynamic value suggests that English modal verbs convey various shades of low certainty, which writers utilize for diverse communicative effects Conversely, Vietnamese writers favor high-value modals (like phải, cần, không thể), which account for 57.01% of occurrences, reflecting a strong inclination to express obligation and necessity, thereby reinforcing their viewpoints This suggests that Vietnamese writers exhibit a more subjective attitude towards their propositions, emphasizing their opinions and stances, a characteristic typical of Vietnamese thought.
This article highlights key differences between English and Vietnamese in expressing root modality through varying strengths of modals Sections 3.3 to 3.6 will provide a detailed analysis of the similarities and differences in how both languages convey concepts of obligation, permission, ability, and volition within the context of force dynamics.
Obligation in English and Vietnamese
In English, obligation is expressed through modal verbs like must, have to, should, ought to, had better, and need In contrast, Vietnamese conveys obligation using modal verbs such as nên, cần, and phải Both languages have specific linguistic forms that indicate obligation or compulsion.
In English: 1 (Ago) + must/ have to/ need/ had better/ should/ ought to + VP
In Vietnamese: N1 (CN) + nên/ cần / phải + VP
In the force dynamic framework of Cognitive Linguistics, the degrees of obligation vary, with "must" representing a high force and "should" a lower one (Taylor, 2002) Similarly, in Vietnamese, "phải" conveys a stronger compulsion than "nên" and "cần," aligning with the image schema for 'COMPULSION' (Johnson, 1987) Section 3.3.2 will provide a detailed interpretation of these modal verbs, examining their force strengths, corresponding image schemas, and frequency of occurrences.
According to Sweetser (1990), the modals ought to, need, have to, and must represent varying levels of force, with "must" indicating an irresistible force, while the others are considered resistible Each modal differs in its domain—social or moral—and its source of imposition, whether internal or external The key aspect of resistibility is that any force aligned with the meaning of a modal can impose its modality For instance, internal desires or compulsions can lead to the modality of "need," whereas social forces that the individual engages with can create the obligations expressed by "ought to."
The terms "should" and "ought to" express varying degrees of obligation, with "should" reflecting the speaker's subjective opinion and "ought to" conveying a stronger, more objective sense of obligation While "ought to" suggests a moral or socially agreed-upon duty, it is still less forceful than "have to," "need," or "must." The term "need" indicates a stronger obligation that arises from internal motivations, whereas "must" signifies self-imposed obligations, and "have to" reflects obligations enforced by external authorities, such as laws or rules.
The term "should" indicating weak obligation appeared in 194 instances within the English corpus When used to denote obligation, "should" typically reflects the speaker's authority and suggests that the proposition is desirable For a detailed comparison of the distribution of "should" and "ought to" across different senses, including root and epistemic meanings, refer to Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Appendix D, pages LXV Additionally, the string matching analysis of "should" is illustrated in Figure 3.1ab in Appendix C, page XXXIII.
Talmy (2000: 447-449) claims that should is a good form to treat in terms of force dynamics because a strong sense of force opposition is part of its immediate “semantic impact”, exemplified in [3.1]
[3.1] … a CEO should temper his actions regarding the careers and jobs of subordinates and employees (EEco 69)
In order to interpret [3.1], Talmy (2000: 447-449) suggests the following formulation:
E' posits that E should engage in a specific action (VP) because it is believed to be beneficial for E or others E's failure to perform this action is noted, indicating that E has not yet engaged in VP Furthermore, E' believes that if E were to take this action, it would enhance E's character and moral standing Consequently, driven by these beliefs, E' desires for E to undertake the action of VP.
(Note that E and E’ stand for sentient entities, and VP for an action that E can perform volitionally)
However, Talmy (2000) claims that the semantic components in [3.3a-b-c] by themselves do not capture the force-dynamic import of should Their contribution can be captured by a sentence like [3.4], corresponding to [3.1]
[3.4] I think that a CEO would be benefited and would be a better person if he tempered his actions regarding the careers and jobs of subordinates and employees
The formulation of "should" sentences lacks the impactful force of original expressions, as highlighted by the crucial component in [3.3d], which transforms E' into an Antagonist that applies pressure on E as an Agonist (Talmy 2000) Pelyvás (2006: 143-44) further emphasizes that the deontic modality of "should," characterized by 'narrow scope,' reflects an obligation rather than permission, leading to a distinct arrangement of participants and their associated forces within the conceptual structures, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 “Narrow scope” deontic should/ ought to (Pelyvás 2006: 144) Notes: “Narrow” vs “wide” scope: Pelyvás’ use of these terms draws on Nordlinger &
"Narrow scope" refers to specific types of epistemic and deontic modality, focusing on the speaker's performative force or epistemic perspective In contrast, "wide scope" encompasses descriptive and objective forms of deontic and epistemic modality (Pelyvás 2006)
In Pelyvás' analysis of obligation, the introduced force replaces Sweetser's barriers, symbolizing the doer's resistance and the inherent motivation of the speaker This force, evident in modal verbs like "may" or deontic "must" (as opposed to "should" or "ought to"), actively contributes to the fulfillment of the intended action.
The modal verbs "should" and "ought to" both convey a sense of obligation and are often used interchangeably However, "ought to" is less commonly found in written language, with only eight occurrences in the current corpus It may be more prevalent in spoken language due to its potential for emphasis Most instances of "ought to" are rooted in obligation, with six out of eight cases identified as root usage, while epistemic usage is rare, appearing only twice.
The term "ought" implies a weaker obligation compared to "have to," "need," and "must," often carrying moral implications and reflecting a socially agreed-upon duty between the imposer and the doer It is typically used to indicate that while an action is deemed the right thing to do, it may not be actively pursued by individuals This is evidenced by the presence of "ought to" in 75% of cases within the Elaw corpus Conversely, "ought not to" expresses the speaker's values regarding what is considered good and beneficial, yet notably, no instances of "ought not to" were found in the English corpus of this study.
Root ought to in [3.5] expresses weak obligation
Before taking action, he should communicate the purpose of his arrival and formally request the opening of the doors Certain moral obligations or influences compel him to express his intentions and seek access.
Root modality typically indicates a future time reference and is non-factive In subjective contexts, the speaker provides advice, such as "I advise" or "I recommend," without implying whether the advice will be followed or ignored.
The term "need" signifies necessity, indicating an obligation that arises from within the individual (Sweetzer 1990) In British English, "need" often serves as a negative and question form of "must" in its root sense It is more prevalent to use "need to" or "have to" with do-support in British English Both "need" and "need to" convey the concepts of necessity and obligation, with no significant difference in meaning.
The modal form "needn’t" is commonly employed to convey the speaker's personal opinion or perspective Interestingly, this study did not identify any instances of "needn’t" within the English corpus analyzed.
Permission in English and Vietnamese
In English, the modality of permission is expressed through words like "can," "could," "may," and "might." Conversely, in Vietnamese, permission is conveyed using "có thể" and "không thể." These linguistic forms illustrate the differences in how permission is articulated in both languages.
In English: 1 (Ago) + can/could/ may/ might + VP
In Vietnamese: CN + có thể/ không thể + VP
From a Cognitive perspective on force dynamics, the modality of permission signifies the absence of barriers to an action (Johnson, 1987: 52) Phrases like may, can, could, or might suggest that an action is possible due to the removal of obstacles Conversely, when permission is denied, it indicates that an action may be hindered or enforced by external forces Section 3.4.2 will explore the modal meanings of verbs indicating permission within the framework of force dynamics.
3.4.2 Meaning Can/ could for permission The number of cases of can used for permission is 144 found in the English corpus (See Figure 3.10ab in Appendix C, pp XLV - XLVI) It is possible to paraphrase can in the sense of ‘permission’ by ‘be allowed to’ In case of expressing permission, the remover of a barrier may even feel that in some sense this removal counts as an act of enablement And, of course, refraining from exercising them Can (= permission) is often used in a quasi - imperative manner to suggest a course of action to the addressee ‘Permission expressed by can can be seen as the lowest degree of pressure, opening the possibility for the other to do the action, but leaving the decision to them.” (Thompson, 1996) Can (= permission) is more common but less formal than may A typical example of can (= permission) is illustrated in [3.24]
She claims her independence as an American, asserting her freedom to make choices without barriers.
Figure 3.9 1 (Ago) can’t VP (Talmy 2000a: 456)
In the English corpus, there are 7 instances of "can’t" and 83 instances of "cannot" followed by a verb phrase (VP) In these cases, the subject (Agonist) typically shows a desire to perform the action indicated by the infinitive, but an opposing factor prevents the event from occurring, as noted by Mortelmans (2007) This relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.9.
The Agonist is unable to cancel the action due to opposing factors, which may include social or moral authority or psychosocial influences that hinder the realization of this event.
The interpretation of [3.25] suggests that an unnamed Antagonist manages to overcome their inclination to cancel it The dynamics of modal expressions, which indicate possibility and necessity, are rooted in either the psychosocial or epistemic domains (Taylor, 2002: 527).
Could can be used to denote permission Could expressing permission is less formal than may
The term "could" can be paraphrased as "be allowed to" when indicating permission In the English corpus, "could" is frequently employed in a quasi-imperative way to propose actions to the listener, as noted by Quirk et al (1985) It is important to highlight that all subjects using "could" in these instances are animate.
Participants in the study were made aware that their involvement was entirely voluntary, allowing them the freedom to withdraw at any time without facing any negative repercussions This ensured that there were no barriers preventing them from opting out whenever they chose.
The modal verb "may," which denotes permission, appears 421 times in the English corpus, indicating its usage compared to "can." While "may" is more formal and less frequent than "can," it specifically signifies permission granted by the speaker In contrast, "might" serves as a more tentative and polite alternative to "may." The expression "could" conveys permission in a less formal manner than "may." According to Pelyvás (2000), the prototypical deontic meaning involves an intention to perform an action, where the permission giver, typically the speaker, represents a counterforce Pelyvás (1996, cited in Pelyvás, 2000) posits that in this deontic context, the permission giver lacks the authority or necessity to prevent the action, suggesting a dynamic where the doer holds relative strength while the permission giver relinquishes authority.
A typical example of deontic may is clearly shown in [3.27]
In individualistic cultures, both professors and students often favor completing their learning during class to allocate more time for personal pursuits outside of the classroom In contrast, collectivistic cultures encourage professors and students to engage in meetings outside of class, fostering a strong sense of community and collaboration.
In individualistic cultures, professors and students are free to prioritize completing the learning process during class, allowing them more time to focus on personal goals outside of class In contrast, collectivistic cultures encourage professors and students to engage in meetings outside of class, fostering a continuous sense of community.
According to Talmy (2003), the term "may" in certain contexts does not imply a force dynamic configuration; instead, it is confined to interpersonal situations where an individual's desire to act is countered by an authority's denial of permission The construction of "Agonist + may not + VP" illustrates this dynamic, as depicted in Figure 3.11, where the authority (Antagonist) restricts the individual's (Agonist) actions Thus, "may not" signifies the authority's obstruction of the subject's inclination to act (Talmy 2000a).
Figure 3.11 1 (Ago) may not VP (Talmy 2000a: 447) May not for permission with 43 cases is exemplified in [3.28]
The findings indicate that high school teachers in this study perceive parents as having little to no role in their children's academic journey, irrespective of the parents' socioeconomic status This suggests a potential barrier, either imposed by authority or inherent in the educational framework, that limits teachers' recognition of parental involvement during this critical stage of a student's education.
Might with the meaning of permission emerged with 170 cases in the English corpus Might in [3.29] is used as a somewhat more tentative, and therefore polite variant of may (permission)
Upon entering a new environment, I assess the situation and gauge the dynamics at play, which may lead to a delay in fully engaging on that initial day This suggests that some external authority, potentially related to sociophysical factors, may restrict our immediate involvement.
Ability in English and Vietnamese
In English, the modal verbs "can," "could," and "may" express ability, while in Vietnamese, "có thể" (can/could) and "không thể" (cannot) serve a similar function The linguistic expressions used to indicate ability vary between the two languages, highlighting the nuances in their modal systems.
In English: 1 (= Ago) + can/ may/ could + VP (Talmy 2000a: 445)
In Vietnamese: CN + có thể / không thể + VP 3.5.2 Meaning
The term "can" signifies the positive ability of the doer or agonist, akin to the concept of potential force or energy This connection highlights the inherent capability associated with the term, drawing from its Latin roots in "potential," which emphasizes the notion of ability According to Sweetser (1990), this characterization effectively captures the force dynamics involved in expressing capability.
The analysis of the English corpus revealed 268 instances of the usage of "can" for ability, as illustrated in Figure 3.10ab in Appendix C The varying meanings of "can" are detailed in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 found in Appendix D.
As observed by Linden (2012), the property of being inherent in the situation or in a participant is what motivates the internal consistency of the dynamic category Consider the following example
Many Latino men often feel capable of managing their problems independently, which leads them to overlook the importance of seeking support services This belief in their own abilities, whether physical or mental, contributes to their reluctance to ask for help when needed.
In [3.33], the speaker highlights the inherent abilities of participants based on their physical conditions, indicating that these capabilities are grounded in the internal state of the participants and the situation at hand Figure 3.14 illustrates the force dynamic of positive can (can VP), where the Antagonist's absence allows the Agonist, as the subject of the clause, to act freely and assertively in performing the action.
Figure 3.14 1 (Agonist) can VP (Talmy 2000a: 445)
The expression of ability, referred to as 'dynamic modality' by von Wright, is subject-oriented, focusing on the individual's capabilities rather than the speaker's opinions or attitudes (Palmer, 1986).
The ‘ability’ meaning of can is considered extrinsic, even though ability typically involves human control over an action
Goosens (1996, cited in Morteman 2007: 880) highlights that the modal verb "could" in its "remote" form can indicate past ability or possibility, suggesting that the relationship between modality and tense is significant and not entirely subjective.
Could expressing past ability emerged with 214 cases, exemplified in [3.34] And there appeared with 30 cases of could expressing inability, exemplified in [3.35]
The text suggests that Stewart's writing often displays a superficial posturing, yet the direction of this posturing reveals a deeper distinction It implies that certain potentialities allowed the Agonists, or "we," to interpret the text, indicating that both physical and mental capabilities played a role in this understanding In this scenario, the absence of the Antagonist enabled a sense of freedom or strength, facilitating our ability to engage with the material.
The children were unable to communicate in Khmer, while their parents lacked proficiency in English This situation highlights the inability of both parties: the children faced physical and possibly mental barriers to speaking Khmer, and the parents encountered similar limitations regarding English.
The term "may" signifies the concept of being strong enough, as discussed by Pelyvás (2000) in relation to Figure 3.15 According to Pelyvás, the only participant emphasized within the immediate objective scene is the doer, whose strength is relative to opposing forces that are perceived as weaker These counteracting forces are also essential to understanding the overall context.
The doer, or Agonist, possesses the strength to execute purposeful actions According to Pelyvas (2006: 139-140), in this framework, the speaker or conceptualizer plays a grounding role, contributing to the objective construction of the situation An illustrative example of this may-ability can be found in [3.35].
As social workers, we possess the potential to effectively employ the scientific method in our practice This capability arises from our strength and autonomy, allowing us to navigate challenges and focus on evidence-based approaches without interference By harnessing our abilities, we can enhance our effectiveness in addressing social issues through systematic inquiry and analysis.
The modal verb "có thể" precedes another lexical verb and expresses the doer's positive ability or potential to perform an action It can be likened to potential force or energy, highlighting its force-dynamic nature In this context, "có thể" indicates that there are no force barriers hindering or necessitating a situation, making an action possible without it being essential.
The term "có thể" emerged with a total of 1,188 cases, as illustrated in Figure 3.14a in Appendix C Its distribution across various meanings and co-occurrences is detailed in Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 found in Appendix D.
A typical example of có thể is shown in [3.36] In the force dynamic framework, có thể in [3.36] belongs to root modality since it deals ‘with ability, capability (cf Jacobsson, 1994)
He has the ability to inspire individuals to transform their lifestyles, embrace new values, and seek fresh purposes through his captivating and articulate speeches.
Volition in English and Vietnamese
In English, modal verbs like "will," "would," and "shall" convey the concept of volition, while in Vietnamese, terms such as "định," "sẽ," "muốn," and "toan" serve a similar purpose Overall, both languages utilize specific linguistic forms to express the notion of volition.
In English: S + will/ would/ shall + VP
In Vietnamese: CN + định/ sẽ/ muốn/ toan/ dám + VP
In the following pages, the modal senses of volition expressed in the two languages will be described and analysed in terms of force dynamics
3.6.2 Meaning Will /shall /would for volition
In the English corpus, the modal verb "will" appears 856 times, highlighting its significance in expressing strong obligation, intention, volition, and future verification Detailed distributions of its various meanings can be found in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Appendix D.
The modal verbs "will" and "shall" are often associated with expressing simple futurity; however, Palmer (1986) notes that their actual usage does not align with this notion, despite what grammar books suggest Scholars like Huddleston (1984) and Lakoff (1972) classify these modals as the strongest, as they convey the highest level of obligation or necessity through the certainty of future actions.
The future reading of "will" suggests a completed path toward an action or intention rather than indicating a force or barrier Integrating this perspective with force dynamic analysis presents challenges Sweetser (1990) identifies a common misconception in previous analyses: the belief that future "will" is solely epistemic and pertains only to future truth-value However, like all modals, except for present tense "shall/will," "will" encompasses both root and epistemic readings.
Pelyvás (2008) contends that while "will" is not classified as a deontic modal, it possesses significant force dynamics and participant involvement, which are key features of its root meaning This sense is characterized by the doer's (the subject or Agonist's) inherent disposition to engage in a typical purposeful action, although this action remains potential.
Figure 3.17 illustrates the concepts of 'wish' and 'choose' as presented by Pelyvás (2008) While these two terms are often regarded as near-synonyms, they convey distinct meanings in terms of objective context In the case of 'choose,' the alternatives that are not selected remain more significant and noticeable compared to the 'wish' scenario, where such alternatives are less emphasized.
Certainly the will in examples such as [3.37] seems volitional (purposeful, potential) rather than future pure and simple Volition can extend from the ‘weak volition’ of willingness to
‘strong volition’ of insistence There have been 650 cases of ‘will’ expressing volition, exemplified in [3.37]
[3.37] Other companies will act as contractors (ELaw 91) – Read as “The present state of affairs will proceed to the future event of other companies’ acting as contractors”
The forces involved in [3.37] are those of volition and responsibility
Will in case of not indicates refusal by the subject of the clause to produce external pressure to perform the expressed action, exemplified in [3.38]
In the context of habitual actions, the use of "will" signifies a commitment to not allowing disrespectful behavior among family members in a particular space According to Pelyvás (2008), this habitual action indicates a gradual increase in the speaker's involvement, despite a potential decrease in control over the situation The speaker acknowledges the regularity of such actions, assesses their past occurrences, and predicts future behaviors based on these experiences This concept often highlights the anticipated recurrence of past experiences, as illustrated in the following example.
In the original position, individuals will consistently establish two fundamental principles of justice: the liberty principle and the differences principle This indicates that the current state of affairs will evolve towards a future where these principles of justice are recognized and upheld by individuals.
The term "would" appears 846 times, indicating its significance in expressing past volition, predictions, and hypotheses It conveys hypothetical meanings in both main and subordinate clauses, particularly in unreal conditional sentences.
Goossens (1996) highlights that in "remote" forms, the modal verb "would" can still indicate past volition, suggesting that its modal relationship is influenced by tense and is therefore not entirely subjective A typical example of this usage is illustrated in [3.40].
Individuals who believed they lacked intelligence would recognize these thoughts and choose to behave in alignment with their values, as if those negative beliefs did not exist.
The auxiliary verb "shall" appears 53 times, indicating strong obligation, volition, and prediction In contemporary American English, its usage is relatively rare For a detailed breakdown of "shall" across different contexts, refer to Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Appendix D.
In Sweetser’s (1990) analysis, as well as in numerous examples from Palmer, the term "shall" signifies the speaker's or imposer's accountability for the execution of an action, rather than the subject performing the action This concept is illustrated in example [3.41].
According to the Bible, the definition of a day emphasizes the importance of rest, stating, "Six days you shall work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God: you shall not do any work" (EEdu 23) This highlights the significance of dedicating one day for rest and spiritual reflection.
In the context of [3.41], the speaker or conceptualizer expresses a commitment to ensuring that an action is carried out, highlighting the elements of volition and responsibility Conversely, the use of "shall" in instances of negation signifies a refusal to perform the action, as illustrated in [3.42].
Concluding Remarks
permission, ability and volition in terms of force dynamics The results of the study shows that there are some similarities between English and Vietnamese root modality
Root modality, encompassing obligation, permission, ability, and volition, is a linguistic universal found in both English and Vietnamese Writers and speakers in these languages utilize modal verbs with varying degrees of strength—such as "must" in English and "phải" in Vietnamese for high force, and "can" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese for absence of force—to conceptualize entities, propositions, and events By employing modals as a hedging device, they aim to persuade members of the scientific community, particularly journal editors and referees, of the significance of their research In crafting scientific articles, both English and Vietnamese writers use modals to convey their subjective viewpoints and attitudes regarding propositions, states of affairs, and the occurrence of events.
A comparative analysis of English and Vietnamese corpora reveals that both languages exhibit a similar frequency of modal verbs in social science texts However, the distribution of root and epistemic modality modals differs significantly Notably, English displays a considerably higher occurrence of root modals indicating obligation, permission, ability, and volition compared to Vietnamese.
The opposition between the Agonist and Antagonist is evident in the use of modals in both English and Vietnamese Common force structures, such as the image schema for COMPULSION, illustrate the modality of obligation with terms like "must" in English and "phải" in Vietnamese Additionally, concepts of BLOCKAGE are represented by "can’t" in English and "không thể" in Vietnamese, while REMOVAL OF RESTRAINT is shown through "may" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese Finally, ENABLEMENT is conveyed with "can" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese, highlighting the similarities in modal usage across the two languages.
However, there are a number of differences between the two languages in expressing root modality in academic communication
The analysis reveals that English has a significantly higher frequency of root modals related to obligation, permission, ability, and volition, with 3,424 occurrences compared to 1,846 in Vietnamese Notably, English exhibits the highest use of modals indicating volition, whereas Vietnamese predominantly features modals that express obligation.
The strengths of functional discourse (FD) in English are highlighted by the predominance of low-value modals such as "can," "could," "may," and "might," which are more commonly used than median modals like "will," "would," "should," and "ought," as well as high-value modals such as "must" and "have to."
In the academic community, modality tends to be used more for mitigation than for strengthening propositions Conversely, in Vietnamese writing, high-value modals such as "phải," "cần," and "không thể" are more prevalent than median and low-value modals This pattern suggests that Vietnamese writers in social science journals favor expressing strong obligation and necessity in their work.
In both English and Vietnamese, modal verbs express varying degrees of obligation, reflecting deontic modality that is often subjective, as the writer or conceptualizer imposes the obligation Vietnamese distinguishes three levels of obligation through modals like nên, cần, and phải, highlighting the nuanced ways in which obligation is conveyed.
A notable aspect of Vietnamese grammar is the ability for two or three modal verbs to coexist within a single sentence, allowing for nuanced expressions of meaning, such as "có thể phải" or "sẽ cần phải," which convey future inclination, necessity, and strong obligation In contrast, English does not exhibit this feature Additionally, the placement of negatives differs: in English, "not" follows the modal verb (e.g., "cannot"), while in Vietnamese, "không" precedes it (e.g., "không cần") Furthermore, English utilizes inversion for interrogative forms, whereas Vietnamese employs structures like "có không?" or "đã chưa?" to pose questions.
In English, the past form of "can," which is "could," typically indicates past ability, while in Vietnamese, "có thể" is used for both present and past abilities due to the absence of a tense system Similarly, the past form of "will," which is "would," expresses past volition in English; however, "sẽ" in Vietnamese is primarily used to convey future intentions or willingness, occurring after the time of speaking.
In what follows, the study will describe, analyse and find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese epistemic modality (realised by modal verbs) in terms of force dynamics.
Epistemic Modality in English and Vietnamese
Introduction
This chapter examines the similarities and differences in epistemic modality between English and Vietnamese, focusing on force dynamics and the frequency of modal verbs in both languages It includes a comprehensive analysis of modal verbs, supported by a corpus-based approach, comparing their usage in English and Vietnamese The study employs KWIC (Key Words In Context) concordance to illustrate the string matching of each modal verb within the respective corpora The findings align with previous research on force dynamics conducted by notable authors, including Talmy.
(1988, 2000); Langacker (1991b), Pelyvas (2006), Mortelmans (2007), Sweetzer (1990); Johnson (1987); Taylor (2002); Tyler (2008) and Mulder (2007)
Depraetere & Reed (2006) define epistemic modality as the speaker's assessment of the truth likelihood of a proposition This concept encompasses a spectrum of certainty, from weak epistemic possibility, such as "That might be Peter," to strong epistemic necessity, exemplified by statements like "That must be Peter," indicating that it is essential for the proposition to be true.
Epistemic modality focuses on the speaker's assumptions about possibilities and reflects their confidence in the truth of a proposition (Coates, 1983) Unlike root modality, which may involve external factors, epistemic modality is primarily speaker-oriented, although it can include agent-oriented evaluations in certain contexts Talmy (1988) suggests that all modalities share common elements, including aspects of force dynamics Additionally, Declerck (2011) introduced an epistemic scale that categorizes specified factuality values.
Epistemic refers to knowledge, and when we talk about 'specified epistemic,' we are expressing a level of certainty regarding the actualization of a situation in reality or its anticipated future According to Sweetser (1990), epistemic modals are not relevant to our statements but rather to our processes of induction, deduction, or reasoning.
General Findings
Epistemic senses of English modals like "can," "may," and "must" are rooted in reasoning, argumentation, and theorizing Both English and Vietnamese writers exhibit similarities in expressing epistemic modality concerning necessity, probability, and possibility They employ various conceptual structures and modal strengths in academic discourse to persuade peers, particularly journal editors and referees, of their studies' significance Sweetser (1990) posits that the sole source of force in the epistemic realm is premises or available evidence, which can also serve as barriers that impede reasoning processes This perspective aids in analyzing the realization of epistemic modality in both English and Vietnamese contexts.
However, when using modal verbs to denote necessity, probability and possibility, there appeared some differences between the two languages The first difference lies in the frequency
Table 4.1 Distribution of 3 Epistemic Senses in the English & Vietnamese Corpora
The analysis reveals that Vietnamese writers employ a total of 3,455 epistemic modal words in their academic writing, significantly surpassing the 2,288 instances found in English writings This suggests that Vietnamese authors tend to exhibit a higher degree of subjectivity in their reasoning, aligning with research that indicates epistemic modality reflects a strong sense of subjectivity or subjectification.
In the study of epistemic phải, a significant example is highlighted from research conducted by Langacker (2003) and Mortelmans (2006), where this term accounts for 30.19% of the total tokens analyzed Epistemic phải signifies an undeniable force in reasoning, conveying a sense of high certainty in its application.
This article explores the concepts of necessity, probability, and possibility in English and Vietnamese through the lens of force dynamics, highlighting the frequency of modal verbs in both languages' corpora.
Necessity in English and Vietnamese
Necessity can be categorized into strong necessity, indicating a strong assumption of truth, and weak necessity, reflecting a weaker assumption of truth In English, the terms "must," "have to," "can't," and "need" convey strong necessity, while "ought to" and "should" suggest weak necessity or probability In Vietnamese, "phải" and "cần" are typically used for strong necessity, whereas "nên" expresses weak necessity or probability This highlights the linguistic forms that differentiate strong and weak necessity in both languages.
In English: 1 (Ago) + must/ have to/ need/ can't + VP
In Vietnamese: CN + cần/ phải + VP
The following pages in Section 4.3.2 will describe, analyse and compare/ contrast the modality of necessity as realised by modal verbs in English and Vietnamese
4.3.2 Meaning Epistemic must/ have to
In the English corpus, epistemic must appeared with 129 cases (See Figure 3.4c-d in Appendix
C, pp XXXVIII for epistemic must and Table 3.3 & 3.4 in Appendix D, pp LXV for the distribution of different senses of must.)
In epistemic discourse, "must" signifies a compelling epistemic force derived from premises that leads individuals to inevitable conclusions This concept is illustrated by the statement, "It must be asexual, as the specter of homosexuality has always haunted the Batman-Robin relationship," which can be interpreted as the available evidence necessitating the conclusion of asexuality in this context.
The term "must" in its epistemic sense, meaning "I conclude that," originates from its obligative sense of "ought to," which is reinforced by conversational inferences and subjectification For instance, when I say "She must be married" in an obligation context, it suggests an inference that she is expected to marry in the future This inference is epistemic, relating to a state of affairs anticipated to be true at a later time (cf Traugott & Kửnig 1991, cited in Mortelmans 2007: 876).
In everyday language, "must" signifies a compelling force from the speaker or an authority that drives the subject to perform the action stated in the sentence.
Epistemic must, according to Coates (1983: 42), reflects the speaker's confidence in the truth of their statements, derived from logical deductions based on known facts This term typically does not pertain to future states or activities The concept of 'logical necessity' associated with must is akin to the use of may, which denotes epistemic possibility; thus, must can be regarded as 'epistemic necessity.' It suggests that the speaker believes the proposition is necessarily true or likely true, based on prior knowledge or observations Additionally, must, indicating logical necessity, is generally not used in interrogative or negative forms.
According to Coates (1983), the characteristics of subjective epistemic must include the following: it primarily denotes a state or activity occurring in the present or past; the subject is often inanimate; the verb is typically stative; and the speaker conveys a strong confidence in the truth of the statement.
Pelyvás (2000, 2003, 2006, 2008) identifies two key changes that significantly influence the expansion of root meanings into the epistemic domain: a restriction of immediate scope (OS) and a special extension of overall scope through a process called subjectification These distinctions are exemplified in the conceptual structure of epistemic must, as depicted in Figure 4.1.
In the deontic sense, force dynamic relationships play a crucial role in shaping the objective scene, which differs significantly from its interpretation in the epistemic sense, where the focus narrows to the situation itself This aligns with Langacker's (1999) concept of subject control attenuation As these force dynamics recede from focus, the speaker's epistemic commitment becomes more prominent, highlighting the process of subjectification (Pelyvás 2008).
The construction "must have + VPed" is utilized for making deductions about past events, indicating the speaker's judgments or assessments regarding actions that have already occurred This usage is evidenced in nine cases within the English corpus, highlighting its role in expressing certainty about past situations.
The Court's interpretation of the statute indicates that the Justices inferred legislative intent and took into account the legislative history, as supported by the available direct evidence.
The epistemic analysis of [4.2] aligns the speaker's mental premises with the authority's influence in [4.4] In this context, epistemic understanding complements the COMPULSION image schema (Johnson 1987), emphasizing that the force exerted is rational rather than physical (Johnson 1987: 55).
Negative conclusions are typically expressed using "can't" or "cannot" rather than "must not" (Swan 1995: 345) In the English corpus, the epistemic use of "can" was identified in 55 instances (refer to Figure 3.10b in Appendix C and Tables 3.3 & 3.4 in Appendix D for detailed analysis) A common example of this usage is illustrated through the terms "can't" or "cannot."
[4.3] Justice Scalia suggested that an Establishment Clause test that “invalidate[s] longstanding traditions cannot be a proper reading of the Clause.” (ELaw 82) – Read as
Justice Scalia's understanding of the Establishment Clause suggests that any test which invalidates longstanding traditions is not a proper interpretation of the Clause.
According to Johnson (1987), certain propositions can obstruct the logical progression toward a conclusion In this context, the concept of ENABLEMENT is relevant, particularly for the terms "can’t" or "cannot." Furthermore, within this epistemic framework, ENABLEMENT is understood as encompassing rational forces or powers.
In British English, "must" is used to indicate that something is necessarily true, while the negative form is "can’t." Although Americans also use "mustn’t," this study's English corpus does not contain any instances of "mustn’t."
Probability in English and Vietnamese
4.4.1 Form The modality of probability can be realised by should/ ought to/ will/ shall in English, while in Vietnamese, probability can be expressed by nên/ không nên/ sẽ The followings are the common linguistic forms to express probability in English and Vietnamese
In English: Ago + should/ ought to/ will/ shall + VP
In Vietnamese, the structure "CN + nên/ không nên/ sẽ + VP" is utilized to express modal senses of probability Section 4.4.2 will explore and analyze how these modal expressions function in English and Vietnamese, focusing on their roles in reasoning, argumentation, and theorization.
4.4.2 Meaning Epistemic should/ ought to For weak necessity, probability indicates greater likelihood that the proposition is true than possibility We use ought to and should to say that something is probable
In the English corpus, the term "epistemic" was identified in 171 instances, whereas "ought to" appeared only 2 times For detailed analysis, refer to Figures 3.1a-b-c-d and 3.2 in Appendix C (pp XXXIII - XXXIV) for string matching, and Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Appendix D (pp LXV) for the distribution of various senses.
In [4.12], the term "epistemic should," closely aligned with "ought to," signifies a weak necessity due to its mild assumption of truth This implies that the available premises or mental obligations guide the speaker or writer to conclude that the study's context will be thoroughly detailed and connected to other groups or settings.
Should/ ought to can be seen as exceptional, (cf Pelyvás, 2006: 145), since in their epistemic meanings they often retain the remnants of a ‘wide scope’ deontic meaning (deontic overtone)
A typical example of ‘Wide scope’ deontic should/ought is illustrated in [4.12] and its image schema structure can be illustrated in Figure 4.3 below
[4.12] The study’s context should be described in detail and should relate to the context of other groups or settings (ESoci 10)
Figure 4.3 ‘Wide scope’ deontic should/ought (Pelyvás 2006: 145)
Note: A ‘wide’ scope scene is one in which OS (objective scene) is restricted to exclude the forces characterizing the prototypical deontic sense (Pelyvás 2008)
The terms "should" and "ought" are largely interchangeable, both conveying a sense of obligation or tentative inference Specifically, "ought to" is viewed as a tentative inference, indicating that the speaker or writer is uncertain about the truth of their statement but suggests it as a necessity based on a weak assumption of its validity According to Coates (1983: 73), epistemic "ought to" possesses specific properties that reflect this uncertainty.
(c) is non-factive; d) is subjective;
(e) can be paraphrased by ‘I assume that…’ or ‘probably’”
The phrase "ought to" in [4.13] suggests that the existing premises create a mental obligation for the speaker to conclude that the Supreme Court utilizes common law in knock and announce cases to decide when an exception applies.
[4.13] … the Supreme Court relies upon the common law in knock and announce cases to determine when an exception ought to be granted (ELaw 89)
Moreover, should/ ought to with the perfect aspect is used to talk about probability in the past:
In situations where you anticipate an event to have occurred in the past but lack certainty, it's reasonable to assume it likely happened For instance, one might say, "They should have reached London by now," indicating a strong belief that the expected outcome has taken place.
(2) Something you thought it would happen, but it did not happen, as in [4.14]
[4.14] In this case the greater independence of cooperative banks should have increased the possibility to practice and exercise the methods of management accounting systems of their own choice (EEco 75)
In [4.14], the implication is that the recommendation has not been implemented The writer believes that the increased independence of cooperative banks would allow them to adopt their preferred management accounting systems; however, this has not occurred.
Hypothesis meaning of ‘should’ can be used in the hypothetical (unreal) sense of the past tense in both main and subordinate clauses: (in real, unreal conditional sentences), exemplified in [4.15]
[4.15] Also, if Congress was aware of the rule at common law, then it should have been equally aware of the exceptions that the common law provided (ELaw 89)
Using epistemic "should" typically conveys the speaker's opinion that something is advisable or a duty In contrast, "ought to" can carry a stronger connotation, often referring to external regulations or obligations.
The use of "should" or "ought to" in negative contexts indicates an unlikely scenario For instance, when we say "shouldn't" or "should not," it suggests a tentative assumption based on available evidence that something is not expected to occur.
Truth in political discourse should be understood not just as a reflection of a politician's individual style aimed at persuasion or deception, but rather as the result of a complex interplay of various texts and dialogues This emergent truth is shaped by the available evidence and the broader context in which political communication occurs.
This article demonstrates that the Court's Constitutional determination was significantly influenced by common law, despite the argument that it should not have been relied upon.
The occurrence of a future action can only be known or verified at a later time The term "will" extends from actual futurity to epistemic futurity, indicating that while the event itself may not be in the future, its verification is Pelyvás (2008) suggests that this epistemic sense can be effectively characterized as a result of subjectification.
The speaker is an integral part of the overall context, serving as a reference point for probability judgments The use of "will" signifies a grounding predication, reflecting the speaker's assessment of likelihood Furthermore, these probability judgments are informed by the natural progression of events, as noted by Langacker (1991).
English and Vietnamese Modal Verbs in Different Disciplines
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 in Appendix D illustrate the distribution of English and Vietnamese modal verbs across seven disciplines: social science, education, psychology, linguistics, culture, economy, and law The analysis reveals notable similarities in the distribution patterns of modal verbs between the English and Vietnamese corpora.
The distribution of English modals (can, may, will, would, should, could, must, have to, might, need, shall, ought to) and Vietnamese modals (phải, có thể, cần, sẽ, nên, định, muốn, dám) across seven disciplines varies significantly For example, the English modal "ought to" appeared six times in the field of law (ELaw), once in economics (EEco), and once in psychology (EPsy), while it was absent in science (ESci), education (EEdu), linguistics (ELing), and culture (ECult) Similarly, the Vietnamese modal "định" was found seven times in linguistics (VLing) and once in economics (VEco), but was not present in science (VSci), education (VEdu), psychology (VPsy), culture (VCult), or law (VLaw).
In both English and Vietnamese, the discipline with the lowest frequency is culture, ranking seventh with 901,160 words per million in English and 809,788 in Vietnamese The usage of modals across various disciplines shows minimal variation; for instance, EPsy and VPsy have comparable occurrences, with 965,176 words per million in English and 924,841 in Vietnamese Additionally, the total number of modals in English disciplines such as EEdu, EPsy, and ECult is relatively close, with counts of 959,430, 965,176, and 901,160 words per million, respectively In Vietnamese, the occurrence of modals in VSci is also noteworthy.
993 371 words per million, VPsy with 924 841 and VEco with 947 361, in which there is not big difference
However, the two tables also show some typical distinctions between the two languages in terms of distribution of modals in 7 disciplines
In a comparison of the total occurrences across seven disciplines, English's ELaw leads with a frequency of 1,327,534 words per million, while Vietnamese's VLing ranks highest at 1,485,763 words per million Following ELaw, the second highest in English is EEco, whereas VEdu holds the second position in Vietnamese ESci ranks third in English, while VLaw takes third place in Vietnamese.
In a study analyzing the distribution of modals across seven disciplines, the modal verb "can" emerged as the most frequently used, accounting for 18.72% of instances with 1,038 occurrences "Can" serves various functions, including expressing permission, ability, necessity, and possibility This prevalence aligns with findings by Coates (1995) and Rezzano (2004), highlighting a rise in the epistemic use of "can." Although "shall" and "should" are less common, "shall" appeared 24 times in ELaw, representing 48.28% of its modal usage, and 13 times in EEco, at 24.53% These statistics suggest that "shall" conveys the strongest obligation or necessity, as it denotes certainty of future action, with Sweetser (1990) noting that it reflects the speaker's responsibility for the action rather than the subject's.
Another distinctive feature is that ought to occurred with 8 cases, in which there appeared 6 cases in ELaw 5 examples (of 6) are deontic ought to, which matches the results of Coates
In Vietnamese, the modal "phải" is predominantly used across various disciplines, highlighting the subjective nature of Vietnamese culture, unlike the more varied usage of "ought to" in English This distinction underscores cultural differences in modal expression.
Concluding Remarks
This chapter examines the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese epistemic modality, focusing on modal verbs through a Cognitive perspective, particularly regarding force dynamics According to Langacker (1999), force dynamics is an intrinsic feature of modal verbs, and full subjectification is observed solely in the epistemic context.
Based on force dynamic studies by linguists such as Langacker, Talmy, Sweetser, Johnson, and Pelyvás, this research reveals that English and Vietnamese writers utilize distinct conceptual structures and varying strengths of modal forces in their academic reasoning and argumentation This approach aims to convince both the scientific community and readers of the significance of their studies Sweetser posits that premises, or available evidence, are the sole source of force in the epistemic realm.
In the reasoning process, an irresistible force can compel the writer, speaker, or conceptualizer to reach a conclusion about a proposition or event In English, this is expressed using the epistemic terms "must" or "have to," while in Vietnamese, the equivalents are "phải" or "cần phải." This reflects the conceptual structure of the force gestalt for compulsion, as outlined by Johnson (1987) Consequently, one might articulate this rational force by stating, "The available evidence compels me to conclude that…" or "Due to these reasons, I am certain that…".
When there are no facts or barriers hindering a writer, speaker, or conceptualizer from reaching a conclusion, English employs epistemic terms like may, might, can, or could, while Vietnamese uses the phrase có thể This scenario invokes the image schema of REMOVAL OF RESTRAINT, suggesting that there is no evidence obstructing the conclusion Essentially, it conveys that the individual is not prevented by any evidence from asserting that a particular conclusion is valid or that, based on their premises, a certain outcome is possible.
When barriers or evidence obstruct the reasoning process, English employs the epistemic terms "can’t" or "cannot," while Vietnamese uses "không thể." This reflects the epistemic domain where the primary force is BLOCKAGE (Johnson, 1987) Consequently, this can be rephrased as, "Certain evidence prevents the writer, speaker, or conceptualizer from arriving at the conclusion that …"
In both English and Vietnamese, writers must rely on available evidence to form judgments about propositions or events In English, epistemic probability is expressed through "should" or "ought to," while in Vietnamese, it is conveyed using "nên" or "không nên." The rational force of probability is less compelling than that of necessity; the former allows for resistance, whereas the latter does not This indicates that the premises available to the speaker influence their conclusions Regarding future events, both English and Vietnamese utilize epistemic modality—"will" in English and "sẽ" in Vietnamese—to indicate probability judgments based on the natural progression of events, aligning with a dynamic evolutionary model.
Apart from the similarities discussed above, there appeared some differences between the two languages during reasoning process in the epistemic domain
In English, negative constructions with modal verbs place "not" after the modal (e.g., need not, cannot), whereas in Vietnamese, the equivalent negative word "không" precedes the modal verb (e.g., không phải) Additionally, Vietnamese allows for the co-occurrence of two modals in a single sentence, such as "cần + phải" (cần phải), which conveys a sense of necessity combined with obligation Furthermore, it is possible for three modals to appear together, as in "sẽ + cần + phải" (sẽ cần phải), indicating a blend of intention, necessity, and obligation.
The analysis reveals that Vietnamese writers utilize epistemic modals significantly more frequently in their academic writing, with a total of 3,455 occurrences compared to 2,112 in English This suggests a higher level of subjectivity in the reasoning of Vietnamese authors, as epistemic modals convey the speaker's subjective judgments Notably, Vietnamese modals like "phải," "cần," and "cần phải," which exhibit strong force, are more prevalent than median and low-strength modals such as "nên" and "có thể." In contrast, English writing features a predominance of lower-force modals like "can," "could," "may," and "might," with "can" leading at 571 occurrences, while stronger modals like "must" and "have to" are less frequently used.
In English, the modal verbs "should" and "ought to" express noncommitted necessity and past probability, while Vietnamese lacks this distinction due to its absence of tenses Additionally, "should" can convey hypothetical meaning in both main and subordinate clauses, applicable in unreal conditional sentences, which differs from Vietnamese language structure.
In Vietnamese academic writing, particularly in social science journals, there is a notable prevalence of the term "phải," which reflects a strong inclination among writers to convey obligation and necessity This tendency highlights their desire to assert subjective viewpoints and attitudes regarding various propositions In contrast, English writing demonstrates a significant dominance of low-force dynamic values, with less emphasis on high and median modal expressions.
This article summarizes the current state of research in language teaching and learning, highlighting both completed studies and gaps that remain It discusses the implications of these findings for educators, acknowledges the limitations of the research conducted, and offers suggestions for future investigations in the field.
Recapitulation
This study conducts a comparative analysis of root and epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese, focusing on modal verbs from a cognitive perspective, particularly force dynamics It examines four types of root modality—obligation, permission, ability, and volition—and three types of epistemic modality—necessity, probability, and possibility—across two corpora: one consisting of 500,000 words from 91 English texts and another with 500,000 words from 119 Vietnamese texts The researcher summarizes the key findings and evaluates the extent to which the study has achieved its initial objectives.
1.1 The study has set the foundation for the dissertation by presenting the literature review on modality, and discussing the notions and categories that are useful to the study of contrasting/ comparing root and epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs in English and Vietnamese from the Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of force dynamics The literature on modality has typically concentrated on the category of modal verbs, with the English modal auxiliaries as the prototypical cases (or as the source) and the Vietnamese modal verbs as the comparative ones Then it presents some key notions and main principles of the Cognitive perspective The reseacher, then, explores the notion, parameters and conceptual structures of force dynamics as well as linguistic means of root and epistemic modality in English as the base from which a contrastive analysis can be made The reseacher chooses the notion of modality defined by Lyons (1977), Lock (1996) and Langacker (1991ab, 2003), the four types of root modality (obligation, permission, ability and volition) and three types of epistemic modality (necessity, probability and possibility) and force dynamic analyses of modal verbs by Talmy (1988, 2000); Langacker (1991a); Johnson (1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002); and Pelyvás (2006, 2008) as the basic theoretical framework for the study on root and epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese Modal verbs expressing the modality of obligation, permission, ability, volition (in root modality), necessity, probability and possibility (in epistemic modality) can be compared with each other and contrasted in terms of form-meaning pairings and force dynamics (opposition)
1.2 The study has presented a comparative/ contrastive analysis of English and Vietnamese root modality (including obligation, permission, ability and volition) and epistemic modality (including necessity, probability, and possibility) as realised by modal verbs in terms of force dynamics The results of the study show that English and Vietnamese share some similarities in expressing root and epistemic modality:
Root and epistemic modality are universal linguistic features present in both English and Vietnamese Writers and speakers in both languages utilize modal verbs with varying degrees of intensity, whether in sociophysical contexts or reasoning domains, to understand and conceptualize entities, propositions, or events.
In the analysis of two languages, various modal senses—such as obligation, permission, ability, volition, necessity, probability, and possibility—are conveyed through distinct modal verbs In English, permission can be expressed using modal verbs like may, might, can, and could Similarly, in Vietnamese, the modal verb có thể serves multiple functions, encompassing meanings such as ability and permission.
In both English and Vietnamese, a dynamic opposition exists between the Agonist (the subject) and the Antagonist across various modals This opposition can manifest as a force that compels an event or situation to occur, exemplified by the use of "must" in English and "phải" in Vietnamese Conversely, there are forces that hinder actions or events, such as "can’t" in English and "không thể" in Vietnamese Additionally, the absence of force is represented by modals like "can" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese The analysis includes both sociophysical or moral forces, as well as rational forces in an epistemic context, as detailed in previous chapters.
Common force structures are evident in both English and Vietnamese, particularly the image schema for COMPULSION, which signifies obligation, as seen in the English "must" and Vietnamese "phải." Additionally, the concept of BLOCKAGE is represented by "can’t" in English and "không thể" in Vietnamese The REMOVAL OF RESTRAINT is illustrated by "may" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese, while ENABLEMENT is conveyed through "can" in English and "có thể" in Vietnamese.
English and Vietnamese writers employ distinct conceptual frameworks and modal forces to persuade their academic peers of their research's significance They utilize both root and epistemic senses of modal verbs, drawing from two experiential dimensions: the sociophysical domain, which encompasses physical interactions and social relations, and the epistemic realm, which involves reasoning and theorizing When a compelling force leads to a conclusion, English writers typically use epistemic "must" or "have to," while Vietnamese writers opt for "phải" or "cần." This approach reflects the conceptual structure of rational compulsion.
In English, the use of epistemic modals such as may, might, can, and could indicates the absence of facts or barriers preventing a conclusion, while in Vietnamese, the equivalent term is có thể This reflects the image schema of REMOVAL OF RESTRAINT Conversely, when barriers or evidence impede the reasoning process, English employs can’t or cannot, and Vietnamese uses không thể, representing the epistemic domain of BLOCKAGE.
1.3 Apart from the above similarities between the two languages, the results of the study show some significant differences between the two languages in expressing root and epistemic senses of modal verbs from force dynamic frameworks
The use of root modals in English significantly surpasses that in Vietnamese, with 3,257 instances compared to 1,846 This indicates that English writers employ modal verbs more frequently to express their academic experiences, connecting them to various physical, sociophysical, and psychological influences, regardless of the presence or absence of obstacles.
In contrast, epistemic modals denoting necessity, probability and possibility in Vietnamese
The analysis reveals that Vietnamese writers exhibit a high degree of subjectivity in their reasoning, as evidenced by the prevalence of epistemic modals like "phải" and "cần," which show strong force In contrast, English writers tend to favor low rational force modals such as "can," "could," "may," and "might," which outnumber stronger modals like "must" and "have to." This disparity highlights differing approaches to expressing subjective judgments in Vietnamese and English writing.
In English, the prevalence of low-strength modal verbs like "can" aligns with findings by Coates (1995) and Rezzano (2004), indicating a rising trend in their epistemic use This tendency reflects the diverse meanings these modals convey, allowing writers to express varying degrees of certainty for different communicative purposes Conversely, Vietnamese writers favor high-value modals such as "phải," "cần," and "không thể," which suggests a strong inclination towards expressing obligation and necessity in their academic papers This preference may stem from the influence of Vietnam's three major philosophical traditions—Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism—on the country's subjective culture, as these traditions promote core values and behavioral norms that reinforce a collective consciousness.
In English, negative forms are created by adding "not" after the modal verb (e.g., "need not," "cannot"), while in Vietnamese, the word "không" precedes the modal verb (e.g., "không phải") For interrogative sentences, English utilizes modal inversion (e.g., "Can you?"), whereas Vietnamese employs structures such as "có không?" or "đã chưa?" (e.g., "Chúng mình có phải mặc đồng phục đến trường ngày mai không nhỉ?" and "Lan đã muốn ăn chưa?").
In Vietnamese, modal verbs can combine with other modals to create various meanings, such as "có thể + phải" (có thể phải) or "có thể + nên" (có thể nên) Notably, three modals can co-occur, as seen in "sẽ + cần + phải" (sẽ cần phải), which conveys a blend of intention, necessity, and obligation In contrast, English does not allow modal verbs to co-occur, although a core modal can be paired with a semi-modal, such as "will have to."
Implication
The study has some implications for language teaching, language learning and language research, as follows
2.1 For English Language Learning and Teaching
The Cognitive Linguistic (CL) framework offers significant pedagogical insights for foreign language instruction, particularly in teaching English and its modal verbs This approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of lexicon and grammar as a continuum of symbolic units, highlighting the importance of teaching the form, meaning, usage, and pronunciation of linguistic expressions to enhance language learning.
A key pedagogical insight from Achard & Velaszquez-Castillo (1996) emphasizes the effectiveness of inductive teaching methods over deductive ones in language instruction This approach facilitates natural schema extraction and formation, enhancing the learning experience Consequently, language teachers should integrate both inductive (bottom-up) and deductive (top-down) strategies to optimize everyday language teaching.
The study highlights the importance of foreign language teachers understanding the similarities and differences between a student's native language and the target language, which can enhance teaching effectiveness By comparing the two languages, teachers can identify specific learning challenges faced by students, as certain features may be easier or more difficult depending on their linguistic background In the context of teaching English and Vietnamese, it is crucial to consider the three similarities and six differences in the use of modal verbs, particularly regarding their root and epistemic senses influenced by force dynamics Given the complexity of modals in both languages, which convey various meanings such as obligation, permission, and ability, educators and learners should remain mindful of these findings to improve language acquisition and comprehension.
This study's findings are valuable for developing language materials in English Language Learning (ELL), English Language Teaching (ELT), and translation, particularly for Vietnamese learners These learners often transfer forms and meanings from their native language and culture when speaking, writing, or engaging with the foreign language and culture Consequently, the most effective language materials for Vietnamese learners of English should be grounded in a scientific description of the target language, carefully compared with a parallel description of their native language.
This study highlights significant differences in cognitive-based contrastive analyses of modality between English and Vietnamese, distinguishing it from traditional approaches that have been prevalent since the 1960s.
This study employs cognitive-based contrastive analyses to explore root and epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese It examines language not only through form-meaning pairings but also through two key dimensions of experience: the sociophysical area, which encompasses physical interactions and social relations in the root domain, and the reasoning and theorizing processes found in the epistemic domain.
Traditional contrastive analyses often simplify L1 transfer as a mechanical process, suggesting that differences between L1 and L2 lead to learning difficulties, while similarities facilitate learning However, this study's cognitive-based contrastive analysis of modality differences and similarities between English and Vietnamese reveals that L1 transfer should be understood as a cognitive mechanism that plays a crucial role in second language acquisition (SLA).
Cognitive-based contrastive analysis views language transfer as a means to navigate and overcome established L1 schemas and conceptualizations Consequently, foreign language learners must consider their pre-existing linguistic categories When encountering new linguistic data, learners are required to reassess and adjust their old categories, schemas, and prototypes.
This study employs cognitive-based contrastive analyses rooted in cognitivist learning theories (cf Archard 1997), suggesting that learners can leverage their general cognitive abilities by recognizing similarities between English and Vietnamese during language acquisition As learners engage with input in the second language (L2), they begin to generalize this input and formulate constructional schemas, which facilitate the use of new expressions.
Limitations of the Study
This study offers a descriptive, comparative, and contrastive analysis of the root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, viewed through the lens of force dynamics English serves as the base language, while Vietnamese is used for comparison As a pioneering effort in this field, the study highlights the need to address certain issues, particularly the thorough analysis of similarities and differences in each section before presenting the overall findings Future research aims to resolve these identified challenges.
This study analyzes and compares root and epistemic modality expressed through modal verbs in English and Vietnamese, focusing on force dynamics However, it notes that other modal expressions, including modal nouns, adjectives, adverbs, hedging devices, and modal particles, have not been explored within this framework Future research should address these aspects, and a pragmatic approach to further investigate root and epistemic modality through force dynamics is recommended.
ARTICLES RELATED TO THIS STUDY
1 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2011), “Modality in Vietnamese and English Social Science Texts”, Vietnam Social Sciences (VSS) Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences No 2 (142) – 2011, pp 86-93
2 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2012), “Động từ tình thái tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt trong các văn bản khoa học xã hội”, Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ và Đời sống, số 3 (197) năm
3 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2012), “Tính tình thái chủ quan và tình thái khách quan trong các văn bản khoa học tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt”, Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ số 6 –
4 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2011), “Tính tình thái trong các văn bản khoa học xã hội tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt từ góc nhìn của Ngữ pháp Tri nhận”, Tập san Khoa học – Giáo dục, Trường Cao Đẳng Sư Phạm Bắc Ninh số 13, tháng 11 năm
5 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2010), “Subjectification and Objectification Modalities in English and Vietnamese Social Science Texts from Cognitive Perspective”,
In Abstracts of Presentation and Poster Session at “The 8 th ASIA TEFL- 2010
Hanoi International Conference”, Hanoi, August 6-8 th , 2010; Hanoi: Vietnam National University Publishers, pp 259
6 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2011), “A Brief Contrastive Analysis of Modalities in English And Vietnamese Social Science Texts from Cognitive Grammar”, In
Abstracts of Presentation at International Conference on TESOL: English For
All, Hue City, Vietnam, September 15-17 th , 2011, pp 23
7 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2013), “Phương tiện biểu đạt tính tình thái trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt”, Tạp chí Giáo dục số đặc biệt 5/2013, pp 92-93
8 Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2014), “Tình thái đạo nghĩa trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt (Nhìn từ góc độ tri nhận)”, Tạp chí Khoa Học Giáo Dục – Chuyên đề khoa học giáo dục của Trường Cao đẳng Sư phạm Bắc Ninh Số 16 (5.2014), pp 85-
In English Adam Smith, D.E (1984), “Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comments”, The ESP Journal 3, pp 25-36
Achard, M & Velaszquez-Castillo, M (1996), “Funtional Linguistics and Communicative Grammar Instruction” in Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica a Applicatica, anno XXV, No2, pp 314-336
Austin, L J (1962), How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 London: Cambridge University Press van der Auwera, J & Plungian, V (1998), ‘Modality’s Semantic Map’ Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124
Ballard, B & Clanchy, J (1984), Study Abroad: A manual for Asian Students Longman
Biber, Douglas et al (1999), Longman grammar of spoken and written English London: Longman [§ 6.6 Modals and semi-modals, pp 483-502]
In "Logic, Subjectivity, and the Semantic/Pragmatic Distinction," Brisard (2006) explores the intricate relationship between logic and subjectivity within the context of semantic and pragmatic distinctions Meanwhile, Brewer (1987) examines the meanings of English modal auxiliaries in his PhD dissertation, "Modality and Factuality: One Perspective on the Meanings of the English Modal Auxiliaries," highlighting the interplay between modality and factuality Both works contribute significantly to the understanding of linguistic nuances in relation to subjectivity and modality.
Brugman, C & Lakoff, G (2006), ‘Radial Network: Cognitive topology and lexical networks’ in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings Mouton de Guyter
Bybee, J & S Fleischman (Eds.) (1995), Modality in Grammar and Discourse Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co
Bybee, J; R.D Perkins & W Pagliuca (1994), The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World The USA: The University of Chicago
Bybee, J (1985), Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological studies in languages] John Benjamins Publishing Co
Carruthers, P (2002), The Cognitive Functions of Language Behaviour and Brain Sciences 25, 657-726 The USA: Cambridge University Press www.philosophy.umd.edu/people/faculty/pcarruthers
Coates, J (1983), The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries (Croom Helm Linguistic series) Australia: Croom Helm Australia Pty Ltd
Coates, J (1995), The Expressions of Root and Epistemic Modality in English, in Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed by J Bybee & S Fleischman Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 54-66
Cover, T.R (2010), Aspect, Modality, and Tense in Badiaranke, A dissertation for the degree of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley
Croft, W (2006), ‘Metonymy: The role of domain in the interpretation of metaphors’ in Basic Readings Mouton de Guyter
Cutting, J (2002), Pragmatics and Discourse: A resource book for students London: Routledge English Language Introductions
Declerck, R (2011), ‘The Definition of Modality’, in Adeline Patard & Frank Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to tense, Aspects and Epistemic Modality, pp 21-44 North America: John Bejamins Publishing Co
Depraetere, I & Reed, S (2006), ‘Mood and Modality in English’ in Bas Aarts & April McMahon (Eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics, pp 269-290, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Delahhunty, G.P., and Garvey, J.J (1994), Language, Grammar, and Communication:
A Course for Teachers of English New York: McGraw – Hill, Inc
Dijk, A v T (1997), Discourse as Structure and Process Discourse studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Volume 1 SAGE Publishers London Thousand Oaks New Delhi
Driven, R., & Verspoor, M (1998), Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics Amsterdam/ Philedelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Dirven, R (1989), ‘Cognitive Linguistics and Pedagogic Grammar’, in G.Leitner & G.Graustein (Eds.), Linguistic Theorizing and Grammar Writing, pp.56-75 Tubingen: Niemeyer
Downing, A & P Locke (1992), A University Course in English Grammar UK: Prentice Hall International Ltd
Dury, R (2012), A glossary of modality downloaded on Sep 24, 2012, at http://dinamico2.unibg.it/anglistica/slin/modgloss.htm
Bùi Thị Đào (2014) A Study on Deontic Modality Expressing Means in English and
Vietnamese Declarative and Interrogative Sentences (Nghiên cứu các phương tiện diễn đạt tình thái chức phận trong câu tường thuật và câu hỏi tiếng Anh và tiếng
Việt Luận án tiến sỹ Đại học ngoại ngữ - ĐHQG Hà Nội
In "Oxford Guide to English Grammar," Eastwood (1994) provides comprehensive insights into English grammar rules and usage Meanwhile, Ellis (1994) explores the effectiveness of the Communicative Approach in Vietnam through an interview study focused on intercultural communication, as part of a minor thesis for a Master of Education degree at La Trobe University in Australia.
Ernst, T (2009), ‘Speaker-oriented Adverbs’, in Nat Lang Linguist theory 27: 497-544 USA
Evans, V & M Green (2006), Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction Edinburgh: Edinburgh Umiversity Press
In "Towards a Cognitive Compositional Semantics: An Overview of LCCM Theory," Evans (2007) explores the framework of Lexical Conceptual Structure Model (LCCM) theory, emphasizing its significance in understanding semantics and lexicography This comprehensive overview, featured in the edited volume "Further Insights into Semantics and Lexicography," provides valuable insights into the cognitive processes underlying meaning construction The work, published by Wydawnictwo UMCS in Lublin, Poland, spans pages 11 to 42, contributing to the broader discourse on semantic theory.
Facchinetti, R (1998), ‘Expressions of Futurity in British Caribbean Creole’ ICAME journal, 22, pp.7-22
Facchinetti, R & Palmer, F (eds.) (2004), English Modalities in Perspective: Genre Analysis and Contrastive Studies Peter LangGmbH
Fairclough, N (1992), Discourse and Social Change Blackwell Publishers
Fintel (2006) explores the relationship between modality and language in the "Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Second Edition," edited by Donald M Borchert Additionally, Fisiak (1981) examines the contrastive analysis of phonological systems in "Theoretical Issues in Contrastive Linguistics," providing valuable insights into linguistic comparisons.
In "The Expressions of Modality," Frawley (2006) explores the nuances of modality in language, providing a comprehensive analysis that enhances our understanding of linguistic expressions Meanwhile, Gọrdenfors (2007) contributes to the field of cognitive semantics in the chapter titled "Cognitive Semantics and Image Schemas with Embodied Forces," found in the edited volume "Embodiment in Cognition and Culture." This work delves into the interplay between cognitive processes and embodied experiences, highlighting how image schemas influence our understanding of meaning within cultural contexts.
Geeraerts, D (Ed.) (2006), Prototype Theory: Prospects and problems of prototype theory in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings Mouton de Gruyter
Geeraerts, D (Ed.) (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings Available at http://books.google.com.vn/books
Gisborne, N (2007), ‘Dynamic Modality’ In SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics [online], 2007, vol 4, no.2 [cit 2007-06-14] Available on web page
ISSN 1336-782X
Goldberg, E.A (2006), ‘Construction Grammar: The inherent semantics of argument structure - The case of the English ditransitive construction’ in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings Mouton de Gruyter
Gonzales-Marquez, M., I.Mittelberg, S Coulson, & M.J Spivey (2007), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – Human Cognitive Processing V.18 USA: John Benjamin North America
Goossens, L (1996), English modals and functional Models: A Confrontation Antwerp Papers in Linguistics (Apil.), No.86 Antwerpen: University of Antwerp http://webhost.ua.ac.be/apil/list.html
Gudykunst, W.B (1998), ‘Individualistic and Collectivistic Perspectives of Communication: An introduction (Extract)’, in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 107-112; 127
Hacquard, V (2009), Modality Linguistics Department, University of Maryland, College Park 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD 20742
Halliday, M.A.K (1994), An Introduction to Functional Grammar Second edition London: Edward Arnold
Hermeren, L (1978), On Modality in English Lund: Gleerup
Hewings, M (1999), Advanced Grammar in Use: A self-study reference and practice book for advanced learners of English CUP
Hòa, N (1998), An Introduction to Semantics Hanoi: Vietnam National University Hòa, N (2004), Understanding English Semantics Hanoi: VNU Publishing House Hoye, L (1997), Adverbs and Modality in English New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited
Hopper, J.P, & E C Traugott (1993), Grammatication Cambridge: CUP
Hofstede, G (1986), ‘Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning’ in International Journal of Intercultural Relations Vol.10, pp 301-320, USA
Huddleston, R (1980), ‘Criteris for Auxiliaries and Modals’, in Studies in English Linguistics – for Randolph Quirk, S Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svatvik (Eds.), pp 65-78 London: Longman
Huddleston, R (1984), Introduction to Grammar of English Cambridge: CUP
Huddleston, R (1988), English Grammar – An Outline Cambridge: CUP Huitink, J (2008), Modals, Conditionals and Compositionality The Netherlands: PrintPapers Ipskamp, Enschede
Hurford, R J & B Heasley (2001), Semantics: A course book Cambridge: CUP Hymes, D (1964), Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology New York: Parper & Row, Publishers, Inc
Incharralde, B C (1998), ‘Modals and Modality in English’, Miscelanea [Univ Zaragoza] 19
Jacobs, A R (1995), English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language Professionals Oxford: OUP
Jacobsson, B (1994), ‘Recessive and Emergent uses of Modal Auxiliaries in English’, English Studies 72ii: 166-182
James, C (1980), Contrastive Analysis England: Longman Group Limited
Jackendoff, R (1972), Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar The MIT Press Cambridge, MA
Jackendoff, R (1985), Semantics and Cognition England: The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London
Johansson, S & K Hofland (1994), “Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus” in U Fries, G.Tottie, & P.Schneider (eds), Creating and using English language corpora, 25-37 Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi
Johnson, M (1987), The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Kaplan, B R, (1966), ‘Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education’ Language Learning, Vol XVI, NOS 1 & 2 pp 1-20
Kaplan, B R, (1986), “Culture and the Written Language” in Joyce Merrill Valdes (Ed.), Culture Bound: Bridging the cultural gap in language teaching, pp 8-19 USA: Cambridge University Press
Kaplan, B R, (1987), “Cultural Thought Patterns Revisited” in Connor, Ulla & Robert
B Kaplan (Eds.), Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text Massachusettes: Addison Wesley Pub Co pp 9-20
Kiefer, F (1994), “Modality” In R E Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp 2515-2520) Oxford: Pergamon Press
Kemmer, S (2000), About Cognitive Linguistics: Historical Background ICLA Kratzer, A (1977), ‘What ‘must’ and ‘can’ Must and can’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 1, pages 337-355 Holland: D.Reidel Publishing company
Kratzer, A (1991), ‘Modality/Conditionals’, In von Stechow, A and D Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics An international Handbook of Contemporary Research, pages 639-650 Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter
Krezeszowski, P T (1990), Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Kristiansen, G., M Achard, R Dirven & F J.Ruis de Mendoza Ibánez (Eds.) (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Lado, R (1971), Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language teachers Michican: The University of Michican Press
Lakoff, G (1972), ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’ Papers from the 8 th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society pp 183-228
Lakoff, G & M Johnson (2003), Metaphors We Live by London: The University of Chicago Press
Langacker, R.W (1987), Foundation of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, Vol 1 Stanford: Stanford University Press
Langacker, R.W (1990), Concept, Image and Symbol: The Copgnitive Basis of Grammar Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Langacker, R.W (1991a), Concept, Image and Symbol Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Available at http://www.scaritti.com/mind/langacker htm)
Langacker, R.W (1991b), Foundation of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application Vol 2 Stanford: Stanford University Press
Langacker, R.W (1994), Culture, Cognition, and Grammar USA: John Benjamin
Langacker, R.W (1994), ‘Cognitive Grammar’ in Asher R E (Editor-in-chief), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol 2 Pergamon Press
Langacker, W.R (1998), ‘Conceptualization, Symbolization and Grammar’, in M Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
Langacker, W.R (1999), Grammar and Conceptualization Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG
Langacker, W.R (2003), ‘Extreme Subjectification: English Tense and Modals’ in Hubert Cuyckens, T Berg, R Dirven, K Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language – Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pp 3-26 USA: John Benjamins
Langacker, W.R (2006), ‘Cognitive Grammar: Introduction to Concept, Image, and Symbol’, in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Langacker, W.R (2006), Subjectification, Grammaticalization, and Conceptual Archetypes Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
In his influential works, Langacker (2007, 2008, 2011, 2013) explores the principles of Cognitive Grammar, emphasizing its foundational concepts and applications in linguistic analysis His contributions, featured in notable publications such as The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspects and Epistemic Modality, provide a comprehensive introduction to the field, highlighting the distinctions between temporal coincidence and epistemic immediacy Langacker's Essentials of Cognitive Grammar further solidifies his role as a key figure in cognitive linguistics, offering essential insights into the interplay between language and cognition.
Leech, G, Paul Rayson & Andrew Wilson (2001), Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corppus London: Longman
Linden, A V (2012), Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony Germany: Walter de Gruyter Also available at www.degruyter.com
Lock, G (1996), Functional English Grammar: An introduction for second language teachers Cambridge: CUP
Lyons, J (1995, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction Cambridge: CUP
Lyons, J (1977), Semantics 2 volumes Cambridge: CUP
Martin, J.R., M.I.M Mathhiessen & C Painter (1997), Working with Functional grammar Great Britain: Arnold
In "Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers," McCarthy (1994) explores the intricate relationship between discourse and language teaching, providing valuable insights for educators Mortelmans (2006) contributes to the discussion of subjectivity in language through his chapter on Langacker’s concepts of 'Subjectification' and 'Grounding,' presenting a more nuanced perspective in the edited volume "Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity." This collection, edited by Athanasiadou, Canakis, and Cornillie, delves into various approaches to understanding subjectivity in linguistic contexts.
In "Modality from Cognitive Linguistics," Mortelmans (2007) explores the concept of modality within the framework of cognitive linguistics, highlighting its significance in understanding language and thought Similarly, Mulder (2007) discusses "Force Dynamics," examining how forces and their interactions shape meaning in language Both contributions are featured in "The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics," edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Herbert Cuyckens, and published by Cambridge University Press For further reading, these works are accessible at www.oup.com.
Narrog, H (2012), Modality, Subjectivity and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective New York: Oxford University Press Inc
Nehls, D (1988), ‘Modality and the Expression of Future Time in English’ in Iral – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, ERIC document IRAL, V26n4 p.295-307, N01988
Nuyts, J (2006), Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues in W Frawley (Ed.), The Expression of Modality Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Nuyts, J & E Pederson (1997), Language and conceptualization CUP
Nuyts, J (2001), Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive- Pragmatic Perspective Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
O’Halloran, K.(2003), Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (2000), S Wehmeier (Ed.), Sixth Edition OUP
Palmer, R F (1979), Modality and the English Modals London: Longman
Palmer, R F (1986), Mood and Modality Cambridge: CUP
Palmer, R.F (1990), Modality and the English Modals New York: Longman
Papafragou, A (2000), Modality: Issues in the Semantics – Pragmatics Interface Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd
Pederson, J & T Cadierno (2004), ‘Construction Grammar and Second Language
In "Disciplines and Interdisciplinarity in Foreign Studies," edited by Pelyvás, the chapter discusses the contrastive perspectives on subjectivity in English, examining the debate between generative grammar and cognitive theory of epistemic grounding This work, published by Museum Tusculanum Press at the University of Copenhagen, highlights the complexities of linguistic structures and their implications for understanding subjectivity within the English language Additionally, Pelyvás's 1996 publication by Peter Lang Verlag in Frankfurt am Main further explores these themes, contributing to the broader discourse on language and cognition.
Pelyvás, P (2000), ‘Metaphorical extension of may and must into the epistemic domain’ In Barcelona, Antonio (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross-roads Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Pelyvás, P (2003), ‘The relationship of conceptual structure and grammatical structure in modals’, in Komlósi, L., houtlosser, P and Leezenberg, M (Eds),
Communication and Cultural Argumentative, Cognitive and Linguistic
Perspectives Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp 101-113