Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
This research is an attempt to identify, describe, compare and contrast various linguistic means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks and typological studies by pioneering linguists, both foreign and Vietnamese, on deontic modality. This study is both descriptive and contrastive in nature. Its main aims are to identify, describe and compare the various linguistic resources available in English and Vietnamese in indicating deontic modality and its three main types i.e. commissives, volitives, directives, and their subtypes. The main data used in this research are taken from the two corpora (421 declarative and interrogative sentences in English), built on 50 English stories, a total of 2.060.389 words and (422 declarative and interrogative sentences in Vietnamese) in 50 Vietnamese stories, a total of 2.003.486 words. The data collected are then qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed to show similarities and differences in terms of syntactic semantic features and equivalences and nonequivalences in the use of linguistic means to express deontic modality in English as a source language and Vietnamese as a language of reference. Statistics also show the frequencies of occurrences of various linguistic means in the respective languages to show their relative importance in expressing deontic modality in the two languages under study. Research findings show that while English and Vietnamese share some main linguistic devices i.e., modal verbs, adjectives, adverbs, hedge verbs, etc. in the declaratives, the two languages also show major differences and nonequivalences in the interrogatives in the availability and the extent of the usage of various means to indicate deontic modality. While English relies more on modal verbs, modal auxiliaries and moods, among others, Vietnamese relies more on its system of sentence particles (mood words), modal words to indicate different meanings of deontic modality. It is hoped that the findings from this study will contribute to further understanding linguistic resources available in English compared to Vietnamese and their shared and unshared features in the use of linguistic devices in expressing modality in general and deontic modality in particular.
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 1. Background to the study 2 2. Aim of the study 3 3. Scope of the study 3 4. Methodology 5 4.1. Methods of the study 5 4.2. Data collection procedures 6 4.2.1. Description of corpus 6 4.2.2. Compilation of a corpus procedure 7 4.3. Data analysis 9 4.3.1. Describing the data 9 4.3.2. Comparing the two sources of data 9 5. Structure of the study 11 CHAPTER I 12 LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Historical perspectives of modality 12 1.2. Modality 16 1.2.1. Definitions and different viewpoints 16 1.2.2. Types of modality 21 1.3. Deontic modality 24 1.3.1. Definitions and various viewpoints 24 1.3.2. Types of deontic modality 26 1.4. Types of deontic modality in English 28 1.4.1. Commissives 28 1.4.2. Directives 29 1.4.2.1. Deliberatives 29 1.4.2.2. Imperatives 30 1.4.2.3. Jussives 31 1.4.2.4. Obligatives 32 1.4.2.5. Permissives 33 1.4.2.6. Precatives 34 1.4.2.7. Prohibitives 34 1.4.3. Volitives 36 1.4.3.1. Imprecatives 36 1.4.3.2. Optatives 37 1.5. Types of deontic modality in Vietnamese 37 1.5.1. Commissives (tình thái cam kết/ hứa hẹn) 38 1.5.2. Directives (tình thái cầu khiến) 38 1.5.2.1. Deliberatives (yêu cầu) 38 i 1.5.2.2. Imperatives (mệnh lệnh) 39 1.5.2.3. Jussives (khuyến lệnh) 40 1.5.2.4. Obligatives (ép buộc) 40 1.5.2.5. Permissives (cho phép) 41 1.5.2.6. Precatives (khẩn cầu) 41 1.5.2.7. Prohibitives (cấm đoán) 41 1.5.3. Volitives (tình thái ý nguyện) 42 1.5.3.1. Imprecatives (không mong muốn/nguyền rủa) 42 1.5.3.2. Optatives (ước vọng/ mong mỏi) 42 1.6. Contrastive framework 43 1.7. Summary 45 CHAPTER 2 COMMISSIVES AND VOLITIVES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 46 2.1. Commissives in English and Vietnamese 47 2.1.1. Modal verbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 47 2.1.1.1. Syntactic features 48 2.1.1.2. Semantic features 50 2.1.2. Hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese commissives 53 2.1.2.1. Syntactic features 54 2.1.2.2. Semantic features 56 2.1.3. Performative verbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 56 2.1.3.1. Syntactic features 58 2.1.3.2. Semantic features 59 2.1.4. Modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese commisives 60 2.1.4.1. Syntactic features 61 2.1.4.2. Semantic features 62 2.1.5. Modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese commisives 63 2.1.5.1. Syntactic features 64 2.1.5.2. Semantic features 64 2.1.6. Expletives in English and Vietnamese commisives 66 2.1.6.1. Syntactic features 66 2.1.6.2. Semantic features 67 2.1.7. Modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese commisives 68 2.1.7.1. Syntactic features 69 2.1.7.2. Semantic features 70 2.2. Volitives in English and Vietnamese 73 2.2.1. Syntactic features 73 2.2.2. Semantic features 74 2.3. Summary 77 CHAPTER 3 DIRECTIVES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 80 ii 3.1. Modal verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 80 3.1.1. Syntactic features 81 3.1.2. Semantic features 85 3.2. Hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 102 3.2.1. Syntactic features 102 3.2.2. Semantic features 102 3.3. Performative verbs in English and Vietnamese directives 104 3.3.1. Syntactic features 104 3.3.2. Semantic features 106 3.4. Modal words 109 3.4.1. Syntactic features 111 3.4.2. Semantic features 113 3.5. Modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese directives 116 3.5.1. Syntactic features 116 3.5.2. Semantic features 117 3.6. Modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese directives 118 3.6.1. Syntactic features 118 3.6.2. Semantic features 119 3.7. Modal nouns in English and Vietnamese directives 120 3.7.1. Syntactic features 121 3.7.2. Semantic features 123 3.8. Particles 123 3.8.1. Syntactic features 125 3.8.2. Semantic features 125 3.9. Modal idioms in English and Vietnamese directives 129 3.9.1. Syntactic features 130 3.9.2. Semantic features 131 3.10. Expletives in English and Vietnamese directives 133 3.10.1. Syntactic features 133 3.10.2. Semantic features 134 3.11. Modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese directives 135 3.11.1. Syntactic features 135 3.11.2. Semantic features 135 3.12. Summary 139 CONCLUSIONS 142 1. Recapitulation 142 2. Contributions 146 3. Pedagogical implications 147 iii 4. Limitations of the study 149 5. Suggestions for further research 150 REFERENCES i APPENDIX A x APPENDIX B xxv iv LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.1. Types of modality 12 Fig. 1.2. A spatial model tense, aspect and modality 17 Fig. 1.3. Description of modality 19 Fig. 2.1. Set model for modal verbs, auxiliary verbs and verbs 47 Fig. 2.2. String matching of WILL in the English corpus 50 Fig. 2.3. String matching of SHALL in the English corpus 51 Fig. 2.4. String matching of WOULD in the English corpus 52 Fig. 2.5. String matching of SẼ in the Vietnamese corpus 53 Fig. 2.6. String matching of THINK in the English corpus 56 Fig. 2.7. String matching of PROMISE in the English corpus 59 Fig. 2.8. String matching of CERTAINLY in the English corpus 62 Fig. 2.9. String matching of PROBABLE in the English corpus 65 Fig. 2.10. String matching of SURE in the English corpus 65 Fig. 2.11. String matching of IT in the English corpus 67 Fig. 2.12. String matching of IF in the English corpus 70 Fig. 2.13. A distribution of linguistic means of expressing commisives in English 71 Fig. 2.14. A distribution of linguistic means of expressing commisives in Vietnamese72 Fig. 2.15. A contrastive analysis of commissives in English and Vietnamese 72 Fig. 2.16. A distribution of linguistic means of expressing volitives in English 74 Fig. 2.17. String matching of HOPE in the English corpus 75 Fig. 2.18. String matching of WISH in the English corpus 75 Fig. 2.19. A contrastive analysis of volitives in English and Vietnamese 76 Fig. 3.1. String matching of MUST in the English corpus 86 Fig. 3.2. String matching of HAVE TO in the English corpus 86 Fig. 3.3. String matching of HAD TO in the English corpus 86 Fig. 3.4. String matching of PHẢI in the Vietnamese corpus 88 Fig. 3.5. String matching of WOULD in the English corpus 89 Fig. 3.6. String matching of MUỐN in the Vietnamese corpus 90 Fig. 3.7. String matching of MAY in the English corpus 91 Fig. 3.8. String matching of MIGHT in the English corpus 91 Fig. 3.9. String matching of CÓ LẼ in the Vietnamese corpus 92 Fig. 3.10. String matching of SHOULD in the English corpus 94 Fig. 3.11. String matching of OUGHT TO in the English corpus 94 Fig. 3.12. String matching of NÊN in the Vietnamese corpus 95 Fig. 3.13. String matching of CAN in the English corpus 96 Fig. 3.14. String matching of COULD in the English corpus 97 Fig. 3.15. String matching of CÓ THỂ in the Vietnamese corpus 98 Fig. 3.16. String matching of NEED in the English corpus 98 Fig. 3.17. String matching of CẦN in the Vietnamese corpus 99 Fig. 3.18. A distribution of linguistic means of expressing directives in English 137 Fig. 3.19. A distribution of linguistic means of expressing directives in Vietnamese138 Fig. 3.20. A contrastive analysis of directive expressions in English and Vietnamese139 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Types of modality 23 Table 1.2. Palmer’s theoretical framework for deontic modality 27 Table 1.3. Means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese 44 Table 3.1. Types of English modal verbs 81 Table 3.2. Directives in the interrogatives in English and Vietnamese 84 Table 3.3. Directives in the declaratives in English and Vietnamese 84 Table 3.4. The distribution of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese 100 Table 3.5. The distribution of hedge verbs in English and Vietnamese 102 Table 3.6. The distribution of performative verbs in English and Vietnamese 106 Table 3.7. Distribution of Vietnamese modal words 114 Table 3.8. The distribution of modal adverbs in English and Vietnamese 117 Table 3.9. The distribution of modal adjectives in English and Vietnamese 119 Table 3.10. Distribution of Vietnamese particles 126 Table 3.11. The distribution of modal idioms in English and Vietnamese 132 Table 3.12. The distribution of Expletives in English and Vietnamese 134 Table 3.13. The distribution of modal conditionals in English and Vietnamese 135 vi ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations are used chiefly in glossed language data examples: Ibid the same author/ resources Aux auxiliary S subject Mod modal verb V verb O object MW modal word HV hedge verb VP verb phrase MN modal noun C commissive D directive V volitive ECMAux1 English commissive modal auxiliary in English story 1 ECMAux4 English commissive modal auxiliary in English story 2 ECPV18 English performative verbs in English story 8 CADV23 English modal adverbs in English story 23 ECADJ34 English commissive adjective in English story 34 ECE15 English commissive expletives in English story 15 ECMC34 English commissive modal conditionals in English story 34 EDMAux4 English directive modal auxiliary in English story 4 EDHV4 English directive hedge verbs in English story 4 EDPV31 English directive performative verbs in English story 31 EDAdv25 English directive modal adverbs in English story 25 EDAdj23 English directive modal adjective in English story 23 EDMN35 English directive modal nouns in English story 35 EDP18 English directive particles in English story 18 EDMI12 English directive modal idioms in English story 12 EDMC23 English directive modal conditionals English story 23 EV2 English volitives in English story 2 VCMAux1 Vietnamese commissive modal auxiliary in Vietnamese story 1 VCPV1 Vietnamese commissive performative verbs in Vietnamese story 1 VCMC1 Vietnamese commissive modal conditionals in Vietnamese story 11 VDMAux5 Vietnamese directive modal auxiliary in Vietnamese story 5 VDPV8 Vietnamese directive performative verbs in Vietnamese story 8 VDMW42 Vietnamese directive modal words in Vietnamese story 42 VDAdv22 Vietnamese directive modal adverbs in Vietnamese story 22 (VDMN10) Vietnamese directive modal nouns in Vietnamese story 10 VDP8 Vietnamese directive particles in Vietnamese story 8 VDMI14 Vietnamese directive modal idioms in Vietnamese story 14 vii VDE17 Vietnamese directive expletives in Vietnamese story 17 VDMC36 Vietnamese Directive Modal Conditionals in Vietnamese story 36 EV26 Vietnamese Volitive in Vietnamese story 26 viii ABSTRACT This research is an attempt to identify, describe, compare and contrast various linguistic means of expressing deontic modality in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks and typological studies by pioneering linguists, both foreign and Vietnamese, on deontic modality. This study is both descriptive and contrastive in nature. Its main aims are to identify, describe and compare the various linguistic resources available in English and Vietnamese in indicating deontic modality and its three main types i.e. commissives, volitives, directives, and their sub-types. The main data used in this research are taken from the two corpora (421 declarative and interrogative sentences in English), built on 50 English stories, a total of 2.060.389 words and (422 declarative and interrogative sentences in Vietnamese) in 50 Vietnamese stories, a total of 2.003.486 words. The data collected are then qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed to show similarities and differences in terms of syntactic - semantic features and equivalences and non-equivalences in the use of linguistic means to express deontic modality in English as a source language and Vietnamese as a language of reference. Statistics also show the frequencies of occurrences of various linguistic means in the respective languages to show their relative importance in expressing deontic modality in the two languages under study. Research findings show that while English and Vietnamese share some main linguistic devices i.e., modal verbs, adjectives, adverbs, hedge verbs, etc. in the declaratives, the two languages also show major differences and non-equivalences in the interrogatives in the availability and the extent of the usage of various means to indicate deontic modality. While English relies more on modal verbs, modal auxiliaries and moods, among others, Vietnamese relies more on its system of sentence particles (mood words), modal words to indicate different meanings of deontic modality. It is hoped that the findings from this study will contribute to further understanding ix linguistic resources available in English compared to Vietnamese and their shared and unshared features in the use of linguistic devices in expressing modality in general and deontic modality in particular. x [...]... Vietnamese linguists (Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001, 2008), Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2003), Phạm Thị Ly (2003), Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Thanh (2003), Bùi Trọng Ngoãn (2004)) propose three main types of modality for Vietnamese as tình thái nhận thức (epistemic modality) and tình thái chức phận/ đạo nghĩa (deontic modality) and tình thái trạng huống (dynamic modality), as illustrated by (1.23), (1.24) and (1.25) below: (1.23) Nó có thể... modality (i.e “quan điểm hoặc thái độ của người nói đối với mệnh đề mà câu nói biểu thị hoặc các tình huống mà mệnh đề miêu tả” (the speaker’s opinion or attitude towards the proposition that the sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.) Vietnamese researchers like Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001, 2008), Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2003), Phạm Thị Ly (2003), Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Thanh (2003) have chosen to... for a range of semantic notions such as ability, possibility, hypotheticality, obligation, and imperatives” (van der Auwera & Plungian, 1998: 81) In Vietnamese, deontic modality is rendered as tình thái chức phận/ đạo nghĩa” (Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, 2008: 103) denoting obligations, duties, necessity and the need for actions which is also chosen as the working definition for this research A large number of... two both on a scale from weak to strong) These are shown in Fig 1.3 as following: 18 Fig 1.3 Description of modality (Huddleston & Geoffrey, 2002: 175-177) Huddleston & Geoffrey (2002: 175-177) explain that the group of strength expresses the speaker's strength of commitment to the truth value of a proposition and the semantic strength of an utterance For instance, a strong modal may be weakened semantically... others and by the speaker himself It might well be argued that there are two quite distinct categories For instance: (1.30) In English He will come tomorrow (Palmer, 1986: 96) (1.31) In Vietnamese Anh ta sẽ đến trong ngày mai (Nguyễn văn Hiệp 2008: 113) These examples are understood as actions of obligations or promises that “he will come” As Nguyễn văn Hiệp (2008: 117) states, Vietnamese linguists consider... (1.15) expresses low degree modality (1.14) She is one year old tomorrow (ibid.) (1.15) She will be one year old tomorrow (ibid.) Like strength, degree of modality can also be expressed on a scale from strong to weak These categories are often subdivided further into possibilities, inference and necessity for epistemic; volitions, necessity, predictions and possibilities for deontic; and abilities, possibilities,... differences of semantic meanings of modality in general through modal verbs, adverbs and particles in English and Vietnamese However, deontic modality is not the main focus of her study Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Thanh (2003) also compares linguistic means of expressing non-factual modality in English and Vietnamese Her research focuses on establishing similarites and differences between English and Vietnamese in... modality in general and types of modality in particular such as Nguyễn Thị Lương (1996), Cao Xuân Hạo (1999), Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001, 2008), Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2003), Phạm Thị Ly (2003), Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Thanh (2003), Bùi Trọng Ngoãn (2004), Võ Đại Quang (2009), who have studied modality in the Vietnamese language However, no attempt has been made to conduct a contrastive study on linguistic means of indicating... the truth value of a proposition and the semantic strength of an utterance For instance, a strong modal may be weakened semantically in its context, becoming a polite offer Their description allows for strong (1.8), medium (1.9) and weak (1.10) expressions of modality For instance: (1.8) It must be some kind of joke (Huddleston & Geoffrey, 2002: 179) (1.9) It should be somewhere near here (ibid.) (1.10) . 37 1.5. Types of deontic modality in Vietnamese 37 1.5.1. Commissives (tình thái cam kết/ hứa hẹn) 38 1.5.2. Directives (tình thái cầu khiến) 38 1.5.2.1. Deliberatives (yêu cầu) 38 i 1.5.2.2. Imperatives. (van der Auwera & Plungian, 1998: 81). In Vietnamese, deontic modality is rendered as tình thái chức phận/ đạo nghĩa” (Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, 2008: 103) denoting obligations, duties, necessity and. phép) 41 1.5.2.6. Precatives (khẩn cầu) 41 1.5.2.7. Prohibitives (cấm đoán) 41 1.5.3. Volitives (tình thái ý nguyện) 42 1.5.3.1. Imprecatives (không mong muốn/nguyền rủa) 42 1.5.3.2. Optatives (ước