MODALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE A COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE

This study is an attempt to describe, analyse, compare contrast English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of force dynamic framework. The study is both descriptive and contrastive in nature. The main aim of the research is to find similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root senses (including obligation, permission, ability and volition) and epistemic senses (including necessity, probability and possibility) of modal verbs from force dynamics. The main data used in this study are taken from the two corpora: one in English with a total of 500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119 social science texts on the ground that (1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to find examples of root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese to serve the purposes of the study and (2) it is the social science field that the researcher often deals with. The texts are research articles published in English and Vietnamese journals respectively in 7 disciplines: education, psychology, social science, economy, linguistics, culture and law, from 2000 upwards. The data collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed in order to find similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics in case that English is considered as a source language and Vietnamese as a comparative one. With the help of the corpusbased analysis the TexSTAT2 programme, frequency occurrences and KWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of various modals are discussed in order to show their relative importance in expressing root and epistemic senses in the two languages in question. The findings of the study show that both English and Vietnamese writers conceptualizers use the modality of obligation, permission, ability, volition, necessity, probability, and possibility with different force structures and barriers to express their different opinions or attitudes towards the propositions state of affairs or events. It can be inferred from the results of the study that there exists one common core across English and Vietnamese modal verbs, i.e., the force opposition between the Agonist and the Antagonist. The force can be the one which impinges upon the participant or the state of affair or the event, making the situation necessary (e.g. must in English and phải in Vietnamese). The force may be the one that prevents the participant or the situation from taking place (e.g. can’t in English and không thể in Vietnamese). There may be absence of force, or removal of restraint or no barrier so something is possible (though not necessary) (e.g. can in English and có thể in Vietnamese). However, there are a number of differences between the two languages under study when the conceptualizers writers express their own embodied scientific experiences in communication by using various modals with different levels of strength of cognitive, sociophysical and rational forces. One of the typical differences is that in English, low strength forces of modals such as can, could, may, might, predominate over median (will would should ought) and high strength (must have to need cannot), which indicates a tendency for modality to be used to mitigate than to strengthen assertations in academic writing. In contrast, in Vietnamese, high strength modals (phải, cần, không thể) predominate over median (nên, sẽ, muốn, định, toan) and low (có thể), which can be inferred that the Vietnamese writers conceptualizers when writing their papers in social science journals have a tendency of expressing strong obligation and necessity. The overweight of high dynamic value in Vietnamese may be due to the fact that the three major philosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have exerted their influence on the “subjective culture” of the Vietnamese. (cf. Bochner 1986 Marr 1981, cited in Ellis 1994 T.N.Thêm 1998: 25). It is hoped that the findings from this study will make a contribution to further understanding of root and epistemic modality in English compared to Vietnamese in terms of force dynamics and their equivalence and nonequivalence in the expressions of obligation, permission, ability, volition (in sociophysical interactions and relations), and the modality of necessity, probability and possibility (in reasoning domain). Moreover, the findings of similarities and differences between the two languages will be useful in language teaching and learning and translation from English into Vietnamese andor vice versa.

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOIUNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ THU THỦY

MODALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE A

COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE

A Thesis Submitted in Full Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: English Linguistics Code: 62 22 15 01

Supervisors: Assoc Prof Dr Vo Dai Quang

Prof Dr Hoang Van Van

Hanoi, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, certify my authority of the dissertation report submitted entitled

“Modality in English and Vietnamese: A Cognitive Perspective” in full fulfillment of therequirements for the Doctor of Philosophy

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without dueacknowledgements in the text of the dissertation

Hanoi, 2015

Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy

Upon reaching this time, I have been fortunate to have benefited from encouragementsand financial supports by my colleagues and Bacninh Teacher Training College where I havebeen working for nearly 20 years

I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my research supervisors: Assoc Prof Dr

Vo Dai Quang and Prof Dr Hoang Van Van, for their long lasting supervision, greatencouragements, invaluable guidance and endless support during my research They give me alifetime unforgettable memory of their benevolence, patience, intelligence, diligence anderudition

My special thanks are expressed to professors and doctors at the University of Languagesand International Studies, Vietnam National University (VNU): Prof Dr Nguyen Hoa; Assoc.Prof Dr Le Hung Tien; Prof Dr Nguyen Quang; Prof Dr Tran Huu Manh; Dr Ha CamTam; Dr Nguyen Huy Ky; Assoc.Prof Dr Le Van Canh, Assoc Prof Dr Tran Van Phuoc,Assoc Prof Dr Phan Van Que, Assoc Prof Dr To Nu My Nhat, Assoc Prof Dr NguyenVan Trao, Assoc Prof Dr Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Assoc.Prof Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh,Assoc.Prof Dr Ngo Huu Hoang, Dr Pham Thi Thanh Thuy, Dr Huynh Anh Tuan, Dr DoThi Thanh Ha, Dr Nguyen Duc Hoat, Dr Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa; Prof Dr Nguyen Duc Ton;

Dr Sao Chi, etc for their long lasting support, great encouragements and useful advice duringthe time the study was carried out I have also benefited from the assistance of other scholars Iwould particularly like to acknowledge the efficiency and expertise of Prof Dr Jack CRichards, Prof Dr Alexander Arguelles, Dr Melchor Tatlonghari during the time I started toconduct my thesis at SEAMEO Regional Language Center, Singapore

I also owe many thanks to my students, colleagues and friends who patiently listened to

my frustrations, and provided me with a lot of encouragements, understanding and collegiality.Their valuable backing indicates the significance of my study Finally, my wholeheartedappreciation goes to my husband, Mr Nguyen Van Ban, and my two children: Nguyen XuanThang and Nguyen Bich Thuy, my parents, my brothers and sisters; for their emotional andmaterial sacrifices as well as their understanding and unconditional supports Theirencouragements and financial aids make all my endeavours worth doing

This study is an attempt to describe, analyse, compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese rootand epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, morespecifically in terms of force dynamic framework The study is both descriptive andcontrastive in nature The main aim of the research is to find similarities and differencesbetween English and Vietnamese root senses (including obligation, permission, ability andvolition) and epistemic senses (including necessity, probability and possibility) of modal verbsfrom force dynamics

The main data used in this study are taken from the two corpora: one in English with a total of500,000 words in 91 social science texts and the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in

119 social science texts on the ground that (1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to findexamples of root and epistemic meanings of modal verbs in English and Vietnamese to servethe purposes of the study and (2) it is the social science field that the researcher often dealswith The texts are research articles published in English and Vietnamese journals respectively

in 7 disciplines: education, psychology, social science, economy, linguistics, culture and law,from 2000 upwards The data collected are then quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed inorder to find similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root and epistemicsenses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics in case that English is considered as a sourcelanguage and Vietnamese as a comparative one With the help of the corpus-based analysis -the TexSTAT-2 programme, frequency occurrences and KWIC (Key Word In Context)concordance of various modals are discussed in order to show their relative importance inexpressing root and epistemic senses in the two languages in question The findings of thestudy show that both English and Vietnamese writers/ conceptualizers use the modality ofobligation, permission, ability, volition, necessity, probability, and possibility with differentforce structures and barriers to express their different opinions or attitudes towards thepropositions/ state of affairs or events It can be inferred from the results of the study that thereexists one common core across English and Vietnamese modal verbs, i.e., the force oppositionbetween the Agonist and the Antagonist The force can be the one which impinges upon the

participant or the state of affair or the event, making the situation necessary (e.g must in English and phải in Vietnamese) The force may be the one that prevents the participant or the situation from taking place (e.g can’t in English and không thể in Vietnamese) There may be

absence of force, or removal of restraint or no barrier so something is possible (though not

necessary) (e.g can in English and có thể in Vietnamese) However, there are a number of

differences between the two languages under study when the conceptualizers/ writers expresstheir own embodied scientific experiences in communication by using various modals withdifferent levels of strength of cognitive, sociophysical and rational forces One of the typical

differences is that in English, low strength forces of modals such as can, could, may, might, predominate over median (will/ would/ should/ ought) and high strength (must/ have to/ need/ cannot), which indicates a tendency for modality to be used to mitigate than to strengthen assertations in academic writing In contrast, in Vietnamese, high strength modals (phải, cần, không thể) predominate over median (nên, sẽ, muốn, định, toan) and low (có thể), which can

be inferred that the Vietnamese writers/ conceptualizers when writing their papers in socialscience journals have a tendency of expressing strong obligation and necessity Theoverweight of high dynamic value in Vietnamese may be due to the fact that the three majorphilosophical traditions: Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism have exerted their influence onthe “subjective culture” of the Vietnamese (cf Bochner 1986 & Marr 1981, cited in Ellis 1994

& T.N.Thêm 1998: 25)

It is hoped that the findings from this study will make a contribution to further understanding

of root and epistemic modality in English compared to Vietnamese in terms of force dynamicsand their equivalence and non-equivalence in the expressions of obligation, permission, ability,volition (in sociophysical interactions and relations), and the modality of necessity, probabilityand possibility (in reasoning domain) Moreover, the findings of similarities and differencesbetween the two languages will be useful in language teaching and learning and translationfrom English into Vietnamese and/or vice versa

TABLE OF CONTENT Pages

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……… ii

ABSTRACT ……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ……… v

LIST OF TABLES ……… ix

LIST OF FIGURES……… x

ABBREVIATIONS ……… xi

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ……… 1

1.1 Rationale ……… 1

1.2 Scopes of the Study ……… 2

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study ……… 5

1.4 Research Questions ……… 5

1.5 Methods of the Study ……… 6

1.6 Contribution of the Study ……… 7

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance of the Study ……… 7

1.6.2 Practical Significance of the Study ……… 8

1.7 Structure of the Dissertation ……… 8

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ……… 9

Chapter I: Literature Review ……… 9

1.1 Introduction ……… 9

1.2 Modality from the Traditional Point of View ……… 9

1.2.1 The Concept of Modality ……… 9

1.2.2 Types of Modality ……… 12

1.2.2.1 Agent-oriented Modality vs Speaker-oriented Modality ………… 13

1.2.2.2 Extrinsic Modality vs Intrinsic Modality ……… 13

1.2.2.3 Deontic Modality, Dynamic Modality and Epistemic Modality …… 14

1.2.2.4 Root Modality vs Epistemic Modality ……… 16

1.3 Modality in Scientific Writing ……… 19

1.4 Modality Viewed from Force Dynamics in Cognitive Perspective … 21 1.4.1 Definitions of Terms ……… 21

1.4.1.1 Linguistic Universals ……… 21

1.4.1.2 Cognitive Linguistics ……… 22

1.4.1.3 Cognitive Semantics ……… 22

1.4.1.4 Cognitive Grammar ……… 23

1.4.2 Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics ……… 23

1.4.2.1 Language is all about meaning ……… 23

1.4.2.2 Grammar and Meaning are indissociable ……… 24

1.4.2.3 Language, Cognition and Culture ……… 24

1.4.3 Force Dynamics and Modality ……… 25

1.4.3.1 The Notion of Force Dynamics ……… 25

1.4.3.2 Force-dynamic Parameters ……… 26

1.4.3.3 Features of Force ……… 28

1.5 Root and Epistemic Modality in English ……… 33

1.5.1 Modality and Modal Verbs ……… 33

1.5.2 Root Modality ……… 36

1.5.2.1 Obligation ……… 37

1.5.2.2 Permission ……… 38

1.5.2.3 Ability ……… 40

1.5.2.4 Volition ……… 40

1.5.3 Epistemic Modality ……… 41

1.5.3.1 Necessity ……… 42

1.5.3.2 Probability ……… 42

1.5.3.3 Possibility ……… 44

1.6 Root and Epistemic Modality in Vietnamese ……… 45

1.6.1 Modality and Modal Verbs ……… 45

1.6.2 Root Modality ……… 49

1.6.2.1 Obligation ……… 49

1.6.2.2 Permission ……… 51

1.6.2.3 Ability ……… 52

1.6.2.4 Volition ……… 52

1.6.3 Epistemic Modality ……… 53

1.6.3.1 Necessity ……… 53

1.6.3.2 Probability ……… 54

1.6.3.3 Possibility ……… 55

1.7 Concluding Remarks ……… 55

Chapter II: Research Methodology ……… 56

2.1 Introduction ……… 56

2.2 Research Questions ……… 56

2.3 Methods of the study ……… 56

2.4 Data collection ……… 58

2.5 Corpus - aided analysis ……… 64

2.6 Cognitive Framework ……… 67

2.7 Concluding Remarks ……… 72

Chapter III: Root Modality in English and Vietnamese ……… 73

3.1 Introduction ……… 73

3.2 General Findings ……… 74

3.3 Obligation in English and Vietnamese ……… 77

3.3.1 Form ……… 77

3.3.2 Meaning ……… 78

3.4 Permission in English and Vietnamese ……… 93

3.4.1 Form ……… 93

3.4.2 Meaning ……… 93

3.5 Ability in English and Vietnamese ……… 100

3.5.1 Form ……… 100

3.5.2 Meaning ……… 100

3.6 Volition in English and Vietnamese ……… 105

3.6.1 Form ……… 105

3.6.2 Meaning ……… 105

3.7 Concluding Remarks ……… 110

Chapter IV: Epistemic Modality in English and Vietnamese ……… 113

4.1 Introduction ……… 113

4.2 General Findings ……… 113

4.3 Necessity in English and Vietnamese ……… 115

4.3.1 Form ……… 115

4.3.2 Meaning ……… 115

4.4 Probability in English and Vietnamese ……… 122

4.4.1 Form ……… 122

4.4.2 Meaning ……… 122

4.5 Possibility in English and Vietnamese ……… 131

4.5.1 Form ……… 131

4.5.2 Meaning ……… 131

4.6 English and Vietnamese Modal Verbs in Different Disciplines …… 138

4.7 Concluding Remarks ……… 139

PART THREE: CONCLUSION ……… 143

1 Recapitulation ……… 143

2 Implication ……… 148

2.1 For English Language Learning and Teaching ……… 148

2.2 For Language Research ……… 149

3 Limitations of the Study ……… 150

4 Suggestions for Further Study ……… 150

Appendix A: Titles of English Texts in the English Corpus ……… XVII Appendix B: Titles of Vietnamese Texts in the Vietnamese Corpus …… XXV Appendix C: String Matching of Modal Verbs in E and VNese Corpora XXXIII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Data in English and Vietnamese Corpora 60Table 2.2 Distribution of Root and Epistemic Modality in the two Corpora 67Table 2.3 Categories of Low-Median-High FD in English and Vietnamese 68Table 2.4 Categories of Root Senses in English and Vietnamese 70Table 2.5 Categories of Epistemic Senses in English and Vietnamese 72Table 3.1 Distribution of 4 Root Senses in the E and Vietnamese Corpora 75Table 3.2 Distribution of Low-Median-High FD in the E & VN Corpora 76Table 3.3 Distribution of E and VNese Modals in Root & Epistemic Senses LXVTable 3.4 Distribution of E & VNese Modal Verbs in the Two Corpora LXVTable 3.5 Distribution of Co-occurrence of Modal Verbs in the Vietnamese Corpus LXV Table 3.6 Distribution of Obligation Realized by Modal Verbs in the E & VNese Corpora 92Table 3.7 Distribution of Permission realized by Modal verbs in E&VNese Corpora 99Table 3.8 Distribution of Ability realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora 104Table 3.9 Distribution of Volition realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora 110Table 4.1 Distribution of 3 Epistemic Senses in the E & VNese Corpora 114Table 4.2 Distribution of Necessity realized by E &VNese Modal verbs 121Table 4.3 Distribution of Probability Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs 130Table 4.4 Distribution of Possibility Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs 137Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in 7 Disciplines LXVITable 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in 7 different disciplines LXVII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Cultural thought patterns (Kaplan, 1966: 15) 20Figure 1.2 Force Dynamic Entities (Talmy, 2000a: 414) 27Figure 1.3 The basic steady-state force-dynamic patterns (Talmy 2000a: 415) 28

Figure 1.9 Langacker’s basic epistemic model (1991a: 242) 31Figure 1.10 Langacker’s (1991a: 277) Dynamic Evolutionary Model 32Figure 2.1 String Matching of Must in the English corpus 65Figure 2.1 String Matching of Phải in the English corpus 66Figure 3.1 “Narrow scope” deontic should/ ought (Pelyvás 2006: 144) 79

Figure 3.4 1 (Agonist) must not VP (Talmy 2000a: 454) 85

Figure 3.17 WILL – ‘Wish’, ‘CHOOSE’ (‘Narrow scope’) (Pelyvás 2008) 106

Figure 4.3 ‘Wide scope’ deontic should/ought (Pelyvás 2006: 145) 123

The following abbreviations are used chiefly in glossed language data examples:

Abbreviations in the two corpora

EEco: English economics VEco: Vietnamese economics

ECult: English culture VCult: Vietnamese culture

EEdu: English education VEdu: Vietnamese education

ELing: English linguistics VLing: Vietnamese linguisticsEPsyc: English psychology VPsyc: Vietnamese psychologyESoci: English social science VSci: Vietnamese social science

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale

Modality as expressed by modal verbs is an interesting, but complicated linguisticphenomenon in both English and Vietnamese Up to now, modality in the English languagehas been studied by a number of researchers such as Langacker (1987, 1991ab, 2003, 2008,2013),Talmy (1985, 1988, 2000a), Taylor (2002), Sweetser (1987, 1990), Johnson (1987),Coates (1983, 1995), Mulder (2007), Pelyvás (1996, 2000, 2006, 2008), Mortelmans (2006,2007), Halliday (1994), Declerck (2011), Linden (2012) and some others Modality in theVietnamese language has been investigated by a number of Vietnamese researchers such asC.X Hạo (2004), N.T Hùng (1994), Đ.H Châu (1996), V.Đ Quang (2008), N.T Thìn (2003),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), B.M Tóan & N.T Lương(2010), D.Q Ban & H.V Thung (2012), B.T Ngoãn (2004), B.T Đào (2014), etc However,there has been almost no research on discussing and analyzing root and epistemic senses ofmodal verbs in English and Vietnamese from Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms

of force dynamics Therefore, this study is an attempt to describe, analyze, compare/ contrastEnglish and Vietnamese root modality (including obligation, permission, ability and volition)and epistemic modality (including necessity, probability and possibility) as realised by modalverbs from force dynamics (i.e., with regard to linguistic treatment of forces and barriers) Thestudy mainly follows the narrow definition of modality defined by Lock (1996: 193), i.e “Anarrow definition of modality encompasses only modal auxiliaries and their uses …” Modals

in this study mainly refer to Langacker’s study (2003: 3), i.e., modals “are grammaticalized

grounding elements, in which the ground - the speech event and its participants - are ‘offstage’ and subjectively construed’ and have ‘two crucial properties: (1) they are force- dynamic and (2) the event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’ (Langacker

1999: 308)

The study is primarily an empirical investigation of modality phenomenon (modal verbs)based on two corpora: one in English with a total of 500,000 words in 91 social science textsand the other in Vietnamese with 500,000 words in 119 social science texts on the ground that(1) it is a rich resource for the researcher to find examples of root and epistemic senses ofmodal verbs in English and Vietnamese to serve the purposes of the study and (2) it is thesocial science field that the researcher often interacts with The data collected are then

quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed so as to find similarities and differences betweenEnglish and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics

in case that English is considered as a source language and Vietnamese as a comparative one.The findings of the study are mainly discussed in terms of force dynamics proposed by somereputed researchers such as Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003); Langacker (1991ab); Johnson(1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002) and Pelyvás (2006)

In fact, the study intends to find the equivalence and non-equivalence between English andVietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs from the two main dimensions ofexperience: (1) sociophysical area which consists of physical interactions as well as socialrelations, practices, and institutions and (2) the epistemic senses of argument, theorizing, andother activities of reasoning (cf Johnson 1987 & Sweetser 1990) so that it will help improvethe teaching and learning English in the Vietnamese context

1.2 Scopes of the Study

This study is to compare/ contrast English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses asrealized by modal verbs from cognitive analysis frameworks with a view to helpingVietnamese learners of English to overcome the difficulties if any, related to this languagephenomenon, in their process of language learning and acquisition

In order to make the task manageable in keeping up with the aim of the study, delimitation isnecessary The study focuses mostly on a representative sample of modal verbs in English andVietnamese The basic claim here is that these verbs can express both root modality andepistemic modality which are considered as two main types of modality The study mainlyfollows Lock’s (1996) definition of modality, which is claimed that modality is mainly realised

by modal verbs and their uses Some researchers such as Hermeren (1978) points out that onlyarticles, certain prepositions, conjunctions and pronouns rank higher than the modals in thefrequency table compiled from the million-word Brown University corpus Moreover, worksdone by Leech, Rayson & Wilson (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), and N.T.T Thủy (2012) showthat the main means of expressing modality in English is the set of modal auxiliary verbs.Recently, much of the research on modality within a cognitive perspective has indeed focused

on modals, more specifically, on the English modals, for instance: Langacker (1991a), Talmy(1988, 2000a, 2003); Johnson (1987); Sweetzer (1990); Taylor (2002); Pelyvás (2003, 2006),Mortelmans (2007), Tyler (2008) and Mulder (2007); and this language bias has undoubtedlyshaped the typical intepretation of modality Therefore, the main focus in this study lies on

describing and analysing root and epistemic modality as realized by the core English modal

verbs such as can, could, may, might, must, will, would, shall, should; and semi-modals such as ought to, have to and need with examples mainly taken from the 500 000-word corpus including 91 English social science texts Have to is included in this set on the ground that (1)

it is ‘not true modal but no discussion of must or of the modals of obligation and necessity

would be complete without reference to it.’ (Coates, 1983: 52) and (2) it is the most commonform in both American English and British English according to Mairs’ (2006) investigation

into modal frequency Though dare and had better are semi-modals, they are excluded from

this list since dare is ‘rare and apparently on the decline’ (Coates, 1983: 5) and had better is

‘actually declining’ (Leech 2003: 229) Note that in the English corpus of this study, there is

no occurrence of dare and had better Thus, dare and had better are intentionally ignored in this study, but need to is discussed in Chapter III & IV, because the analysis of the modals of obligation and necessity is not adequate without it and the use of need to is increasing especially in American English (cf Mairs 2006) Also, the usages of will, would and shall that express pure tense or mood will be disregarded in this study Ought to is sometimes considered

as a maginal case, but apart from the to-infinitive, it presents no problem with the formalcharateristics of a modal auxiliary verb

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(2002, 2003), H.V.Thông (2001), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), N.T.T.Thuỷ (2011, 2012), B.T.Đào(2014) show that modality in Vietnamese language can be expressed by different linguistic

expressions, such as modal verbs (nên, cần, phải, có thể, sẽ, etc.); epistemic lexical verbs (tin, đoán, nghĩ, đồ, etc.); modal adjectives (chắc, đúng, etc.); modal adverbs or modal set expressions (có lẽ, dường như, có khi, biết đâu, etc.); modal nouns (khả năng, tin đồn, etc.); and modal particles (như, nhỉ, đấy, chứ, à, á, ạ, etc.) It is almost impossible to discuss all

these types of Vietnamese modal expressions within the scope of this study Moreover,P.T.T.Thùy’s PhD dissertation (2008), and N.T.T.Thuỷ’s survey (2012) show that Vietnamesemodal verbs are considered as the most frequent modal expressions in academic writing.Therefore, the study is limited to discuss and analyse root and epistemic modality as realized

by Vietnamese modal verbs such as nên, cần, phải, có thể, sẽ, định, muốn, toan, dám, with

examples mainly taken from the 500, 000-word corpus of 119 Vietnamese social science texts

The main claim here is that (1) these Vietnamese modals seem to be equivalent of the aboveEnglish modals; (2) by referring to other scholars’ research such as N.K.Thản (1999: 174-178);D.Q.Ban & H.Dân (2000: 57-58), D.Q.Ban & H.V.Thung (2012: 104-105), N.T.Thuận (2003:30-31), P.T.T.Thùy (2008), V.Đ.Quang (2008), B.T.Ngoãn (2002, 2003), B.T Đào (2014) theresearcher can identify and categorize root and epistemic senses of modal verbs; and (3) thereseacher has to synthesize and analyze different meanings of modal verbs.

In this study, the Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is considered as a theoretical framework since the

CL account “differs radically from traditional perspective by emphasizing that language is areflection of general cognitive processes, not a separated/ isolated system with its own systems

of rules” (Tyler, 2008: 459-60) In comparison with formal approaches, CL “stands out byresisting the imposition of boundaries between language and other psychological phenomena

… Rather than a distinct, self-contained entity (separate “module” or “mental faculty”),language is viewed as an integral facet of cognition” (Langacker, 2013: 7-8) CognitiveLinguistics is “an approach to language that is based on experience of the world and the way

we perceive and conceptualize it.” (Ungerer & Schmid, 1996: xxi) The foundational point of

CL ‘is simply that language is all about meaning.’ (Depraetere & Reed, 2006: 3)

Some Cognitive researchers such as Mortelmans (2007: 881) argue that ‘the cognitivelinguistic concepts of force dynamics, … have proved to be highly powerful tools to discovercommon cores in a wide variety of modal expression types’ Therefore, the researcher based

on the notions of force dynamics (opposition) proposed by Talmy (1988, 2000ab, 2003);Langacker (1991ab, 2003, 2008, 2013); Sweetzer (1990); Johnson (1987); Taylor (2002);Pelyvás (1996, 2003, 2006, 2008) to discuss and analyse the root and epistemic senses ofEnglish and Vietnamese modal verbs

The data submitted to the English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality are mostlytaken from the two corpora: one in English and the other in Vietnamese With the help of thecorpus-based analysis - the TexSTAT-2 programme, the study seeks to find the frequency andKWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of English and Vietnamese modal auxiliary verbs.Moreover, string matching of each modal verb in English and Vietnamese social science texts

is illustrated in Appendix C, pp XXXIII - LXIV of the study

The main emphasis of the study is to explore the equivalence and non-equivalence of root andepistemic senses of modal verbs between English and Vietnamese languages in terms of forcedynamic analyses However, it cannot be said that all English and Vietnamese social science

texts share such similarities and differences in every context And finally, the study putsemphasis on some major findings, their implications and gives some suggestions for avoidanceand for further research.

To a large extent, the study does not mention the following issues: (1) The mood system,which deals with the syntactic structure of the sentence and not necessarily with what thespeaker is doing and which consists of indicatives, imperatives and subjunctives; (2) Othertypes of modal expressions such as modal adjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modaladverbs, modal particles; and (3) The intonation or prosodic features as the focus of the study

is on written texts However, they will be dealt with or touched if necessary

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study

The ultimate aim of the study to show how force dynamics framework is used as a powerfultool to describe, analyze and compare/contrast modality in English and Vietnamese in order tofind the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modality as realized bymodal verbs so that it can help improve improve teaching and learning English in Vietnamesecontext

Therefore, the objectives of the study are:

- to identify and describe root and epistemic modality as realised by modal verbs in Englishand Vietnamese from the Cognitive perspective, more specifically in terms of forcedynamics;

- to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root andepistemic modality as realised by modal verbs from force dynamics frameworks

1.5 Methods of the Study

The study is aiming at comparing/ contrasting English and Vietnamese root and epistemicsenses of modal verbs in terms of force dynamics Therefore, the principal method applied forthe study is the contrastive analysis (CA), which is defined by Richards et al (1992: 83) as ‘thecomparison of the linguistic system of two languages’ During the comparison and contrast,English is considered as the source language and Vietnamese as a language of reference.Therefore, in this study, it is assumed that the notions of force dynamics are first used todescribe and analyse root and epistemic modality realized by English modals and then theywill be adapted to deal with those of the Vietnamese language

The study was also conducted with the help of corpus-aided analysis of English andVietnamese social science texts in order to find out the frequency and KWIC (key word incontext) concordance of a certain modal verb The analysis of the study is undertaken byblending the quantitative research approach with the more qualitative research approach Thequantitative approach gives a statistical overview of large amounts of the texts in question -more precisely, large numbers of tokens of the English and Vietnamese modal verbs in theauthentic social science texts in the two corpora (a 500 000 - word corpus in English and a

500000 - word corpus in Vietnamese), whereas the qualitative one refers to the close, detailedexamination of particular stretches of the modal verbs in terms of forces and barriers It may bepossible to better understand the processes at play in the texts and to gain access to non-obvious meanings of the key words

The study is an attempt to contribute to the application of the Cognitive linguistics as atheoretical background to compare/ contrast the two languages: English and Vietnamese interms of modality expressed in authentic social science texts on the ground that: (1) Language

is claimed to be best studied and described with reference to its cognitive, experiential andsocial contexts (Kemmer, 2000); (2) Cognitive linguistics ‘highlights recurrent, meaningfullinguistic patterns and organising principles found at all “levels” of language’ (Tyler 2008:

461); and (3) Language has ‘two basic and closedly related functions: a semiological function,

allowing thoughts to be symbolized by means of sounds, gestures, or writing as well as

interactive function …” (Langacker, 1998: 1)

With respect to corpus-based research in this study, it is argued by some researchers such asGonzales-Marquez et al (2007: 149) that “Cognitive linguistics considers itself to be a non-objectivist theory of language, whereas the use of corpus materials involves an attempt to

maximalize the objective basis of linguistic descriptions” According to them, there are twocompelling reasons for Cognitive linguistics to embrace corpus research: (1) The growingtendency in Cognitive linguistics is assumed to stress its essential nature as a usage-basedlinguistics We cannot have usage-based linguistics unless we study actual usage – as itappears in corpora in the form of spontaneous, non-elicited language data, and (2) the veryemphasis that Cognitive linguistics places on the fact that our knowledge of the world is anactive construal rather than a passive reflection of an objectively given world, favours aninterest in differences of construal between cultures, social groups, or even individuals (ibid.)Contextual analysis of authentic social science texts was also done in order to identify thepurposes and meanings of modal verbs in a particular case Since the two said corpora are not

so large, a close reading of the whole texts could be undertaken This is useful because itallows a more detailed look at the authentic materials, taking into considerations single words

as well as strings of words and their collocations The purpose of this level of analysis is totake into account root and epistemic senses realized by different modal verbs used in differentcontexts

Moreover, it is necessary for the researcher to consult supervisors, other researchers andcolleagues with a view to accomplishing and improving the quality of the study It is alsoimportant to state that the above methods are not conducted isolatedly but interactively andcooperatively

As stated above, the study does not concern the following issues: the mood system; modaladjectives, modal nouns, hedging devices, modal adverbs, modal particles; the intonation orother prosodic features However, they will be dealt with or touched when necessary

1.6 Contribution of the Study

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance of the Study

The study hopes to make a contribution to

The development of the Cognitive perspective to describe and analyze an interesting, butcomplicated language phenomenon, i.e modality in general, and modal verbs in particular, intwo languages: English and Vietnamese;

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 Vietnamesemodality from Cognitive perspective, more specifically, in term of force dynamics

1.6.2 Practical Significance of the Study

The study wishes:

to provide a systematic description and analysis of modals in English and Vietnamese interms of force dynamics;

to assist writers who are not native speakers but who are seeking to publish their researchpapers in English journals;

to discover what lies behind the differences in modality between English and Vietnamese

in order to raise awareness as well as interest in learning and teaching foreign languages in away that one should take the social and cultural differences between one’s mother tongue andhis/ her target language into consideration

1.7 Structure of the Dissertation: Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the study

consists of 4 chapters:

Chapter I first presents a brief discussion of the concept of modality from traditional point of

view Then it investigates the two main types of modality: root and epistemic modality Next,

an overview of Cognitive linguistics is presented, which serves as a theoretical background.And lastly, it provides force dynamic frameworks of 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 analysisframework

Chapter III concentrates on the contrastive/ comparative analysis of root senses of modal verbs

in English and Vietnamese It intends to find the similarities and differences between Englishand Vietnamese modality in the expression of obligation, permission, ability and volition interms of force dynamics with reference to frequency occurrences of English and Vietnamesemodal verbs, respectively

Chapter IV focuses on finding the similarities and differences between English and

Vietnamese epistemic modality (with regard to necessity, probability and possibility) realised

by modal verbs in terms force dynamics with reference to frequency of English andVietnamese modal verbs In chapter three & four, the analysis of root and epistemic senses ofmodals will be done together with the corpus-based analysis of English modals in the Englishcorpus and Vietnamese modals in the Vietnamese corpus String matching of each modal verb

in the English and Vietnamese corpus will be illustrated in accordance with KWIC (KeyWords In Context) concordance

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT Chapter I: Literature Review 1.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to discuss the wide-ranging literature on modality, and distills the notionsand categories that are useful to the present study of constrasting/ comparing root andepistemic modality realised by modal verbs found in English and Vietnamese social sciencearticles in terms of force dynamics from Cognitive perspective The literature on modality hastypically concentrated on the category of modal verbs, with the English modal auxiliaries asthe prototypical cases (or as the source) and the Vietnamese modal verbs as the comparativeones This bias can be found both in language-specific accounts (e.g Palmer 1990, Coates

1983, Sweetser 1990, Johnson 1987, Taylor 2002, Talmy 2000a, Langacker 1991b, 1999,Huddleston 1984, Downing & Locke 1992) and in cross-linguistic studies (e.g Palmer 1986,Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994), although lately some linguists have taken a broaderperspective, like Nuyts (2001) on epistemic modality, and Linden (2012) on modal adjectives.This chapter begins with describing and analysing the concept of modality, types andmeanings of modality from traditional point of view It is due to the fact that the semanticcategory of modality is not as easily defined as tense or aspect (Bybee, Perkins & Pagluica1994: 176) and “modality and its types can be defined and named in various ways,” and that

“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 providesforce dynamic frameworks of root and epistemic senses of modal verbs in English andVietnamese

1.2 Modality from the Traditional Point of View

1.2.1 The Concept of Modality

Traditionally, the concept of modality and the modal concepts of possibility, probability andnecessity, according to Hoye (1997), go back to Aristotle and classical Greek philosophy.These notions seem to derive from the fact that human beings often categorize their attitudesand experiences in terms of the ways things might or must be or might have been, other thanthey actually are or were Therefore, this part gives a summary of some authors’ point of views

of modality such as Jesperson (1949), von Wright (1951), Rescher (1968), Bybee (1985),McCarthy (1994), Lyons (1977) and Palmer (1986)

According to Jesperson (1949, cited in N Hòa, 2004: 175), modality is defined as ‘aninteresting issue, which can be divided into two kinds: the first contains an element of will,which corresponds to deontic modality and the second contains no element of will, i.e.epistemic modality’ Although Jesperson’s proposals of two types are of great importance,they contain little theoretical significance They are purely notional, and both of his choice ofthe sub-categories and his criteria for them may be seriously questioned (cf Palmer, 1986) Von Wright (1951, cited in Palmer, 1986) in a pioneering work on modal logic classifies fourdifferent ‘modes’: (1) the alethic mode or modes of truth; (2) the epistemic modes or modes ofknowing; (3) the deontic modes or modes of obligation and (4) the existential modes or modes

of existence The most important distinction here is that between epistemic and deonticmodality, which correspond, very roughly, to Jesperson’s two types

Within a logical framework, Rescher (1968) proposes a more extended modality system whichconsists of not only ‘elethic’ modalities relating to the notion of truth value, ‘epistemic’modalities relating to knowledge and belief, ‘deontic’ modalities relating to duties, but also

‘temporal’ modalities, ‘boulomaic’ modalities, ‘evaluative’ modalities, ‘likelihood’ modalitiesand ‘causal’ modalities He further argues for three types of ‘conditional’ modality According

to Rescher (1968: 24-6), ‘A proposition is presented by a complete, self-contained statementwhich taken as a whole, will be true or false’ He then continues, “When such a proposition isitself made subject to some further qualification of such a kind that the entire resultingcomplex is itself once again a proposition, then this qualification is said to represent a

modality to which the original proposition is subjected.” Palmer (1986) argues that Rescher’s

definition of modality would raise serious theoretical problems and would be too wide

Perkins (1980) establishes his classification of the types of modality by reference to Rescher’sconceptual domain of modality He reduces Rescher’s eight categories to four: epistemicmodality which is defined in terms of rational laws; deontic modality which is defined in terms

of social laws; dynamic modality defined in terms of natural laws and temporal modality Searle’s (1979) approach to modality is different from the above discussions He concerns theissues of modality in terms of speech act theory According to him, there are five categories ofillocutionary acts: (1) assertives: where we tell our hearers how things are; (2) directives:where we get them to do things; (3) commisives: where we commit ourselves to doing things;(4) declaration: where we bring about changes in the world with our utterances; and (5)expressives: where we express our feelings and attitudes While assertives are described in

terms of the speaker’s belief or commitment to the truth of a proposition, directives andcommissives correspond very largely to deontic modality Commissives are speaker-orientedwhereas directives are hearer-oriented Declaratives come close to assertives and thereforethey are connected to epistemic modality Expressives may belong to epistemic modality.Modality, in Bybee’s point of view (1985), in a broad sense is what the speaker is doing withthe whole proposition whereas modality in Pamper’s (1986) view point is defined as semanticinformation associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what s/he says (Cited in N.Hòa, 2004)

McCarthy (1994: 94) defines “modality as a kind of thought often consisting of the closed

class of modal verbs (must, can, will, may, etc.) and being treated as part of grammar of

English, but a large number of lexical words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs) carry thesame or similar meanings to the modal verbs”

Lyons (1977) recognizes two kinds of modality using von Wright’s terms: Epistemic modalityand deontic modality While the term ‘epistemic’ coming from a Greek word meaning

“knowledge” is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief or opinion rather than fact, theterm ‘deontic’ coming from a Greek word relating to the imposition of obligations isconcerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed by morally responsible agents.Modality is claimed to express subjectivity of the speaker (Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986).However, Palmer (1986) argues that it is not possible to decide whether modals are subjective

or not, as in ‘You must leave at once’ This sentence can indicate that it is the speaker’s

insistence or general (objective) necessity for leaving, or it is indeterminate between the tworeadings It is in principle not possible to justify the one interpretation rather than the other

Therefore, it needs a specific context to clarify its meaning ‘You must leave at once’ could be

construed in an alternative analysis, i.e., in terms of force dynamics from Cognitiveperspective

The definition of modality applied in this study is used most widely, agreeing with the view ofLyons (1977: 452), i.e modality is defined as “the speaker’s opinion or attitude toward theproposition that sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes.’ Moreover,the study mainly follows the narrow definition of modality defined by Lock (1996: 193), i.e

“A narrow definition of modality encompasses only modal auxiliaries and their uses ” Forthe purpose of the study, modality will be considered as a semantic system expressed by themodal verbs which enable a speaker/ conceptualizer to signal and express his/ her own point of

view, his/ her opinion or his/ her commitment to the truth of the proposition/ state of affair orthe event

When modality is treated as a purely logical notion, it concerns logical possibility andnecessity In these logical discussions, one finds inquiries into the nature of terms such as

“possible” and “necessity” in statements of the following sort: “It is necessary that p = it isimpossible that not - p = it is not possible that not - p,” and, “It is necessary that not - p = it isimpossible that p = it is not possible that p” (Johnson, 1987: 48-49)

In contrast with this logical analysis of modality, there are “other senses of modal verbs thatare intimately related to our everyday experience, insofar as they represent our pervasiveexperience of things, events and relations as being actual, possible or necessary” (Johnson1987: 49) Together with Johnson (1987), some cognitive linguists such as Talmy (1988,2000a & b), Sweetser (1990), Taylor (2002), Langacker (1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1999, 2003)developed an alternative analysis of semantics of modals based on force dynamic frameworks

Therefore, modals in this study “are grammaticized grounding elements, in which the ground the speech event and its participants - are ‘offstage’ and subjectively construed’ (Langacker 2003: 3), and have ‘two crucial properties: (1) they are force- dynamic and (2) the event marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’ (Langacker 1999: 308) The

-force dynamics are ‘inherent in the conceptualizer’s mental activity, hence subjectivelyconstrued in the strong sense.’ (ibid.)

In what follows, the researcher will demonstrate the description and analysis of English andVietnamese modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive perspective, more specifically

in terms of force dynamics

1.2.2 Types of Modality

In this section, some main types of modality such as epistemic modality vs deontic modality;root modality vs epistemic modality; agent-oriented modality vs speaker-oriented modality;extrinsic modality vs intrinsic modality will be discussed with reference to some researchersincluding Bybee & Fleischman (1995), N.V Hiệp (2009), Palmer (1986, 1990), 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)

While ‘agent-oriented modality reports the existence of internal and external conditions on anagent’ (Bybee et al 1994: 179), speaker-oriented modalities allow the speaker to impose suchconditions on the addressee (ibid.) The grammatical terms for speaker-oriented modality may

encompass imperative (the form used to issue a direct command), prohibitive (a negative

command), optative (the wish or hope of the speaker in a main clause), hortative (the speaker

is encouraging someone to action), admonitive (the speaker is issuing a warning) andpermissive (the speaker is granting permission) (ibid.) Speaker-oriented modality is meant toinclude directives as well as utterances in which the speaker grants the addressee permission as

in [1.2]

[1.2] You can start the revels now (Root – ability) (Coates 1983: 88)

1.2.2.2 Extrinsic Modality vs Intrinsic Modality

Extrinsic modality refers to extra-propositional modality, expressing the speaker's attitude

towards the content of a proposition It covers the area of epistemic modality For Biber et al.(1999: 485) it "refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments oflikelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction" and is synonymous with epistemic modality

However, intrinsic modality forms part of the semantic content of the proposition; it covers the

area of root modality Biber et al (1999) do point out that each modal has both intrinsic andextrinsic modality While ‘intrinsic modality refers to actions and events that humans (or otheragents) directly control: meanings relating to permission, obligation, or volition (or intention)"and is synonymous with deontic modality, “extrinsic modality refers to logical status of events

or states” (Biber et al 1999: 485)

1.2.2.3 Deontic Modality, Dynamic Modality and Epistemic Modality

Some scholars such as Nuyts (2001) states that modality usually covers three categories of

qualifications: deontic (root) modality, epistemic modality, dynamic modality Traditionally, deontic modality has been defined in terms of the concepts of permission and obligation: in their deontic meanings, the verbs like must express obligation to carry out a certain activity/

[1.4] … Women may resist this practice by having an extramarital affair or getting a

divorce, options not easily available to women in Laos, due to the economic and culturalconstraints (Deontic – permission) (EEdu 15)

Closedly related to deontic modality, according to Simpson (1993: 48), is boulomaic modality,which is ‘extensively grammaticalized in English in expressions of ‘desire’ Palmer (1986)states that the most important types of deontic modality in a grammatical study appear to beDirectives (‘where we try to get our hearers to do things’ (Searle 1983)) and Commissives(‘where we commit ourselves to do something’ (Searle 1979)) Both of them are not onlysubjective, but also performative as they actually initiate action by others or by the speaker.However, as Palmer (1986) observed, there are problems with subjectivity in the analysis ofdeontic modality, in that some deontic uses of modals seem to have no elements of subjectivitywhereas others seem to include varying degrees of the speaker’s involvement

Epistemic Modality

The term ‘epistemic modality’ is to apply not simply to modal system that basically involves

the notions of possibility and necessity, but to any model system that indicates the degree ofcommitment by the speaker to what he says It is to be interpreted as showing the status of thespeaker’s understanding or knowledge; this clearly includes both his own judgements and thekind of warrant he has for what he says (Palmer, 1986) And it should include evidentials(ibid.) While there is still some controversy existing on whether or how evidentiality is to beincluded within the epistemic domain, it is agreed by some authors such as Nuyts (2001) thatevidential modality indicates the source of information on which the speaker draws to make astatement about the existence of state of affair (SoA)

As in all formal semantic accounts, epistemic modality is considered as involving ‘what isknown’, i.e., a subset of what is the case However, from a cognitive perspective, epistemicmodality is ‘not concerned with what is known/ what the evidence is from in general, but

rather with what the evidence is from the point of view of a specific individual (the speaker)’

(Papafragou, 2000: 35)

Dynamic Modality

The term dynamic modality (coming from Greek meaning ‘power’, strength’) traditionally

involves the meaning of an ability or capacity to the subject participant of a clause VonWright (1951, cited in Linden 2012: 12-13) briefly deals with this type of modality, which hetakes to refer to abilities and dispositions, as in [1.5]

[1.5] On one hand, many Latino men believe they can handle problems on their own and will therefore neglect to seek services (ESoci 1) (Ability)

This term is also used amongst other authors such as Palmer (1986, 1990), Perkins (1983),Nuyts (2006) Other terms for this type of modal meaning are ‘faculative modality’ (cf De

Schutter 1983, Goosens 1985); and ‘inherent modality’ (cf Hengevenld 1988) Dynamic

modality, in Perkins’ (1983) arguments, should apply to all indications of abilities/possibilities,needs/necessities inherent in agents, or more generally, pariticipants of actions or in situations

Linden’s (2012) argues that because of their semantic properties, the modal auxiliaries

establish a formal tie between the basic modal subcategories Therefore, many languages –specific accounts of modality have focused on formal category of modal auxiliaries (e.g.Palmer 1983) It has been shown that the traditional deontic meanings of obligation and

permissions originate in the dynamic meaning (Goossens 1999, 2000 on must; Van Ostaeyen

& Nuyts 2004 on ‘can, may’; Fischer 2010 on may/ might & should) (cited in Linden 2012) More precisely, the first modal meaning auxiliaries like must and can develop is the paricipant-

inherent subtype of dynamic modality (ibid.) According to Linden (2012: 34), “thisparticipant-inherent meaning is extended to a participant-imposed subtype of dynamicmeaning”, as in [1.6]

[1.6] The individual will be able to assign a meaning to or form a good idea of the quality

of the car after owning it for a certain period of time (EEco 74)

As observed by some authors such as Bybee et al (1994); and Nuyts (2006), it is argued that

epistemic modality involves speaker’s (or someone else’s) estimation of SoA in terms of

likelihood Therefore, it expresses the degrees of probability of the SoA as a whole, as

assessed by a modal source and it also indicates the degree of assessor’s commitment to theSoA in terms of SoA-external in this case: existential grounds (Nuyts 2006)

1.2.2.4 Root Modality vs Epistemic Modality

While root modality (or non-epistemic modality – in Declerck’s term, 2011: 38-9) involves

‘event modality’ (i.e., the speaker’s attitudes towards a potential event), epistemic modality involves ‘propositional modality’ (i.e., the speaker’s judgements about a proposition) (Jesperson 1924, Palmer 2001, cited in Hacquard 2009) Roots seem to be subject-oriented, which “ascribes a certain property to the subject of a clause whereas epistemics are said to be speaker-oriented, which applies to a whole proposition/ state of affair and communicates the

speaker’s stance concerning its truth’ (Huddleston 1988:78-9), as in [1.7]

[1.7] They can still work on tasks at which they fear they will fail (ESoci 12) (Root

-ability)

Root modality, according to Declerck (2011) is also concerned with factors that determine the

actualization of the residue situation in a nonfactual world, as in the following examples:

[1.8] Researchers conducting participant observation may choose at times to act less as a

‘participant’ and more as an ‘observer’ to minimize reactivity (ESoci 10) “Thespeaker/conceptualizer is granting permission.” (Root - permission)

[1.9] Recent research, however, suggests that students can effectively assess their own

language ability (ELing 50) – (Root modality)

In the case of epistemic world as in [1.10], it is only when the auxiliary is interpreted as an epistemic modal auxiliary that the modal world is an epistemic world and that the relation between that world and the factual world is an epistemic relation (e.g ‘necessarily factual’) [1.10] Care must be taken not to transfer the coercive nature of criminal justice to legal

coercion under the Establishment Clause (ELaw 82) - (Epistemic modality)

Root modality and epistemic modality are not necessarily mutually exclusive Sometimes an epistemic modalizer can be added to a clause expressing root modality In such a case the root modal world is no longer an ‘epistemically dangling’ world, because the root modality is overlaid by epistemic modality For example,

[1.11] The soldiers must guard the ammunition bunker (root modality, viz obligation)

(Declerck 2011)

[1.12] The soldiers must probably guard the ammunition bunker (Probably expresses a

relative factuality value, so the root modality is overlaid by the epistemic modality.)(Declerck 2011)

Evidentiality involves the speaker's indication of the nature (the type and quality) of theevidence invoked for (assuming the existence of) the proposition or the SoAs (Nuyts, 2001).This does not involve any explicit evaluation in the terms of the SoA being true or not.Evidential categories often suggest a certain degree of probability of the SoAs or proposition.For example, hear-say evidence tends to be considered less reliable than direct visual

perception The former (epistemic modality) often suggests lower probability of the state of

affairs than the latter, which normally implies certainty The nature of the speaker's evidencewill thus no doubt also codetermine the outcome of his/her epistemic modal evaluation of a

state of affairs, if s/he makes one The close tie between epistemic modality and evidentiality

also surfaces in the conditions under which evidential marking tends to occur, linguistically (ibid.) Kratzer (1991) states:

cross-Epistemic modality is the modality of curious people like historians, detectives, andfuturologists Circumstantial modality is the modality of rational agents like gardeners,architects and engineers A historian asks what might have been the case, given all theavailable facts An engineer asks what can be done given certain relevant facts (cited inHuitink, 2008: 34)

In short, the distinction between root (deontic) and epistemic modality claimed by Langacker

308) ‘Ranging in degree from the absence of a barrier (may) to compulsion (must), the force is generally manifested socially in the case of root modals, mentally with epistemic modals.’

(Langacker, 2011: 46-85) While ‘root modals are aimed at effective control – determiningwhat happens in the world itself’, ‘epistemic modals are aimed at epistemic control-evolution

in our knowledge of the world.’ (ibid.) The distinction between root and epistemic senses of

the modals, according to Langacker (2011: 46-85), is exemplified in:

Root modals: You {may/should/ must} report the theft.

Epistemic modals: It {may/should/must} be hot in Chicago.

Langacker (1990, 1991a, 1999, 2003) also views the English modals as “groundingpredications”, irrespective of whether they have a root or an epistemic meaning As such, thedistinction between these types of modality can be said to be independent of the status of theEnglish modals as grounding predications Goossens (1996), however, criticizes Langacker’suniform characterization of the English modals as grounding predications, he shows, amongother things, that in the case of root modality the potency relation is not always as subjectivelyconstrued as Langacker would have it Goossens (1996) therefore accepts the inherentgrounding status of the epistemic modals, whose semantics necessarily involves the speaker orconceptualizer as an implicit reference point, but he considers root modals to be groundingonly “in the case of deontic modalities where the authority for permission or obligation isclearly in the ground, as a rule, when the speaker has or assumes authority” (Goossens, 1996:28) This difference between the speaker, who implicitly assumes authority or not can beconnected to Achard’s notion of a stronger speaker role, which is linked to a “subjective

realignment of the mold force” (Achard, 1998, cited in Mortelmans 2007: 880) – and hence to

subjectification

From the cognitive perspective, accounts in the force dynamic framework take root modality

to include both deontic and dynamic meaning Root modality (root sense or non-epistemicmodality), deals ‘with obligation, permission, ability, volition, …’ (Incharralde, 1998: 1),whereas epistemic resolves the epistemic senses of necessity, probability and possibility(Sweetser 1990, Johnson 1987) Therefore, in what follows in this study, root modality(including obligation, permission, ability, and volition) and epistemic senses (includingnecessity, probability, and possibility) of modal verbs will be discussed and examined withrespect to the two main related dimensions of experience, proposed by Sweetser (1990): (1) the

sociophysical realm that includes physical interaction as well as social relations, practices, and institutions; and (2) the epistemic realm of rational argument, theorizing, and other activities of

reasoning (cf Johnson 1987)

1.3 Modality in Scientific Writing

Some scholars such as Rezzano (2004) recognize that research articles in general and socialscience texts/ research articles in particular do not present an objective description of a piece ofinvestigation, but rather a very complex persuasive text in which the writer needs to convinceother members of the scientific community (especially the journal’s editor and referees) of theimportance or significance of his/her study One of the ways to persuade the readers the writeruses is the use of what is called “hedging” Hedging refers to the use of a wide variety oflinguistic devices whose main purpose is to “tone down” or mitigate statements or proposition

or state of affair or event (ibid.) One of the most productive hedging devices is using modalexpressions, more specifically modal verbs

Adams Smith (1984) found in his study on authoring remarks in research articles that half ofthe instances of authors’ comment contained a modal verb and the other half containedadjectives or adverb of probability In a study of modality and modal responsibility in researcharticles in English, Rezzano (2004) shows that the most productive device for expression of

low degrees of certainty is modal verbs (subjective implicit modality), particularly may and can The high frequency of can expressing possibility in Rezzano’s corpus matches the

observation by Coates (1995) as to the growing use of epistemic readings of this modal,particularly in American English Thùy’s PhD dissertation on ‘Hedging devices in English andVietnamese economic research articles” (2008) points out that both English and Vietnamesedata show a rather high frequency of modals, but the purposes of using these modals are notthe same in two languages

Some researchers such as Thompson (1996: 59-60) claims that the speaker/ conceptualizer

may signal a higher or lower degree of certainty about the validity of a proposition (‘it will rain/ may rain’) or a higher or lower degree of pressure on the other person to carry out a command (‘you must/ should leave’) The three value (low-median-high) system proposed by

Halliday (1994) is useful in investigating the question of the speaker’s commitment: the degree

to which the speaker commits himself/ herself to the validity of what s/he is saying This hasimportant implication in a number of different areas of text analysis For example, in anacademic paper a writer has to judge very carefully the extent to which s/he advances a claim

as certain or as still open to doubt; while in giving advice a speaker has to judge very carefullythe extent to which s/he appears to be putting pressure on the other person (Thompson, 1996:59-60) Any modality has a source, which is either directly the speaker or indirectly someone

whose views are being reported by the speaker In certain genre, the question of whose views

we are being given may be crucial in understanding the text (ibid.) Moreover, there exist anumber of things affecting the uses of modality in academic writing:

(1) Firstly, cultural differences in communicating in the real world because ‘language is thevehicle of culture and it is an obstinate vehicle.’ (Hofstede, 1986: 314) Vietnamese learnerswhose dominant culture belongs to “collectivism” (Gudykunst, 1998: 111 & cf T.N.Thêm1998: 21) are said to have different ways of expressing their thinking and exchanging theirideas from those whose dominant culture is individualism, for example, those from Australia,Great Britain, the USA, and others (Hofstede, 1986)

With regard to culture and thinking, some researchers such as N.Đ Tồn (2002: 346) states that

“All studies show that thinking in the Vietnamese language is specific, actional – visual, i.e.,the kind of natural language of “image/symbol” This typical cognitive thinking of theVietnamese is in opposition to the kind of logical thinking, or thinking in the categories ofWestern nations (N.Đ.Tồn 2009: 20) Another researcher of Vietnamese culture – T.N.Thêm(1998: 24-25) claims that with regard to cognitive thinking, one of the typical characteristics ofagriculture-rooted culture (including Vietnamese culture) is “holistic-oriented and dialectical(in relation), subjective, emotional and experiential” More specifically, the results ofN.Đ.Tồn’s study (2009: 20) show that ‘the way of Vietnamese people’s perceiving things isoften from near to far, from parts to the whole, from small to large, from concrete to abstract’.L.T Thắng (2005: 75) also argues that “in Vietnamese when one thing is being described inrelation with another, it seems to be described by an “invisible” observer, (i.e., the observer isnot directly involved in this situation) Rather than that, this observer always compares his/herposition with the thing to see whether it is either higher or lower so that the observer canchoose 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

Figure 1.1 Cultural Thought Patterns (Kaplan, 1966: 15)

have a distinctive language He suggests that it is fallacy to assume that ‘because a student canwrite an adequate essay in his native language he can necessarily write an adequate essay in asecond language.’ Within Western cultures, he distinguishes the English patterns which hecalls linear, i.e moving directly from the central idea to explanations and examples, from acommon Oriental pattern, which he calls ‘an approach by indirection’ (See Figure 1.1) Thesentences circle round the topic, often defining something in terms of what it is not, and avoidany explicit judgement or conclusion

According to T.N Thêm (1998: 158), Vietnamese people are accustomed with indirectcommunication “vòng vo tam quốc” (beat about the bush), which is similar to the Orientalpattern (in Figure 1.1 above) They never start the communication directly, go straight forward

to the problem as the Western do

(3) Thirdly, in terms of indivisibility of language, culture and thoughts, Vygotsky (1979, cited

in Ellis, 1994: 16-17) states that the individual and social contexts are mutually constitutiveelements of a single interaction system, and cognitive development is a process of acquiringculture

1.4 Modality Viewed from Force Dynamics in Cognitive Perspective

This section first begins with giving definitions of terms such as Linguistic Universals,Cognitive Linguistics, Cognitive Grammar, Cognitive Semantics, and some main principles ofCognitive Linguistics Then, the notions of force dynamics from Cognitive perspective will bepresented And last, it provides characteristics of English and Vietnamese root and epistemicmodality realised by modal verbs in terms of force dynamics

Some cognitive researchers such as Evans & Green (2006: 101) state that ‘linguists of anytheoretical persuasion are intrigued by the possible existence of linguistic universals, by theform of such universals and by the nature of the relationship between thought and language.’

In fact, they have presented some examples of common cross-linguistic patterns in theconceptualization of the fundamental domains of space and time However, although there aresome fundamental cross-linguistic similarities in the linguistics representation of space andtime, there is considerable cross-linguistic variation (ibid.) Therefore, for the purpose of thisstudy, the author attempts to find the similarities (cross-linguistic) and differences (linguisticvariation) between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic senses of modal verbs fromforce dynamic framework in Cognitive perspective

1.4.1.2 Cognitive Linguistics

Cognitive Linguistics which ‘emerged in the 1970s as a result of a general dissatisfaction withthe 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 theway we perceive and conceptualize it” (Ungerer and Schmid 1996: x-xiv)

In cognitive linguists’ point of view, language is both embodied and situated in a specificenvironment This can be considered a moderate offshoot of the Safir-Whorf hypothesis in thatlanguage and cognition mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in theexperiences and environment of its users (Geeraerts, 2006) Cognitive linguistic practice can

be divided into two main areas: cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to) grammar

1.4.1.3 Cognitive Semantics

According to Langacker (2011: 46), cognitive semantics ‘starts from the supposition thatmeaning resides in conceptualization (in a broader sense of the term)’ Research in cognitivesemantics aims at investigating knowledge representation (conceptual structure) and meaningconstruction (conceptualisation) (Evans 2007) ‘The prime slogan for cognitive semantics is:

meanings are in the head.’ (Gärdenfors 2007: 57) More precisely, semantics for a language is

seen as a mapping from the expressions of the language to some cognitive entities

There are four guiding principles of cognitive semantics: (1) Conceptual structure is embodied(the ‘embodied cognition thesis’); (2) Semantic structure is conceptual structure: This guidingprinciple asserts that language refers to concepts in the mind of the speaker rather than,directly, to entities which inhere in an objectively real external world; (3) Meaningrepresentation is encyclopaedic: In other words, semantic structure is encyclopaedic in nature.And (4) Meaning construction is conceptualization: This principle means that language itselfdoes not encode meaning Instead, words (and other linguistic units) are only ‘prompts’ for theconstruction of meaning (Langacker, 1987) Accordingly,

‘semantic structures are the conceptualizations evoked and symbolized by linguisticexpressions Since the mind is in the loop, linguistic meanings are not determined solely

by objective properties of the situations described – what counts is how the situations areapprehended and viewed for linguistic purposes Crucially, we have ability to conceiveand portray the same situation in alternative ways This is known as construal’.(Langacker, 2011: 46)

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 whichLangacker 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 beviable 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 thewider movement known as CL, which in turn is part of functional tradition (Langacker, 2013:7-8) ‘Within functionalism, Cognitive grammar stands out by emphasizing semiologicalfunction of language It fully acknowledges the grounding of language in social interaction, butinsists 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

“the term conceptualization is interpreted broadly as embracing any kind of mentalexperiences, conceptualization is viewed as dynamic activity of embodied minds interactingwith their environment” CG’s most fundamental claim is that ‘grammar is symbolic in nature’(Langacker, 2013: 5) According to him, ‘a symbol as the pairing between a semantic structureand a phonological structure, such that one is able to evoke the other’ (ibid.) For example, a

simple lexical item, such as must, is thus symbolic because it resides in the pairing between a

meaning and a phonological shape

1.4.2 Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics

1.4.2.1 Language is all about meaning

Some Cognitive linguists such as Geeraerts (2006: 3-5) claim that CL account can be

characterized by one foundational principle and four tenets that spell out this basic notion Thebasic principle is simply that “language is all about meaning” Each of the following tenetssays something specific about the way CL thinks about meaning (1) Linguistic meaning isperspectival Meaning is not just an objective reflection of the outside world, but it is a way ofshaping that world (2) Linguistic meaning is dynamic and flexible (3) Linguistic meaning isencyclopedic and non-autonomous: The meaning we construct in and through the language isnot separate and independent module of the mind, but it reflects our overall experience ashuman beings (4) Linguistic meaning is based on usage and experience: Linguistic meaning isexperientially grounded-rooted in experience CL is a usage-based model of grammar: if wetake the experiential nature of grammar seriously, we will have to take the actual experience oflanguage seriously, and that is experience of actual language use

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:(1) As we are embodied beings, not pured minds, our organic nature influences our experience

of the world, and we reflect this experience in the language; and (2) We also have a culturaland social entity, and our language may reveal that identity, i.e., language may embody thehistorical and cultural experience of group of speakers (and individuals) These experiencesdiffer from culture to culture (ibid.)

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, thebasic unit of language is a form-meaning pairing known as a construction

CG claims that grammar and meaning are indissociable Grammar reduces to the structuringand symbolization of conceptual content and thus has no autonomous existence at all(Langacker 1994) With regard to CG, Langacker (1991a) admits only three kinds of units:semantic (the concepts), symbolic (grammar, lexicon and morphology) and phonological (thesound) The symbolic units connect the other two kinds ‘Grammar is thus considered

“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, overlapping entities However, language and culture overlap extensively, and both are facets ofcognition.” He then continues arguing that in identifying language and culture as facets ofcognition, the role of context and social interaction in their formation and maintenance,interpretation and continuous adaptation cannot be denied or diminished as “a major andessential portion of ongoing cognition resides in apprehension of physical, social, cultural andlinguistic context” (ibid.)

non-It can be seen in Strauss & Quinn (1997: 42-45) that the prototypes of cognitive categories arenot fixed, but may change when a particular context is introduced More generally, the wholeinternal structure of a category seems to depend on the context and, in a wider sense, on oursocial and cultural knowledge, which is thought to be organized in cognitive and culturalmodels Ungerer & Schmid (1996: 49-50) also argue that cognitive models represent acognitive, basically psychological, view of the stored knowledge about a certain field whilecultural models are, of course, not universal, but depend on the culture in which a persongrows up and lives The culture provides the background for all situations that we have toexperience in order to be able to form a cognitive model Essensially, cognitive models andcultural models are two sides of the same coin Both cognitive models and cultural models can

be applied to discuss English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality, in Chapter III andIV

According to Tyler (2008: 461), CL ‘rejects the long-held notion that language is composed ofinsulated sub-modules that have their own special organizational systems’ CL treats both

metaphor and knowledge of the real world force dynamics as fundamental aspects of humancognition that are pervasively reflected in language Under a cognitive linguistic account, thesame principles of metaphorical extension and knowledge of force dynamics that account forsemantic extension of open-class lexical items, … and semantic extension of closed-classlexical items, (cf Tyler & Evans, 2003) are also central to the systematic, principled account

of verb argument structure and the particular syntactic patterns in which individual verbsoccur (Goldberg, 2006) Thus, the concept of force dynamics will be discussed in details insection 1.4.3 and across Chapter III and IV

1.4.3 Force Dynamics and Modality

1.4.3.1 The Notion of Force Dynamics

Some Cognitive linguists such as Langacker (1999: 308) claim that modal verbs have twocrucial properties: (1) Modal verbs have force- dynamics, which ‘are inherent in theconceptualizer’s mental activity, hence subjectively construed in the strong sense’ and (2) theevent marked by the complement remains potential rather than actual.’ According toGärdenfors (2007: 66), the role of forces, in general, is underrated within cognitive semantics

In Piaget’s theory of sensory-motor schemas, which were developed for modeling cognitivedevelopment, not semantics, motor patterns are central However, some linguists such asSweetser (1990); Talmy (1985, 1988, 2000a, 2003, 2006, 2008); Johnson (1987); Langacker(1990, 1991a, 1999); Pelyvás (1996, 2000); Gärdenfors (2007); Taylor (2002); Mulder (2007);and Mortelmans (2007) argue that “force dynamics” framework has been influential in the waymodality is conceptualized in CL Force dynamics (FD), defined by Talmy (2003: 409), ‘refers

to how entities interact with respect to force, which includes the exertion of force, resistance tosuch a force, the overcoming of such resistance, blockage of the expression of force, removal

of such blockage and the like.’ FD emerges ‘as a fundamental notional system that structuresconceptual material pertaining to force interaction in a common way across a linguistic range:the physical, psychological, social, inferential, discourse, and mental-model domains ofreference and conception’ (ibid.)

In the Western academic society, when scholars speak of force, it is natural to think ofNewtonian physics and Newtonian forces But when it comes to everyday human thinking, it is

important to distinguish between a first-person and a third-person perspective of forces ‘From

the first-person perspective, it is the forces that act directly on you that are considered’

(Gärdenfors, 2007: 69) These “forces” are not just the physical Newtonian forces, ‘but more

importantly also the social or emotional forces that affect you.’ (ibid.)

Johnson (1987) argues that image schemas emerge from bodily experiences and perceptions It

is plausible that FD concepts have similar origin, for example in our experience of thingscolliding into each other (and of ourselves colliding into things) Moreover, ‘we conceptualizeforce-dynamic interactions in terms of a figure-ground contrast; we focus on what happens to a

‘privileged’ entity, the Agonist.’ (Taylor, 2002: 528) “Force dynamics” pertains to therepresentation of force interaction and causal relations occurring between certain entitieswithin the structured situation’ (Talmy 2000a: 1-8)

1.4.3.2 Force-dynamic Parameters

In force-dynamic parameters, there is primary distinction between the two entities exerting theforces:

(1) One force-exerting entity (Agonist, indicated by a circle in Figure 1.2a) is foregrounded

or singled out for focal attention – the salient issue in the interaction is whether this entity

is able to manifest its force tendency or, on the contrary, is overcome, and

(2) The second force entity (Antagonist, indicated by a concave in Figure 1.2a),correlatively, is considered for the effect it has on the agonist, effectively overcoming it ornot

"An entity is taken to exert a force by virtue of an intrinsic tendency towards manifesting it":towards motion (action) and towards rest (inaction) (in Figure 1.2b) Opposed forces havedifferent relative strength: "the entity that is able to manifest its tendency at the expense of itsopponent is the stronger (+)" (in Figure 1.2c) "According to their relative strengths, theopposing forces yield a resultant": assessed only for the agonist, action or inaction (in Figure1.2d)

Figure 1.2 Force Dynamic Entities (Talmy, 2000a: 414)

Note: The terms (Agonist and Antagonist) are taken from physiology An Agonist is amuscle whose action is opposed by another muscle, the Antagonist Our focus goes mainly

on the behaviour of the Agonist in relation to the Antagonist (The Agonist is therefore thetrajector of the relation between the entities) The Agonist has a natural disposition towardseither rest (or inaction) or motion (i.e change) The Antagonist is able to exert a force onthe Agonist The force may overcome the natural disposition of the Agonist; alternatively,the Agonist resists the force of the Antagonist (Taylor 2002: 525)

According to Talmy, as Agonist and Antagonist function within language, they are considered

as semantic roles, on a par with Agent The roles they represent for force interactions,moreover, are wholly parallel to those within spatial and temporal relations such as “Figure”and “Ground” (Talmy 2000a)

This long conception of forces and their interaction, according to Mulder (2007: 296) result in

4 basic force-dynamic patterns:

a The Agonist’s intrinsic tendency toward rest is overcome by a stronger Antagonist,which forces it to move

b The Agonist’s tendency toward rest is stronger than the force opposing it, consequently,the Agonist remains in place

c The Agonist’s inherent tendency toward motion is opposed by the Antagonist, but theAgonist is stronger entity

d The Agonist has a tendency toward motion but the Antagonist is stronger and blocks it.Diagrammatically, the four basic force-dynamic patterns are represented in Figure 1.3 ForSweetzer (1990), modality is characterized as “basically referring to intentional, directedforces and barriers” and its experientially basic level of operation is the sociophysical worlds.Nevertheless, Talmy also believes that the modals in their basic usage refer to psychosocialrather than to physical interaction (2000a: 441)

Figure 1.3 The basic steady-state force-dynamic patterns (Talmy 2000a: 415) 1.4.3.3 Features of Force

According to Johnson (1987: 43-44), there are a number of features that typically play a role inour sense of force:

(1) Force is always experienced through interaction;

(2) Our experience of force usually involves the movement of some object (mass) through

space in some direction In another word, force has a vector quality or direction;

(3) There is typically a single path of motion Our prototypical schema would have the

force vector moving along a path, or moving an object along a path;

(4) Forces have origins or sources, and because they are directional, agents can direct them

to targets;

(5) Forces have degrees of power or intensity In some cases, such as physical forces, we

may be able to give only a relative ranking, such as saying that force X is stronger thanforce Y; and

(6) Because we experience force via interaction, there is always a structure or sequence of causality involved The agent of the causal sequence can be either an animate and

purposive being, or it can be a mere inanimate object or event; but in either case therelevant forces are always actual or potential forces in an actual or potential sequence ofcausal interaction

What Johnson (1987) has just described is a general gestalt structure for force “Gestaltstructure” refers to “an organized, unified whole within our experience and understanding that