tính tình thái trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt nghiên cứu từ góc độ tri nhận doctor thesis linguistics 62 22 15 01

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI UNIVERSITY 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 the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgements in the text of the dissertation Hanoi, 2015 Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Upon reaching this time, I have been fortunate to have benefited from encouragements and financial supports by my colleagues and Bacninh Teacher Training College where I have been 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, great encouragements, invaluable guidance and endless support during my research They give me a lifetime unforgettable memory of their benevolence, patience, intelligence, diligence and erudition My special thanks are expressed to professors and doctors at the University of Languages and 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 Cam Tam; 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 Nguyen Van 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 Do Thi 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 during the time the study was carried out I have also benefited from the assistance of other scholars I would particularly like to acknowledge the efficiency and expertise of Prof Dr Jack C Richards, Prof Dr Alexander Arguelles, Dr Melchor Tatlonghari during the time I started to conduct 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 wholehearted appreciation goes to my husband, Mr Nguyen Van Ban, and my two children: Nguyen Xuan Thang and Nguyen Bich Thuy, my parents, my brothers and sisters; for their emotional and material sacrifices as well as their understanding and unconditional supports Their encouragements and financial aids make all my endeavours worth doing ii ABSTRACT 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 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 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 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 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 in Vietnamese) However, there are a number of iii 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 non-equivalence 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 and/or vice versa iv TABLE OF CONTENT Pages CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY……………………………………… ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………… ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………… TABLE OF CONTENT …………………………………………………… LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………… LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………… ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………… PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………… 1.1 Rationale ……………………………………………………………… 1.2 Scopes of the Study …………………………………………………… 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study ………………………………… 1.4 Research Questions …………………………………………………… 1.5 Methods of the Study ………………………………………………… 1.6 Contribution of the Study …………………………………………… 1.6.1 Theoretical Significance of the Study ……………………………… 1.6.2 Practical Significance of the Study ………………………………… 1.7 Structure of the Dissertation ………………………………………… PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………… Chapter I: Literature Review …………………………………………… 1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 1.2 Modality from the Traditional Point of View ……………………… 1.2.1 The Concept of Modality ………………………………………… 1.2.2 Types of Modality …………………………………………………… 1.2.2.1 Agent-oriented Modality vs Speaker-oriented Modality ………… 1.2.2.2 Extrinsic Modality vs Intrinsic Modality ………………………… 1.2.2.3 Deontic Modality, Dynamic Modality and Epistemic Modality …… 1.2.2.4 Root Modality vs Epistemic Modality …………………………… 1.3 Modality in Scientific Writing ………………………………………… 1.4 Modality Viewed from Force Dynamics in Cognitive Perspective … 1.4.1 Definitions of Terms ………………………………………………… 1.4.1.1 Linguistic Universals ……………………………………………… v 1.4.1.2 Cognitive Linguistics ……………………………………………… 1.4.1.3 Cognitive Semantics ……………………………………………… 1.4.1.4 Cognitive Grammar ………………………………………………… 1.4.2 Major Principles of Cognitive Linguistics ………………………… 1.4.2.1 Language is all about meaning …………………………………… 1.4.2.2 Grammar and Meaning are indissociable ………………………… 1.4.2.3 Language, Cognition and Culture ………………………………… 1.4.3 Force Dynamics and Modality ……………………………………… 25 1.4.3.1 The Notion of Force Dynamics …………………………………… 1.4.3.2 Force-dynamic Parameters ………………………………………… 1.4.3.3 Features of Force …………………………………………………… 1.5 Root and Epistemic Modality in English …………………………… 33 1.5.1 Modality and Modal Verbs ………………………………………… 33 1.5.2 Root Modality ……………………………………………………… 1.5.2.1 Obligation …………………………………………………………… 1.5.2.2 Permission ………………………………………………………… 1.5.2.3 Ability ……………………………………………………………… 1.5.2.4 Volition …………………………………………………………… 1.5.3 Epistemic Modality ………………………………………………… 1.5.3.1 Necessity …………………………………………………………… 1.5.3.2 Probability ………………………………………………………… 1.5.3.3 Possibility …………………………………………………………… 1.6 Root and Epistemic Modality in Vietnamese ………………………… 45 1.6.1 Modality and Modal Verbs ………………………………………… 1.6.2 Root Modality ……………………………………………………… 1.6.2.1 Obligation …………………………………………………………… 1.6.2.2 Permission ………………………………………………………… 1.6.2.3 Ability ……………………………………………………………… 1.6.2.4 Volition …………………………………………………………… 1.6.3 Epistemic Modality ………………………………………………… 1.6.3.1 Necessity …………………………………………………………… 1.6.3.2 Probability ………………………………………………………… 1.6.3.3 Possibility …………………………………………………………… 1.7 vi Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………… Chapter II: Research Methodology ……………………………………… 2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 2.2 Research Questions …………………………………………………… 2.3 Methods of the study ………………………………………………… 2.4 Data collection ………………………………………………………… 2.5 Corpus - aided analysis ……………………………………………… 2.6 Cognitive Framework ………………………………………………… 2.7 Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………… Chapter III: Root Modality in English and Vietnamese ………………… 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3.2 General Findings ……………………………………………………… 3.3 Obligation in English and Vietnamese ……………………………… 3.3.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 3.3.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 3.4 Permission in English and Vietnamese ……………………………… 3.4.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 3.4.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 3.5 Ability in English and Vietnamese …………………………………… 3.5.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 3.5.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 3.6 Volition in English and Vietnamese ………………………………… 3.6.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 3.6.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 3.7 Concluding Remarks ………………………………………………… Chapter IV: Epistemic Modality in English and Vietnamese …………… 4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 4.2 General Findings ……………………………………………………… 4.3 Necessity in English and Vietnamese ………………………………… 4.3.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 4.3.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 4.4 Probability in English and Vietnamese ……………………………… 4.4.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… vii 4.4.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 4.5 Possibility in English and Vietnamese ……………………………… 4.5.1 Form ………………………………………………………………… 4.5.2 Meaning ……………………………………………………………… 4.6 English and Vietnamese Modal Verbs in Different Disciplines …… 4.7 Concluding Remarks……………………………………………… 139 PART THREE: CONCLUSION ………………………………………… Recapitulation …………………………………………………………… 143 Implication ……………………………………………………………… 148 2.1 For English Language Learning and Teaching ………………………… 148 2.2 For Language Research ………………………………………………… 149 Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………… 150 Suggestions for Further Study ………………………………………… 150 Articles related to the study ……………………………………………… I References ………………………………………………………………… II 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 Appendix D: Tables ……………………………………………………… LXV viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Data in English and Vietnamese Corpora Table 2.2 Distribution of Root and Epistemic Modality in the two Corpora Table 2.3 Categories of Low-Median-High FD in English and Vietnamese Table 2.4 Categories of Root Senses in English and Vietnamese Table 2.5 Categories of Epistemic Senses in English and Vietnamese Table 3.1 Distribution of Root Senses in the E and Vietnamese Corpora Table 3.2 Distribution of Low-Median-High FD in the E & VN Corpora Table 3.3 Distribution of E and VNese Modals in Root & Epistemic Senses Table 3.4 Distribution of E & VNese Modal Verbs in the Two Corpora Table 3.5 Distribution of Co-occurrence of Modal Verbs in the Vietnamese Corpus Table 3.6 Distribution of Obligation Realized by Modal Verbs in the E & VNese Corpora Table 3.7 Distribution of Permission realized by Modal verbs in E&VNese Corpora Table 3.8 Distribution of Ability realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora Table 3.9 Distribution of Volition realized by Modal verbs in E & VNese Corpora Table 4.1 Distribution of Epistemic Senses in the E & VNese Corpora Table 4.2 Distribution of Necessity realized by E &VNese Modal verbs Table 4.3 Distribution of Probability Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs Table 4.4 Distribution of Possibility Realized by E & VNese Modal verbs Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in Disciplines Table 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in different disciplines ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Cultural thought patterns (Kaplan, 1966: 15) Figure 1.2 Force Dynamic Entities (Talmy, 2000a: 414) Figure 1.3 The basic steady-state force-dynamic patterns (Talmy 2000a: 415) Figure 1.4 Compulsion (Johnson, 1987: 45) Figure 3.14b String Matching of KHÔNG THỂ in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.14c String Matching of CÓ THỂ PHẢI in the Vietnamese Corpus LIV Figure 3.14d String Matching of CÓ THỂ SẼ in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.14e String Matching of CÓ THỂ NÓI in the Vietnamese Corpus LV Figure 3.15a String Matching of WILL in the English Corpus Figure 3.15b String Matching of WILL NOT in the English Corpus LVI Figure 3.15c String Matching of WILL BE in the English Corpus Figure 3.15d String Matching of WILL NOT BE in the English Corpus LVII Figure 3.16a String Matching of WOULD in the English Corpus Figure 3.16b String Matching of WOULD NOT in the English Corpus LVIII Figure 3.16c String Matching of WOULD BE in the English Corpus Figure 3.16d String Matching of WOULD NOT BE in the English Corpus LIX Figure 3.16e String Matching of WOULD HAVE in the English Corpus Figure 3.17a String Matching of SHALL in the English Corpus LX Figure 3.17b String matching of SHALL BE in the English Corpus Figure 3.18a String Matching of SẼ in the Vietnamese Corpus LXI Figure 3.18b String Matching of SẼ KHÔNG in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.18c String Matching of SẼ BỊ in the Vietnamese Corpus LXII Figure 3.18d String Matching of SẼ ĐƯỢC in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.19 String Matching of ĐỊNH in the Vietnamese Corpus LXIII Figure 3.20 String Matching of MUỐN in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.21 String Matching of DÁM in the Vietnamese Corpus LXIV APPENDIX D: TABLES Table 3.3 Distribution of E and VNese Modals in Root & Epistemic Senses Modals 1.Can 2.Could 3.May 4.Might 5.Will 6.Would 7.Shall 8.Should/ought 9.Need 10.Must/ Have to Table 3.4 Distribution of E & VNese Modal Verbs in the Two Corpora English Modal Verbs Verbs Can Could May Might 5.Will 6.Would Shall Should/ought to Must/Have to 10 Need Total Table 3.5 Distribution of Co-occurrence of Modal Verbs in the VNese Corpu nên cần phải khơng LXV Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in Disciplines E Modals 11.ought to 2 9 Total Per million 1 can may will would should 6.could 7.must/have to might 9.need 10 shall Note: The number in bold and italics refers to the total words of each discipline The number in bold refers to the actual occurrences The number in italics refers to the number of words per million LXVI Table 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in different disciplines Modals 1.phải cần nên 6.định 7.muốn Vsci 70 040 220 314 106 134 191 319 178254 140 86122 787 4969 960 Total 28399 771 1142 775 696 Per million 993 371 8.dám Note: The number in bold and italics refers to the total words of each discipline The number in bold refers to the actual occurrences The number in italics refers to the number of words per million LXVII ... (2002, 2003), V.Đ.Nghiệu (1998), B.T.Ngoãn (2002, 2003), H.V.Thông (2 001) , 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... Cognitive linguistics to embrace corpus research: (1) The growing tendency in Cognitive linguistics is assumed to stress its essential nature as a usage-based linguistics We cannot have usage-based linguistics. .. and Vietnamese Table 3.1 Distribution of Root Senses in the E and Vietnamese Corpora Table 3.2 Distribution of Low-Median-High FD in the E & VN Corpora Table 3.3 Distribution of E and VNese Modals