Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
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 – 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 ………………………………………………. 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 ……………………………………… 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 …………………………… 1.5.1. Modality and Modal Verbs …………………………………………. 1.5.2. Root Modality ……………………………………………………… . 1.5.2.1. Obligation …………………………………………………………… v i ii iii v ix x xi 1 5 7 8 9 9 12 13 13 14 16 19 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 28 33 33 36 37 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 ………………………… 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. 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 ……………………………………………………………… vi 38 40 40 41 42 42 44 45 45 49 49 51 52 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 56 56 58 64 67 72 73 73 74 77 77 78 93 93 93 100 100 100 105 105 105 110 113 113 113 115 115 115 4.4. Probability in English and Vietnamese ……………………………… 4.4.1. Form ………………………………………………………………… 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 ……………………………………………… PART THREE: CONCLUSION …………………………………………. 1. Recapitulation …………………………………………………………… 2. Implication ……………………………………………………………… 2.1. For English Language Learning and Teaching …………………………. 2.2. For Language Research …………………………………………………. 3. Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………… . 4. Suggestions for Further Study …………………………………………. Articles related to the study ……………………………………………… References ………………………………………………………………… Appendix A: Titles of English Texts in the English Corpus …………… Appendix B: Titles of Vietnamese Texts in the Vietnamese Corpus …… Appendix C: String Matching of Modal Verbs in E and VNese Corpora Appendix D: Tables ………………………………………………………. vii 122 122 122 131 131 131 138 139 143 143 148 148 149 150 150 I II XVII XXV XXXIII LXV 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 60 67 68 70 72 75 76 LXV 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 92 99 104 110 114 121 130 137 LXVI LXVII 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 viii LXV LXV 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 1.5. Blockage (Johnson, 1987: 46) Figure 1.6. Counterforce (Johnson, 1987: 46) Figure 1.7. Removal of Restraint (Johnson, 1987: 47) Figure 1.8. Enablement (Johnson, 1987: 47) Figure 1.9. Langacker’s basic epistemic model (1991a: 242) Figure 1.10. Langacker’s (1991a: 277) Dynamic Evolutionary Model Figure 2.1. String Matching of Must in the English corpus Figure 2.1. String Matching of Phải in the English corpus Figure 3.1. “Narrow scope” deontic should/ ought (Pelyvás 2006: 144) Figure 3.2. (Agonist) need not VP (Talmy 2000a: 454) Figure 3.3. Deontic must (Pelevás 2008) Figure 3.4. (Agonist) must not VP (Talmy 2000a: 454) Figure 3.5. (Ago) has to VP (Talmy 2000a: 447) Figure 3.6. Nên for obligation Figure 3.7. CN + không cần + V Figure 3.8. Deontic phải for strong obligation Figure 3.9. (Ago) can’t VP (Talmy 2000a: 456) Figure 3.10. Deontic may (Pelyvás 2006: 140) Figure 3.11. (Ago) may not VP (Talmy 2000a: 447) Figure 3.12. Có thể for permission Figure 3.13. Blockage Figure 3.14. (Agonist) can VP (Talmy 2000a: 445) Figure 3.15. May- ability (Pelyvás 2006: 140) Figure 3.16. Có thể for ability Figure 3.17. WILL – ‘Wish’, ‘CHOOSE’ (‘Narrow scope’) (Pelyvás 2008) Figure 4.1. Epistemic must (Pelyvás 2008) Figure 4.2. Epistemic phải Figure 4.3. ‘Wide scope’ deontic should/ought (Pelyvás 2006: 145) Figure 4.4. Epistemic will (Pelyvás 2008) Figure 4.5 Epistemic nên Figure 4.6. Epistemic Figure 4.7. Epistemic may (Pelyvás, 2006: 147) Figure 4.8. Có thể for possibility ix 20 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 32 65 66 79 82 83 85 85 87 89 91 94 95 96 97 98 101 102 103 106 117 120 123 126 127 129 132 135 Figure 3.13a Figure 3.13b String Matching of MIGHT in the English Corpus String Matching of MIGHT NOT in the English Corpus Figure 3.13c String Matching of MIGHT BE in the English Corpus LII Figure 3.14a String Matching of CÓ THỂ in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.14b String Matching of KHÔNG THỂ in the Vietnamese Corpus LIII Figure 3.14c String Matching of CÓ THỂ PHẢI in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.14d String Matching of CÓ THỂ SẼ in the Vietnamese Corpus LIV Figure 3.14e String Matching of CÓ THỂ NÓI in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.15a String Matching of WILL in the English Corpus LV Figure 3.15b String Matching of WILL NOT in the English Corpus Figure 3.15c String Matching of WILL BE in the English Corpus LVI Figure 3.15d String Matching of WILL NOT BE in the English Corpus Figure 3.16a String Matching of WOULD in the English Corpus LVII Figure 3.16b String Matching of WOULD NOT in the English Corpus Figure 3.16c String Matching of WOULD BE in the English Corpus LVIII Figure 3.16d String Matching of WOULD NOT BE in the English Corpus Figure 3.16e String Matching of WOULD HAVE in the English Corpus LIX Figure 3.17a String Matching of SHALL in the English Corpus Figure 3.17b String matching of SHALL BE in the English Corpus LX Figure 3.18a String Matching of SẼ in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.18b String Matching of SẼ KHÔNG in the Vietnamese Corpus LXI Figure 3.18c String Matching of SẼ BỊ in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.18d String Matching of SẼ ĐƯỢC in the Vietnamese Corpus LXII Figure 3.19 String Matching of ĐỊNH in the Vietnamese Corpus Figure 3.20 String Matching of MUỐN in the Vietnamese Corpus LXIII Figure 3.21 String Matching of DÁM in the Vietnamese Corpus APPENDIX D: TABLES LXIV Table 3.3. Distribution of E and VNese Modals in Root & Epistemic Senses English Modal Verbs Root % Epist 365 35.1 673 168 36.4 293 620 67.25 302 160 65.84 83 Modals 1.Can 2.Could 3.May 4.Might 5.Will 652 6.Would 580 7.Shall 33 8.Should/ought 9.Need 10.Must/ Have to 194 171 314 3257 76.1 68.5 52.26 204 46.52 71.25 68.1 100 231 69 147 266 20 2288 % 64.8 63.5 32.75 34.1 23.8 31.4 47.74 Vietnamese Modal Verbs Modals Root % Epist % 1.Có thể 494 26.7 694 20.09 2. Sẽ 180 9.75 489 14.15 3. Nên 4. Cần 150 141 8.13 7.64 215 923 6.22 26.71 5.Phải 607 32.88 1134 32.82 6. Định 0.43 0.00 7. Muốn 251 0.00 15 13.6 0.81 0.00 1846 100 3455 100 53.48 8. Dám 28.75 31.8 100 Table 3.4. Distribution of E & VNese Modal Verbs in the Two Corpora English Modal Verbs Tokens Verbs 1. Can 2. Could 3. May 4. Might 5.Will 6.Would 7. Shall 8. Should/ought to 9. Must/Have to 10. Need Total 1038 461 922 243 856 846 53 425 461 240 545 Vietnamese Modal Verbs % 18.72 8.31 16.63 4.38 15.44 15.26 0.96 7.66 8.31 4.33 100% Verbs Tokens % 1.Có thể 2. Sẽ 3. Nên 4. Cần 5.Phải 6. Định 7.Toan 8. Muốn 9. Dám 1188 669 365 1064 1741 251 15 22.41 12.62 6.89 20.07 32.84 0.15 4.74 0.28 Total 5301 100% Table 3.5. Distribution of Co-occurrence of Modal Verbs in the VNese Corpus nên cần phải không nên 0 0 37 cần 32 phải 10 177 22 258 LXV 0 0 11 0 0 (không thể: 217) Table 4.5 Distribution of English Modal Verbs in Disciplines Modals Esci Eedu Epsy Eling Ecult Eeco Elaw 59 325 71 605 59 471 80 325 62 586 61 424 105 534 11.ought to 158 – 266 330 130219 132 128215 761 83139 907 4575 853 5491 024 5592 710 2542 141 3558 997 23 371 195272 327 119166 190 76106 138 6793 569 76106 138 2839 103 3853 069 3041 897 5475 414 45 586 172214 130 199247 744 104129 474 103128 229 4353 533 4252 288 7593 371 4252 288 3239 838 11 245 126201 323 86137 411 79126 226 69110 248 3962 314 5181 488 5283 086 3962 314 2438 347 914 380 Total Per million 715 687 102171 512 160269 039 99166 468 4880 712 2338 674 5389 119 2338 674 2948 763 4575 667 11 681 11 681 574 813 564 126205 132 74120 474 139226 296 161262 113 5081 401 99161 175 67109 078 1117 908 3252 097 1321 164 11 628 773 159150 662 154145 925 231218 887 315298 482 134126 973 130123 183 153144 977 6763 487 2826 532 2422 741 65 685 1401 205225 959430 965176 012138 901160 258465 1327534 1. can 2. may 3. will 4. would 5. should 6.could 7.must/have to 8. 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 Tota l 1038 922 856 846 417 461 461 243 240 53 5545 Table 4.6 Distribution of Vietnamese Modal Verbs in different disciplines Modals Vsci 70 040 220 314 106 134 191 319 178254 140 86122 787 4969 960 Vedu 58 656 205 349 495 134 228 451 210358 020 84143 208 5492 062 Vpsy 65 741 220 334 647 133 202 309 106161 239 66100 394 5177 577 34579 650 Total 28399 771 1142 775 696 Per million 993 371 1.phải 2. 3. cần 4. 5. nên 6.định 7.muốn 8.dám Vcult 78 786 221 280 507 155196 735 84 106 618 7595 195 5266 002 721 28425 913 4608 448 608 Vling 76 459 379 495 691 344 449 914 168219 726 104136 021 5571 934 79 155 77993 996 2261 578 1136 229 200 924 841 485 763 809 788 45571 167 6761 556 638 Veco 81 595 232 284 331 170 208 346 190232 857 116142 166 4858 827 11 225 16196 090 Vlaw 68 723 264 384 141 118171 704 128186 255 138200 806 5681 487 Total 500000 1741 251 773 23334 676 2291 023 729 947 361 060780 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 1188 1064 669 365 15 5301 [...]... epistemic modality, and Linden (2012) on modal adjectives This chapter begins with describing and analysing the concept of modality, types and meanings of modality from traditional point of view It is due to the fact that the semantic category of modality is not as easily defined as tense or aspect (Bybee, Perkins & Pagluica 1994: 176) and modality and its types can be defined and named in various ways,” and. .. extensively, and both are facets of cognition.” He then continues arguing that in identifying language and culture as facets of cognition, the role of context and social interaction in their formation and maintenance, interpretation and continuous adaptation cannot be denied or diminished as a major and essential portion of ongoing cognition resides in apprehension of physical, social, cultural and linguistic... 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 cultural and social entity, and our language may reveal... in particular, in two 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 Vietnamese modality from Cognitive perspective, more specifically, in term of force dynamics 7 1.6.2 Practical... basic unit of language is a form-meaning pairing known as a construction CG claims that grammar and meaning are indissociable Grammar reduces to the structuring and symbolization of conceptual content and thus has no autonomous existence at all (Langacker 1994) With regard to CG, Langacker (199 1a) admits only three kinds of units: semantic (the concepts), symbolic (grammar, lexicon and morphology) and. .. 1.4.1.1 Linguistic Universals Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language This implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis; the set of rules is what is known as universal grammar It is claimed that ‘every speaker knows a set of principles which apply to all languages and also a set of PARAMETERS that can vary from one language to another,... 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 The basic principle is simply that “language is all about meaning” Each of the following... Objectives of the Study The ultimate aim of the study to show how force dynamics framework is used as a powerful tool to describe, analyze and compare/contrast modality in English and Vietnamese in order to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modality as realized by modal verbs so that it can help improve improve teaching and learning English in Vietnamese context Therefore,... productive hedging devices is using modal expressions, more specifically modal verbs Adams Smith (1984) found in his study on authoring remarks in research articles that half of the instances of authors’ comment contained a modal verb and the other half contained adjectives or adverb of probability In a study of modality and modal responsibility in research articles in English, Rezzano (2004) shows that the... and analyse the root and epistemic senses of English and Vietnamese modal verbs The data submitted to the English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality are mostly taken from the two corpora: one in English and the other in Vietnamese With the help of the corpus-based analysis - the TexSTAT-2 programme, the study seeks to find the frequency and KWIC (Key Word In Context) concordance of English and . modality between English and Vietnamese in order to raise awareness as well as interest in learning and teaching foreign languages in a way that one should take the social and cultural differences. the fact that the semantic category of modality is not as easily defined as tense or aspect (Bybee, Perkins & Pagluica 1994: 176) and modality and its types can be defined and named in various. and compare/contrast modality in English and Vietnamese in order to find the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese modality as realized by modal verbs so that it can help