PART I: INTRODUCTION* * *

1. MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY

Natural languages, true enough, offer speakers many and various linguistic devices to

facilitate their communication. That is, these devices are supposed to support the speakers

in terms of sharing information together with expressing their emotions and attitudes. More

importantly, these linguistic devices do give some certain influence over the listeners or

the information recipients’ beliefs or behaviors. These devices fall into the category of

Evidentials – one kind of Epistemic modality.

(1) It sounds like it’s raining. (Evidentials)

(2) The rumor is that she was killed. (Evidentials)

Linguistically, Evidentials are of prime importance in both spoken and written language.

Evidentials, admittedly, are said to come to the speakers’ assistance in expressing well

their certainties, their doubts, their guesses, and their hypotheses in conversations and

writings based upon the certain and absorbed ground of information. In other words, their

utterance is normally said to consist of their attitudes towards the accepted fact in terms of

believability, reliability, and compatibility.

However, not many linguists have formed a distinctively profound study on Evidential

modal markers. Most of the celebrated linguists have paid great attention to discussing

Modality in general and Epistemic modality in particular. Palmer (Mood and Modality,

1986), for example, investigates and restricts his study of Epistemic modality to what is

systematized and organized within the grammatical systems of languages. Whereas,

Holmes (Mood and Modality,1986) presents the expression of Epistemic modality to which

is attached the use of the full range of lexical devices in a variety of written and spoken

texts. Lyons (Semantics, 1977) then offers theoretically possible examples of objective

Epistemic modality together with subjective modality including modal adverbs such as

1

“certainly” and “possibly” mentioned as lexical devices. Givón (Mind, Code and Context –

Essays in Pragmatics, 1989) also shows his interest in modality in a way of producing a

theory of Epistemic scale, meanwhile Halliday (An Introduction to Functional Grammar,

1985) applies his Theme-Rheme structure to the describing the syntactic functions of

Epistemic markers in a clause as message. Also, among the Vietnamese linguists who

prove absorbed in studying Epistemic modality, Do Huu Chau stands out as a linguist who

discusses the concept of Epistemic modality in the view of pragmatics under his account

(Systematic Semantics – Active Semantics, 1983).

Besides, as far as learners of English are concerned, to master successfully Evidentials is

not an easy task, even for those who are at more advanced proficiency levels. It is well

observed that English learners just focus on the use of some certain Evidentials such as

“think, sure, believe”, which sound popular and are ready on the tip of their tongue. To put

another way, they lack varieties of Evidentials to encode the ground of information in their

utterance. Consequently, that is thought to cause a barrier to the communication co-

operation, even the doubt about the reliability of the utterance. Moreover, the poor use of

Evidentials this way limits them to boring conversations.

Given all the reasons, such a good and informatively full-of-knowledge study on

Evidentials in English is necessary. Thus, the choice of “A study on Evidential Modal

Markers in English” as the subject of the thesis is not accidental.

2. AIMS OF THE STUDY

The study of Evidentials in English is centrally concerned with the following focuses:

i. How evidentiality is expressed by Evidential modal adverbs and adjectives in English.

ii. How evidentiality is expressed by Evidential modal nouns in English.

iii. How evidentiality is expressed by Evidential modal lexical verbs in English.

To achieve the aim, the study will examine three factors – semantic, syntactic, and

pragmatic – that are said to have effects on the use of the expression forms of Evidentials.

2

The study is expected to clarify the relationship between these expression forms and the

difference in the way they express evidentiality.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to the limitation of time, it seems too ambitious to cover all the means to encode

evidentiality in English. Therefore, it is much better and more practical that the study just

centers on pure Evidentials. Hence, a relatively small set of high-frequency Evidential

lexical items which are restricted to our attention appear to stand out as follows:

Evidential modal adverbs and adjectives: seemingly, apparently - apparent,

evidently - evident, obviously - obviously, surely – sure, undoubtedly, doubtful.

Evidential modal nouns: rumor, doubt, truth.

Evidential modal lexical verbs: think, believe, guess, suppose, doubt, see, hear,

taste, feel, smell, appear, seem, say, tell, sound, look.

Despite the fact that the paralinguistic factors such as hesitations, facial expressions, body

gestures, eye movements, etc. play an important role in expressing evidentiality, we find it

impossible to figure them out in this thesis due to the limitation of time. That is the reason

why we study Evidentials in only three aspects: semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic.

In terms of semantic aspect, we will have a focused investigation into the lexical meaning

of the Evidential modal markers. On these grounds, we will put them in order of certainty

level, which proves useful for our study analysis.

As far as syntactic aspect is concerned, we will have a close look at the way the utterances

including Evidential modal markers are grammatically structured. Moreover, the position

of these Evidential modal markers embedded within the utterance grasps our great

attention.

3

From the pragmatic aspect, we find it necessary to deal with the conditions that govern the

use of these Evidential modal markers in the process of communication such as speech

acts. Additionally, in order to have a more comprehensive account on the culture-specific

aspect of Evidential modal markers, we will take account of theory of politeness.

4. METHODS OF THE STUDY

Data collection procedure:

With respect to the data presented in the thesis, they include primarily examples collected

from authentic sources such as TV News Programmes at the website of BBC News

(http://news.bbc.co.uk) (the programs broadcast on 4th - 30th April, 2008), and the

newspaper International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of The New York Times,

Issues: September 5th - 14th, 2003. These written materials, and T.V News Programmes are

all of common topics found in everyday life. All the data were noted down when we were

watching the TV News Programmes and reading the issues of International Herald

Tribune. The data are collected randomly from these two sources. Yet, the data presented

in this study represent only a fraction of the data considered in developing the proposed

analysis. With a view to serving the study well, utterances used as examples are in

declarative form or the form for statements. A chosen utterance is required to:

correspond to the expression of an Evidential modal function,

and involve explicit one or more Evidential modal markers which have been

mentioned as Evidential modal adverbs and adjectives, Evidential modal nouns,

and Evidential modal lexical verbs.

Data analysis procedure:

The theoretical background is based on the theoretical frameworks by different linguists.

Von Wright (1951), Steele (1975), Lyons (1977, 1995), Givãn (1982, 1989), Palmer

(1986, 2000), Keifer (1987), etc. propose such well known and convincing researches on

which we will rely for the theory of Modality in general, and Epistemic modality in

4

particular. Meanwhile, the linguists such as Belbert, (1977), Barnes (1984), Anderson

(1986), Chafe (1986), Willett (1988), Bybee (1995), de Haan (1998, 2001), Nuyts (2000),

De Lancey (2001), etc. stand out with multi-dimensional reseaches into Evidentials. That

seems to open a world of references relevant in support of this thesis. The presentation of

these linguists’ theory is to give the readers a big picture of Modality, Epistemic modality,

and Evidentials. However, for the main aims of studying and analyzing the thesis

semantically, we are going to take the frameworks by Givãn (1982, 1989), and Palmer

(1986, 2000) into consideration as principal ground of theory on which the Evidential

modal markers are analyzed. The reason is that we look at Evidentials as devices of

modality, which is well supported by Palmer’s theory. Besides, we tend to rank these

Evidential modal markers at the scale of certainty level, which is well proposed by Givãn.

Furthermore, in terms of syntactic aspect, we are going to follow the theory by Quirk

(1972), and Halliday (1985) which forms the basis for the analysis of Evidentials. The two

linguists’ frameworks are at my disposal when investigating the position of the Evidential

modal markers located within the utterance and examining the grammatical structures built

for the expressions of evidentiality.

As stated in the Scope of the study, we are going to consider Evidential modal markers in

the context of the process of communication; hence, we will take account of the strategies

the speaker uses when uttering with Evidential modal markers in light of Searle’s (1969,

1985), and Austin’s (1962) theory about Speech Acts and Brown’s and Levinson’s (1987)

theory about politeness. That may well facilitate our discussion about the pragmatic

aspects of Evidentials in the thesis.

5. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

It sounds appropriate to divide the paper into three main parts:

Part I: Introduction

5

The Introduction presents the background of the study, states what the study is aimed at

and what specific tasks it deals with, identifies the delimitation of the study, and gives a

sketch of methods utilized together with the organization of the study.

Part II: Development

The Development includes 4 chapters:

Chapter 1 is concerned with the theoretical concepts of Modality, Epistemic

modality, and Evidentials.

Chapter 2 discusses the semantic features of English Evidential modal markers with

Vietnamese equivalents.

Chapter 3 presents the syntactic features of English Evidential modal markers.

Chapter 4 deals with the pragmatic features of English Evidential modal markers.

Part 3: Conclusion

The Conclusion offers an overview or a summary of the study in relation to modality,

epistemic modality in general, and Evidential modal markers in particular. Some

implications relevant are brought forward for learners of English and for further studies.

6

PART II: DEVELOPMENT

* * *

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. DEFINITION OF MODALITY

A brief glance at two well-known languages, Latin and English is sufficient to suggest that

the first assumption can be justified. Latin has its systems of mood: indicative, subjective

and imperative; while English has a system of modal verbs: may, can, will, must, etc.

The modal system of most familiar languages is formally associated, along with tense,

aspect and voice, with the verbal systems of the language (and even gender, number and

person are marked on the verb). Yet, modality, as will be seen, does not relate semantically

to the verb alone or primarily, but to the whole sentence. Not surprisingly, therefore, there

are languages in which modality is marked elsewhere rather than on the verb or within a

verbal complex.

It is common knowledge that the notion of modality is much vaguer and leaves open a

number of possible definitions. Here is the presentation of some promising definitions by

some celebrated and granted linguists.

1.1.1. DEFINITION OF MODALITY

In Palmer’s theory (Mood and Modality, 1986), modality is defined as semantic

information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said. Whereas,

Bybee (Morphology: A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form, 1985) offers a

broader definition that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition.

Though these definitions diverge on the particulars, they agree that modality concerns

7

entire statements, not just events or entities, and its domain is the whole expression at the

truth-functional level.

The notion content of modality highlights its association with entire statements; modality

concerns the factual status of information: it signals the relation actuality, validity or

believability of the content of an expression. Modality affects the overall assertability of an

expression and thus takes the entire proposition within its scope. As such, modality evokes

not only objective measures of factual status but also subjective attitudes and orientation

toward the content of an expression by its utterers.

Halliday (An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1985) views that modality represents

the speaker’s angle, either on the validity of the assertion, or on the rights and wrongs of

the proposal. It is obviously seen that his definition of modality does not diverge much

from Palmer’s and Bybee’s.

For the good sake of a manageable study, it is recommended that Modality herein be

understood in its narrow sense as a semantic term concerning the speaker’s attitude or

opinion to the utterance.

1.1.2. PROPOSITION AND MODALITY

Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, 1924) talks about the “content of the sentence”

and Lyons (Semantics, 1977) about “the proposition that the sentence expresses”, both

wishing to distinguish them from the speaker’s attitude or opinion. This assumes that a

distinction can be made in a sentence between the modal and the propositional elements,

between modality and proposition.

The distinction between proposition and modality is very close to that of locutionary act

and illocutionary act as proposed by Austin (How to do things with words, 1962). In the

locutionary act we are “saying something”, while in the illocutionary act we are “doing

something” – answering a question, announcing a verdict, giving a warning or making a

promise. These ideas are on the basis of speech act theory.

8

Lewis (An analysis of knowledge and evaluation, 1946) proposes that “the proposition is

assertable; the contents of the assertion…can be questioned, denied or merely supposed,

and can be entertained in other moods as well.” But “modality” in this sense, referring to

all the non-propositional elements of a sentence, is much wider than in the sense in which

it will be used here.

Similarly, Rescher (Topics in philosophical logic, 1968) talks about propositions and

argues that where a proposition (which may be true or false) is subject to further

qualification, this qualification represents modality.

1.1.3. TYPES OF MODALITY

The distinction that Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, 1924) draws between his two

sets: “containing an element of will and not containing an element of will” is closely

paralleled in Lyons’ reference to “the speaker’s opinion or attitude towards the

proposition described”. Lyons, in conjunction with other scholars, recognizes two kinds of

modality, using Wright’s terms:

Epistemic modality, which is concerned with matters of knowledge, belief or opinion

rather than fact.

Deontic modality, which is concerned with the necessity or possibility of acts performed

by morally responsible agents.

Steele et al. (An encyclopedia of AUX: a study in cross-linguistic equivalence, 1981)

implicitly make the same distinction: “Elements expressing modality will mark any of the

following: possibility or the related notion of permission, probability or the related notion

of obligation, certainty or the related notion of recruitment.” The remarks in Steele et al.

can be illustrated from English; the following sentences can be interpreted either in terms

of possibility, probability, and necessity, or in terms of permission, obligation and

requirement:

9

(3) He may come tomorrow.

(Perhaps he will/ He is permitted.)

(4) The book should be on the shelf.

(It probably is/ Its proper place is.)

(5) He must be in his office.

(I am certain that he is/ He is obliged to be.)

Lyons (1977) also suggests a distinction between objective modality and subjective

modality. He presents a typical example:

(6) Alfred may be unmarried.

It can be interpreted that the speaker may be understood as subjectively qualifying his

commitment to the possibility of Alfred’s being unmarried in his own certainty terms and

the sentence is more or less equivalent to “perhaps Alfred is unmarried”. There are,

however, situations in which the possibility of Alfred’s being unmarried is presentable as

an objective fact. The speaker might reasonably say that he knows, and does not merely

think or believe, that there is a possibility of Alfred’s being unmarried. In his words:

“Objective modality refers to reality; it is part of the description of the world. Subjective

modality, on the other hand, is the expression of the speaker’s beliefs.”

These are two kinds of epistemic modality. The semantic differences between subjective

and objective epistemic modality are significant. Objective modalized sentences are

statements of fact; thus, they can be denied and questioned while subjective epistemic

sentences, express the speaker’s beliefs and not statement of fact; hence, they cannot be

denied or questioned.

1.2. EPISTEMIC MODALITY

1.2.1. DEFINITIONS OF EPISTEMIC MODALITY

10

The term “epistemic” is suggested to be applied to not only modal systems that basically

involve the notions of possibility and necessity, but to any modal system that indicates the

degree of commitment by the speaker to what he says. In particular, it should include

Evidentials such as “hearsay” or “report” (the Quotative) or the evidence of the senses. The

Declarative, moreover, can be regarded as the unmarked (“unmodalized”) member of an

epistemic system, though by this definition some languages have no “unmodalized”

declaratives.

This use of the term may be wider than usual, but it seems completely justified

etymologically since it is derived from Greek word meaning “understanding” or

“knowledge” (rather than “belief”), and so is to be interpreted as showing the status of the

speaker’s understanding or knowledge; this clearly includes both his own judgments and

the kind of warrant he has for what he says.

It is often claimed in the linguistics literature that epistemic modality, unlike other kinds of

modality, does not contribute to the truth conditions of the utterance. Relatedly, several

commentators argue that epistemic modality expresses a comment on the proposition

expressed by the rest of the utterance:

Epistemic modality… is the speaker’s assessment of probability and predictability. It is

external to the content, being a part of the attitude taken up by the speaker: his attitude, in

this case, towards his own speech role as ‘declarer’. (Halliday, 1970: 349)

Epistemic modality indicates … the status of the proposition in terms of the speaker’s

commitment to it. (Palmer, 1986: 54-5)

Epistemics are clausal-scope indicators of a speaker’s commitment to the truth of a

proposition. (Bybee & Fleischman, 1995: 6)

11

Epistemic modals must be analyzed as evidential markers. As such they are part of the

extra-propositional layer of clause structure and take scope over all propositional

operators... (Drubig, 2001: 44)

The intuition underlying this view is that epistemic modality in natural language marks the

degree and/or source of the speaker’s commitment to the embedded proposition.

According to this view, the proposition expressed by the utterance in (9) can be

paraphrased by (10); the modal force of the utterance indicates that the speaker entertains

the embedded proposition with a low degree of commitment:

(7) John may be at home.

(8) John is at home.

This position on epistemic modality is at odds with several semantic treatments of

modality, in which epistemic modality (alongside other types of modality) is seen as

regularly contributing to truth conditions. On these accounts, modal operators in natural

language encode modal force (necessity or possibility) which gets relativized with respect

to different types of contextual assumptions or conversational backgrounds (Kratzer, 1981;

1991; cf. Lewis, 1986; Brennan, 1993; Papafragou, 2000). Depending on the specific

conversational background selected, modal expressions receive different kinds of

interpretation, as shown by the paraphrases in the examples below:

(9) The children must be leaving.

(10) a. In view of what the speaker knows, the children must be leaving.

b. In view of what their obligations are, the children must be leaving.

(11) John may leave.

(12) a. In view of what the speaker knows, John may leave.

b. In view of what the circumstances are, John may leave.

The interpretations in (9a), (12a) involve epistemic conversational backgrounds, while

those in (9b) or (12b) involve deontic (or root) conversational backgrounds. In this kind of

12

theory, deontic and epistemic modality are treated symmetrically, and both are seen as

contributing to the proposition expressed by the utterance.

1.2.2. TYPES OF EPISTEMIC MODALITY

It is well known that Palmer claims epistemic modality is divided into two basic

categories: Judgements and Evidentials. It is can be vividly described in the diagram

below:

Epistemic modality

Evidentials JudgmentsType a Type b Inference Confidence

“certainty” - Knowledge

Visual [Declarative] [Declarative] [Declarative] – Belief

Non-visual Sensation

Report

Deductive Deductive

Assumptive Assumptive “probably”

Spectaculative “possibly”

Diagram 1: Types of Epistemic modality

(Palmer, 1986 : 95)

Notes:[ ]

unmarked memberequivalence“stronger than”

13

As shown in the diagram, Judgments and Evidentials are stated to be concerned with the

indication by the speaker of his commitment to the truth of the proposition being

expressed. Concretely, the former includes all epistemic notions that involve possibility

and necessity, particularly with regard to speculation and deduction on the part of the

speaker as subject or perceiver of the information. Judgments assert the possibility of the

truth of a proposition without any overt indication of the grounds for the assertion.

Judgments can be categorized by the degree of confidence that the speaker has in the

assertion, which produce two subcategories: necessary judgments and possible

judgments, respectively based upon inference and confidence, deduction and speculation,

or strong and weak judgment. It is observed that Judgments in English, which have a

variety of modal auxiliaries to indicate the speaker’s assessment of the content of the

proposition. It is well described in these following examples:

(13) Michael might lead the league in scoring next season.

(14) There must have been many chairs in that room.

In contrast to Judgments are Evidentials, which encode the grounds on which a speaker

makes an overtly qualified assertion. Unlike Judgments, Evidentials explicitly signal the

collateral that a speaker takes as substantiating an assertion. The concepts as well as the

types of Evidentials will be discussed further and detailedly presented in the next part.

1.3. CONCEPTS OF EVIDENTIALS

1.3.1. DEFINITIONS OF EVIDENTIALS

As mentioned above, Evidentials encode the grounds on which a speaker makes an overtly

qualified assertion. To put it in another way, Evidentials encode the speakers’ source of

information as well as indicate the reliability of the information. They put in perspective or

evaluate the truth-value of a sentence both with respect to the source of the information

contained in the sentence, and concerning the degree to which this truth can be verified or

justified. Synonymously, Evidentials illustrate the type of justification for a claim that is

14

available to the person making that claim. This justification can be expressed by markers

referring to immediate evidence on the basis of visual observation, to inference on the

basis of (non)observable facts, to deduction or inference, etc. In “Chafe & Nicholas”

(1986), briefly, they represent a “natural epistemology”.

More clearly stated, Evidentials also are to relativize or measure the information status of

the sentence. The term “information status” is intended to include both the truth-value of a

sentence and the relative importance accorded to it. Evidentials are said to own itself two

essential properties. First and most importantly, a source of evaluation or reliability of the

sentence is involved. This “source of information” defines who stands for the information

status of the sentence. Secondly, the information status of the sentence is most often

measured on the type varies: the sentence is measured with respect to reliability,

probability, expectation or desirability.

1.3.2. DEFINITIONS OF EVIDENTIAL MODAL MARKERS

Evidential modal markers are defined as lexical categories which indicate how and to

what extent speakers stand for the truth of the statements they make. In English, all

Evidential modal markers are lexical. English does not have grammaticalized Evidentials,

but there are lexicalized Evidentials. The lexicalized Evidentials of English include the

Evidential modal senses of verbs of expression and verbs of appearance, and Evidential

adverbs such as “evidently and apparently”. Other language units for Evidential modal

markers are about to be well-mentioned later.

1.3.3. TYPES OF EVIDENTIALS

In the views of different linguists, Evidentials can be divided in different ways. Jakoson

(1957) represents four types of Evidentials in terms of the source of information:

quotative (hearsay),

revelative (dream),

a guess (presumptive), and

15

previous experience (memory).

For Carib, Hoff (1991) distinguishes introspective Evidentials (knowledge from

inference) from extraspective Evidentials (culturally available knowledge).

Taking Evidentials into consideration, Palmer (1986) observes that there are at least four

ways of presenting a statement or a fact:

speculative,

deductive,

hearsay,

appearance based on sensory evidence.

Barnes (1984) suggests that visual, nonvisual (sensory), apparent, secondhand, and

assumed be types of Evidentials.

Generally known, Evidentials can encode speaker-oriented qualifications of propositions

along two dimensions:

in terms of the evidence they are based on

with respect to the speaker’s commitment to their truth

The two dimensions – whether the proposition is based on perceptual evidence and

whether the speaker believes in its truth – are logically independent. Yet natural language

typically treats propositions based on perceptual evidence on the part of the speaker as

propositions asserted by the speaker to be true. Similarly, if a speaker marks a proposition

as based not on first-hand evidence, he/she typically expresses non-commitment to the

truth of the proposition. That is why it is more useful to think of the terms Direct and

Indirect – the two subcategories of Evidentials – as making a distinction based not on

whether or not the evidence is perceptual, but on whether or not the evidence justifies the

speaker’s belief in proposition.

16

Diagram 2: Types of Evidentials

(15) I heard him beating the dog at 7 p.m. yesterday.

(Direct Evidentials)

(16) Rumor has it that the police have arrested John.

(Indirect Evidentials)

1.3.4. SCALES OF EVIDENTIALS

No doubt arises that scales, and more generally hierarchies, have proven useful tools in

typology as well in semantics and pragmatics. In typological research, the most common

type of hierarchy are implicational universals which are used to predict possible and

impossible language systems as well as directions of diachronic language change, among

other things (Croft ,1990, and Dik, 1981). In semantics and pragmatics, linguistics scales

are taken to be an ordering of a set of linguistic expressions belonging to a single

grammatical category, where the order is determined by degree of informativeness or

17

Evidentials

IndirectEvidentials

Direct Evidentials

includes all the markers of the

speaker’s firsthand evidence such as

visual, auditory, and other sensory

modalities, with visual evidence by far

the most reliable.

encompasses all forms of secondhand

fact such as report, quotation, hearsay,

assumption, appearance, and all other

types of supportive, auxiliary

information, of which quotation and

hearsay are found the most common.

semantics strength (Levinson, 2000). These scales are generally used to explain

conversational implicatures (Grice, 1989) associated with the linguistic expressions they

order.

In terms of Evidential scales, Willet (1988) proposes the hierarchy as follows:

ATTESTED > REPORTED > INFERRING

In this hierarchy, he explains that “on the scale from most to least direct, Attested evidence

is ranked as the most reliable source, Inferring evidence as the least reliable, and

Reported evidence somewhere in the middle”. (Willett, 1988:86)

Thus, for Willett the speaker’s preference of certain evidence types over others is based on

two criteria: directness and reliability. He goes on to say that “a speaker using on Inferring

evidential denies having reported or direct evidence,” that is, for him the indirect negation

between Inference and Reportative goes in the opposite direction.

Meanwhile, it is seen that de Hann (1998) shows another scale for Evidentials:

VISUAL > NONVISUAL > INFERENTIAL > QUOTATIVE

Here, de Hann orders Inferential above Quotative. He also uses two ordering criteria, the

first of which is also directness. However, his second criterion is not reliability. With

respect to the relative ordering of Inference and Quotative, de Hann (1998) states:

“Within the area of indirect evidence, Inference is closer to direct evidence than Hearsay

because by using a Quotative, the speaker relies wholly on evidence that comes from

another source. The Inferential is used when the speaker is involved himself or herself with

the evidence to a certain degree. The speaker makes deductions on the basis of evidence.

This evidence has been collected by the speaker, which makes him or her more of and

active partner than in the passive act of receiving information from another source.”

18

Thus, de Hann’s second criterion is speaker involvement. Willett and de Hann, therefore,

agree on the relative orderings derived from directness, namely that all kinds of direct

evidence should be ordered above all kinds of indirect evidence, but their different second

criteria lead them to postulate different relative orderings of Inference and Reportative.

To contribute to building up the scales of Evidentials’ certainty, Givãn argues that

languages qualify evidence along four gradients. It is clearly shown in the diagram below:

Diagram 3: Gradients of quantified evidence (Givãn, 1989)

Moreover, Givãn argues that there are three kinds of propositions (P), typed by their

inherent certainty and need for substantiation:

19

The High Certainty

The Medium Certainty

The Low CertaintyP are taken for granted, presupposed and above challenge.Here, the presupposed information are assumed by the speaker to be known to, familiar to, or otherwise unlikely to be challenged by the hearer.

P are doubtful hypotheses and beneath challenge and substantiation. P here are known as irrealis. The information whose source is largely irrelevant is weakly asserted. The speaker does not intend to defend the information in order to solicit challenge, correction or corroboration.

P are open to challenge and thus require supporting evidence. P are known as realis-assertion. Under this mode, information is strongly asserted, yet it remains open to challenge by the hearer. The speaker must then be prepared to defend the information by citing the source of evidence.

Evidence shown by

Person

Sense

Directness

Proximity

Speaker

Vision

Senses

Near Far

Inference

Hearing Other senses

Feeling

3rd personHearer

Diagram 4: Scale of Evidentials’ certainty (Givãn, 1989)

If a speaker is forced to choose evidence to defend his assertion, he chooses evidence

according to the four scales presented in the diagram, and according to the internal order of

the gradients, vision over hearing, for instance.

Givãn provides rules of evidence for his scale and points out that only in the case of

realis-assertion is evidence assumed to be both available and expected, which is ranked

according to the degree of evidentiary strength. It is also claimed that in languages further

differentiating among several sensory sources of direct evidence, the grammar of

evidentiality tends to rank the senses according to their reliability as source of evidence.

Besides, in the grammar of evidentiality, one finds the ranking of either the participants in

the event according to person or the temporal proximity of the reported event to the speech

time in a rather predictable way. The diagram below does help to illustrate the scales:

20

Diagram 5: Types of scales (Givãn, 1989)

1.3.5. EVIDENTIALS AND INTERACTION

Various different types of interaction may arise between Evidentials and different values of

person. In particular, interactions may affect the frequency or the interpretation of

Evidentials, or both. These interactions can be considered to fall into four types:

(1) The frequency of certain Evidentials varies greatly depending on person.

For example, reported Evidentials are uncommon with first person because

normally when a speaker was involved in an action, they do not need to be

told that it occurred.

(2) The interpretation of some Evidentials in some languages changes

depending on the person values in the sentence. For example, with a first

21

Scales

Scale of temporal proximity

Scale of spatial proximity

Scale of participants in

events

Scale of reliability of

sensory evidence

Scale of evidentiary of

source

a. Direct sensory experience

b. Inference from direct sensory evidence

c. Indirect inference

d. Hearsay

a. Visual experience

b. Auditory experience

c. Other sensory experience

a. Speaker

b. Hearer

c. Third party

a. Near speech situation

b. Away from speech situation

a. Nearer to speech time

b. Farther away from speech time

person subject, non-witnessed Evidentials often encode that an action was

non-volitional, rather than indicating that the speaker did not witness the

event, their more common interpretation.

(3) Particular Evidentials and person values cannot co-occur in particular

languages. For example, in some languages an inferred evidential cannot be

used in first person contexts.

(4) Certain Evidentials can be used with utterances which involve any

person, but with restrictions on particular combinations of person and

evidential with particular predicate types. For example, a predicate

indicating something about an internal state may be used with a non-visual

evidential, showing a speaker’s knowledge is based on feeling - but only if

the internal state relates to the speaker, since otherwise the speaker cannot

know about the state through having felt it.

These four types of interaction are not fully independent — for example, it is precisely

when a particular combination of person and evidential is infrequent that the evidential is

likely to develop a distinct interpretation. However they are a useful schema for examining

and classifying types of interaction.

1.4. THEME - RHEME STRUCTURE AND EVIDENTIALS

Halliday (An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1985) observes that in all languages,

the clause has the character of a message: it has some form of organization giving it a

status of a communicative event. In English, as in many other languages, the clause is

organized as a message by having a special status assigned to one part of it. One element in

the clause is enunciated as the Theme; this then combines with the remainder so that the

two parts together constitute a message.

22

In Halliday’s reference, the Theme is the element which serves as the point of departure of

the message; it is that with which the clause is concerned. The remainder of the message,

the part in which the Theme is developed, is called the Rheme. As a message structure,

therefore, a clause consists of a Theme accompanied by a Rheme; and the structure is

expressed by the order – whatever is chosen as the Theme is put first.

As a general guide, the Theme can be identified as the element which comes in that first

position in the clause to be the starting point for the message; it is what the clause is going

to be about. Additionally, the Theme can be nominal group, an adverbial group, or a

propositional phrase.

Theme Rheme

(17) The duke has given my aunt that teapot

(18) Very carefully she put him back on his feet again

(19) With sobs and tears he sorted out those of the largest size

As for the Modal markers in general, and Evidential modal markers in particular, Halliday

considers them the Modal adjuncts which are pointed out to be thematic, but not to be

obligatory so. Besides, within the structure Evidential modal constructions can be found in

many positions. Their mobility is well seen in the following examples:

Initial Medial Final

(20) I am sure (that) Peter (Theme) can pass the exam. (Rheme)

(21) Peter, (Theme) I am sure, can pass the exam. (Rheme)

(22) Peter (Theme) can pass the exam, (Rheme) I am sure.

1.5. BACKGROUND ON SPEECH ACT THEORY

1.5.1. SPEECH ACT THEORY

23

This section offers a brief introduction to the basic speech act theoretic concepts developed

by Searle and his colleagues (Searle and Vanderveken, 1985, Vanderveken, 1990,

Vanderveken, 1991.) who based them on ideas first introduced by Austin (1962).

Austin (1962) presents three acts the speaker performs when he/she utters a sentence:

Locutionary act

By locutionary act, the speaker selects language units as phonetic units, lexical

items, grammatical rules and combines these to form an utterance.

Illocutionary act

By illocutionary act, the speaker is using a sentence to perform a function. He may

use some specific language units as indicators to signal the function of the

utterance.

Perlocutionary act

By perlocutionary act, the speaker conveys an idea, a further purpose which can be

interpreted by the hearer, not on the surface of the words and structures of the

sentence by means of his manner of locutionary act in an actual situation.

Here come the basic assumptions of speech act theory which are summarized in the

following quote from Searle and Vanderveken (1985).

The minimal units of human communication are speech acts of a type

called illocutionary acts (terminology introduced by Austin (1962)).

Some examples for illocutionary acts are statements, questions,

commands, promises, and apologies. Whenever as speaker utters a

sentence in an appropriate context with certain intentions, he performs

one or more illocutionary acts. In general an illocutionary act consists of

an illocutionary force F and a propositional content P. For example, the

two utterances “You will leave the room” and “Leave the room!” have

the same propositional content, namely that you will leave the room; but

characteristically the first of these has the illocutionary force of a

prediction and the second has the illocutionary force of an order. (Searle

24

and Vanderveken, 1985:1)

An illocutionary force F is a complex entity. According to Vanderveken (1990:103), it has

the following six components:

an illocutionary point,

a mode of achievement of an illocutionary point,

propositional content,

preparatory and sincerity conditions,

and a degree of strength.

The illocutionary point indicates how the propositional content of the illocutionary act

relates to the world. For assertions, the illocutionary point is to match the propositional

content to the world; for other speech acts such as directives, it is to match the world to the

propositional content. Vanderveken (1990: 105) recognizes five illocutionary points,

following Searle and Vanderveken (1985):

the assertive point which consists of representing as actual a state of affairs;

the commissive point which consists of committing the speaker to a future course

of action;

the directive point which consists of making an attempt to get the hearer to do

something;

the declarative point which consists of performing an action which brings into

existence a state of affairs by representing oneself as performing that action;

and the expressive point which consists of expressing propositional attitudes of the

speaker about a state of affairs.

Illocutionary forces have three types of pre-conditions as components:

Propositional content conditions put restrictions on the propositional content of an

illocutionary act of a particular force. For example, the propositional content of a

promise must present a speaker’s future course of action.

25

Preparatory conditions are certain propositions that speaker takes for granted in

performing the illocutionary act.

Sincerity conditions are “propositional attitudes of the form m(P), where m is a

psychological mode such as, for instance, desire, regret, or hope […] A

performance of an illocutionary act is sincere when the speaker has the mental

state that he expresses in the performace of that act, and it is insincere otherwise”

(Vanderveken, 1990:117).

In respect of the degree of strength of an illocutionary force, it is considered a property of

the mental states that are expressed in the sincerity conditions. As Vanderveken (1990:119)

states, “the degree of strength of the sincerity conditions of supplication is greater than that

of a request, because a speaker who supplicates expresses a stronger desire than a speaker

who requests. Similarly, the degree of strength of a testimony is greater than that of a

conjecture, because a speaker who testifies something expresses a stronger belief than a

speaker who simply makes a conjecture”.

1.5.2. THEORY OF POLITENESS

1.5.2.1. POLITENESS IN CONVERSATIONAL MAXIM VIEW

Leech (1983) sees cultural rules at work in expressions of politeness and attempts to

categorize in more detail some of the underlying intent behind these forms by articulating a

set of rules or Politeness Maxims at work in polite dialogue.

Tact maxim: minimize cost and maximize benefit to other.

Meta maxim: don’t impose on other so that he/she is made to break the first maxim.

Generosity maxim: minimize benefit and maximize cost to self.

Approbation maxim: minimize dispraise and maximize praise of other.

Modesty maxim: minimize praise and maximize dispraise of self.

Agreement maxim: minimize disagreement and maximize agreement between self

and other.

26

Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between self and

other.

1.5.2.2. POLITENESS IN FACE-SAVING VIEW

One of the leading theories of politeness was developed by Brown and Levinson (1987),

who argue that there are two forms of politeness: positive politeness and negative

politeness.

Positive politeness strategies are attempts by a speaker to treat the listener as a

friend or as someone to be included in discourse. For an American speaker, giving

a friend or co-worker the compliment, “Your hair looks nice today,” would be one

example of positive politeness.

Negative politeness, on the other hand, is an attempt by the speaker to save the

listener’s face by engaging in some formality or restraint. For an American speaker,

an example of negative politeness would be responding to the question, “Do you

like my new haircut?” with, “It looks great,” even though the speaker’s true opinion

is that the haircut looks horrible.

CHAPTER 2: SEMANTIC FEATURES OF

EVIDENTIAL MODAL MARKERS IN ENGLISH

27

The markers could be categorized and evaluated with the help of the scale of Evidential

certainty which goes from the highest via the medium to the lowest degree of certainty. We

adopt the scale of certainty proposed by Givãn as presented in Diagram 4, part 1.3.4.

2.1. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS

This section is wholly supposed to denote the semantic features of adjectives and adverbs

(English – Vietnamese equivalents) which are considered Evidential modal markers. As

Evidential modal markers, adjectives and adverbs, with respect to meaning, turn out to be

more “direct” and “specific” than other lexical items expressing Evidential modality.

Unlike Evidential modal verbs bearing a little bit more complicated and different semantic

features, Evidential modal adjectives and adverbs directly and unambiguously indicate the

28

The High Certainty

The Medium Certainty

The Low CertaintyP are taken for granted, presupposed and above challenge.Here, the presupposed information are assumed by the speaker to be known to, familiar to, or otherwise unlikely to be challenged by the hearer.

P are doubtful hypotheses and beneath challenge and substantiation. P here are known as irrealis. The information whose source is largely irrelevant is weakly asserted. The speaker does not intend to defend the information in order to solicit challenge, correction or corroboration

P are open to challenge and thus require supporting evidence. P are known as realis-assertion. Under this mode, information is strongly asserted, yet it remains open to challenge by the hearer. The speaker must then be prepared to defend the information by citing the source of evidence.

Evidential modal meaning; therefore, they are seemingly the “purest” markers for

Evidential modal qualification.

The markers could be categorized and evaluated with the help of the scale of Evidential

certainty which goes from the highest via the medium to the lowest degree of certainty. We

adopt the scale of certainty proposed by Givãn as presented in Diagram 4, part 1.3.4.

So as to serve the study well, it is advisable that adjectives discussed be predicatively used

adjectives followed by a complement clause; meanwhile, adverbs treated here must be

sentential adverbs having a scope over the whole proposition expressed. For the reason,

typical adjectives and adverbs are used for the analysis. They comprise such words as

“seemingly, apparently - apparent, evidently - evident, obviously - obvious, surely – sure,

undoubtedly, doubtful, clear-clearly; dêng nh lµ, râ rµng lµ, hiÓn nhiªn lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ, kh«ng cßn nghi ngê g× n÷a lµ”.

In this section, Evidential modal adjectives are going to be studied first, then Evidential

modal adverbs.

2.1.1. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADJECTIVES

As the foregoing parts have mentioned, English has a number of adjectives regarded as

markers expressing Evidential modality such as “apparent, evident, obvious, sure, clear,

doubtful”. All these adjectives help the listeners or readers with the reliability of the

information source. In other words, the statements uttered can be judged to be whether

“true” or “false” (“reliable” or “unreliable”) in terms of the ground encoded by the

markers. Thus, Evidential modal markers rank themselves at different levels of certainty.

As far as the adjectives analyzed are concerned, each of them belongs to a certain group

reflecting the degree of reliability. It is shown in the table below:

The high certainty The low certainty

29

clear, sure, apparent, obvious, evident;

râ rµng lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ, hiÓn nhiªn lµdoubtful

nghi ngê r»ng lµ

Table 1: Scale of Evidential modal adjectives’ certainty

2.1.1.1. CLEAR, APPARENT OBVIOUS, EVIDENT

“Clear” is defined as being impossible to doubt, question, or to be mistaken about or

unmistakable (Longman, Dictionary of English language and culture, 1999). It can

inferred that when “clear” is used the speaker intends to show that his/her assertion is well-

founded on the basis of reliable source of information which is easily heard, seen, read,

and understood. Similarly, “apparent”, “obvious”, and “evident” share something in

common in terms of meaning that indicates the state of being easily seen or understood. It,

thus, can be marked with the high level of certainty by the appearance of these adjectives

within the utterance which is plain to the senses and clear because of maybe either visual

or auditory evidence – the source of information.

(23a) It is clear that we’ve been negatively affected by these changes.

= Râ rµng lµ chóng ta ®· vµ ®ang ph¶i chÞu nh÷ng t¸c ®éng mang tÝnh tiªu cùc cña nh÷ng thay ®æi nµy.(23b) It is clear to us that we’ve been negatively affected by these changes.

= Chóng ta ®Òu thÊy râ lµ chóng ta ®· vµ ®ang ph¶i chÞu nh÷ng t¸c ®éng mang tÝnh tiªu cùc cña nh÷ng thay ®æi nµy.(24a) It is evident they have no experience in this work.

= HiÓn nhiªn lµ hä ch¼ng cã chót kinh nghiÖm nµo trong c«ng viÖc nµy c¶.

(24b) It is evident to me they have no experience in this work.

= T«i thÊy râ rµng lµ hä ch¼ng cã chót kinh nghiÖm nµo trong c«ng viÖc nµy c¶.(25a) That he suddenly left home became apparent.

30

= ViÖc anh Êy bá nhµ ra ®i ®· qu¸ râ råi.(25b) That he suddenly left home became apparent to me.

= T«i biÕt râ c¸i viÖc anh Êy ®· bá nhµ ra ®i. (26a) That he told a lie was obvious.

= C¸i chuyÖn «ng Êy ®· nãi dèi qu¶ lµ qu¸ râ rµng råi.(26b) That he told a lie was obvious to me.

= T«i biÕt râ c¸i chuyÖn «ng Êy ®· nãi dèi.

All the examples encode the same core Evidential modal meaning of the state of affairs

(the high certainty) like “we’ve been negatively affected by these changes” in (23a-b),

“they have no experience in this work” in (24a-b), “he suddenly left home” in (25a-b), and

“he told a lie” in (26a-b) that “P is well-understood and clearly seen or heard”.

Observably, these assertions in (23a, 24a, 25a, 26a) dressed up with only Evidential modal

adjectives are regarded as impersonalized, which signals that the speaker may avoid

specifying who is responsible for the judgments though in an explicit orientation; that is,

they prove objectively oriented. Whereas utterances in (23b, 24b, 25b, 26b) are turned into

being personalized in the presence of “to me” and “to us”, making them sound a little bit

more subjective.

2.1.1.2. SURE

Another adjective for Evidential modal qualification occurring so often in communication

turns out to be “sure”. By Longman, Dictionary of English language and culture, 1999,

“sure” is to express the speaker’s not doubting or seeming to doubt what he believes or

knows, always attached to the person (pronoun) subjects. In fact, when the speaker makes

“sure” of his/ her assertions, that means he feels confident in his/ her knowledge or the

source of information for his utterance. Or that is to say, the utterance seems to be highly

assured by the speaker in terms of certainty.

(27) I am sure that I have met her before somewhere.

= T«i d¸m ch¾c r»ng t«i ®· tõng gÆp c« Êy ë ®©u ®ã råi.

31

(28) I feel quite sure that Tom will pass the exam easily.

= T«i tin ch¾c r»ng nã sÏ vît qua kú thi mét c¸ch dÔ dµng th«i.

By means of two examples, “sure” can be said to be equivalent to “ch¾c lµ, tin ch¾c lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ, d¸m ch¾c lµ” in Vietnamese. As seen in (27-28), the speakers

offer the high commitment to the propositions “I have met her before somewhere” or “Tom

will pass the exam”. In order to make these statements, the speakers have to base upon

what they have known or experienced. (27) indicates that the woman’s face appears

familiar to the speaker, and from what he/she remembers he has drawn a conclusion that

he/she has met her before somewhere. Similarly in (28), it is certain that the speaker knows

well about Tom’s ability and Tom’s results at school; that is why he/she states with his

strong belief that Tom are able to and will pass the exam easily. Therefore, the utterances’

proposition is strongly supported with a quite reliable source of information even though in

such a subjective orientation.

2.1.1.3. DOUBTFUL

On the contrary to “clear, evident, obvious, apparent” and “sure”, “doubtful” functions as

a Evidential modal markers of the low certainty. “Doubtful” bears itself the feature of

being uncertain and unconfident of the fact. Or the proposition is not well committed to.

When the speaker utters the statement using “doubtful”, from what has been seen or heard

in reality, it proves that the proposition lacks the evidence or the speaker neither has

enough evidence nor feels sure of the source of information. Moreover, “doubtful” is said

to be open to question. Equivalently, in Vietnamese “®¸ng ngê lµ, ®¸ng nghi ngê lµ” can translate its meaning.

(29) It is doubtful that John ever found out something about it.

= ThËt lµ ®¸ng ngê vÒ chuyÖn /kh«ng thÓ cã chuyÖn John ®· t×m ra c¸i g× ®ã liªn quan ®Õn sù viÖc Êy. (30) I find it doubtful that John wrote this when he was ten.

32

= T«i kh«ng ch¾c/ t«i kh«ng tin/ t«i hoµn toµn nghi ngê vÒ chuyÖn lµ John viÕt c¸i nµy ë tuæi lªn mêi.

The speakers in both (29-30) hold hardly any belief in propositions “John ever found out

something about it” or “John wrote this when he was ten” which remain undependable. Or

they cannot find out enough evidence to devote high commitment to such propositions.

Thus, these propositions seem questionable, causing doubt to the hearer who is certain to

know that the speaker cannot assure the source of information concerning John’s finding

out something about it as in (29) and John’s writing it at the age of ten as in (30).

The chosen adjectives here, though different in the certainty level, have well exemplified

the Evidential modal markers. As suggested by Bellert (1977), these modal adjectives can

qualify the state of affairs to the utterance and are part of the complex proposition

expressed by the utterance. They can be both impersonalized and personalized, or can be

subjectively as well as objectively oriented, which really depends on not only the speaker’s

attitudes and intentions, or the evidence he/she acquires, but the structures the speaker

utilizes for the utterance as well.

2.1.2. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADVERBS

Along with adjectives, a wide range of adverbs can be of Evidential modality. Some of

them act as prominent markers which are taken into consideration in this section. They are

composed of “clearly, obviously, evidently, surely, undoubtedly, apparently, seemingly”.

Most of them are said to derive from the root of adjectives. They are tabulated in

accordance with the certainty level in the table below:

The high certainty The medium certainty

clearly, obviously, evidently, surely,

undoubtedly

râ rµng lµ, hiÓn nhiªn lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ, kh«ng cßn nghi ngê g× n÷a

seemingly, apparently

dêng nh lµ, h×nh nh lµ

33

Table 2: Scale of Evidential modal adverbs’ certainty

2.1.2.1. CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY, EVIDENTLY

These adverbs are all ly-adverbs whose roots are adjectives; thus, there is no denial that

their meaning can be interpreted from the root-adjectives’. They imply that something is

self-evident, i.e. it is no need of further argument. The speaker who is using “clearly,

obviously, evidently” - the Vietnamese translations are “râ rµng lµ, hiÓn nhiªn lµ” - is

expressing his/her very strong commitment in his/her proposition by either basing on

visual, auditory evidence or logical inference.

(31) He was obviously at a loss for my name.

= Râ rµng lµ anh Êy chÞu kh«ng nhí næi tªn t«i.= Anh Êy râ rµng kh«ng thÓ nhí næi tªn t«i.(32) Evidently, Kate is not well.

= Râ rµng lµ Kate kh«ng khoÎ.(33) You clearly don’t understand what I have explained.

= Râ rµng lµ b¹n kh«ng hiÓu nh÷ng g× t«i võa gi¶i thÝch.= B¹n râ rµng kh«ng hiÓu nh÷ng g× t«i võa gi¶i thÝch.

(31-33) reveal that the speakers have felt confident in their information which comes

directly from their own experiencing, or witnessing. Detailedly, in (31) the speaker might

report his/her talk with a man who appeared to have forgotten the speaker’s name. (32)

refers to the situation in which the speaker utters “Kate is not well” at the sight of her pale

face, or on hearing her cough. (33) sees that the speaker might have a conversation with

someone who fails to understand what the speaker has explained.

2.1.2.2. SURELY

In Elizabethan English, “surely” meant what “certainly” does today, meaning “it is so”

which implies no doubt. It is obvious that “surely” expresses a very high level of

34

commitment in what the speaker is saying. “Surely” and its Vietnamese equivalents “h¼n lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ” show that the speaker is almost certain of what is stated.

(34) Surely that is a plain-clothes policeman.

= Ch¾c ch¾c ®ã lµ c¶nh s¸t mÆc thêng phôc.= Ch¾c ch¾n anh ta lµ c¶nh s¸t m¾c thêng phôc.(35) Surely I have met him before.

= Ch¾c ch¾n t«i ®· gÆp anh Êy tríc ®ã råi.

In (34), there is a hint that the speaker might have recognized a policeman who was

dressed in plain clothes; accordingly, he says so confidently and definitely. The same thing

can be applied to (35). Here the speaker has found some familiarity with the man’s face,

which reminds the speaker of the fact that the speaker has met the man somewhere before.

That means the speaker attaching some weight to the utterance.

2.1.2.3. UNDOUBTEDLY

If “doubtful” can express the low certainty, then “undoubtedly” moves in opposite

direction in terms of certainty scale. “Undoubtedly” is used for the affairs of the high

certainty as to the source of information like “clearly, obviously, and evidently”.

“Undoubtedly” is quite synonymous to “certainly” or “unquestionably” and equivalent to

“kh«ng cßn nghi ngê gÜ n÷a, ®¬ng nhiªn lµ, râ rµng lµ” in Vietnamese,

(36) Undoubtedly, Pat is very intelligent.

= Pat rÊt th«ng minh lµ chuyÖn qu¸ râ råi.= Kh«ng cã g× nghi ngê vÒ chuyÖn Pat rÊt th«ng minh c¶.(37) John undoubtedly left home.

= H¼n lµ John ®· bá nhµ ra ®i råi.

At the first sight of “undoubtedly” in English it is immediately inferred that this expresses

negative polarity. But in fact, in terms of meaning, it does not; it reveals rather strong

35

positive polarity though it is morphologically. It is much different from its Vietnamese

interpretations “kh«ng cßn nghi ngê gÜ n÷a”. In Vietnamese “kh«ng” plus other

language items can cause the negative polarity to their meanings. Thus, (36-37) are

assuredly positive as regards meaning. In (36), it is really true that Pat is very intelligent,

which is well known to everybody. In other words, by what Pat has done does that prove

his intelligence. Obviously, no question related to his intelligence is to be raised. Whereas,

in (37) John might have been found nowhere; hence, basing on the fact, the speaker can

make sure that John left home.

2.1.2.4. APPARENTLY, SEEMINGLY

When being an adjective, “apparent” can be classified in the group of “clear, obvious,

evident”, but in the form of an adverb “apparently” and “seemingly” are placed into the

same classification. Both of them can be interpreted as “in appearance, according to the

outward appearance or according to what has been heard” (Longman, Dictionary of

English language and culture, 1999). In Vietnamese, they can be understood as “dêng nh lµ, h×nh nh lµ” They signal the medium certainty in the proposition; to put it in

another way, they express neither a very high nor a very low, but something between,

commitment to what is stated. As for the utterance, it is required that evidence be added to

support the source of information more.

(38) Apparently she never got my letter after all.

= H×nh nh lµ c« Êy rót cuéc cha nhËn ®îc mét l¸ th nµo cña t«i c¶.

(39) That is seemingly an endless problem.

= Dêng nh ®ã lµ mét vÊn ®Ò v« tËn.

In (38-39), the speakers might judge from the facts as the speakers know them. In details,

the speaker in (38) seem to have heard from some source, then produced the utterance of

“her never getting the speaker’s letter”; meanwhile in (39) the outward appearance of the

36

fact comes to the speaker’s assistance and drives him to provide such an assertion as “that

is an endless problem”. Both the two propositions in (38-39) hold the medium certainty.

As studied, “clearly, obviously, evidently, surely, undoubtedly, apparently, seemingly” are

all modal adverbs as Evidential modal markers. They, according to Bellert (1977), qualify

the truth of propositions expressed in the utterance in which they occur and hence

constitute a second, meta-linguistic proposition. Differently from modal adjectives, they

are not part of the propositional meaning but express the speaker attitude toward the

proposition; as such, the speaker cannot question or negate his/her own current attitude.

That is why the listeners or even readers on absorbing the statements including these

Evidential modal adverbs uttered by the speaker can feel the sense of subjectivity.

2.2. EVIDENTIAL MODAL NOUNS

It is common knowledge that nouns can function as subjects, complements, objects, and so

forth. Besides these normal features, nouns like adjectives, adverbs or verbs can hold the

function of expressing modality, “possibility”, or “probability” as examples. But, in our

reference within the scope of our study, only nouns of Evidential modality are discussed

herein. They are limited to such nouns as “truth, fact, rumor, doubt” which have the

Vietnamese corresponding meanings of “sù thùc lµ, tin ®ån lµ, mèi nghi ngê lµ”,

respectively.

The scale of certainty by Givãn will be made best use of to “weigh” the reliability of the

assertions as well as the propositions in the speaker’s utterance. Thenceforward,

implications of the certainty of the information sources can be exposed.

Evidential modality can be well qualified with these nominal markers like “truth, fact,

rumor, doubt” even though in different ways and at different levels of certainty. Before

going into details, it is much better to demonstrate them in the table below in conformation

to their rank of certainty.

37

The high certainty The medium certainty The low certainty

truth, fact

thùc tÕ lµ, sù thùc lµrumor, no doubt

tin ®ån lµ, kh«ng nghi ngê g×

doubt

mèi nghi ngê lµ

Table 3: Scale of Evidential modal nouns’ certainty

2.2.1. TRUTH, FACT

As shown in Longman, Dictionary of English language and culture, 1999, “truth” is the

state or quality of being true, or accepted for which proof exists. “Fact”, similarly, exposes

“the reality”. The reason for gathering these two nouns in this sections for analysis is that

they bear hardly difference in meaning, and they both carry the same weight in the

speaker’s utterance. In other words, they make the listeners or readers show their

confidence in what the speaker is saying. There seems no doubt in the propositions and no

questions are needed for clearer evidence. Moreover, the source of information the speaker

base upon when stating is somehow visible and well known.

(40a) The fact is that Manchester United has defeated Chelsea in this season.

(40b) It is the fact that Manchester United has defeated Chelsea in this season.

= Sù thËt lµ ®éi Manchester United ®· ®¸nh b¹i ®éi Chelsea trong mïa gi¶i nµy.= Râ rµng lµ ®éi Manchester United ®· ®¸nh b¹i ®éi Chelsea trong mïa gi¶i nµy.(41a) That Mary was re-married to a Chinese billionaire is the truth.

(41b) It is the truth that Mary was re-married to a Chinese.

= ChuyÖn Mary t¸i h«n víi mét nhµ tû phó ngêi Hoa lµ cã thËt ®Êy.

= Sù thËt lµ Mary ®· t¸i h«n víi mét nhµ tû phó ngêi Hoa.(42) The truth of the matter is that John doesn’t want to see you.

38

= Sù thùc cña vÊn ®Ò lµ John kh«ng muèn gÆp c« n÷a.= Thùc ra lµ John kh«ng muèn gÆp c« n÷a.

In (40a-b), the speaker is thought to deduce the Chelsea’s defeat by Manchester United

from reality or from what he has watched. (41a-b) implies that the speaker has derived the

information “Mary was re-married to a Chinese” from what he might be told by others or

from his own experience. (42) manifests that John might tell the speaker his intention of

not wanting to see the girl or the speaker may know about John’s intention by judging

from John’s behavior or attitude to the girl.

2.2.2. RUMOR

“Rumor” is categorized into the group of hearsay markers. It unambiguously expresses

Evidential modality. When it is in use, it means the speaker collect the information about

something from others – from the informal source. Thus, the reliability of the utterance

cannot be high. Or when it is uttered together with a proposition, the perceiver cannot

judge whether the proposition is true or false. It requires, obviously, more evidence for

more support. That is why “rumor” belongs to the group of the medium certainty.

(43) Rumor has it that Jean is getting married again.

= Mäi ngêi ®ån r»ng Jean s¾p t¸i h«n.(44) I hear a rumor that this company is importing plastics for toys.

= T«i nghe ®ån lµ c«ng ty nµy ®ang nhËp khÈu nhùa ®Ó lµm ®å ch¬i.

(45) The rumor is that John committed a suicide.

= Cã tin ®ån lµ «ng John ®· tù vÉn.

Here in these examples, “rumor” implies that the information may be circled around and

shared by many people including the speaker. This signals the Evidential modal stance

between the truth and the message given by the speaker. It also keeps the speaker from

committing himself/herself to the validity of the information such as “Jean is getting

39

married again, this company is importing plastics for toys, and John committed a suicide”

in (43-45).

2.2.2. DOUBT

“Doubt” is the feeling of uncertainty of belief; it shows the lack of confidence or trust in

what is being said. It may be said that the speaker has almost no evidence or enough

information concerning the utterance. Consequently, “doubt” does not enable the

proposition to gain the speaker’s strong commitment. However, when “doubt” is used in a

different way, its meaning is immediately changed, and observably, so is its scale of

certainty. If “doubt” is ranked, like the modal adjective “doubtful”, in the category of the

low certainty, “no doubt” belongs to the group of the medium certainty. “No doubt” is

studied to grasp the meaning of “almost certainly, or very probably” (Longman,

Dictionary of English language and culture, 1999). It evidently shows much higher

certainty and stronger commitment to the proposition than “doubt”.

(46) It was the doubt that he was just trying to help.

= ChuyÖn anh ta ®· cè g¾ng gióp ®ì lµ v« cïng ®¸ng ngê.= ThËt ®¸ng ngê lµ anh Êy ®· cè g¾ng gióp ®ì. (47) No doubt he was just trying to help.

= Kh«ng cßn nghi ngê g× vÒ c¸i chuyÖn anh Êy ®· cè g¾ng gióp ®ì c¶.

= Râ rµng lµ anh Êy ®· cè g¾ng gióp ®ì.

(46-47) have reflected the difference in both meaning and level of certainty between

“doubt” and “no doubt”, which has been referred to. Even though the proposition is the

same, the truth-value of (47) is higher than that in (46). Or the speaker can identify the

source of information more clearly in (47) than in (46).

These nouns “truth, fact, rumor, and doubt”, as seen from the examples, can function well

to convey the Evidential modality or they are thought of as “specific and clear” in the

sense of Evidential modality. It is explained that if they are used, the grounds on which a

40

speaker makes an overtly qualified assertion can be well encoded. The source of

information or the reliability of the information, consequently, can be marked without any

ambiguity. In all likelihood, the assertion can be realized at its certain level of certainty

immediately the statement is uttered with these modal nouns. Undoubtedly, they are

impersonalized inside themselves; however, when they occur together with other personal

subjects, they are likely to be personalized.

2.3. EVIDENTIAL MODAL LEXICAL VERBS

This section receives an emphasis on the role and properties of lexical verbs, called

“Evidential modal lexical verbs”, as a means to convey Evidential modality. They are said

to render the speaker’s evaluation of the factuality of the state of affairs expressed.

Undeniably, they seem to be very “popular” and used so frequently with reference to the

functions of showing the speaker’s opinion on and confidence in the truth-value or the

source of the proposition. Thus, apart from Evidential modal adjectives, Evidential modal

adverbs, Evidential nouns, Evidential modal lexical verbs are taken for granted that they

are one of the primary means to impart Evidential modality.

As known, these Evidential modal verbs are not easy to be well-understood because of

their complexity. That is the reason for the ambiguity caused by these verbs. Moreover,

these Evidential modal verbs have not yet been profoundly and concretely studied. This

section, obviously, is necessary as a result. It is expected to offer an overview of verbs

used for Evidential modal qualifications as well as the position of these Evidential modal

verbs in the whole system of Evidential modal expressions.

Within the scope of the paper, it seems impossible to cover all the verbs. There are limited

and chosen verbs which sound typical in terms of the frequency of usage and the sense of

Evidential modality. They include:

41

Evidential propositional-lexical verbs: think, believe, guess, suppose, doubt;

nghÜ lµ, tin lµ, ®o¸n lµ, cho r»ng, nghi ngê lµ Sensory verbs: see, hear, taste, feel, smell, appear, seem, sound, look; thÊy

lµ, nghe thÊy lµ, nÕm thÊy lµ, nghe mïi, c¶m thÊy, dêng nh Hearsay verbs: say, tell; nãi r»ng, kÓ r»ng lµ

2.3.1. EVIDENTIAL PROPOSITIONAL-LEXICAL VERBS

In general, it appears not to be an easy work to deal with Evidential modal lexical verbs,

particularly here Evidential propositional-lexical verbs. For the linguists, if classifying or

specifying the Evidential modal adjectives, Evidential modal adverbs prove easy, then how

challenging it is for them to define which verbs can be Evidential modal verbs as well as

Evidential propositional-lexical verbs and which cannot. It is advisable to choose “think,

believe, guess, suppose, doubt; nghÜ lµ, tin lµ, ®o¸n lµ, cho r»ng, nghi ngê lµ”

for this section to focus on. They are thought to be the typical verbs which traditionally

convey modality or Evidential modality with the first person pronouns “I, we”.

The high certainty The medium certainty The low certainty

think (must/certainly)

thÊy lµ

think, believe,

guess, suppose

nghÜ lµ, tin lµ, ®o¸n lµ,cho r»ng

doubt

nghi ngê lµ

Table 4: Scale of Evidential propositional-lexical verbs’ certainty

It is noted that “think, believe, guess, suppose, doubt” can perform the “process meaning”

and “modal meaning”. As what is differentiated by both Nuyts (Epistemic Modal

Qualifications on their Linguistic and Conceptual Structure, 1994) and Quirk (A Grammar

of Contemporary English, 1972), these verbs used with “process meaning” show

“activity”, while used with “modal meaning” they indicate “perception”. The former can

go with progressive aspect, whereas the latter cannot. The latter will not be taken into

42

account in the paper. During the process of analyzing each of the Evidential propositional-

lexical verbs, the examples will be provided to illustrate the differences between these two

meaning.

2.3.1.1. THINK

In the sense of Evidential modal qualifications, “I think” is linked with the meaning of “I

consider it probably true that…even though I am not certain of the information” (Nuyts,

Epistemic Modal Qualifications on their Linguistic and Conceptual Structure, 1994). That

means “think” - “nghÜ lµ” - in this case being ranked at the level of the medium

certainty. However, when “think” is combined with Judgmental markers like “must” and

“certainly” (“ch¾c lµ, thÊy râ lµ”) in the complement clauses, it can be placed in the

high range of the certainty scale.

(48a) I think he must be with his girlfriend now. (Modal meaning)

(48b) I think he is certainly with his girlfriend now. (Modal meaning)

= T«i d¸m ch¾c lµ nã ®ang ë cïng víi b¹n g¸i nã ®Êy.(49) I think that Tom is right. (Modal meaning)

= T«i nghÜ r»ng/ cho r»ng Tom ®óng.(50) Jude is back, I think.

(Modal meaning)

= T«i cho r»ng lµ Jude ®· quay trë vÒ.(51) The plane is taking off, I think, in 5 minutes. (Modal

meaning)

= M¸y bay sÏ cÊt c¸nh, t«i nghÜ lµ trong 5 phót n÷a.(52) I think of her all the time. (Process meaning)

= T«i lu«n nghÜ vÒ c« Êy.

“Think” in (48-52) can be seen as the verb expressing the state of mind which is the result

of reasoning process. Though similar in appearance, “think” in (52) cannot show the

speaker’s view concerning the state of the affair; instead, it shows an “on-going” activity.

43

The former clearly infers the assessment of the truth-value of the propositions by the

speaker who has encoded, to some extent, the ground of the assertion. The latter only helps

with the meaning that the speaker is missing his girlfriend much. The latter is said, thus, to

carry the “process meaning” while the former is of “modal meaning”, i.e. the “Evidential

modal meaning”.

2.3.1.2. BELIEVE

Of the medium level of certainty, “I believe” - “T«i tin lµ” - acting as a device of

Evidential modality can be paraphrased by Nuyts (Epistemic Modal Qualifications on their

Linguistic and Conceptual Structure, 1994) as “I consider it probably true that…though I

am not completely sure”. In this sense, the speaker using “believe” expresses depth and

assurance of feeling that is often based on inconclusive evidence. Compared with “believe”

of “modal meaning”, “believe” of “process meaning” - “tin vµo, tin tëng vµo” - only

shows the speaker’s faith, trust, or confidence in the value of something. The examples

presented below can bring out these two meanings of “believe”:

(53) I believe they are getting married. (Modal meaning)

= T«i tin r»ng hä s¾p lÊy nhau.(54) The Smiths, I believe, has just moved to Belfast. (Modal meaning)

= Gia ®×nh Smiths, t«i nghÜ r»ng, hä võa míi chuyÓn nhµ ®Õn Belfast.

(55) Kate will be appointed that position, I believe. (Modal meaning)

= Kate sÏ ®îc bæ nhiÖm vµo vÞ trÝ ®ã, t«i tin lµ nh vËy.(56) I believe in Jesus. (Process meaning)

= T«i tin vµo chóa Jeus.(57) I don’t believe his account of the accident. (Process meaning)

= T«i kh«ng tin vµo c¸i b¶n khai cña anh ta vÒ vô tai n¹n. (53-67) convey the modality in the ways of showing the speakers’ attitudes towards the

utterance. As for Evidential modality, “believe” exemplified in (53-55) helps to put the

44

sources of information into code; as such the speakers devote their between-high-and-low

commitment to the propositions. That is to say, they have not collected or absorbed enough

evidence to assert completely the information. Meanwhile, no same thing can be said to

“believe” in (56-57). In fact, “believe” in these two examples can only reflect the meaning

of process; it shows the speakers’ trust and faith in “Jesus” or “his account of the

accident”.

2.3.1.3. GUESS, SUPPOSE

When the speaker says “I guess” or “I suppose” – “T«i cho r»ng lµ”, he/she means that

“I consider it probably or likely that… though I have no firm evidence for it” (Nuyts,

Epistemic Modal Qualifications on their Linguistic and Conceptual Structure, 1994).

Specifically, the speaker is known not to entirely commit himself/herself to the truth-

content of the proposition. Thus, these two verbs are of the medium certainty level, just

like “think and believe”.

(58) I guess you don’t have time enough to go out now that you have young

children.

= T«i nghÜ lµ b¹n kh«ng cã ®ñ thêi gian ®Ó ra ngoµi v× bËn con nhá.(59) It’s going to rain, I guess.

= Trêi s¾p ma, t«i ®o¸n vËy(60) Both John and Mary, I guess, felt unsatisfied with the results.

= C¶ John vµ Mary, t«i ®o¸n lµ kh«ng hµi lßng chót nµo víi kÕt qu¶ ®ã.(61) She isn’t here, I suppose she has gone home.

= C« Êy kh«ng ë ®©y, theo t«i th× cã thÓ c« Êy ®· vÒ råi.(62) His book, I suppose, will be awarded the Nobel Prize.

= T«i cho r»ng cuèn s¸ch ®ã cña anh ta sÏ cã thÓ ®îc trao gi¶i Nobel.(63) I suppose that they left all for the party.

45

= T«i cho r»ng hä ®· ®i ¨n tiÖc råi.(64) Oliver will be sacked, I suppose.

= Oliver ch¾c sÏ bÞ sa th¶i, t«i nghÜ vËy.

These clear examples have led the readers to an immediate thought that the speakers in

(58-64) are all not very certain of the utterance. They produce the propositions “you don’t

have time enough to go out now that you have young children”, “It’s going to rain”, “Both

John and Mary felt unsatisfied with the results”, “she has gone home”, “His book will be

awarded the Nobel prize”, “they left all for the party”, “Oliver will be sacked” in lack of

evidence and the source of information.

2.3.1.4. DOUBT

Like Evidential modal adjective “doubtful” and Evidential modal noun “doubt” discussed

in the foregoing parts, the Evidential propositional-lexical verb “doubt” is categorized in

the low range of certainty scale. When “I doubt” – “T«i nghi r»ng lµ, T«i kh«ng ch¾c lµ” is uttered together with some proposition, it is normally interpreted that “I

consider it quite unlikely that… because I have no evidence for it”.

(65) I doubt that she will get a job. (Modal meaning)

= T«i kh«ng d¸m ch¾c c« Êy sÏ t×m ®îc viÖc.(66) We may have it ready by tomorrow, I doubt. (Modal meaning)

= Chóng ta cã thÓ chuÈn bÞ xong vµo ngµy mai, t«i kh«ng d¸m ch¾c ®©u.

(67) His conclusion, I doubt, is unreasonable. (Modal meaning)

= KÕt luËn cña anh ta, t«i nghi lµ kh«ng ®îc hîp lý l¾m.(68) I should not doubt him. (Process meaning)

= T«i kh«ng nªn nghi ngê anh ta.

As can be shown in (65-68) all the propositions are doubtful hypotheses and beneath

challenge and substantiation. These propositions here are regarded as irrealis. The

46

information whose source is largely irrelevant is weakly asserted by the speaker. It is also

clear that “doubt” in (65-68) differs from “doubt” in (68); the former’s meaning is

evidentially modalized, while the latter means a process of activity.

In line with the above semantic analysis, these Evidential propositional-lexical verbs are,

in majority, used for expressions of the speaker’s prediction rather than deduction. In

addition, they indicate some degree of uncertainty. “Think, believe, guess, suppose” are

said to include the evidential component and require evidence. Thus, they belong to the

medium range of certainty scale, except for the case of “think” going with other epistemic

devices of strong judgments. Whereas, “doubt” contains almost no evidential component;

it requires no evidence and is found in the low range of the scale.

2.3.2. SENSORY VERBS

As Palmer (Mood and Modality, 1986) and Givãn (Mind, Code and Context – Essays in

Pragmatics, 1989) have stated, the strength of evidence depends on what type of evidence

is. On the scale suggested by Givãn (Mind, Code and Context – Essays in Pragmatics,

1989) evidence involving senses are considered as more direct and stronger than evidence

upon which inference is based. Among the five senses, visual and auditory markers are

most commonly used. Also, it is recommended to consider the degree of certainty given by

Givãn (Mind, Code and Context – Essays in Pragmatics, 1989) to these sensory verbs:

VISION > HEARING > OTHER SENSES > FEELING

(> means “stronger”)

2.3.2.1. SEE, HEAR

In the English system, there are lexical verbs performing the function of marking visual

experience. Such a typical verb as “see” - “thÊy r»ng, tËn m¾t thÊy lµ” is used to

report visual experience as the firsthand one that the speaker has when making a realis-

47

assertion which is open to challenge for evidence. In other cases, the evidence of an

assertion can be auditory. That is, the speaker encodes his commitment to the content of

his utterance by asserting that he directly hears something. Therefore, he can present the

event with his direct auditory perception. English has “hear”, and correspondingly,

Vietnamese has “chÝnh tai …nghe thÊy lµ, nghe thÊy lµ”.

(69a) I saw him walk across the street.

(69b) I saw him walking across the street.

= T«i tr«ng thÊy anh Êy ®i qua ®êng.= T«i tr«ng thÊy anh Êy ®ang ®i qua ®êng.(70a) I hear John scold hid son.

(70b) I hear John scolding his son.

= T«i nghe thÊy John m¾ng con trai «ng Êy.= T«i nghe thÊy John ®ang m¾ng con trai «ng Êy.

In (69b) the speaker asserts that at that moment of the event the man was on the way and

the event was incomplete, while in (69a) the speaker implies that he/she witnessed the man

walked from one side to the other and the event was complete. Similarly, 70b) signal that

the grounds for the assertions lie in the speaker’s direct auditory encounter with the event.

However, a slight difference is realized that (70b) conveys the incomplete action of John’s

scolding, whereas (70a) shows that the speaker hears from the beginning to the end of the

event that “John scolded his son”.

2.3.2.2. SEEM, APPEAR

Both of these verbs “seem and appear” can be interpreted as “dêng nh lµ, cã vÎ nh lµ”

in Vietnamese. Normally, they talk about one’s appearance which can be perceived by

his/her expressions or behaviors. Noticeably, when these two verbs are used as copulas,

they are regarded as describing cases of direct impression (subjective and evaluative);

however, if used in the structures where they are followed by phrases introduces by “TO

BE”, they are considered to describe indirect perception accompanied by some Evidential

48

modal qualification (Usoniene, Perception verbs revisited, Working paper, Dept. of

Linguistics, Lund University, 1999).

(71) She seems/ appears tired.

= Tr«ng c« Êy cã vÎ mÖt mái.(72) He seems/ appears to be sincere.

= Anh ta tá vÎ ra lµ ch©n thµnh.

(71-72) signal tentative assertions. As presented in (71), the assertion by the speaker mean

that the woman’s facial expression shows her physical state, while by the observation of

the man’s behaviors can the speaker provide the assertion of his sincerity in (72). With the

presence of “TO BE”, (70) sounds more direct than (71).

2.3.2.3. LOOK, FEEL, SOUND, TASTE, SMELL

These verbs “look, feel, sound, taste, smell” - “tr«ng cã vÎ lµ, c¶m thÊy lµ, nghe cã vÎ lµ, cã vÞ lµ, nghe mïi nh lµ, ngöi mïi nh lµ” - in the Giaborne’s view

(English perception verbs, UCL PhD dissertation, 1996) are identified as the SOUND-

class verbs. These verbs all are said to hold the sensory modality, namely Evidential

modality. All these verbs are used to show the direct evidence on the basis of direct

experience. In this sense, all these verbs are Evidential modal ones used where the referent

of the subject has properties that provide the evidence for the evaluation.

(73) This piece of music sounds lovely.

= §o¹n nh¹c nµy nghe thËt hay.(74) He looks very ill.

= Tr«ng anh ta rÊt èm.(75) The fabric feels thin.

= MiÕng v¶i nµy sê rÊt máng.(76) The wine smells delicious.

= Rîu nµy vÞ ngon thËt.

49

(77) This food tastes rancid.

= Mãn thøc ¨n nµy cã mïi thiu mÊt råi.

It is clear that, in (73), the referent “this piece of music” is the sound-er and its melody is

the evidence for its being lovely. In (74), the referent “he” is the look-er and his appearance

is the evidence for his being “very ill”. Meanwhile, the speaker can judge by the fabric’s

feel, the wine’s smell, the food’s taste, he/she assert their states of being thin, delicious,

randid respectively. Also obviously, it is the sound, look, feel, smell, and taste of the

subjects that provides the evidence for the speaker’s assertion.

When prepositions “like” or subordinators “as if, as though” are attached to these verbs,

semantically, their meaning proves a bit different.

(78) It sounds like Jane.

= Nghe nh giäng cña Jane Êy.(79) It feels like sandpaper.

= C¸i nµy sê nh giÊy nh¸m Êy.(80) It smells/ tastes like chocolate.

= Nã cã mïi/ vÞ nh mïi/ vÞ s«c«la Êy.(81) It looks like going to rain.

= Nh×n trêi cã vÎ nh s¾p ma Êy.(82) He sounded as though he knew well about that.

= Nghe anh ta nãi cø nh lµ anh ta biÕt râ vÒ chuyÖn Êy l¾m.

(78-82) can be seen as examples for the the speaker’s evaluation of the fact. For instance,

(78) could mean “it is making a noise like Jane makes”, where the referent of “it” is the

“er” of the sense of “sounds” and it is the sense of “sounds” that is like Jane; or “it appears

from everything that I have heard that it must be Jane”; that is, it has an evaluative

meaning. Briefly, with the preposition “like” or subordinators “as though or as if”, the

comparison is made by the speaker after such a clear experience.

50

These sensory verbs all provide the speaker with confidence in their source of information

or evidence on which directness rather than indirectness is shown in their assertion. Most

of the cases in the analysis are used to convey the firsthand evidence, which supports the

speaker’s commitment at its maximum of certainty.

2.3.3. REPORT VERBS AND HEARSAY VERBS

As mentioned, the evidence of an assertion can be signaled by some markers which overtly

qualify this assertion. Palmer (Mood and Modality, 1986) points out that markers of this

type are indirect evidence, i.e. evidence via verbal report. Willet (A Cross-Linguistic

Survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality Studies in Language, 1988) proposes that

reported evidence may be specially marked as secondhand or third-hand one. In line with

Willet’s view, that is to say, basing on the way the speaker gets information, the

declarative structures can be divided into two types: report and hearsay. In the report type,

the information is provided by a specific person. This type of information is more reliable

than the hearsay type, where the speaker cannot say who has informed him/her.

Considering the scale of reliability by Givãn (Mind, Code and Context – Essays in

Pragmatics, 1989), it is said that the information sated by the speaker himself/herself is

more reliable than by the direct listener; the information by the indirect listener is the least

reliable.

SPEAKER > DIRECT LISTENER > INDIRECT LISTENER

(> means “more reliable”)

The report type is corresponding to the case where the speaker is in the role of a direct

listener, and the hearsay type to the case where the speaker is in the role of an indirect

listener.

2.3.3.1. SAY, TELL

51

In English system, the report markers can formed with the verbs of speaking types such as

“say, tell” - “nãi r»ng, kÓ r»ng”. These two verbs are found to be so-called “pure”

report verbs when going with the subject “he, she, a noun, or a proper name”. Yet, when

combining with “they, people, some” as subjects or appearing in the form of passive voice

with the non-personal subject “It”, these two verbs are turned into being hearsay verbs.

For the former, the person who fed information to the speaker is identified, and thus,

named in the speaker’s report. By this way does the speaker seem to commit

himself/herself a little more to the content of the assertion. For the latter, the speaker does

not want to present information as firsthand information but as non-firsthand. Therefore, it

can be inferred that the information introduced by hearsay verbs may be circled around

before it is received by the speaker as third-hand knowledge.

(83) Tom says he cannot live on his income. (Report)

= Tom nãi r»ng anh Êy kh«ng thÓ sèng dùa vµo thu nhËp cña m×nh.

(84) His mother told me that he was hit by a van. (Report)

= MÑ anh Êy b¶o lµ anh Êy bÞ xe t¶i ®©m.(85) They say that this company has sacked many employees. (Hearsay)

= ThÊy ngêi ta nãi lµ c«ng ty ®ã võa sa th¶i nhiÒu c«ng nh©n l¾m.

(86) It’s said that she was vigorously beaten by her husband. (Hearsay)

= Nghe ®ån lµ c« Êy bÞ chång ®¸nh ®Ëp tîn l¾m.(87) Someone says he’s been arrested. (Hearsay)

= Ai ®ã nãi lµ h¾n võa bÞ b¾t råi.2.3.3.2. HEAR

Another verb which should be discussed here is “hear”. “Hear” is usually seen as a verb of

sense, which means “to perceive sound by ear” (“nghe thÊy”); however, when it occurs

with That-clause, it means “to receive information by report or by letter” or “to be told by

others” (thÊy lµ, nghe thÊy lµ). With this meaning, “hear” belongs to the report type.

More interestingly, “hear” can be listed in the group of hearsay verbs if the modal noun

52

“rumor” follows it (“nghe ®ån lµ”). Explicably, in this case, the speaker sounds as the

indirect receiver of the information which is circled around or shared.

(88) I heard that she got married. (Report)

= T«i ®îc biÕt lµ c« Êy ®· cíi råi.(89) I heard the rumor that he went to Milan for the show. (Hearsay)

= T«i nghe thÊy ngêi ta ®ån r»ng anh ta ®· ®i Milan cho buæi tr×nh diÔn råi.

2.4. SUMMARY

This chapter has produced the analysis of the Evidential modal markers including

Evidential modal adjectives, Evidential modal adverbs, Evidential modal nouns, and

Evidential modal lexical verbs. All these Evidential modal items are correspondingly

translated in Vietnamese for better understanding. Semantically, Evidential modal markers

in English can be categorized in the deictic structure as inferring, sensation, and external

information from the source and direction of evidence. Evidential modal markers in each

category, in turn, can be sub-scaled with the three degrees of certainty: the highest

certainty, the medium certainty, and the lowest certainty.

CHAPTER 3: SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF

EVIDENTIAL MODAL MARKERS IN ENGLISH

3.1. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS

53

3.1.1. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADJECTIVES

Evidential modal adjectives in English are found in predicative position and they are

characteristically used with a non-personal subject (“It” appears in the speaker’s

preference in most of the cases), or sometimes with personal subjects such as the first

person pronoun subject “I”.

(90) It is apparent that Mary got divorced.

= Râ rµng lµ Mary ®· ly dÞ.= Mary râ rµng lµ ®· ly dÞ.(91) I am sure that he has won the lottery.

= T«i d¸m ch¾c lµ anh Êy ®· tróng sæ xè.

And within the Theme-Rheme structure, these Evidential modal adjective constructions

can be placed in many positions: initial, medial, and even final in English.

(92) That he ever passed the exam is doubtful.

= C¸i chuyÖn anh Êy ®· ®ç qua kú thi qu¶ thËt lµ ®¸ng ngê.= ThËt lµ ®¸ng ngê vÒ c¸i chuyÖn anh Êy ®· ®ç qua kú thi IELTS.(93) The Smiths, I am sure, went to Amsterdam for holidays.

= T«i d¸m ch¾c lµ nhµ Smiths ®· ®i nghØ ë Amsterdam råi.

3.1.2. EVIDENTIAL MODAL ADVERBS

From Quirk’s view (Quirk et al., 1972), the modal adverbs belong to a general class of

“attitudinal adjuncts”. They are “peripheral in clause structure”, i.e., they are specifically

sentential adverbs. Their peripherality can be seen in the fact that they can appear in a

number of different positions - initial, medial, or final - within the clause without affecting

the relation between the clause and the adverb though the overall meaning of the resulting

sentence may differ. “Clearly, obviously, evidently, surely, undoubtedly, apparently,

54

seemingly” and “râ rµng lµ, hiÓn nhiªn lµ, ch¾c ch¾n lµ, kh«ng cßn nghi ngê g× n÷a lµ, dêng nh lµ” also lie in this school of thought.

(94) Obviously, he is at home.

= Râ rµng lµ anh ta ®ang ë nhµ.(95) He received Mary’s letter, undoubtedly.

= Anh ta ®· nhËn ®îc th cña Mary göi råi, ch¾c ch¾n mµ.(96) John apparently went out with his daughter.

= H×nh nh John ®· ®i ra ngoµi cïng con g¸i råi th× ph¶i.

Another syntactic feature is put forward by Jackendoff (1972) that modal adverbs do not

occur in questions. Bellert (1977), Quirk et al. (1972) and Perkins (1983) share the same

viewpoint. They also claim that these adverbs cannot become the question focus. However,

some other modal such as “surely” can possibly appear in questions though the state of

affairs is questioned, not “surely”. It is exemplified hereunder:

(97) Surely he has got many friends here?

= Cã ch¾c lµ anh Êy cã nhiÒu b¹n ë vïng nµy kh«ng?

3.2. EVIDENTIAL MODAL NOUNS

“Truth, fact, rumor, and doubt” are all the factive abstract nouns. When they play a role in

expressing modality in general, Evidential modality in particular, they normally appear in

the Noun phrase. As far as Quirk’s view is concerned (A University Grammar of English,

2003), these nouns can be found in the restrictive appositive clauses. As with apposition,

the apposed units can be linked with “be” (where the copula typically has nuclear

prominence):

(98) The fact is that no one is infallible.

= Thùc tÕ lµ kh«ng cã ai sai c¶.

55

Besides, these Evidential modal nouns are almost used in the nominal clauses, especially

That-clauses which can function as subject:

(99) That she is still alive is the truth.

= ChuyÖn c« Êy vÉn cßn sèng lµ sù thËt ®Êy.

or as direct object:

(100) I find no doubt that he was wrong.

= T«i ch¼ng thÊy nghi ngê g× vÒ c¸i chuyÖn anh Êy lµm sai c¶.

or as subject complement:

(110) The rumor is that he has shot his wife to death.

= ThÊy ®ån lµ l·o Êy ®· b¾n chÕt vî m×nh.

The impersonal subject “It” can be utilize to introduce the noun in the clause structured

like [It be Evidential Modal Noun that P]:

(111) It is the truth that he was in prison for 20 years.

= Sự thực là ông ấy đã từng bị giam trong tù 20 năm.

Evidential modal noun constructions can be seen in either the initial or final position.

There seems to be hardly any case that Evidential modal noun constructions are placed in

the medial position except for “no doubt”.

(112) He no doubt arrived late for the interview.

= Anh ta rµnh rµnh ra lµ ®· ®Õn pháng vÊn muén.

3.3. EVIDENTIAL MODAL LEXICAL VERBS

56

3.3.1. EVIDENTIAL PROPOSITIONAL-LEXICAL VERBS

Like other modal verbs, Evidential propositional-lexical verbs treasure two main properties

which are found by both Quirk (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language,

1972) and Huddleston (Introduction to the Grammar of English, 1984). The first one is

inflection. That means they tensed, “past tense or present tense”. The second one is

functional potential. In other words, they can function as the main verb in the verb-phrase

of the clause. Additionally, these verbs are mostly accompanied with first person subject.

Hence, they performatively are used to indicate, not to report, the opinions and attitudes of

the speakers. By this way are all the propositions in the utterances signified with the truth-

value.

(113) I think it is a good place to enjoy the holiday.

= T«i cho r»ng ®ã lµ mét n¬i thó vÞ cho kú nghØ ®Êy.(114) I thought that she was fired.

= T«i tëng c« Êy ®· bÞ ®uæi viÖc.

As far as the syntactic patterns are concerned, these verbs are complemented by That-

clause or by an elliptical variant of it.

(115) I think that he will tell you a lie.

= T«i nghÜ r»ng anh Êy sÏ nãi dèi b¹n ®Êy.

(116) I think so.

= T«i còng nghÜ vËy.

Interestingly, these verbs can be used parenthetically as comment clauses which function

as attitudinal disjuncts. Given the fact, they can mark straightforwardly the speaker

Evidential modal qualification over the state of affairs. Visibly, these verbs can take initial,

medial, or even final positions within the utterance.

(117a) He may be here, I suppose, in a nick of time.

(117b) He may be here in the nick of time, I suppose.

57

= (T«i cho lµ) anh Êy sÏ cã mÆt ë ®©y ®óng lóc th«i mµ (T«i cho lµ nh vËy)

3.3.2. SENSORY VERBS

Apparently, among these sensory verbs, some share the same syntactic features; some

differ from one another. Acceptably, “see” and “hear” the structure in common, while

“seem, appear, look, sound, feel, smell, taste” can be relatively similarly structured.

The former can be found with the Bare infinitive clauses or the Ing-participle clauses.

Within the Theme-Rheme structure, these two verbs are normal to the initial position

where evidence can be asserted at first place.

(118a) I saw her husband do the gardening.

(118b) I saw her husband doing the gardening.

= T«i thÊy chång bµ ta lµm vên/ ®ang lµm vên.(119a) I heard someone pass in the street.

(119b) I heard someone passing in the street.

= T«i nghe thÊy cã tiÕng ai ®ã ®i/ ®ang ®i qua phè Êy.

The latter can function as copulas “Be”. Adjectives are said to follow to complement these

kinds of verbs. Besides, the preposition “like” or subordinators “as if, as though” can be

added to create such adverbial clauses of comparison; and in case “doubt” or “unreality” is

raised, the modal past is required. They can be placed in the medial position in Rheme.

(120) She seems like a shy girl.

= C« Êy tr«ng cã vÎ lµ rÊt e dÌ.

(121) It smells like ash.

= Nghe nh cã mïi tµn thuèc th× ph¶i/ Nã cã mïi gièng mïi tµn

thuèc.

(122) He sounded as if he had never met me before.

58

= Anh ta nãi cø nh lµ cha bao giê gÆp t«i Êy.

(123) He looks so exicted.

= Tr«ng anh ta thËt høng khëi.

(124) He looks as though he is going to be ill.

= Tr«ng anh ta nh s¾p èm ®Õn n¬i råi Êy.

3.3.3. REPORT VERBS AND HEARSAY VERBS

“Say, tell, hear”, either report verbs or hearsay verbs, all are tensed. They can occur with

the “past tense” or “present tense”. Besides, they are followed by That-clause. In this kind

of Evidential modal expressions, the passive voice can be used with the non-personal

subject “It” to indicate the source of the information as well as the speaker’s intention of

making his/her statements sound more objective. By means of “It”, the speaker is found to

lower his/her responsibility or commitment in the truth of the proposition stated.

With regard to the positions in Theme-Rheme structure, these hearsay or report verbs can

be mostly placed in the initial and final positions.

(125) He said that he had left his job.

= Anh ta nãi r»ng anh ta ®· bá viÖc.(126) Tom tells everybody that he is going to get married.

= Tom nãi víi mäi ngêi lµ anh Êy s¾p lËp gia ®×nh.(127) It is said that he is a first-rate sportsman.

= Mäi ngêi nãi r»ng anh Êy lµ nhµ thÓ thao h¹ng nhÊt.(128) A growing baby needs much green, the nutritionist says.

= Mét ®øa trÎ ®ang ph¸t riÓn cÇn ¨n nhiÒu rau, c¸c nhµ dinh dìng nãi vËy.

3.4. SUMMARY

This chapter has presented the analysis of the Evidential modal markers including

Evidential modal adjectives, Evidential modal adverbs, Evidential modal nouns, and

59

Evidential modal lexical verbs in terms of syntactic aspect. It is observable that,

grammatically, in English tense as the deictic notion takes up the burden of Evidential

modality to encode the Evidential stance as remoteness from the reference world. In fact,

tensed markers in English signal less commitment to the proposition. Furthermore,

Evidential modal markers in English show their mobility in the clausal structure in that

they can occur at any position open to adverbials.

CHAPTER 4: PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF

EVIDENTIAL MODAL MARKERS IN ENGLISH

60

In Givón’s view (1989), human communication involves a complicated network of

conventions with reference to what the speaker and hearer are entitled to expect of each

other when they play their respective roles in communication. In that light, Evidentials

seem under control of the contract between the speaker and hearer. It is understandable that

under the contract the speaker take responsibility for the evidentiary justification of the

information in terms of its source and reliability. Meanwhile, psychologically, the contract

governs the subjective certainty the speaker assign to the information shared. Apart from

that, the contract also influences, intentionally, interpersonally, and socially, the interaction

between the speaker and hearer. That is, the hearer may set off his/ her reactions ranging

from challenge to tacit assent to affirmation.

It is well-observed from Givón’s opinion (1989) that among various propositional

modalities exist some inferential connections. They are described as follows:

Truth Knowledge

Knowledge Certainty

Certainty Status

Status Power

As can be seen, these inferences are pragmatic norms in association with the

communicative contract embedded within the context of the interaction. When facing an

interlocutor of higher power, i.e. status and authority, the speaker is inclined to scale down

his or her expression of certainty by using hedges that place assertions in a lower evidential

range. In this case, a tone-down may be a hedge against the possibility that the higher

authority may express an opposite belief.

61

It is common knowledge that conversation is to share information or pass information,

though old or new, between communicators. Here, the information shared is normally to

reflect the speaker in the way that:

he or she is more certain about things than others,

and the attitude he or she chooses to facilitate the communication in social

interaction can contribute to the modulation of his or her commitment and

confidence to the knowledge he or she asserts.

Accordingly, the certainty to the content of the assertion or utterance is shown in support

of the speaker’s attitude toward the interlocutor in communicative interaction. With the

choice of Evidential markers, the communicator can put the information under his or her

control by means of warranting or hedging it.

4.1. FUNCTION OF HEDGING INFORMATION

When sharing information in communication, the speaker is always careful with the

information he or she feeds the hearer. Not only that, the speaker must hold such

responsibility for the accuracy of the information shared as well. That means the speaker

must be the one who has experienced the thing or the one who gets the firsthand evidence

about the thing, which assures the information source to be reliable enough to the hearer’s

ears. However, not all the time sees the speaker being confident or sure of the information

source, in which case the speaker does not also want a communication breakdown or tell

lies. Therefore, he or she may think of hedging strategies as a last resort. To put it in

another way, he or she has to recourse to one of variety of ways in providing information

without warranting it completely.

One of the ways which is considered to save the speaker from that confusing and

embarrassing situation, to some extent, is to utilize certain Evidential markers. They range

from Evidential modal nouns, adjectives, adverbs, then to lexical verbs. These markers are

thought of as hedging devices. In this situation, the Evidential markers as hedging devices

62

attenuate or weaken the strength of an utterance. Along with the core principle of negative

politeness as postulated in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1897) an Face

Threatening Act (FTA) is regarded as a violation of the speaker’s privacy and freedom of

action, for which hedges or Evidential markers here provide a possible compensation.

Therefore, negative politeness enables the speaker to make his or her communicative

intention clear to the hearer, but with redress, which means that the speaker makes an

effort to minimize the imposition, authoritativeness or directness of his or her utterance.

To carry out this pragmatic function, Evidential markers including hearsay markers or

report markers are at the speaker’s disposal such as “It is said that…”, “People say that…”,

“I’ve heard that…”, It seems…”, etc.

(129) People say that he got engaged with a super star last month.

= Người ta nói rằng anh ta đã đính hôn với một siêu sao tháng trước.

(130) It seems that she is so hard on her children.

= Hình như cô ấy quá hà khắc với bọn trẻ nhà cô ấy.

(131) I heard a rumor that he used to be sent to jail when he was young.

= Tôi nghe đồn rằng anh ta đã từng bị bỏ tù khi còn trẻ đấy.

(132) It is said that workers in that factory have decided to go on strike for a rise.

= Người ta nói rằng công nhân của nhà máy đó vừa quyết định sẽ đình công đòi

tăng lương.

The introductory statements above like “It is said that…”, I heard a rumor that…, etc.

enables the speaker to feed the information to the hearer without any worry of losing face

due to the unconfidence in the information source. It corresponds to the fact that the

speaker is not responsible for the accuracy of that information any more. He or she turns it

from direct into indirect, that is to say. Besides, such evidential hedging devices help the

speaker produce assertion of the same kind and distance him or her from it successfully.

Another way as the speaker’s face-saving strategy is to avoid the extremes, which means

showing reluctance or hesitation when making assertion. Such hedging Evidential markers

as “I think”, “I suppose”, “I guess”, “It seems to me”, “I don’t think”, I wouldn’t say”, etc.

are at the speaker’s disposal. These markers are viewed as speaker-oriented markers,

63

which emphasize the subjective attitude of the speaker towards the message. These

markers are said to attenuate the speaker meaning by increasing the degree of subjectivity

of the utterance. By using such attitudinal hedges as the above-mentioned the addressee

transforms an assertion into a question phrase, which signals a lack of certainty and high

degree of indeterminacy on the part of the speaker and, consequently, implies the necessity

of confirmation on the part of the hearer. Therefore, these markers imply to the hearer that

the speaker’s utterance is not to be taken as something universally true or definite, but

rather as a personal opinion, judgment, or belief, which is open to further negotiation. In

other words, no appearance of finality in the speaker’s remark or assertion can be found

here, allowing doors to other opinions and tending to promote discussion of any

differences rather than to provoke challenges or denials from the hearer.

(133) (A young student in conversation with an elderly professor, who asks her.)

Professor: Interested in linguistics, are you?

Student: Yes, I suppose I am.

= Giáo sư: Em thích ngôn ngữ học chứ?

Sinh viên: Vâng ạ, em nghĩ là em thích ạ.

Not only do attitudinal hedges as such increase the degree of subjectivity, but they also

serve to indicate the speaker’s uncertainty and indecision about the utterance he or she

makes. Being uncertain or indecisive may be, of course, the result of insufficient

information or a character feature, but often it is a manifestation of politeness and

deference as in the following example that sounds like a suggestion of “Let’s make an

agreement.” , which is considered to be a very strong culture-specific phenomenon in

English.

(134) I think that before we take further steps in this project, we ought to come to

an understanding.

= Tôi nghĩ rằng trước khi chúng ta tiến thêm một bước trong dự án này, thì chúng

ta cần phải đi đến thống nhất.

64

The use of Evidential modal markers of low certainty in the speaker’s assertion can

function as hedging devices which are downgraders. As known, along with the core of

negative politeness, it is considered polite to be non-imposing. However, if this is not

possible, then the imposition must be at least minimized. To put it in another way, these

attitudinal markers minimize the size of imposition that is being made on the hearer or they

serve as a form of self-protection of the speaker, the reason for which may be the lack of

the partner’s wants, opinions, or beliefs. The strategy of minimizing the imposition is often

used in order to show tact or modesty towards the speaker.

4.2. FUNCTION OF WARRANTING INFORMATION

In communication, using Evidential markers of low certainty all the time can not be a good

strategy in some context. That is, in case the speaker has to hold strong responsibility for

the information ground, or he/she has to make strong assertion on what is going to

presented, low-certainty markers of Evidentials prove of no use. That may lead the speaker

to the situation of doubt and suspicion. In Wardhaugh’s words (1985:183), equivocation is

not ultimately of cooperative behavior; it proves unsatisfactory. Besides, a perpectual

equivocator has nothing to offer others in conversation. Take, for example, a witness to an

accident. If the speaker witnessing an accident answers some questions by the police with

Evidential markers like “I suppose”, “It seems to me that”, “I think”, then his or her

statements count for nothing.

Undeniably, in some important circumstances, it is a must for the speaker to be definite.

He or she has to warrant the information he or she feeds the hearer. That way, the hearer

can hardly find any doubt in what the speaker says, believes, or feels. The Evidential

devices are listed in the group of markers of high certainty. They can be “I believe”, “I do

think”, “It is certain that”, “certainly/ obviously”, “to tell the truth”, “the truth is that”, “I

see/ saw”, etc. These expressions lead the speaker to showing his/ her strong commitment

to what he or she states, making the speaker’s information giving acceptable. The hearer,

as a result, can hold such a belief in the speaker’s assertion.

65

(135) To tell the truth, it is she who made me worried about.

= Thực lòng mà nói, chính cô ấy là người khiến tôi lo lắng.

(136) It is obvious that no one in this company feels satisfied with the current pay.

= Một điều rõ ràng rằng trong công ty nay không một ai cảm thấy hài lòng với mức

lương hiện tại.

(137) I saw him walking hand in hand with John’s girlfriend yesterday.

= Chính mắt tôi thấy anh ta tay trong tay đi cùng với bạn gái của John ngày hôm

qua mà.

= Tôi đã nhìn thấy anh ta tay trong tay đi cùng với bạn gái của John ngày hôm qua

mà.

In these examples, “to tell the truth”, “obvious”, and “saw” provide the hearer veracious

evidence, which helps the speaker defense the information he or she offers the hearer.

More interestingly, the Evidential makers of high certainty, apart from warranting the

information, can equip the speaker with such authority. The strong commitment by the

speaker may sound powerful and decisive. That means inflexibility. In this case, the hearer

is a little forced to accept the information fed by the speaker. Or the speaker is imposing

his or her opinion on the hearer who may not feel good in the conversation. Here the

Agreement Maxim in Politeness Maxim by Leech (1983) is made use of. Furthermore, in

terms of positive-politeness, the speaker is using the strategy of avoiding disagreement to

facilitate his or her discussion with the hearer.

(138) I’m absolutely sure that these figures were taken from the last year’s reports.

= Tôi đảm bảo rằng những con số này là lấy từ những bản báo cáo năm ngoái.

(139) There is no doubt that he stole all the money his mother kept in the drawer.

= Không còn nghi ngờ gì nữa, anh ta đã lấy cắp số tiền mà mẹ anh ta cất trong

ngăn kéo.

(140) I do believe that all the banks have adjusted the interest rate due to the

galloping inflation.

= Tôi hoàn toàn nghĩ rằng cái việc mà tất cả các ngân hàng điều chỉnh lãi xuất là

do tình trạng lạm phát phi mã.

66

4.3. SUMMARY

This chapter has offered the analysis of the Evidential modal markers including Evidential

modal adjectives, Evidential modal adverbs, Evidential modal nouns, and Evidential modal

lexical verbs in terms of pragmatic aspect. It is found that, pragmatically, in English

Evidential modal markers can carry out functions of hedging and warranting the

information shared. If Evidential markers which show high level of certainty, they support

the speaker to hold strong commitment to the assertion as well as the information source.

Meanwhile, in case the speaker is lacking in knowledge or vague about the information

ground, Evidential modal markers of low certainty come to the speaker’s assistance.

Therefore, in any circumstance though positive or negative, the speaker can be flexible in

choosing appropriate Evidential modal marker in hope of a successful conversation.

PART III: CONCLUSION* * *

67

1. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY

The paper has presented four main chapters:

Chapter 1 focuses on theories proposed by celebrated linguists in reference to concepts of

Modality, Epistemic modality, especially Evidential modality. All these theories are said to

be typically fundamental, which is indispensable for a good study on Evidential modal

markers.

Chapter 2 highlights the analysis of Evidential modal markers ranging from Evidential

modal adjectives like “clear, apparent, obvious, evident, sure, doubtful”, Evidential modal

adverbs such as “clearly, obviously, evidently, surely, undoubtedly, apparently,

seemingly”, Evidential modal nouns including “truth, fact, rumor, doubt”, and Evidential

modal lexical verbs comprising “think, believe, guess, suppose, doubt, see, hear, taste, feel,

smell, appear, seem, sound, look, say, tell”. In this chapter, semantic features of these

Evidential modal markers are studied and analyzed clearly and detailedly.

Chapter 3 identifies the syntactic features of these Evidential modal markers. The

explanations and descriptions in terms of structures in which these markers are used are

accompanied with typical examples.

Chapter 4 presents Evidential modal markers in the pragmatic aspects. This chapter is

designed to refer to the functions of hedging information and warranting information

which these Evidential modal markers possess.

2. CONCLUSIONS

Clearly, on the basis of the presentation of the study, it may be as well concluded that:

68

Evidential modality, one main type of Epistemic modality, deals with the speaker’s

commitment to the truth-value of the state of the affairs expressed in the proposition and

thus involves the speaker’s certainty and assurance of the reliability of the information for

the affairs. In other words, it encodes the ground on which the speaker wants to make

overtly qualified assertions.

For Evidential modality is a subcategory of Epistemic modality, it also bear the features of

Epistemic modality. That is to say, Evidential modal expressions, similarly, are used in

communication when the speaker is uncertain of the truth-value of the proposition or when

he/she have no intention of committing himself/herself.

Evidential modality owns many lexical means, namely Evidential modal adjectives,

Evidential modal adverbs, Evidential modal nouns, and Evidential modal lexical verbs.

Semantically, Evidential modal adjectives and adverbs are more “direct” and

“unambiguous” than Evidential lexical verb. All Evidential modal markers are to follow

the certainty scale. It is shown hereunder:

Evidential modal

markers

High certainty Medium certainty Low certainty

Evidential modal

adjectives

clear, apparent,

obvious, evident, sure

doubtful

Evidential modal

adverbs

clearly, obviously,

evidently, surely,

undoubtedly

apparently,

seemingly

Evidential modal

nouns

truth, fact rumor doubt

Evidential modal

lexical verbs

think (must, certainly),

see, hear, seem, appear,

look, feel, sound, taste,

smell, say, tell

think, believe,

guess, suppose

doubt

Syntactically, it is well seen that most of the constructions carrying Evidential modal

markers begin with the first person subject singular “I” or the non-personal subject

69

singular “IT”. The constructions are composed of a stative verb such as “TO BE” (except

for Evidential modal lexical verbs). Or they may contain That-clause, a complement

clause (except for Evidential modal adverbs). Moreover, these markers can take initial,

medial, final positions within the utterance. Normally, Evidential modal adverbs or lexical

verbs can be parenthesized.

Pragmatically, the Evidential markers of low certainty can help the speaker with such bad

situation in which he or she have insufficient knowledge or information. Hedging

strategies prove helpful in the way of putting little or no imposition on the hearer or

allowing the speaker to make statement without any worry about the responsibility for the

source or accuracy of the information fed. On the contrary, the Evidential markers of high

certainty assure the speaker with strong commitment to the utterance. Hence, the hearer

may find no room to negotiate but to agree, to some extent. Here, the Evidential devices of

high certainty also show the speaker’s authoritativeness and his or her positive-politeness

strategy of avoiding disagreement.

Presenting in this thesis the basic analysis on semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic features of

English Evidential modal markers, we do feel content that the study will make this

complicated and rather ambiguous problem become more comprehensible. More

importantly, the study is to raise the awareness of the roles of Evidential modal markers in

communication both in spoken and written forms. That is, teachers of English, are required

to help Vietnamese learners of English have clear and thorough knowledge relating to

Evidential modal markers as well as their uses to reflect the reliability of information.

3. IMPLICATIONS

3.1. SUGGESTIONS FOR TEAHERS AND LEARNERS OF ENGLISH

Clearly, learning to express Evidential modality is not an easy task for the learners of

English as a second language. By far most of the Vietnamese learners of English find out

that evidence and the way to show information to support convincingly and effectively

70

their arguments or ideas are very important, particularly students of English who have to

follow the skills’ activities of giving opinion, debating, presenting, and so forth. However,

it is the fact that they do not perform well; i.e. they limit themselves to a small number of

Evidential modal markers to defend their arguments or to make their source of information

reliable to the listeners or readers. That causes the monotony in their speech, both written

and spoken forms. Thus, it is imperative for the teacher to improve the language

communicative competence with the use of Evidential modality.

Advisably, the teacher improves the students’ awareness of the importance of Evidential

modal markers in expressing ideas, supporting arguments, and providing persuasive and

reliable information. Providing a good list of Evidential markers for students with clear

explanations and the uses of these markers is needed.

Besides, in the presentation of the dialogue, the teacher should have his/her students

identify the speaker’s intent in his utterance, i.e. whether the speaker is performing an

agreement or disagreement, a comment or just an assertion to inform something. Above

all, it is advisable that the teacher should help the students to interpret the truth-value of the

utterances with Evidential modal markers, and help them how to modify the truth of the

utterances or presuppositions that go with it.

Additionally, the teacher should provide the students with semantic knowledge about the

value of Evidential modal markers in the scale of certainty, i.e. what kind of information or

evidence these makers can mirror: indirect or direct, firsthand or second/third-hand. The

syntactic features of these markers are recommended to let the students bear in mind.

More importantly, practicing to use these markers is indispensable. The teacher offers

them controlled practice and then free practice so that they can use these verbs both in

written and spoken forms smoothly and automatically. For example, the teacher may give

the students a piece of reading or listening, and then ask the students to identify the

Evidential markers the speaker uses and to rank them in the right group of certainty level.

The students, afterwards, are required to show whether the evidence or information is

direct/indirect or firsthand/second/third-hand.

71

3.2. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTHER STUDIES

Since the time is limited, we cannot cover all aspects of Evidential modality, i.e. Evidential

modal markers. The study has been an attempt to look at the nature of Evidential modality

as well as Evidential modal markers on the basis of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic

bearings. These markers are limited to some devices like Evidential adjective, adverbs,

nouns, and lexical verbs. It is, therefore, needed that further study on the topic, if possible,

should cover a broader range of Evidential modal expressions or items so that the whole

system of available means to encode Evidential modality in English can be clarified and

better understood. Besides, the study has examined Evidential modality semantically,

syntactically, and pragmatically; hence, further study should add discourse functionality to

the content and the analysis in order to be of greater value. If Evidential modality is a topic

for further study, it is highly appreciated that other markers which have not been referred

to in analysis should be paid more attention and detailedly investigated. By this means the

Evidential modal qualifications can be well perceived and Evidential modal markers can

be systemized thoroughly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

* * *

72

1. Anderson, L. (1986), “Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: typologically

regular asymmetries”, in CHAFE & NICHOLS (eds) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding

of Epistemology, pp. 273 - 312.

2. Austin, J.L. (1962), How to do things with words, London: Oxford University Press.

3. Barron, J. (1999), ‘Perception and raising verbs: synchronic and diachronic

relationships’. In M. Butt and T.H. King, eds., Time over matter, Stanford, CA: CSLI

Publications.

4. Belbert, I. (1977), On Semantic and Distributional Properties of Sentential Adverbs,

Linguistic Inquiry 8, pp. 337 - 351.

5. Brown, P. and Levison, S.C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds). (1995), Modality in Grammar and discourse,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

7. Chafe, W. and J. Nichols, eds., (1986), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of

Epistemology, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

8. De Haan, F. (2001), ‘The relation between modality and evidentiality’, Linguistiche

Berichte, pp. 201 - 216.

9. Givãn, T. (1982), Evidentiality and Epistemic Space, Study In Language 6, pp. 23 - 49.

10. Givãn, T. (1989), Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics, London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

73

11. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985), An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Arnold.

12. Nguyen, H. (1998), An Introduction to Semantics, Hanoi: Vietnam National University

Publisher.

13. Huddlesston, R.D. (1984), Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

14. Jespersen, O. (1924), The Philosophy of Grammar, London: Allen and Unwin.

15. Kearns, K. (2000), Semantics, New Delhi: Macmillan Press LTD.

16. Keifer, F. (1987), On defining modality, Folia Linguistics, 21.1., pp. 67 - 94.

17. Leech, J.N. (1983), Language and Tact – Pragmatics and Beyond Series, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

18. Lewis, C.I. (1946), An Analysis of Knowledge and Evaluation, La Salle: The Open

Court Publishing Co.

19. Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20. Nuyts, J. (2000), Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization, Amsterdam:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

21. Palmer, F. R. (1986), Mood and Modality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

22. Palmer, F.R. (1990), Modality and the English Modals, Longman, London and New

York.

74

23. Perkins, M. R. (1983), Modal Expressions in English, London and New York:

Longman.

24. Quirk, R. et al. (1972), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London

and New York: Longman.

25. Quirk, R. et al. (1972), A Grammar of Contemporary English, London and New York:

Longman.

26. Rescher, N. (1968), Topic in Philosophical Logic, Dordrecht: Reidel.

27. Saeed, J. (1997), Semantics, Oxford: Oxford Basil Blackwell.

28. Von Wright, G.H. (1951), An Essay in Modal Logic, Amsterdam: North-Holland

Publishing Comapany.

29. Wardhaugh, R. (1985), How Conversation Works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.

30. Willet, T. (1988), A Cross-linguistic Survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality,

Studies in Language, 12 (1), pp. 51 – 97

31. International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of The New York Times, Issues:

September 5th-14th, 2003.

32. TV News Programmes at the website of BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk)

75