A study on evidential modal markers in english

ing) = 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 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. = 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 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-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 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. (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. 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 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 “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 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, 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¶. 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 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. = (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. = 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 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 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 É Knowledge Knowledge É Certainty Certainty É Status Status É 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. 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 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, 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. 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. (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. 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 * * * 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: 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 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 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. 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 * * * 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. 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. 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 (