MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

Bachelor’s Thesis Proposal

MODALITIES IN ENGLISH AND

VIETNAMESE OFFERS

(Tính tình thái trong lời đề nghị tiếng Anh và

tiếng Việt)

Supervisor: ……………

Hanoi -04/ 2020

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page number

1. Introduction 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Aim and objectives of the study 2
1.3. Scope of the study 2
1.4. Research questions 2
1.5. Structure of the study 2

2. Literature review 3
2.1. Review of previous studies 3
2.2. Theoretical background 4
2.2.1. An overview of modalities 4
2.2.2. An overview of offers 5

3. Proposed Research Methodology 7

3.1. Research types 7
7
3.2. Population and sample 8
3.3. Research methods 8

4. Proposed chapter outline 9

References 10
 CONTENTS
I. Introduction
1.1. Rationale
A language is used as a means of social interaction and it expresses various
social roles and performs various communicative functions like questioning,
requesting, offering or commanding somebody or telling somebody something. Such
types of interpersonal functions of language are reflected in various sentence types
like declarative, interrogative and imperative and also through the system of modals.
The three choices in the mood system perform various communicative functions like
declaring, asking a question, making a request or giving a command. With these
sentence types, modal verbs like “can”, “may”, “will”, “must” help in expressing
various social functions such as making a request, seeking permission, expressing
rights, obligation and possibility. Sentence types, mood choices and modal verbs are
examples of modal markers. Thus, it can be said that modality is directly related to
the social functions of language. The notion of modality as well as linguistic means to
express modalities has been studied by a lot of scholars so far; however, research on
the way of using modal tools in a specific kind of speech act has been limited.
Offering is one common type of speech act, which shows consideration towards
each other and therefore it can reinforce social relationships. In different countries,
or cultures, people make offers in different ways. Modalities are closely related to the
emotion and attitude of the speaker; therefore, in offering, modal tools are usually
used. When thinking of modalities, what appears first in our mind may be the modal
verbs, which is a familiar concept. Besides modal verbs, there are many other lexical
markers such as modal adverbs, modal adjectives…, grammatical markers such as
mood and vocative, and prosodic markers. However, the use of linguistic means to
express modalities in offering is not the same in all languages. English and
Vietnamese have their own specific features, which leads to a lot of differences in
using language.
For the above reasons, the author would like to choose the topic “Modalities in
English and Vietnamese offers” with the attempt to find out the similarities and
differences of the modal tools in English and Vietnamese offers. It’s also hopeful that
this study will be of some help to those who are interested in this aspect of language.

1
1.2. Aim and objectives of the study
The research aims at helping learners to gain better knowledge of modalities
in English and Vietnamese offers.
The research objectives are:
- To explore the modality markers in making offers in English and Vietnamese.
- To compare and contrast the range of modality markers in order to clarify the
similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese and English people use
linguistic means to express modalities in offering in their own language and
culture.
1.3. Scope of the study
The study gives a description and analysis of modalities in terms of lexical
markers, grammatical markers, and prosodic markers. It centers on the similarities
and differences in using modality markers in the speech act of offering between
English and Vietnamese.
The materials on offers in English are taken from some English practical
textbooks such as Functions of English, Headway Intermediate, Life Lines,
Streamlines, Business Objectives… and examples of offers in Vietnamese are taken
from some short stories by Thạch Lam, Nam Cao, Thế Lữ, Nguyễn Huy Thiệp….
1.4. Research questions
1. What are modalities in English and Vietnamese offers?
2. What are the similarities and differences between modalities in English and
Vietnamese offers?
1.5. Structure of the thesis
This study consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1. Introduction, introduces the rationale for choosing the field for
studying, the aim and objectives, the scope of the study, the research questions,
research methods and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2. Literature review, discusses the previous studies on modalities relating
to the area of the research and presents some theoretical background that could be
used as foundation for the process of conducting the research.
Chapter 3. Methodology, presents Research types, population, sample and
research methods

2
Chapter 4. A contrastive analysis of modalities in offers between English and
Vietnamese, represents the study that focuses on the similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese in terms of modalities in English and Vietnamese
offers and discusses specific uses of modalities between the two languages.
Chapter 5. Conclusion, summarizes the main points in the study, the major findings
of the investigation, concluding remarks, limitations and suggestions for further
study.
2. Literature review
This chapter provides the theoretical background including the notions of
modality and the speech act of offering. It consists of two main sections. The first
section refers to the previous studies on modalities and offers. The second one
reviews the definition, classification of modalities and linguistic means to express
modalities, the issues on speech act and classification of speech acts.
2.1. Review of previous studies
Because of the importance and wide aspects, modalities have been studied by
various scholars in the world.Studies on modalities of the degree words of such
writers as Coates J. (1983). Ferenc Kiefer (1987), Quirk et al. (1985), Perkins,
Michael R. (1983), Palmer F (1986), have supplied us with valuable information on
modalities.
A large number of studies have focused on theories of modality in general in
particular such as the works by Coates J. (1983), Ferenc Kiefer (1987, 1994), Joan L.
Bybee, Revere D. Perkins, & William Pagliuca (1994), Palmer F (1986).
In Vietnam, many scholars have also studied modality in general and types of
modality in particular such as Nguyễn Thị Lương (2006), Cao Xuân Hạo (1999), Nguyễn
Văn Hiệp (2001), Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2003), Võ Đại Quang (2009), Diệp Quang Ban
(2004).
In the book “The Offering in English and in Vietnamese” by Hoang Thi Thu Lan
(2000), she pointed out the most popular offer form is offer in form of tentative
questions; the second popular offer form is offer in form of Statements. The least
popular offer form is offered in the form of Tag questions.
One of the most noticeable studies about offers is Degree words by Nguyen Thi
Thu Thuy (2015) in which she describes, analyses, compares English and

3
Vietnamese root and epistemic modality as realized by modal verbs from Cognitive
perspective.
However, no attempt has been made to conduct a contrastive study on modalities in
English and Vietnamese offers. Therefore, this study is carried out to address that research
gap in order to provide a more articulate insight into similarities and differences of
modalities in the two languages, and to serve as a framework for implicational purposes,
which can be both theoretical and practical.
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. An overview of modalities
Research on modalities has gone through a long history, appealing to a lot of
linguists, philosophers and logicians; however, there is no agreement about the
definition of modality yet. It has been difficult to delimit the field of modalities and
modal research to just a few topics.
Kiefer (1994) holds a philosophical perspective when he talks about modality
as "the relativization of the validity of sentence meanings to a set of possible worlds.
Talk about possible worlds can thus be construed as talk about the ways in which
people could conceive the world to be different".
Lyons (1977) pointed out that modality refers to people’s opinions and
attitudes towards propositions expressed with language or circumstances described
by propositions.
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.
When coming to modalities, Halliday M.A.K (1985) mentioned the traditional
definition of modality. He is of the opinion that people use language with one
another in order to manage their social lives. Modalities are directly related to the
social functions of language. Modality, which expresses different semantic
implications like permission, request, obligation, necessity, possibility, is used to
perform different communicative acts. Halliday regards modality a form of
participation by the speaker in the communicative act. Modality is related to the
interpersonal function of the language.

4
 In Vietnam, for the past few years, modality has been the focus of many
linguists and researchers such as Cao Xuân Hạo, Hoàng Phê, Đỗ Hữu Châu and
others. Hoàng Trọng Phiến broadly explains modality as a grammatical category
which appears in all kinds of sentences.
Modality is not only an appealing but also complicated topic. However, many
linguists have an agreement on the one of the principal divisions that is between
epistemic and non-epistemic modality.
Modality as the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitudes and
opinions of a speaker and, more significantly, a description of the types of modality
incites controversy among linguists and logicians. Although many scholars have
proposed descriptions of the types of modality in language, no two agree on a single
analysis.
Wright identifies four types of modality: alethic, epistemic, deontic, and
existential. Alethic modality focuses on truth, epistemic modality on knowing,
deontic modality on obligation, and existential modality on existence (Wright 1951).
Jennifer Coates (1983) focuses on a linguistic description of modality within the
framework of describing the semantics of the nine modal verbs and one quasi-modal
verb (ought) in contemporary British English in her 1983 book The semantics of the
modal auxiliaries.
Quirk et al. (1985) distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic modality.
Halliday (2000) considers the mood system as a crucial and inseparable part of
the interpersonal meta-function, in which modality and polarity are closely related
Palmer (2001) distinguishes between propositional modality, which is
concerned with “the speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the
proposition,” and event modality, which is concerned with whether or not the event
referred to in the utterance, must be realized.
Modality is expressed linguistically by a number of devices like moods, modal
auxiliaries, quasi auxiliaries, adjectival and participial expressions, nominal
expressions, lexical verbs (Perkins 1983). Apart from these grammatical categories,
modality is also manifested in orthographic devices like punctuation, prosodic
features like stress and intonation-contour (Searle 1969). Verbal categories like
tense are also used in some cases to express modality. Lyons says that "reference to
the future.....is often as much a matter of modality as it is of purely temporal reference"
(Lyons 1977:816).

5
2.2.2. An overview of offers
There are different types of speech acts and offering is one kind among those
which people use a lot in daily life. According to the definition from Oxford Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, to offer is to say that you are willing to do something for
somebody or give something to somebody. In other words, it is a way that a speaker
wants to express a willingness to help or to serve the hearer. It can be a gift offer,
favor offer, food/drink offer or an opportunity offer. It helps reveal people’s
consideration towards each other and therefore it can reinforce social relationships.
People can make offers in many ways which are influenced by their culture, customs,
or personal characteristics. The structural form of the offer can be in the form of a
question, a statement or a polite command.
For a characterization of the nature of offers, Searle (1979) categorises offers
as commissives since they commit a speaker to some future course of action x - a
categorisation followed by Harnish (1979). Similarly, Edmondson and House (1981)
also underline the speaker’s role in offering by categorising offers as attitudinal
illocutions and, more specifically, as a type of willing, as they involve situations in
which a speaker communicates that s/he intends to - potentially at least - perform a
future act in the interest of the hearer.
In English Speech Act Verb: A Semantic Dictionary (1987) by Anna Wierzbicka,
offer has the following meanings:
- I think of X as something that could be good for you.
- I say: I will cause X to happen if you say you would want me to do it.
- I think that you may want it to happen.
- I don’t know if you want it to happen.
-I assume that you will say it if you want it to happen.
Offering implies something like a benefit for hearers. It can be more or less
tentative, but it has a degree of uncertainty “I don’t know if you want me to do it”. As a
result, offers usually call for an answer from the hearer.
In terms of strategies, offers can be made by using three kinds of offering
strategies: direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and non-
conventionally indirect strategies.
In terms of forms, offers are grouped in three major categories with seven
types. Three major categories are offered in forms of questions, statements, and
imperatives; seven types are offered in forms of tentative questions, permission

6
questions, elliptical questions, Wh-questions, tag questions, statements and
imperatives.
Politeness is a universal phenomenon in every society. Brown and Levinson
built their theory of politeness on the basis of the concept “face”. According to
them ,“face is the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”
(1987). This definition is explained more by Yule (1997) as “face means the public
self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone
has and expects everyone else to recognize.”
Lakoff (1975) suggests that “politeness is developed by society in order to reduce
friction in personal interaction” and comprises three rules of politeness: 1.Don’t
impose;
2. Give options and 3. Make the receiver feel good.
Generally speaking, speakers from different cultures use different politeness
strategies in offering as well as in other kinds of speech acts.
3. Proposed Research Methodology
3.1. Research types
To reach the goal of the study, the writer used two main research approaches.
They were quantitative and qualitative approaches. By virtue of the quantitative
method, the data were collected for the study including both modalities in English
and Vietnamese offers. The qualitative method was applied to describe and analyze
the data of the study.
3.2. Population and Sample
The study investigated offers in English and Vietnamese. Samples of data
containing modalities taken from sources of English and Vietnamese textbooks,
articles, literature works, and the Internet. Besides, the examples to illustrate the
offers are also taken from works of Ferenc (1994), Joan, et. al. (1994), Palmer
(1986), Hoang Thi Thu Lan (2000), Vo Đai Quang (2009).
3.3. Research methods
In order to achieve the aim and objectives, the descriptive and contrastive
methods are used in the thesis. The descriptive method is used to describe
modalities in English and Vietnamese offers being studied. In this thesis, it is utilized
in order to give a full account of lexical markers, grammatical markers, and prosodic
markers of modalities. And the contrastive method is to find out the similarities and

7
differences between modalities in English offered with reference to the Vietnamese
equivalence.
4. Proposed chapter outline
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Rationale
1.2 Aim and objectives of the study
1.3. Research questions
1.4. Scope of the study
1.5. Structure of the study
Chapter 2: Literature review (20-25 page)
2.1. Review of previous studies
2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1 An overview of modalities
2.2.2. An overview of offers
2.3. Summary
Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Research type

3.2 Population and sample
3.3 Research methods
Chapter 4: A contrastive analysis of modalities in offers between English and
Vietnamese

4.1. Modal markers in direct offers in English and Vietnamese

4.2. Modal markers in conventionally indirect offers in English and Vietnamese
4.3. Modal markers in non-conventionally indirect offers in English and Vietnamese
4.4.The similarities and differences of using modalities in English and Vietnamese
offers.
4.5. Summary
Chapter 5: Conclusion
References
In English
1. Anna W. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Academic Press,
Australia.

8
2. Celce-Murcia M. & Lauren-Freeman D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/
EFLTeacher’s Course Heinle & Heinle Publishers
3. Coates J. (1983). Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London, Canberra: Croom Lelm
Ltd.
4. Dieter W. (1977). Assertions, conditional speech acts, and practical inferences.
Journal of Pragmatics.
5. Edmondson W. (1981).Spoken Discourse. London: Longman
6. Ferenc K. (1987). On Defining Modality. Folia Linguistica, 21(1): 67–94.
7. Ferenc K. (1994). Modality. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
edited by Ronald E. Asher, pp. 2515–2520. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
8. Halliday M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold
(7th) 1997.
9. Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, & William P. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago University Press.
10. John L. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kent B. and Robert M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. The MIT
Press,Cambrigde, Massachusetts, and London, England.
12. Khlebnikova I. B. (1976).The Conjunctive Mood in English. The Hague: Mouton.
13. Leech G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.
14. Leech G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
15. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Levinson S. C. (1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, London.
17. Palmer F (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge, CUP.
18. Perkins, Michael R. (1983).Modal Expressions in English. Longmans Press.
19. Quirk R. and Greenbaum S. (1973).A University Grammar of English. London:
Longman
20. Rabinowitz J. F. (1993). A Descriptive Study of the Offer as a Speech Behavior in
American English, Ph. D.Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Michigan.
21. Robin L. (1975).Language and Woman's Place . Cambridge University Press
22. Searle J. R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts in P. Cole, J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts
(Syntax and Semantics 3), pp. 59- 82.
23. Searle J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge (Mass).
24. Thomson A. J & Martinet, A. V. (1985) A Practical English Grammar. Oxford
University Press.

9
25. Yule G. (1997). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
In Vietnamese
1.Cao Xuân Hạo (1991). Tiếng Việt-Sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng, tập 1. NXB KHXH,
Tp.Hồ Chí Minh.
2.Cao Xuân Hạo (1999). Tiếng Việt – Mấy vấn đề ngữ âm, ngữ pháp ngữ nghĩa. NXB
Giáo dục, Hà Nội.
3.Cao Xuân Hạo (2003). Ngữ pháp chức năng Tiếng Việt-Câu trong Tiếng Việt, Quyển
1.NXB Giáo dục, Đà Nẵng.
4. Diệp Quang Ban (2004). Ngữ pháp Tiếng Việt. NXB Giáo dục, Hà Nội.
5. Hoàng Phê, et al. (1998). Từ điển Tiếng Việt.Trung tâm từ điển ngôn ngữ, Hà Nội.
6. Hoang Thi Thu Lan (2000). Offering in English and in Vietnamese, Hanoi National
University, Hanoi.
7. Hồ Thị Kiều Oanh (2010). Một số chỉ tố lịch sự trong hành động ngỏ lời giúp đỡ bằng
Tiếng Anh và Tiếng Việt. Tạp chí khoa học ĐHQGHN, ngoại ngữ 26 (207-214).
8. Lê Đông và Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001). Ngữ nghĩa-ngữ dụng các tiểu từ tình thái trong
Tiếng Việt. Trường Đại học KHXH&NV, Đại học QGHN, Hà Nội.
9. Nguyễn Anh Quế (1988).Hư từ trong Tiếng Việt hiện đại. NXB Khoa học xã hội, Hà
Nội
10.Nguyễn Kim Thản (1963). Nghiên cứu về ngữ pháp Tiếng Việt. NXB Khoa học xã hội,
Hà Nội
11. Nguyễn Kim Thản (1997). Động từ trong Tiếng Việt. NXB Khoa học xã hội.
12. Nguyễn Văn Chính (2000).Vai trò của hư từ Tiếng Việt trong việc hình thành thông
báo – phát ngôn. Luận án Tiến sĩ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, Hà Nội.
13.Võ Đại Quang (2009).Một số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái trong Tiếng Anh và
Tiếng Việt. NXB ĐHQGHN, Hà Nội.
13. Nguyễn Thị Lương (2006). Đặc trưng ngữ pháp - ngữ nghĩa của nhóm động từ tình
thái: Nỡ, Toan, Định, Dám. Tạp chí Khoa học - Bộ GD&ĐT Trường ĐHSPHN
14. Nguyễn Thị Lương (2010), Tìm hiểu các nghi thức lời nói của người Việt trong mối
quan hệ với mục đích giao tiếp và phép lịch sự. Nghiên cứu khoa học cấp Bộ- mã số :
B2007 - 17 - 79 .
15. Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2001). Ngữ nghĩa-ngữ dụng các tiểu từ tình thái trong tiếng Việt
(Meaning of modal particles in Vietnamese) .NXB ĐHQG Hà Nội.

10
16. Nguyen Thi Thu Thuy (2015). Modality in English and Vietnamese a cognitive
perspective. Luận án tiến sĩ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, Hà Nội.
17. Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2004). Vai trò của yếu tố tình thái trong vai trò thể hiện tính lịch sự
trong giao tiếp đối thoại Anh- Việt Nghiên cứu khoa học cấp Bộ-Mã số B2001-16-09.

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Date: / /20...

11