A study of cognitive non - Factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in english

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG TRẦN THỊ MINH GIANG A STUDY OF COGNITIVE NON-FACTIVE VERB AND EPISTEMIC ADVERB COLLOCATIONS IN ENGLISH DOCTORAL THESIS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES Danang, 2018 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG TRẦN THỊ MINH GIANG A STUDY OF COGNITIVE NON-FACTIVE VERB AND EPISTEMIC ADVERB COLLOCATIONS IN ENGLISH Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS Code: 62.22.02.01 DOCTORAL THESIS IN SOCIAL SCIE

pdf272 trang | Chia sẻ: huong20 | Ngày: 15/01/2022 | Lượt xem: 172 | Lượt tải: 0download
Tóm tắt tài liệu A study of cognitive non - Factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in english, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
NCES AND HUMANITIES SUPERVISOR: Assoc.Prof.Dr. LƯU QUÝ KHƯƠNG Danang, 2018 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma. No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgements in the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. Danang, January 2018 Tran Thi Minh Giang ii ABSTRACT The dissertation is an attempt to describe linguistic features of the structure that consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I and cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in English in terms of epistemic modality framework. Based on the descriptive method and the collected data of 1000 English samples randomly gathered from different sources such as novels, short stories and online materials, the study presented a detailed description of the structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in three linguistic aspects: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. More importantly, a linguistic portray of the interplay of these three linguistic dimensions was depicted to serve the main aim of the research. It is hoped that the findings from the research will not only make a great contribution to further understanding of modality in linguistics, but also become very useful to language users in the use of the English structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in communication. Noticeably, the study provides learners of English and even native speakers of English with a practical knowledge of using the structure. Especially, since the study presented detailed and overall view of the structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations, it is really a good source of reference for teachers of English to apply the English structure in teaching English more effectively. In addition, the study of the structure I + cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in English also opens the paths for interesting questions relative to epistemic modality in particular, and linguistics in general. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ......................................................................... i ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 1.1. Rationale .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Aims and Objectives of the Study ........................................................................ 3 1.2.1. Aims of the Study ......................................................................................... 3 1.2.2. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................. 3 1.3. Research Questions .............................................................................................. 4 1.4. Object of the Study ............................................................................................... 4 1.5. Scope of the Study ............................................................................................... 4 1.6. Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 5 1.6.1. Theoretical Significance ............................................................................... 5 1.6.2. Practical Significance ................................................................................... 5 1.7. Organization of the Study .................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Review of Previous Researches Related to the Study ......................................... 7 2.1.1. Syntactics ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Semantics .................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3. Pragmatics ................................................................................................... 16 2.1.4. A Combination of Three Aspects ............................................................... 20 2.2. Theoretical Background ..................................................................................... 24 2.2.1. Modality and Epistemic Modality .............................................................. 24 iv 2.2.1.1. Traditional Logic Modality ................................................................. 24 2.2.1.2. Linguistic Modality ............................................................................. 26 2.2.1.3. The Distinction between Modality and Proposition ............................ 27 2.2.1.4. The Distinction between Deontic and Epistemic Modality ................ 28 2.2.1.5. Types of Epistemic Modality .............................................................. 29 2.2.2. Collocations of Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverbs ..... 31 2.2.2.1. Modal Lexical Verbs ........................................................................... 31 a. Mental Space Theory .................................................................................. 31 b. Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs ..................................................................... 32 c. Characteristics of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs ........................................ 34 2.2.2.2. Modal Adverbs .................................................................................... 35 a. Epistemic Adverbs ...................................................................................... 35 b. Types of Epistemic Adverbs in English ..................................................... 36 c. Characteristics of Epistemic Adverbs......................................................... 38 2.2.2.3. Cognitive Non- Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations .... 43 a. The Definition of the Term collocation ...................................................... 43 b. Modally Harmonic Combinations of a Modal Verb and a Modal Adverb ....................................................................................................................... 44 2.2.3. Linguistic Features of CNFV and EA Collocations ................................... 46 2.2.3.1. Syntactics ............................................................................................. 46 a. Mobility of Modality Collocations in the Same Clause ............................. 46 b. Moved Negation and Epistemic Modality ................................................. 47 2.2.3.2. Semantics ............................................................................................. 48 a. Epistemic Scale ........................................................................................... 48 b. Epistemic Modality Based on Deduction ................................................... 51 c. Speech-Act Related Modality ..................................................................... 52 2.2.3.3. Pragmatics ........................................................................................... 55 a. Pragmaticalization and Pragmatic Markers ................................................ 55 v b. Factors Affecting the Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ............................................................................................................... 56 c. The ‘Conversational Maxim’ View in Communicative Strategies ............ 57 d. The ‘Face-Saving’ View in Politeness Theory .......................................... 58 2.3. Summary ............................................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................. 64 3.1. Research Design ................................................................................................. 64 3.2. Research Methods .............................................................................................. 64 3.3. Data Collection ................................................................................................... 65 3.3.1. Description of Samples ............................................................................... 65 3.3.1.1. Authenticity ......................................................................................... 66 3.3.1.2. Accessibility ........................................................................................ 66 3.3.1.3. Variation .............................................................................................. 66 3.3.1.4. Reputation ........................................................................................... 67 3.3.2. Data Collection Procedure .......................................................................... 67 3.3.3. Data Analysis Procedure ............................................................................. 68 3.4. Procedures of the Study ..................................................................................... 69 3.5. Analytical Framework of the Study ................................................................... 70 3.6. Reliability and Validity ...................................................................................... 72 3.7. Summary ............................................................................................................ 72 CHAPTER 4. SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS ...................................................................... 74 4.1. Analysis of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations .................................................................................................. 74 4.2. Harmony of Cognitive Non-Factive Verbs and Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ................................................................ 76 4.2.1. The Structure I think + EAs ........................................................................ 76 4.2.2. The Structure I believe + EAs .................................................................... 80 4.2.3. The Structure I hope + EAs ........................................................................ 83 vi 4.2.4. The Structure I guess + EAs ....................................................................... 86 4.2.5. The Structure I suppose + EAs ................................................................... 86 4.2.6. The Structure I assume + EAs .................................................................... 87 4.3. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ............................. 89 4.4. Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Matrix Clause ........................................ 90 4.5. Syntactic Positions of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in the Superordinate Clause ................................................................................................ 92 4.5.1. Initial ........................................................................................................... 92 4.5.2. Medial ......................................................................................................... 93 4.5.3. Final ............................................................................................................ 94 4.5.4. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in Initial, Medial, and Final Positions ....................................................................................... 95 4.6. Complementizer “that” in a Superordinate Clause ............................................ 96 4.6.1. Complementizer “that” with Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ...................................................................................... 97 4.6.2. Omission of Complementizer “that” in the Superordinate Clause ............. 98 4.7. Raising of Negative Form in Sentences with the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations .......................................... 100 4.8. Summary .......................................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER 5. SEMANTIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS ................................................................................ 105 5.1. Deduction-Based Semantic Features ............................................................... 105 5.1.1. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Belief ........... 105 5.1.2. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Inference ...... 108 5.1.3. The Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Expressing Prediction .... 111 5.1.4. Frequency of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Showing in Belief, Inference and Prediction .............................................................................. 114 5.2. Modal Meanings of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ................. 114 5.2.1. Tentativeness ............................................................................................ 115 vii 5.2.2. Assertion ................................................................................................... 116 5.2.3. Negation .................................................................................................... 117 5.3. Scale of Certainty- Based Semantic Features .................................................. 118 5.3.1. High Certainty........................................................................................... 119 5.3.2. Mid Certainty ............................................................................................ 121 5.3.3. Low Certainty ........................................................................................... 123 5.4. Semantic Features of the Structure I think + EAs Based on the Scale of Negation .................................................................................................................. 126 5.5. Summary .......................................................................................................... 128 CHAPTER 6. PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURE I + CNFV AND EA COLLOCATIONS .................................................................... 130 6.1. The Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations Used in Politeness Strategies ............................................................. 130 6.1.1. Negative Politeness Strategy .................................................................... 131 6.1.1.1. Mitigating the Reproach .................................................................... 131 6.1.1.2. Avoiding the Imposition of Knowledge ............................................ 132 6.1.1.3. Revealing the Speaker’s Unflattering Things ................................... 133 6.1.2. Positive Politeness Strategy ...................................................................... 134 6.1.2.1. Mitigating Illocutionary Force to Downgrade the Positive Face of the Speaker .............................................................................................................. 135 6.1.2.2. Enhancing the Hearer’s Good Virtues to Respect His Positive Face 136 6.1.2.3. Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge by Negating the Speaker’s Knowledge ........................................................................ 137 6.2. The Communicative Strategies Using the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ............................................................................................................. 139 6.2.1. Hedges ...................................................................................................... 139 6.2.2. Mitigation in the Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ............................................................................................................. 141 viii 6.3. Pragmatic Meanings in Negation of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations ............................................................... 143 6.3.1. Hearer-Oriented Pragmatic Meanings of Moved Negation of the Structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations ... 143 6.3.2. Mitigating the Illocutionary Force of Claims of Knowledge by Using Moved Negation of the structure I + Cognitive Non-Factive Verb and Epistemic Adverb Collocations ................................................................................................ 144 6.4. Speech Act – Based Pragmatic Features Expressed by the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations .................................................................................... 147 6.4.1. Complaining or Admonishing .................................................................. 147 6.4.2. Counselling ............................................................................................... 149 6.4.3. Reducing Boasting .................................................................................... 150 6.5. Summary .......................................................................................................... 152 CHAPTER 7. INTERPLAY OF SYNTACTICS, SEMANTICS, AND P R A G M A T I C S I N T H E S T R U C T U R E I + C N F V A N D E A COLLOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 154 7.1. Mobility of Epistemic Adverbs in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocation .............................................................................................................. 154 7.2. Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the Combination of Just and Other EAs in the Matrix Clause .............................................................................. 157 7.3. Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in Mobility of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations in a Superordinate Clause ..................................................... 160 7.4. Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in the Emphasis by Using Auxiliary Verbs Do in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations .................................... 162 7.5. Interplay of Three Linguistic Aspects in Application of the Relevance Theory by Sperber in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ..................... 164 7.6. Interaction of Three Linguistic Aspects in Negative Move of the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations ................................................................................ 166 ix 7.7. Interplay of Three Linguistic Dimensions in the Structure I + CNFV and EA Collocations Based on Deduction ........................................................................... 169 7.7.1. Belief ......................................................................................................... 169 7.7.2. Inference ................................................................................................... 171 7.7.3. Prediction .................................................................................................. 172 7.8. Summary .......................................................................................................... 174 CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 176 8.1. Recapitulation .................................................................................................. 176 8.2. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 179 8.3. Implications ...................................................................................................... 180 8.3.1. For English Language Learning and Teaching ......................................... 180 8.3.2. For Language Research ............................................................................ 181 8.4. Limitations of the Thesis and Suggestions for Further Studies ....................... 182 8.4.1. Limitations of the Thesis .......................................................................... 182 8.4.2. Suggestions for Further Studies ................................................................ 183 THE AUTHOR’S ARTICLES RELATED TO THE STUDY ......................... 184 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 185 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 210 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 210 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................ 215 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................ 229 APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 254 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACAD : academic prose Adv : adverb Art : article Aux : auxiliary C0 : collocation CONV : conversation CNFVs : cognitive non-factive verbs D : distance Det : determinant EAs : epistemic adverbs FICT : fiction writing FTA : face threatening act H : hearer M : modality N : noun NEWS : news writing NP : noun phrase P : proposition Pred : predicate Pro : pronoun Pre : preposition PP : prepositional phrase Rp : relative power Rx : relative ranking S : speaker S (in tree diagrams) : sentence S’ (in tree diagrams) : subordinate clause xi V : verb VP : verbal phrase Wx : weightiness xii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Positions of epistemic adverbs across registers (Biber, 1999, p.872)...... 41 Table 4.1. Harmony of the pattern I think and strong epistemic adverbs ................. 77 Table 4.2. Harmony of the pattern I think and medium epistemic adverbs .............. 78 Table 4.3. Harmony of the pattern I think and low epistemic adverbs ..................... 79 Table 4.4. Harmony of the pattern I believe and strong epistemic adverbs .............. 80 Table 4.5. Harmony of the pattern I believe and medium epistemic adverbs ........... 82 Table 4.6. Harmony of the pattern I believe and low epistemic adverbs .................. 82 Table 4.7. Frequency of the pattern I believe and EAs ............................................. 83 Table 4.8. Harmony of the pattern I hope and strong epistemic adverbs ................. 83 Table 4.9. Harmony of the pattern I hope and medium epistemic adverbs .............. 84 Table 4.10. Harmony of the pattern I hope and low epistemic adverbs ................... 85 Table 4.11. Frequency of the pattern I hope and EAs............................................... 85 Table 4.12. Harmony of the pattern I guess and epistemic adverbs ......................... 86 Table 4.13. Harmony of the pattern I suppose and epistemic adverbs ..................... 87 Table 4.14. Harmony of the pattern I assume and epistemic adverbs ...................... 87 Table 4.15. Summary of harmony of CNFVs and EAs in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations .................................................................................................. 88 Table 4.16. Frequency of six patterns of the structure I +CNFV and EA collocations ............................................................................................................... 89 Table 4.17. Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in Initial, Medial, Final Positions .............................................................................................. 95 Table 4.18. Positions in correlation with the employment of “that”with epistemic adverbs in the matrix Clause ..................................................................................... 98 Table 4.19. Positions of complementizer ‘that’ in the superordinate clause ............ 99 Table 4.20. The omission of complementizer “that” in English sentences .............. 99 Table 4.21. Frequency of the moved negation in English sentences with the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations ................................................................ 103 xiii Table 5.1. Semantics features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in English based on deduction ..................................................................................... 113 Table 5.2. Frequency of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in Belief, Inference, and Prediction ........................................................................................ 114 Table 5.3. Scale of certainty of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in English ..................................................................................................................... 125 Table 6.1. The structure I + CNFV and EA collocations with positive and negative politeness strategies .................................................................................. 138 Table 6.2. Pragmatic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations based on Speech Act theory .................................................................................... 151 Table 6.3. Frequency of pragmatic features of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations based on Speech Act theory ................................................................ 152 Table 7.1. Interplay of three linguistic aspects based on the mobility of EAs in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations .......................................................... 156 Table 7.2. Frequency of mobility of EAs in the matrix clause .............................. 156 Table 7.3. Positions of Just in the matrix clause ..................................................... 158 Table 7.4. Three linguistic dimensions in combination of Just and other EAs ...... 159 Table 7.5. Interplay of three linguistic aspects in the mobility of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in a sentence ............................................................... 161 Table 7.6. EAs in the emphasis by using the auxiliary Do in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations ..................................................................................... 163 Table 7.7. Interplay of three linguistic aspects in the emphasis with Do in the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations ................................................................ 164 Table 7.8. Interplay of three linguistic aspects in negative move of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations ................................................................................. 168 Table 7.9. Interplay of three linguistic aspects based on deduction of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations ................................................................ 173 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Summary of types of modality by Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2007) ................ 30 Figure 2.2. Scale of certainty of assertive epistemic adverbs ................................... 37 Figure 2.3. Scale of possibility of non-assertive epistemic adverbs ......................... 37 Figure 2.4. Adaptation of Givĩn’s (1982) scale of epistemic space ......................... 49 Figure 2.5. Two dimensions of epistemicity ............................................................. 50 Figure 2.6. Evidentality (Cappelli, 2008) ................................................................. 50 Figure 2.7. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization ........................................... 56 Figure 2.8. Brown and Levinson’s strategies for doing an FTA (1987, p.60) .......... 60 Figure 2.9. Nguyễn Quang’s strategies for doing an FTA (2002, p.53) ................... 62 Figure 3.1. Theoretical framework of collocations of CNFVs and EAs .................. 71 Figure 4.1. Tree diagram showing the deep construction of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocation in a sentence .................................................................. 75 Figure 4.2. Matrix and subordinate clause in the superordinate clause ................... 91 Figure 4.3. Tree diagram with negative particle Not in the subordinate clause ..... 102 Figure 4.4. Tree diagram with the negative move fr...ally, the polysemy and semantic change of “think” have been discussed in a lot of studies. Among them is Goddard (2003), he investigated the semantic expansion of the verb “ think” in English, Chinese, Yupik Eskimo, Samoan and Japanese. He found out an interesting discovery that “think” has semantic tendency in psychology and feelings. Besides, Iraide (1999) and Evans and Wilkins (2000) studied the semantic change from perception verbs to cognition verbs in some languages in Australia. Fortescue (2001), cited in Palmer (2003) studied the polysemy and gave the list of knowing and understanding in 73 languages, including English. He stated Understanding is grasping/seeing/hearing ; Knowing is touching. This is a good idea for us to study the polysemy and semantic change of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations in the study. Especially we 15 need to understand and distinguish which is the meaning of the collocation and which is the meaning of the speaker. Nguyễn Ngọc Trâm (2002) called tơi sợ là , tơi cho là, tơi nghĩ là, tơi tin là, tơi cho rằng propositional attitude verbs, but Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008) considered tơi nghĩ rằng, tơi cho rằngas means of modality and he called them structure witn propositional attitude verbs and think propositional attitude verb (động từ thái độ mệnh đề). Lê Đơng and Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2003) presented the conclusion of modality that we should not put all kinds of modality in linguistics into some categories of logical modality or study modality in only some grammatical devices - mood for example. In contrast of modality and propositional content, there are a lot of ways of understanding. They defined modality in broad meaning, i.e., the relationship between the speaker and the content of utterance and in reality it is like the speaker’s degrees of judgement towards the propositional content. In Patard’s (2011) research, its main interest aims at epistemic uses of markers, whereby the epistemic modality is known as indicating “a degree of compatibility between the modal world and the factual world”. All contributions; furthermore, solve these problems from a more or less cognitive point of view, with some of them insisting on the need to give a unifying explanation for all usage types, temporal and non-temporal, and all of them agreeing to the premise that the semantics of tense and aspect categories essentially refers to subjective, rather than objective concerns. The study also shows one of the first attempts to collect accounts of tense and aspect marking (in various languages) that are explicitly set within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. Ultimately, the research aims at contributing to establishing awareness that modal meaning elements are directly relevant to the analysis of the grammar of time. In brief, through above previous studies related to semantics of the study, we can get the understanding of modus and dictum, degree adverbials, polysemy of think, propositional attitude structure I think, scale of certainty basing on categories 16 of epistemic modality These studies gave us a useful theoretical base for our study in next steps. 2.1.3. Pragmatics In pragmatics, first of all, we have to refer to Grice’s study (1975) with his cooperation principle. Next, Grice’s maxims were examined and developed by Lakoff (1977) and Sperber and Wilson (1986). Of course, it is easy to understand the importance of politeness in communication because it exists in every culture; therefore Leech (1983) gave a politeness principle consisting of six maxims. Later the politeness theory, a sociolinguistic theory in the pragmatic tradition was developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), who extended Goffman's (1967) notion of face. Vietnamese linguists have discussed the notion of modality since 1980s. First of all, Hồng Trọng Phiến (1983) stated that modality is an inherent property of the sentence. This implies the speaker’s knowledge to the truth of the proposition or the changes of the hearer’s feelings to what is said. Secondly, Đỗ Hữu Châu (1983) emphasized that Modality consists of all semantic features in pragmatics which show a message together with P of the utterance. (“Tình thái bao gồm tồn bộ những ý nghĩa thuộc phạm vi dụng học và hợp lại thành thong điệp bộc lộ kèm lõi P của câu”) (1983, p.16). Thirdly, in the same line, Hồng Tuệ (1988) explained the interpersonal component more clearly that Modality is a concept analysed on the speaker’s attitude in making utterances, i.e the effect in pragmatics, which the speaker wants to give the hearer in real conversation. (“Tình thái là một khái niệm trong sự phân tích theo cách nhìn, tìm đến thái độ của người nĩi trong hoạt động phát ngơn, tức cũng là tìm đến tác động ngữ dụng, tác động mà người nĩi muốn tạo ra ở người nghe trong thực tiễn hoạt động ngơn ngữ”) (1988, p.22). However, these researchers have just mentioned general concepts of modality with their own standpoints. Hengeveld (1988) proposed the impact of illocution and modality through a representation of main clauses which can distinguish several layers, each 17 representing a different mode of speech acts. In addition, the study also showed different noun clauses: non-factive, factive, and semi-factive complement. Especially, he referred to two communicative strategies: mitigation and reinforcement that are very necessary in communication. Besides, he paid attention to the scope of modal verbs in expressions like I think, I suppose, I believemodal adverbs in expressing degrees of commitment of the speaker like in series of modal adverbs: certainly, probably, possibly. Although his study referred to some pragmatic features, we recognize that it does not show the harmony of two these modal lexicals. Therefore, a study of harmonic combination of CNFVs and EAs is really necessary to explore different pragmatic features of the modal collocations that is very helpful for language learners of English. In Palmer’s study (1990), he showed three types of modality: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic. Especially, he paid attention to discourse-oriented and subject-oriented. As a matter of fact, discourse-oriented refers to meanings of deontic modality as it involves both the speaker and the hearer, whereas subject- oriented focuses on the subject’s ability and desirability rather than judgement or belief, and therefore it is concerned with dynamic modality. However, according to Bybee and Fleischman (1995) speaker-oriented modality (subject-oriented) refers to both deontic and dynamic modality. Although there is an overlap and difference in these linguists’ pragmatic perspectives, their studies have established a good basic grounding for our research. Among Vietnamese studies, Nguyễn Thị Lương (1995) studied Vietnamese modal particles ending the sentence in questions: nhỉ, nhé, đi, chứ, ạ. Her study investigated their pragmatic aspect with face and politeness theories, yet her research only paid attention to modal particles in directives of speech act and in deontic modality. Aijmer (1997), Kaltenbưck (2010), Karkkainen (2003, 2007, 2010), and Thompson (2002) expressed the state of latent instabilility and especially susceptible to change of grammaticalizing elements, which is the adoption of new 18 pragmatic functions. It is the shift from use as marker of epistemic stance to use as a general pragmatic marker. Particularly, comment clauses often undergo a process of expansion from their prototypical “first person form”, for example, “I think” is very different from variant forms such as I would think, I’m thinking Van (2010) considered that “I think” has made good progress on the path of grammaticalization and is changing from a marker of epistemic modality typically showing lack of speaker’s commitment. In addition, Aijmer (1997) and Karkkainen (2003) also claimed that “I think” often goes with modality markers such as probably, maybe, possibly which can be expressed by a lack of tentativeness of “I think”. “Because it (I think) may notadequately bring out the speaker’s uncertainty Other epistemic markers can be argued to perform that function in the utterance” (Karkkainen, 2003, p.129). In the cognitive-pragmatic view, Nuyts (2001) provided a comparative analysis of the functional and structural characteristics of four major lexical devices namely modal sentence adverbs, predicative adjective, mental state predicates, and modal auxiliaries. The purpose is to find out which general conceptual and communicative dimensions determine the speaker’s expression of epistemic modality. Declerck (2005) referred to modal uses of indicative tenses that there is a clear-cut distinction which many linguists can see between the English modal system and the tense system in need of qualification. In fact, there is a shift of temporal domain from one absolute sector to another, and the shift of domain can be used similarly in order to convey a modal meaning. In that case the shift also expresses a contrast between a past intentional world and the speaker’s speech time world. This is possible with verb of cognitive (propositional) attitude such as think, expect, hope, want Besides, the shift of temporal perspective also shows epistemic tentativeness which makes communication more tentative, less direct and therefore usually more tactful and more polite. However, the study is only limited in studying modal uses of indicative tenses and obviously there will be more 19 interesting details if we discuss modal collocations of cognitive non-factive verbs and epistemic adverbs. In Cappelli’s (2005) paper, she also mentioned modulating attitudes via adverbs, which have a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the lexicalization of epistemological evaluation. However, she only presented her general overview of adverbs co-occuring with verbs of cognitive attitude and the research also gave the harmorny between these two lexicals in restricted area of pragmatics. Later, her research (2007) mentioned the special status of the relationship between know, think, and believe within 25 English verbs of cognitive attitude. The most important thing is that she represented the close relationship between epistemicity and evidentiality at both conceptual level and at the level of linguistic usage. The next year, Cappelli (2008) made a micro study of the possibility for the verbs: know, think and believe to be opposed in the syntactic pattern “I don’t think/ believe so, I know so” considered as antonyms. Although her two researches (2007) and (2008) are separate studies of cognitive attitude verbs, they have made some important contributions to theoretical background of our study. In his study (2008), Nguyễn Văn Hiệp depicted a colourful portray of modality in which he proposed a lot of concerns of modality. He realized the importance of modality in daily communication If we don’t pay attention to all aspects of modality, we can’t understand the nature of language. As a means of reflecting the world in social awareness and interaction, the content of sentence is shown as incoherent parts without modality. (2008, p.74) According to him, by contrast, modality can show itself clearly and accurately. He proposes oppositions: modality in logic and modality in linguistics, epistemic modality and deontic modality, agent-oriented modality and speaker- oriented modality, modality of locutionary act and modality of illocutionary act Especially, he presented a general view of all kinds of modal devices. This is really a useful volume for researchers studying modality. 20 To summarise, different pragmatic perspectives by these linguists through the above mentioned studies such as cooperation principle, politeness theory, communicative strategies, and subject-oriented modality are necessary for our research. However, the pragmatic meanings of each category have to base on the interpersonal relationship and other factors around them like context, social distance. 2.1.4. A Combination of Three Aspects In 1960s, two systematic studies of collocations in English carried out were Kim (1963)’s study and Greenbaum (1969)’s research. At first, Kim’s (1963) work proposed a series of statistical tables of collocations in alphabetical order of current collocations of noun, adjective, adverb plus preposition/ adverb in contemporary English and made an attempt at distinguishing between different degrees of coherence between the items in collocations but he was unsuccessful because of too many extensive tables of little interest, and the great difference of structure between Korean and English. Later, Greenbaum (1969a)’s monograph found out tendencies and restrictions in the collocability of verb-intensifiers such as certainly, really, entirely based on various tests including Evaluation Test, Compliance Test, Completion Test. The study established the principle collocate for each adverb and “also suggested the possibility in some cases of extrapolating from the data to establish semantic sets of lexical items that can collocate in a particular syntactic relationship with a given item or sets of items” (1969, p. 79). Aijmer (1997), Thompson & Mulac (1991), Van (2011), and Vandenbergen (2000) expressed that in order to understand I think well, we should study it in three aspects : syntactics, semantics and pragmatics + In syntactics : thanks to the parenthetical ability, we can see the mobility of I think and its function as modal adverbs. + In semantics : the subjectivity of the speaker to the content of the proposition. 21 + In pragmatics : the combination of speaker’s objectivity, conversational implicature, politeness or conversational interaction. The following researches were carried out by using a combination of three aspects. In the study of the association of diverse modal elements within the sentence, Hoye (1997) mentioned modal - adverb collocations. This study showed a starting point from more traditional approaches to the subject, where the modal auxiliaries have been the great focus of attention, by analyzing in detail the nature of their association with different categories of modal adverb. Modality is notoriously complicated but the present work offers an accessible introduction to the topic, a comprehensive account of modal-adverb combination, and a reappraisal of the English modal system. The descriptive framework draws fresh insights from syntactic, semantic and pragmatic approaches to the study of language and communication, and from recent work in corpus linguistics. The study consists of contrastive reference to the expression of modality in Spanish and a discussion of modality in such applied contexts as language teaching. A main feature is its reliance on authentic spoken and written language data. The study is suitable for undergraduate and postgraduate students of linguistics, English language, communications studies and related disciplines. Next, Nguyễn Thị Thuận (1998) studied some modal verbs in Vietnamese such as nên, cần, phải, bị, được in three aspects of syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. Her study identified all linguistic features of these modal verbs. However, she only investigated the Vietnamese modal verbs of deontic modality not epistemic modality. Phạm Thi Ly’s dissertation (2003) gave an interesting contrast of modal lexical devices in Vietnamese and English. Especially, she presented a general view of modality in both languages in three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics. It is very useful for later researchers to continue their study. Bùi Trọng Ngỗn (2004) is the one to show the general view of all modal 22 verbs in Vietnamese in syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects with both epistemic and deontic modality. His dissertation is really an important piece of research on modality in Vietnamese with a comprehensive picture of modal verbs in Vietnamese. In the cross linguistic studies, Ngũ Thiện Hùng (2004) discussed epistemic modality. However, he did the research into grammatical and lexical devices in epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese in aspects of syntactics, semantics and pragmatics but not in view of politeness strategies. Furthermore, among Ngũ Thiện Hùng’s later investigations, the ministerial level research (2005) mentioned politeness strategies by using English epistemic markers. Discussing modality, Võ Đại Quang (2009) presented linguistic features of some modal devices in English and in Vietnamese such as modal particles, modal adverbs and intonation in three aspects: syntactics, semantics and pragmatics and gave the differences and similarities of these modal lexical devices in Vietnamese and English. In fact, the study only showed general linguistic features of the ones but not in detail. Especially in his study, he also referred to the possible collocation of adverbs and cognitive verbs; however, it is just a general introduction. Anyhow, his study supposed a basic theoretical ground of modality that has led to the appearance of our research. In Usoniene & Solien (2010), choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuania has been mentioned in details. The focus of contrast is on the modal verb and adverb occurences in English (can/ could/ may/ mightvs maybe, perhaps, possibly) as opposed to the coresponding modal verb and adverb strategies in Lithuanian (gleti “can/ could/ may/ might” vs gal, galgi, galbut, rasi, lyg ir “maybe/ perhaps/ possibly”). Apart from finding out means of expression in the two languages, the study also shows the frequency of epistemic and non- epistemic use of the modal expressions in the original and in translation. Leiss & Abraham’s (2014) research focused on a general definition of modality or “illocutionary/speaker’s perspective force” that is powerful enough to 23 describe the entire series of different subtypes and varieties of modalities in different languages. The main interest is that modality is all-pervasive in language. This viewpoint on modality allows the integration of undercover modality as well as peripheral instances of modality in neglected domains such as the modality of insufficiency, of attitudinality, or neglected aspects like illocutionary force and modality in factive and non-factive complement clauses. As a matter of fact, in most languages, modality always consists of modal verbs in both their origin and epistemic meanings, especially they have the main elements between origin and epistemic modality at first. Besides, it is argued in most languages how modal verbs and adverbials, next to modal particles, are showed, how they interplay with contextual factors such as social distance, interpersonal relationship. There is an important concept or sub-concept of possible world. In addition, there is a description and comparison of language groups in Slavic, Germanic, and South East Asian. In fact, this is really a useful linguistic research since it mentions modality in such a broad scope in many different languages. Consequently, the study will be a useful reference source in theoretical and applied linguistics, typology, the semantics/pragmatics interface, and language philosophy. Recently, the cross linguistic study by Nguyễn Thị Thu Thủy (2015), has presented an analysis and comparison between English and Vietnamese root and epistemic modality indicated by modal verbs in Cognitive perspective, more importantly in use of force dynamic framework. By using the descriptive and contrastive research method, she proposed similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese root senses and epistemic senses of modal verbs in force dynamics. Especially unlike our research, her study was conducted in a cognitive perspective. However, it is also a precious reference for our study on modality. Next, Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà (2016) showed the group of cognition verbs in Vietnamese. In her research, all linguistic features of cognitive verbs in Vietnamese are described clearly and compared with the ones of cognition verbs in English. Although the comparison between Vietnamese cognitive verbs and English ones is 24 not completely well-rounded, the research also brings us some linguistic features of Vietnamese cognitive verbs. Last but not least, Trần Hữu Phúc (2017) conducted an investigation into modality expressions used as politeness strategies in English discourse via a corpus- based method. In his study, both semantic and pragmatic perspectives of modality expressions on modality were applied to find out the differences between British and American ambassadors in the use of modal forms. Luckily, the study is really closely related to our study in pragmatic perspectives in politeness strategies, despite its different research method. As a matter of fact, it is quite a useful reference source for our research anyway. In sum, a combination of three aspects may be the best way to conduct a research on modality since we can present an overall view of modality expressions in three aspects including syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. It means that thanks to the combination, we can depict a comprehensive linguistic portray of the structure I + CNFV and EA collocations more easily. However, it will also be possible if some linguists choose two of these three aspects to do their research. Obviously, in our study, the combination of three aspects such as syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics was applied to find out the interplay among these three linguistic aspects, which is the most important and latest finding in our study. 2.2. Theoretical Background 2.2.1. Modality and Epistemic Modality 2.2.1.1. Traditional Logic Modality Since Aristotle’s time, the term modality has been referred to and known as proposition and actual world. Noticeably, the notions of modality are originated from logic. Logic takes interest in modality because it is involved in the truth and falsity or validity of propositions expressed in states of affair. Modality in logic is called objective modality. The notion of objective modality often signifies logic’s view on sentence meanings. In traditional logic, there are a lot of ways of classifying judgements by 25 quantity, quality, structures, and modality. Modality mentions the classification of judgements based on the main features of the relation between subject and predicate (the two constituents of structure in judgement) and considered appropriateness between judgement and reality. In this way, judgements are divided into two kinds: necessity and possibility (see Lyons, 1977; Kiefer, 1987; Palmer, 1986; Kaufmann et al., 2006) Necessity consists of two types: necessary truth and accidental truth. With necessary truth, proposition is always true in all possible worlds, whereas in accidental truth, the proposition is not true in real world because the property in judgement is not eternal one of subject. Accidental truth means that it is not necessarily true, so it is possibly true or false. An accidental truth is one which is really true, but which may be false. For example, both "Bill Clinton is president" and “The sun rises in the east" are true, yet "Necessarily, Bill Clinton is president" is false, while "Necessarily, the sun rises in the east" is true. Meanwhile possibility with the general structure: “S might be P”. It might be true (whether it is actually true or actually false), for example, “It might be sunny tomorrow”. It is obvious that sunny weather may happen or not tommorow. In a general view, judgements are classified according to three norms: necessity, possibility and actuality. The possibility means proposition P is possible if there is at least one possible world (or situation) in which P is true; the necessity shows that a proposition P is necessarily true if P is true in all possible worlds; the actuality simply asserts the presence or absence of P as the truth. In logic, modality only notices some common relations between judgement and actuality in objectivity except subjective factors such as volition, evaluation, commitment, and the speaker’s stance. For this reason, modality in logic is called objective modality. We can recognize the objective nature of the modality in Kiefer’s statement “The essence of modality consists in the relativization of the validity of sentence meanings to the set of possible worlds” (1994, p.2215). In brief, the objective modality in logic excludes the role of speaker. 26 In brief, traditional modal logic laid an essential foundation for the first basic concepts of modality by showing the internal elements of propositions. As a matter of fact, it can be seen the starting point to develop next new theories of linguistic modality. Therefore, mastering logicians’ viewpoints is a must to all researchers in doing their investigations on modality. 2.2.1.2. Linguistic Modality Contrary to the objective modality in logic, the modality in linguistics called subjective modality pays much attention to the speaker’s role. Basically, modality is also associated with notions of possibility, necessity and actuality (objective modality), but the speaker shows either personal evidence or deduction to make some commitment to the truth of proposition or the speaker’s propositional attitudes. Consequently, the contrary of objective modality is subjective modality which linguistics is interested in and considers as a part of the content of sentence. In the subjective modality, the speaker shows states of affairs with his or her own stance. We can conclude that evaluation is a semantic base of subjective modality. The subjectivity is expressed in the speaker’s evaluations and commitments with a large scale, from possibility to necessity and from factuality to non-factuality called modal evaluations which show a complex relation between quantity and quality based on evidence, inference and institution of power and obligation of the speaker. Therefore, subjective modality is more abundant than objective modality. The followings are some views on modality. Rescher (1968) defines modality as follows. When a proposition is made subject to some further qualification of such a kind that the entire resulting complex is itself once again a proposition, then this qualification is said to represent a modality to which the original proposition is subjected. (p.24) Lyons (1977) attributes that modality is the speaker’s attitude to the propositional content which is expressed in the sentence or the state of affair described in the proposition. 27 Bybee (1985) defines modality in broad terms saying that modality is what the speaker is doing with the whole proposition. In Viet Nam, in recent years modality has been mentioned by many linguists such as Cao Xuân Hạo (1991), Đỗ Hữu Châu (2009), Nguyễn Minh Thuyết, Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (1998) Among them, Cao Xuân Hạo (1991) shows us three kinds of modality: modality of utterance act, modality of predication, modality of sentence. Đỗ Hữu Châu (2009), in the aspect of pragmatics, defines modality as consisting of all meanings in pragmatics which gather to form a message with P of the sentence. Nguyễn Văn Hiệp (2008) gives an overall view on modality by analyzing and comparing different ones and especially the clear distinction between objective modality and subjective modality. Although the above-mentioned views on modality have some differences, all linguists get a common remark that modality is the speaker’s attitude or evaluation to the whole proposition, not only to some event or meaning of proposition. On the other hand, linguists also pay attention to effects of modality in social communication. Among these views on modality is Palmer’s (1986), in which he defines “modality as semantic information associated with the speaker’s attitude or opinion about what is said.” (Nguyễn Hịa, 2004, p.174). This is the most overall view in which modality is considered as a large functional notional category with the variety and complication, different relations of propositional contents in utterance and reality, and the speaker’s stance, evaluation with different degrees to the truth of the sentence. For these reasons, we choose the view on modality by Palmer to develop a study of the structure that consists of the singular first person subject pronoun I and cognitive non-factive verb and epistemic adverb collocations in English to find out the linguistic features of the structure and the interplay of its features in everyday communication. 2.2.1.3. The Distinction between Modality and Proposition In linguistics, Bally distinguished meaning structure of the sentence made up 28 by modus and dictum, which influence each other. Modus means the act of thought by the thinking subject, i.e. the speaker’s commitment toward the propositional content, i.e. what is said, such as the speaker’s cognition, emotion, and volition. Dictum means state of affair shown by such an act, i.e. what is said (as cited in Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, 2008) He also considered the modus as the “theme”, and the dictum as the “goal” (pros) of the utterance. For example, in the following sentence. (2.1) “I think perhaps you had a great lesson to learn...nhưng chúng ta vẫn cứ vừa đi vừa kể. chuyện tuơn ra cùng với những giọt mồ hơi, hịa lẫn với ánh nắng, với bầu khơng khí mà chúng ta đang thở để tạo nên một phần của cái ngày đặc biệt thú vị đĩ”(18) 62. “Are you going on about my age again? I tell you, Gwen, I feel twenty-two. I think twenty -two. I am twenty two so far as Richard’s concerned. I don’t think 240 really you can help me much. After all, you haven’t been successful with men yourself, have you?” (p.121) “Chị lại bắt đầu kiếm chuyện về tuổi tác của tơi hả? tơi nĩi cho chị biết, Gwen, tơi cảm thấy hai mươi hai. Tơi nghĩ hai mươi hai. Tơi là hai mươi hai đối với riêng Richard. Tơi khơng nghĩ thực sự chị cĩ thể giúp tơi nhiều. Dù sao chính chị cũng khơng thành cơng với đàn ơng phải khơng?” (19) 63. “This may be fancy, though I think the memory of most of us can go farther back into such times than many of us suppose; Just as I believe the power of observation in numbers of very young children to be quite wonderful for its closeness and accuracy. Indeed, I think that most grown men who are remarkable in this respect, may with greater propriety be said not to have lost the faculty, than to have acquired it” (p.12) “Điều này cĩ thể là do tơi tưởng tượng ra cũng nên, mặc dầu tơi tin rằng trí nhớ phần đơng chúng ta cĩ thể nhớ được những thời xa xơi hơn là người ta vẫn tưởng, cũng như tơi cho rằng cĩ trẻ em cĩ biệt tài kỳ lạ về năng lực quan sát chính xác và tinh tế. Thực tế, tơi cho rằng phần nhiều những người lớn giỏi về mặt này, chẳng qua chỉ là đã khơng bỏ mất năng khiếu ấy, chứ khơng phải là đã nhờ tập dượt mà cĩ” (20) 64. “I’ve been Tom Jones (a child’s tom Jones, a harmless creature) for a week together. I have sustained my own idea of Roderick Random for a month at a stretch, I verily believe. I had greedy relish for a few volumes of Voyages and Travels...” (p.53) “Tơi đã làm Tơm Jơn trong suốt một tuần lễ, (một thứ Tơm Jơn trẻ con vơ hại). Trong suốt cả một tháng, tơi yên trí là nhân vật Rơđrich Ranđơm. Tơi ngấu nghiến đọc một số chuyện phiêu lưu trên đất và trên biển...” (20) 65. “These provisions laid in, we went on through a great noise and uproar that confused my weary head beyond description, and over a bridge which, no doubt, was London Bridge (Indeed I think he told me so, but I was half asleep)”(p.71) 241 “Mua xong các thức ăn, chúng tơi lại đi, giữa những tiếng lầm rầm, tiếng ồn ào làm đầu ĩc mệt nhọc của tơi cứ rối tung cả lên. Chúng tơi qua một cái cầu, chắc đĩ là cầu Luân Đơn (chắc là ơng ta bảo tơi thế, nhưng lúc đĩ tơi đang ngủ gà ngủ gật) (20) 66. “How’s Mrs. Fibbitson today?” “Ah, she’s poorly, it’s one of her bad days. If the fire was to go out, through any accident, I verily believe she’d go out too, and never come to life again” (p.71) “Hơm nay bà Phibitsơn cĩ được khỏe khơng?” “Ờ, bà ta yếu lắm...đang trong ngày giở trời đấy. Nếu khơng may tắt mất lửa thì tơi cho rằng bà cũng đến ‘nguội’ mất, bà chẳng bao giờ hồi lại được nữa” (20) 67. “But for the quiet picture I had conjuredup, of my mother in her youth and beauty, weeping by the fire, and my aunt relenting to her, I hardly think I should have had the courage to go on until next day.” (p.174) “ Nếu khơng cĩ cái hình ảnh êm đềm mà tơi nghĩ đến, hình ảnh bà mẹ của tơi trẻ trung xinh đẹp đang khĩc bên cạnh lị sưởi và bà cơ tơi thương hại người thì tơi sợ khĩ lịng cĩ đủ can đảm tiếp tục đi cho đến hơm sau” (20) 68. “My aunt was so exasperated by the coolness with which miss Murdstone looked about her, that I really believe she was motionless, and unable for the moment to dart out according to custom. I seized the opportunity to inform her who it was” (p.197) “Trước thái độ bình tĩnh của cơ Mơcxtơn cứ đứng nhìn quanh quẩn, cơ tơi phát cáu đến nỗi tơi đốn rằng cơ tơi sửng sốt trong giây lát nên khơng thể nào nhảy xổ ra tấn cơng như ngày thường. Nhân cơ hội ấy, tơi nĩi cho cơ tơi biết đĩ là cơ Mơcxtơn” (20) 69. “When I happened to say to that naughty thing, the other day that there was a family circumstance she might mention to you- indeed, I think, was bound to mention it was to ask a favour; and that, as you were too generous, and as for her to ask was always to have, she wouldn’t” (p.230) 242 “Hơm trước, khi tơi cĩ dịp nĩi với con bé ngốc nghếch này rằng trong gia đình ta cĩ một hồn cảnh mà nĩ phải nĩi đến, thậm chí theo tơi nhiệm vụ của nĩ là phải nĩi với ơng, thì nĩ bảo rằng nĩi với ơng, hĩa ra là cầu xin ân huệ, và vì ơng là người quá nhân từ nĩ muốn cầu xin gì cũng được, cho nên nĩ đã từ chối” (20) 70. “She has borne the mark ever since, as you see, and she’ll bear it to her grave, if she ever rests in one; though I can hardly believe she will ever rest anywhere” (p.279) “Từ hơm đĩ, bao giờ bà cũng mang cái dấu vết ấy như cậu thấy đấy và bà sẽ mang nĩ xuống mồ nếu như bà chịu nằm dưới mồ. Mình khĩ lịng tin rằng bà sẽ nằm nghỉ ở bất kỳ nơi nào” (20) 71. “His manner to me, alone, would have won her. But through all these causes combined, I sincerely believe she had a kind of admiration for him before he left the house that night” (p.293) “Chỉ riêng những cử chỉ cậu đơi với chị cũng đủ để chinh phục được chị, huống hồ lại cịn thêm tất cả những mặt kia phối hợp, cho nên tơi tin chắc rằng chị khâm phục và trọng vọng cậu trước khi cậu rời khỏi nhà vào tối hơm ấy” (20) 72. “His ascendancy over papa is very great. He professes humility and gratitude- with truth, perhaps I hope so , but his position is really one of power, and I fear he makes a hard use of his power” (p.349) “Hắn cĩ một uy lực rất lớn, hết sức lớn đối với ba. Ngồi mặt, hắn làm ra vẻ hèn kém và chịu ơn huệ (cĩ lẽ đĩ là sự thực, mình nghĩ thế). Nhưng địa vị của hắn đã là địa vị nắm quyền lực và mình sợ rằng hắn sẽ dùng quyền lực thẳng tay” (20) 73. “My own appetite came back miraculously. I am ashamed to record it, but I really believe I forgot Dora for a little while. I am satisfied that Mr. ans Mrs. Micawber could not have enjoyed the feast more, if they had sold a bed to provide it” (p.392) “Tơi bỗng cảm thấy ngon miệng lạ lùng. Nĩi điều này tơi rất xấu hổ, nhưng quả thật trong chốc lát tơi đã quên mất Đơra. Tơi yên trí rằng ơng bà Micơbơ khơng thể nào chén một bữa ngon hơn dù cho họ phải bán một cái giường để đánh chén” (20) 243 74. “Miss Dartle, how I shall tell you, so that you will believe me, that I know of nothing in Steerforth different from what there was when I first came here? I can think of nothing. I firmly believe there is nothing. I hardly understand even what you mean” (p.409) “Cơ Đác tơn, tơi biết nĩi làm sao để cho cơ tin rằng theo ý tơi, tơi khơng thấy Xtiếcphĩoc thay đổi gì hết từ khi tơi lần dầu tiên đến đây. Tơi khơng thấy gì hết. Quả thực tơi khơng hiểu cơ muốn nĩi gì” (20) 75. “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Well, I don’t know about that. I rather think you may, if you begin early in life” (p.417) “Khơng thể bắt mèo đi cày. Tơi thì khơng tin như vậy. Tơi cho rằng vẫn cĩ thể, miễn là bắt đầu khá sớm” (20) 76. “...She made a great point of being so near the river, in case of a conflagration; I suppose really did find some satisfaction in that circumstance” (p.475) “...Cơ rất chú ý đến việc ngơi nhà ở rất gần sơng Temxơ, trong trường hợp cháy nhà và tơi giả thiết rằng vị trí này quả thực đã làm cho cơ tơi hài lịng” (20) 77. “ My dear aunt, no one can form the least idea what she is!” “Ah! And not silly?” “Silly, aunt! I seriously believe it had never once entered my head for a single moment, to consider whether she was or not.” (p.477) “Cơ ơi, khơng ai cĩ thể hình dung cơ ấy đẹp như thế nào!” “À, thế khơng ngốc chứ?" « Ngốc ư, thưa cơ ? thú thưc con chưa bao giờ tự hỏi, dù chỉ trong một phút xem nàng cĩ ngốc hay khơng » (20) 78. «I am well aware, Master Copperfield, that Miss Trotwood though an excellent lady, has a quick temper. Indeed I think I had the pleasure of knowing her, when I was an umble clerk, before you did, Master copperfield” (p.491) “Cậu Copơphin ạ. Tơi rất biết, mặc dầu cơ Trơ tút là người rất tốt, nhưng tính tình hay nĩng nảy. Thực ra tơi nghĩ rằng tơi đã cĩ dịp biết cơ ấy trước cậu, cậu Trơ tút ạ, khi tơi cịn là một nhân viên hèn kém” (20) 244 79. “I know not how, she was too modest and gentle to advise me in many words- the wandering ardour and unsettled purpose within me, that all the little good I have done, and all the harm I have forborne, I solemnly believe I may refer to her” (p.492) “Tơi khơng hiểu vì sao nàng rất khiêm tốn và dịu dàng nên khơng khuyên tơi nhiều lời. Cái nhiệt tình lơng bơng và cái nghị lực vơ mục đích của tơi đến nỗi cĩ thể nĩi nhờ nàng tơi đã làm được cái phần tốt ít ỏi tơi đã làm, và đã tránh được tất cả những điều xấu xa” (20) 80. “I merely say, with quite another view, you are probably aware I have some property to beneath to my child?” “I certainly supposed so” (p.524) “Tơi chỉ muốn nĩi với ơng với một ý định hồn tồn khác rằng chắc hẳn ơng thừa biết tơi cĩ ít tài sản để lại cho con tơi” (20) “Cố nhiên tơi vẫn nghĩ thế” 81. “He was so peaceful and resigned- clearly had his affairs in such perfect train, and so systematically wound up-that he was a man to feel touched in the contemplation of. I really think I saw tears rise to his eyes, from the depth of his own feeling of all this” (p.525) “Ơng rất bình thản nhẫn nhục. Cơng việc của ơng rõ rệt rất trật tự ngăn nắp và được giải quyết đúng phương pháp... đến nỗi chỉ nhìn ơng người ta đã mủi lịng. Thậm chí tơi cịn cĩ cảm tưởng rằng nước mắt ơng rưng rưng vì ơng cảm thấy tất cả những điều đĩ rất sâu sắc” (20) 82. “I don’t know how it is, Agnes; I seem to want some faculty of mind that I ought to have. You were so much in the habit of thinking for me, in the happy old days here, and I came so naturally to you for counsel and support, that I really think I have missed acquiring it” (p.538) “Mình khơng biết điều đĩ xảy ra như thế nào, Acnet ạ! Mình cĩ cảm tưởng rằng mình thiếu một năng khiếu mà mình cần phải cĩ. Cậu vẫn thường nghĩ đến mình, nghĩ đến thời thơ ấu sung sướng ngày xưa ở đây, và mình đến đây một cách tự 245 nhiên để nhờ cậu khuyên bảo và an ủi, đến nỗi quả thật mình nghĩ rằng đã bỏ mất cơ hội ấy” (20) 83. “I rather think that neither the blow, nor the allusion, would have escaped me, but for the assurance I had had from Agnes that night. It is no matter” (p.590) “Tơi nghĩ rằng nếu Ácnét tối hơm ấy khơng hứa với tơi thì tơi đã khơng tát cũng khơng nhắc nhở như thế. Nhưng điều đĩ khơng quan trọng” (20) 84. “I can hardly believe, writing now long afterwards, but that I was actually present in these scenes; they are impressed upon me with such as astonishing air of fidelity” (p.690-691) “Lúc này viết lại, sau một thời gian dài, tơi hầu như khĩ lịng tin rằng mình khơng nhìn tận mắt những cảnh tượng ấy vì nĩ khắc sâu vào trí não tơi rõ rệt lạ thường” (20) 85. “You and your aunt will excuse me, Cooperfield, if I touch upon a painful theme, as I greatly fear I shall, but I think it necessary to bring it to you recollection. On the day of Mr. Micawber’s memorable denunciation, a threatening allusion was made by Uriah Heep to your aunt’s husband” (p.744) “Xin cơ và Copơphin tha lỗi cho tơi nếu tơi nĩi đến một vấn đề khĩ nĩi, tơi rất ngại., nhưng tơi nhận thấy cần phải nhắc cho cơ và Copơphin biết. ngày xảy ra việc ơng Mi cơ bơ tố cáo, Uria Híp dã nĩi bĩng giĩ đến một điều dễ sợ về người chồng của cơ” (20) 86. “Will you laugh at my cherishing such fancies, Agnes?” “No” “Or at my saying that I really believe I felt, even then, that you could be faithfully affectionate against all discouragement and never cease to be so, until you ceased to live..” (p.806) “Em cĩ cười ý nghĩ ngơng cuồng ấy của anh khơng?” “Khơng” “Em cĩ cười nếu em bảo anh rằng ngay cả lúc anh ấy đã thành thực cảm thấy em đã trung thành trong tình cảm của mình bất chấp mọi thất vọng và khơng bao giờ 246 thơi mãi cho đến khi chết...” (20) 87. “Tention! In future you shall send up Wiggins alone to report, and the rest of you must wait in the street. Have you found it, Wiggins?” “No, sir, we haven’t” “I hardly expected you would. You must keep on untill you do. Here are your wages” (p.26) (21) “Nghiêm! Lần sau các cháu đợi cả ở ngồi phố nhé, chỉ để một mình Uy-ghin lên báo cáo thơi. Uy-ghin cĩ tìm thấy khơng?” “Khơng ạ, chúng cháu chưa tìm ra” “Kém thế! Tiếp tục đi cho đến khi tìm ra. Tiền thù lao đây.” (20) 88. “This last statement appeared to me to be so startling, that I could hardly believe that he was in his sober senses” (p.32) (21) “Lời khẳng định này quá đỗi kỳ dị khiến tơi khĩ mà tin rằng bạn tơi cịn đầy đủ lí trí” 89. “I confess that I do not quite follow you” “I hardly expected that you would. Let me see if I can make it clearer.” (p.60) “Thú thực tơi chưa hiểu” “Tơi khơng nghĩ là bạn hiểu. Để tơi nĩi rõ hơn” 90. “I thought my disguise was pretty good, but I hardly expected that it would stand that test” (p.99) “Tơi cứ nghĩ sự cải trang của tơi cũng tạm được, nhưng khơng ngờ nĩ lại thành cơng rực rỡ như vậy” 91 “Then you may entirely rely on me” “That is excellent. I think, perhaps, it is almost time that I prepare for the new role I have to play” (p.129) 247 “Anh cĩ thể hồn tồn tin vào tơi” “Thật tuyệt. Tơi nghĩ cĩ thể đây là hầu như thời gian tơi chuẩn bị cho vai mà tơi phải diễn” 92. “My sister thinks that I am going mad. Sometimes I think that I am myself. And now-and now I am myself a branded thief, without ever having touched the wealth for which I sold my character.” (p.209) “Chị gái tơi nghĩ rằng tơi sẽ điên. Thỉnh thoảng tơi nghĩ rằng tơi là chính tơi. Và bây giờ - bây giờ tơi là tên trộm bị mang án.” 93. “For an instant, I could hardly believe that here was indeed a door which led away from death.” (p.233) “Trong tích tắc, tơi khơng thể tin đây thật sự là cánh cửa thốt hiểm” 94. “What I can’t understand is why they should have spared you when they found you lying fainting in the garden. Perhaps the villain was softened by the woman’s entreaties” “I hardly think that is likely. I never saw a more inexorable face in my life” (p. 235) “Điều tơi khơng hiểu nỗi là tại sao họ lại tha cho anh khi họ thấy anh bất tỉnh trong vườn . Cĩ lẽ chúng nể lời van xin của người phụ nữ đĩ” “Tơi khơng nghĩ thế. Tơi chưa bao giờ thấy ai cĩ bộ mặt khơng chút mủi lịng như vậy” 95. “I believe that he is coming here” “Here?” “Yes, I rather think he is coming to consult me professionally. I think that I recognise the symptoms.” (p.251) “Ơng ta sẽ đến đây” “Đến đây à?” “Phải. Ơng ta đến gặp tơi để giải quyết một vấn đề khĩ khăn. Nhìn những triệu chứng của anh ta là tơi biết ngay.” 248 96.“As regards your hair, it is no doubt a pity, especially as I could not help remarking its beauty during our short interview, but I am afraid that I must remain firm upon this point, and I only hope that the increased salary may recompense you for the loss.” (p.268) “Về bộ tĩc, tơi rất tiếc nhưng tơi cương quyết giữ nguyên quyết định. Tơi hy vọng rằng, số thù lao tăng lên sẽ đền bù được sự mất mát đĩ.” 97.“Will you laugh at my cherishing such fancies, Agnes?” “No” “Or at my saying that I really believe I felt, even then, that you could be faithfully affectionate against all discouragement and never cease to be so, until you ceased to live..” (p.806) “Em cĩ cười ý nghĩ ngơng cuồng ấy của anh khơng?” “Khơng” “Em cĩ cười nếu em bảo anh rằng ngay cả lúc anh ấy đã thành thực cảm thấy em đã trung thành trong tình cảm của mình bất chấp mọi thất vọng và khơng bao giờ thơi mãi cho đến khi chết...” (20) 98. “The fact is that I felt as though I were choking, and had a perfect longing for a breath of freh air. I really think that I should have fainted if I had not gone out.” (p298) “Đột nhiên em bắt đầu cảm thấy ngột thở. Em cần khơng khí trong lành. Em thật sự nghĩ rằng em chắc đã ngất xỉu nếu em khơng ra ngồi.” (21) 99.“I have some papers here which I really think, Watson, that it would be worth your while to glance over.” (p.317) “Watson, Đây là những tài liệu thật sự tơi nghĩ anh nên quan tâm đến nĩ” 100.“Ah, indeed! Well now, I think that really should give us the last link that we wanted. I must congratulate you on coming into the possession, though in rather a tragic manner of a relic which is of great intrinsic value, but of even greater importance as an historical curiosity.” (p.336) 249 “Ồ, thật sự tơi nghĩ đĩ là mối quan hệ cuối cùng mà chúng tơi muốn. Xin chúc mừng anh, Musgrave ạ! Anh đã trở thành chủ nhân của một di vật cĩ giá trị to lớn và cĩ ý nghĩa quan trọng hơn, tựa như một vật hiếm hoi, cĩ tính lịch sử” 101. “Excellent, Watson! I really fancy that you are not far from the truth. You see that we hold all the card, and we have only to fear some sudden act of violence on their part” (p.380) “Hoan hơ, Watson. Anh đã gần đốn ra, Chúng ta nắm tất cả mọi quân bài, chỉ cịn lo ngại chúng dùng bạo lực.” 102.“ But how about our investigation in London?” “We can do that tomorrow. I think that just at present I can be of more immediate use here” (p.398) “Nhưng cịn việc điều tra của chúng ta ở Luân đơn thì sao?” “Chuyện đĩ cĩ thể đợi đến ngày mai. Tơi nghĩ rằng bây giờ tơi ở đây cĩ ích hơn” 103.“I can hardly think that you would find many decent citizens to agree with you” (p.431) “Tơi khơng thể nghĩ rằng anh sẽ tìm ra nhiều cơng dân chỉnh tề đồng ý với anh” 104.“I thought so the revolver had an ejector, and here is the third cartridge. I really think, Inspector Martin, that our case is almost complete” (p.452) “Tơi nghĩ súng lục đã bắn ra và đây chính là viên đạn thứ ba. Ngài thanh tra Martin thật sự tơi nghĩ rằng vụ việc của chúng ta đã xong” 105. “I rather fancy that he is on the stair. I think, Watson, that you would do well to put that revolver where you can reach it” (p.494) “Dường như con người ấy đang đến.Watson, anh hãy cầm khẩu súng này đi.” 107. “It’s the Napoleon bust business again, you seemed interested last night, Mr. Holmes, so I thought perhaps you would be glad to be present now that the affair has taken a very much graver turn” (p.510) “Chuyện tượng Napoleon lại tiếp diễn. Ơng Holmes, tơi nghĩ ơng sẽ vui lịng tham gia việc điều tra.” 107. “I really don’t think he knew much about it, Mr. Holmes.” (p.525) 250 “Tơi thật sự tin là anh khơng dính dấp vào vụ này, thưa ơng Holmes 108. “Nothing that would help a thief. Family papers, letters from my poor wife, diplomas of Universities which have done me honour. You can look for yourself” “No, I hardly think that it would help me” (p.537) “Chẳng cĩ gì cĩ thể gợi lịng tham của kẻ trộm. Những giấy tờ của gia đình, những lá thư của bà vợ những bằng cấp mà nhiều viện Đại học đã trao tặng cho tơi. Ơng hãy tự mình xem lấy” “Khơng. Tơi khơng tin là nĩ cĩ thể giúp ích cho tơi được điều gì nhiều” 109.“I believe that you arenanwizard, Mr. Holmes. I really do sometimes think that you have powers that are not human. Now how on earth could you know that the stolen silver was at the bottom of that pond?” (564) “Ơng đúng là bậc tiên tri, ơng Holmes ạ. Quả thực, do cĩ phép lạ gì mà ơng biết được những đồ vật bằng bạc bị mất nọ lại nằm dưới đáy ao.” 110. “I think also that the probability is in favour of his being a country practitioner who does a great deal of his visiting on foot”(p.587) “Là bác sĩ nơng thơn, ơng thường phải đi bộ trên những quãng đường xa.” 111“But he went out every evening” “I think it is unlikely that he waited at the moor gate every evening. On the contrary, the evidence is that he avoided the moor.” (p.598) “Nhưng anh ta đều đi dạo mỗi tối mà” “Tơi cho rằng anh ta khơng thể đợi tại cổng bờ dậu mỗi tối. Ngược lại bằng chứng cho thấy anh ta tránh bờ dậu.” 112.“By the way, I suppose there are few people living within driving distance of this whom you do not know?” “Hardly any, I think” (p.631-632) “Nhân tiện xin hỏi thêm cĩ lẽ ơng biết hết những người ở trong khu vực này chứ?” “Tơi nghĩ mình biết tất cả” 113.“It is a lovely evening, my dear Watson, I really think that you will be more comfortable outside than in.” (P. 638) 251 “Một buổi chiều thật tuyệt vời, anh Watson! Tại sao lại ngồi tại một nơi ngột ngạt như thế? ở ngồi trời dễ chịu hơn nhiều” 114.“When he went to Devonshire his plans were, I believe, exceedingly hazy, but that he meant mischief from the first is evident from the way in which he took his wife with him in the character of his sister.” (p.655) “Lúc mới chuyển đến Devonshire, các kế hoạch của hắn cĩ lẽ cịn mơ hồ. Nhưng rồi ý định độc ác từ đầu hắn nhận vợ mình là em gái.” 115.“What are we here for at all? I really think that you might treat us with more frankness” (p.694) “Tất cả chúng tơi ở đây để làm gì? Thật sự tơi nghĩ ơng nên thành thật với chúng tơi hơn” 116.“I’ve heard of you, Mr. holmes. I never guessed that I should meet you. (p. 696) “Tơi cĩ được nghe nhiều về ơng, ơng Holmes. Tơi khơng nghĩ rằng cĩ ngày tơi lại được làm quen với ơng.” 117.“I rather think that will be helpful.” (p.783) “Tơi tin tơi sẽ đĩng gĩp một điều ích lợi.” 118.“One moment, Gregson, I rather fancy that this lady may be as anxious to give us information as we can be to get it” (p.783) “Chờ một chút, anh grech-sơn! Tơi tin rằng bà sẽ rất nhiệt tình cung cấp mọi tin tức mà chúng ta cần” 119.“You will tell him exactly how you have left me. You will convey the very impression which is in your own mind-a dying man – a dying and delirious man. Indeed, I can not think why the whole bed of the ocean is not one solid mass of oysters, so prolific the creatures seem.” (p.807) “Anh cho ơng ấy biết tình trạng của tơi. Anh mơ tả cho ơng ấy cảm giác chính xác của anh về tình trạng đang chờ chết và hơn mê của tơi. Thực vậy, tơi đang thắc mắc tại sao tồn cái sàn đại dương khơng là một khối rắn chắc làm bằng vỏ sị, vì vỏ sị thì hằng hà sa số mà” 252 120.“Well, Watson, a very pretty hash you have made of it! I rather think you had better come back with me to London by the night express” (P. 817) “Nào, Watson! Anh quậy rối bời, làm ơn quay về Luân đơn với tơi bằng chuyến tốc hành đêm nay” 121.“Remarkable – most remarkable! I think perhaps, we had better go down to Tredannick Wartha without further delay. I confess that I have seldom known a case which at first sight presented a more singular problem” (p. 830) “Quái dị. Thực là quái dị! Tơi nghĩ rằng ta nên tức tốc đi tốc đi đến Tredannick Wartha. Tơi thú thật là ít khi gặp một bài tốn quái dị như vậy” 122.“ If the police would desire further information I shall be happy to see any of them at the cottage. And now, Watson, I think that perhaps, we shall be better employed elsewhere.” (p.833) “Nếu cảnh sát muốn biết hơn, tơi sẵn sàng gặp bất cứ người đại diện nào của họ. Cịn bây giờ, Watson à, tơi nghĩ cĩ lẽ chúng ta sẽ cĩ việc làm ích lợi hơn tại chỗ khác” 124.“I think you acted very wisely indeed, but are you really anxious to acquire an estate in America?” (p.914) “Tơi cho rằng ơng hành động thực sự rất khơn khéo, nhưng ơng cĩ thực sự muốn cĩ một mảnh đất tại Hoa kì khơng?” 125.“I can only suppose that this American lawyer put it in himself.” (p.915) “Theo tơi thì chính tay luật sư Hoa kì này mướn đăng, nhưng để làm gì thì tơi khơng hiểu.” 126.“Well, we have them all laid out at the house if you would care to look them over” “Later, perhaps. I think we will walk down together and have a look at the scene of the tragedy.” (p.926) “Ồ, chúng tơi đã gom tất cả vào một gĩc rồi. Nếu cần ơng hãy vào xem qua” “Để sau này đã. Giờ đây chúng ta hãy ra hiện trường.” 253 127.“When I reached the bridge she was waiting for me. Never did I realize till that moment how this poor creature hated me. She was like a mad woman- indeed I think she was a mad woman, subtly mad with the deep power of deception which insane people may have.” (p.929) “ Khi tơi đến nơi thì bà ấy đã cĩ mặt ở đĩ. Thú thật, lúc bấy giờ tơi mới lường được mức độ thù hận mà người đàn bà đáng thương này dành cho tơi. Bà ấy như điên và tơi tin rằng bà ấy điên thật.” 128.“Sir Robert has never married. Just as well, I think, considering his propects. He lives with his widowed sister, Lady Beatrice Falder” (p.967) “Ơng này cĩ kết hơn bao giờ đâu! Như tơi biết thì ơng ta sống tại nhà chị ruột , một quả phụ, một mệnh phụ Pha-đơ” 129.“I hardly expected that so humble an individual as myself, especially after my heavy financial loss, could obtain the complete attention of so famous a man as Mr. Sherlock Holmes” (p.978) (21) “Tơi đâu dám hy vọng rằng một người như tơi thì làm sao được ơng Sherlock Holmes đích thân giúp.” 130. Kaplan shrugged. "She's able." (22) "Able but weak?" "No." Kaplan shook her head. "Meredith has ability. That's not in question. But I'm concerned about her experience. She's not as seasoned as she might be. She's being put in charge of four major technical units that are expected to grow rapidly. I just hope she's up to it." 131. "I just hope you know what the fuck you're doing," Lewyn said angrily. "I think I do." 254 APPENDIX D 1. “I really do believe that mayors have the political position to really change people's lives.” 2. “I really do believe that if you don't challenge yourself and risk failing, that it's not interesting.” 3. “I really do believe that God is love, one of deep affection and grace and forgiveness and inspiration.” 4. “I really do believe that art changes the landscape of the world.” 5. “Yeah, I guess I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do really believe strongly that we all need to believe in something, and that's very personal to each one of us.” 6. “I really do believe that my style is informed by the fact that I had such issues with my appearance at various times of my life.” 7. “I think it's fantastic when the young enrage their elders. I really do believe that if it's too loud, you are indeed too old, and that if it has been standing for too long, it needs a thorough inspection.” 8. “I do definitely believe that there is life away from this planet. I mean, we've kind of established that with the fact that we found bacteria on meteorites, and we've kind of used that to backtrack and show how this Earth, this planet, could have formed the ability to sustain life in the first place.” 9. “I really do hope that the Millennium Summit gives new impetus to the work of the United Nations. 10. “I really do hope that the people will like 14:59. The critics seem to like it. We got a lot of good reviews.” 11. “I work in a very tough area of Britain. There is not much hope sociologically where I live and work, they're all sorts of conditions of poverty and deprivation and so on, I really do believe that the message of the kingdom of God is for places like this.” 255 12. “Yeah, I guess I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do really believe strongly that we all need to believe in something, and that's very personal to each one of us.” 13. “I try to live instinctively. And I guess I've always enjoyed living in a fantasy world, daydreaming. I really do think that dreaming and fantasies are very important to the human psyche and the soul. That's why I want to act.” 14. “Certainly I must confess that since my visiting here I have seen people— and if one comes to compare them, person and manners, there is no comparison at all, one is so very handsome and agreeable. However, I do really think Mr. Martin a very amiable young man, and have a great opinion of him; and his being so much attached to me—and his writing such a letter—but as to leaving you, it is what I would not do upon any consideration.” (p.80) 15. “Pumblechook, used often to come over of a night for the purpose of discussing my prospects with my sister; and I really do believe (to this hour with less penitence than I ought to feel), that if these hands could have taken a linchpin out of his chaise-cart, they would have done it.” (p.169-170) 16. “Methinks thou art right, friend Arthur,” “I do verily think that Yon is no such roseleaf and whipped-cream gallant as he would have one take him to be.” (p.153) 17. “Stop! we will fight no more. I take my vow, this is an ill day for thee and me, Little John. I do verily believe that my wrist, and my arm, are palsied by the jar of the blow that this stranger struck me.” (p.159) 18. “I really do hope Ryo brings Ryan back home for me to explain our parents’ plan to visit.” (p.23) 19. “Hate to say it Charlie, but I really do think they’re gonna to do it.” (p.33) 20. “I do really think mother might have some consideration for me, Julius.” (p. 112) 21. “Thank you for reading ‘Bedtime’, I really do hope you enjoyed it.” (p.37) 256 22. “Galvin, I really do think the way we live is crazy, how long can we pretend?” (p.39) 23. “I do really think the fellow did two men’s duty, the whole time the squall lasted.” (p.83) 24. “Ah, yes, beggars, beggars, they didn’t beg of me for money. I really do think that there must be something in this dread of the protestant movement.” (p.204) 25. “I believe that you arenanwizard, Mr. Holmes. I really do sometimes think that you have powers that are not human. Now how on earth could you know that the stolen silver was at the bottom of that pond?” (p.564)

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • pdfa_study_of_cognitive_non_factive_verb_and_epistemic_adverb_c.pdf
  • pdfTranMinhGiang-DONG GOP MOI.pdf
  • pdfTranMinhGiang-TOM TAT.pdf
  • pdfTranMinhGiang-TRICH YEU LUAN AN.pdf
Tài liệu liên quan