1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. RATIONALE
When people use language to communicate, both in everyday
conversations and in writing such as novels, reports, letters, etc. they not only
desire to give the descriptive information but they also show their attitudes,
evaluation to the content of their statement and to the hearers or readers. In
making their statements as claims of knowledge or feelings, the
speakers/writers can adjust and negotiate the arguability of their utterances.
While doing so, the speakers may choose to shape their position in verbal
interaction as to be likely accepted by the hearers or readers as far as the
reliability of information is concerned. And by doing so, their claim can be
supported and the others’ claims denied. Every language offers various ways
of performing these functions. According to the speaker’s purpose toward the
dimension of their attitude to their claim, these functions can be labelled
proclaim or disclaim. Under the Appraisal framework initiated by James
Martin [26], Proclaim is first introduced as a fairly new name for
communicative categories and is seen as a member of Engagement
subsystems which carries all properties of a linguistic unit. So what is it?
In every day speech or in written texts, the speakers may choose to
modify their claim with a particular linguistic device so as to avoid the
challenge from the hearers or readers. By doing so, they are performing a
proclaim. Let me examine the following examples
(1) “He wants to buy me out?”
“Yes, But of course, I told him you wouldn’t sell.”

[114]

water carries nutrient to nourish the longan trees well. “thảo nào” in this
current location confirms his belief in his statement.
So far much has been written on the related semantic areas such as
modality, evidentiality, and hedges in English and Vietnamese. Although
Proclaim can be considered as one of the basic purposes of modulating the
speaker’s or writer’s claim, little has been done on Proclaim concerning the
linguistic realizations and its semantic functions.
With the assumptions that such PMs as of course, I do contend, tất
nhiên, thảo nào, and other members of PMs may cause some difficulties to


3

those who use English in everyday speech as well as in argumentative essays,
I therefore try to carry out a research on this in a hope that it may help
Vietnamese learners of English to enhance their competence in spoken and
written communication and achieve cooperation in interaction.
1.2. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
The research of PMs on the aspects of syntax, semantics and
pragmatics makes an attempt to contribute to the understanding of proclaim
markers in different types of discourses in English and Vietnamese. The
similarities and differences between the two languages analysed in the study
may be of great benefit for Vietnamese learners of English. An insight of
these markers along with appropriate practice can help them improve in
practising language skills, especially in translation. Vietnamese learners of
English may base on the findings of this study in order that they can enhance
their competence to naturally express the information as well as the
attitudinal, dialogistic and intertextual positioning in both languages.
1.3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.3.1. Aims

organisation of the study.
Chapter two gives an overview of how proclaim markers are
approached from different perspectives. Furthermore, the chapter mentions a
number of such relevant concepts as dialogistic position, epistemic modality,
evidentiality, force dynamics, speech act and politeness principles.
Chapter three brings out the methods of collecting and analysing data.


5

Chapter four describes and contrasts the proclaim markers in English
and Vietnamese in terms of structural features, semantic functions and
pragmatic functions so as to draw out their similarities and differences.
Chapter five is the summary of the development of the study. This
section also raises some implications for English teaching and learning, some
limitations and gives some suggestions on further research.


6

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Proclaim, a subcategory of Engagement under the Appraisal framework
proposed by Martin and his group of researchers [26], concerns with the
diverse range of resources by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the
arguability of their utterances, which has been analysed in the literature under
headings such as modality, evidentiality, polarity, hearsay, concession,

disjuncts and conjunctions. This research paper was an attempt to find out the
implicature, presupposition or assumption of Disclaim and Proclaim in
English and Vietnamese, investigated and decided which are their equivalent
features in pragmatics in Vietnamese. However, at such a level of B.A.
degree, the work just gave general points of the proclaim.
The latest study of the matters of Proclaim and Disclaim markers
should be mentioned here is M.A. Thesis by Ho Long Ngoc (2006) [12] with
the title “A Study of Disclaim Markers in English and Vietnamese”. This
thesis examined described the disclaim markers in English and Vietnamese in
terms of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects. The study investigated a
wide range of linguistic devices to mark the speaker/writer’s disclaim with
different structures of verbs, adverbs, adjectives and nouns in the two
languages. The findings were about the information status of the proposition
mentioned in the disclaim as unexpected, new desirable or undesirable which
anticipated the speaker/writer’s attitudes to this proposition against an
assumption expected in both the speaker’s and hearer’s minds. In this study,


8

the addresser’s reactions to the proposition in the disclaim also reflected
themselves in the politeness strategies in communicative interaction.
Hence, issues about Proclaim and proclaim markers are still unsolved
questions. The concept of proclaim and its characteristics in syntax, semantics
and pragmatics are still inaccessible to many of us. Therefore, I need to make
clear the definition of Proclaim and its related concepts.
2.2. PROCLAIM AND RELATED CONCEPTS
2.2.1. The notion of proclaim
Keys engagement resources include meanings which can be grouped
together under the headings: Disclaim, Proclaim, Probabilise, and Attribute.

Here the writer represents himself/herself as simply agreeing with the
reader, as recounting a view (Mr. Stanhope was not as good as Shakespeare,
because Shakespeare was the greatest English playwright) which is already
held by the dialogistic partner and by people in general. The location of the
current proposition within a dialogistic exchange is thus employed to increase
the cost of any subsequent challenging or rejecting of the proposition.
2.1.1.2. Pronounce
Under “Pronounce”, according to P.R.R. White [29], we are concerned
with formulations by which speakers/writers interpolate themselves directly
into the text as the explicitly responsible source of the utterance. This
“pronouncement” may take the form of an explicit interpolation of the
speaker into the text (‘I’d say this will lead to mistrust’), an intensifying
comment adjunct (‘Really, this will lead to mistrust’), stress on the auxiliary
(‘This did lead to mistrust’), or through structures such as ‘It’s a fact that…’.
Such formulations are dialogistically prospective. The author thereby
increases the interpersonal cost of any rejection/doubting of their utterance in


10

future communicative exchanges, rendering such direct challenge to the
author’s dialogistic position. Of course, through such a strategy, by
confronting the possibility of rejection, the author integrates that possibility
into the text and thereby acknowledges the dialogistic diversity of meaning
making in socially diverse social contexts.
2.2.2. The notion of “Dialogism”
The notion of “dialogism” is set out in the work of Bakhtin [4] and
Voloshinov [24]. The following quotation sums up this perspective:
The actual reality of language-speech is not the abstract system of
linguistic forms, not the isolated monologic utterance, and not the

the basis of the evaluation assigns a confidence to measure to the speaker’s
utterance. An epistemic modal will be used to reflect the degree of
confidence. In his viewpoint, an evidential asserts that there is evidence for
speaker’s utterance but does not interpret the evidence any way.
Palmer [20], in his book on Mood and Modality (1986) viewed that
evidentiality is part of the epistemic modal system. According to him,
epistemic modality divides into two subcategories: judgement and evidence.
Opinions and conclusions involve judgement by the speaker but reports
indicate the kind of evidence. Both judgements and evidentials can be seen as
devices for the speakers to indicate that he wishes to modify his commitment
to the truth of his speech utterance. Let me take the following examples
(6) “I shall cause all my relatives and my acquaintances in Persia to know
of it, and I will take such an oath that they will certainly believe,” the
Prince answered.

[141]

(7) For a long moment Romano stared into the fire. “But one who had such
evidence - one who had, perhaps, assisted in the arrest of the guilty such a one would be forced to linger here?” “For a time. And he would
undoubtedly be commanded to return for the trial.”

[78]

The semantic process of restriction (or focus) involves the same items
which function as emphasizers, but now the adverbs draw attention to the


12

modal by actually focusing upon it. Restriction is not readily distinguishable

Following Frawley, I assume that the coincidence or convergence of
the expressed world and the reference world results in the notion of actual
modality or realis, and the divergence of these two worlds yields the so-called
non-actual world or irrealis. Accordingly, the extent of the divergence of the
two worlds with various epistemic stances can be translated into different
degrees of epistemic values such as possibility, evidence, commitment, and so
on.
From these assumptions about the convergence of the expressed world
and the reference world along the two parameters remoteness and direction I
can say that a modalized utterance as proclaim conveys that the speaker/
writer views the state-of-affairs in proposition as the expressed world in the
complete convergence or full coincidence with the reference world.
Accordingly, what is presented in the proposition of the proclaim can be
judged as true basing on the evidence as part of the reality in the reference
world. The semantic mechanism for the assertion of truth of proposition can
be represented in figures 2.1. and 2.2. below
Expressed world
State-of-affairs

Reference world
Present state of actualized event

P

Reality

counterfactual ----- possibility ----- probability ------ certainty ------- fact
Irrealis modality
Figure 2.1.: Irrealis modality


generally called speech acts….” Normally, kinds of speech acts derive from
speaker’s communicative intention, such as apology, complaint, compliment,
invitation, promise, or request. Furthermore, he introduced three related acts
performed by producing an utterance:
a. locutionary act: produces a meaningful linguistic expression
b. illocutionary act: an utterance with some kind of function in speaker’s
mind.


15

The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an
utterance.
c. perlocutionary act: the utterance on the assumption that the hearer will
recognise the effect that the speaker intended.
However, briefly, the term “speech act” can be meant only the
illocutionary force of an utterance.
Yule [25, pp.53.54] classified speech acts according to general
functions:

declarations,

representatives,

expressives,

directives,

and


A major difference between such sentences is that whereas constative
sentences may be true or false, performative sentences “have, instead of truth
values, various conditions pertaining to appropriateness of use”.

[22, p.322]

b. Characteristics of performatives
According to Leech G.N. [17, pp.183-184] syntactically, a regular
illocutionary performative utterance has the following distinguished features:
(i) The verb of the main clause is an illocutionary verb.
(ii) This verb is in the simple present tense.
(iii) The subject of this verb is in the first person.
(iv) The indirect object of this verb, if one is present, is you.
(v) Optionally, this verb is preceded by the adverb hereby.
(vi) The verb is followed (except in elliptical cases) by a reported-speech
clause.
From what is presented in features (i) - (vi) it can be inferred that
illocutionary verbs are performative verbs, as Hurford & Heasley [13, p.237]
defined, “a Performative Verb is one which, when used in a simple positive
present tense sentence, with a 1st person singular subject, can make the
utterance of that sentence performative.”


17

2.2.6. Force dynamics
In Speech Act theory, the notion of force is regarded as a way of
indicating that different utterances have different properties. Meanwhile, in
linguistic theory, a richer notion of force, suggested by Leonard Talmy [27,
p.50] still exists, namely Force Dynamics. Talmy used Force to explain the

e. Agreement Maxim:
Minimise disagreement between yourself and others;
maximise agreement between yourself and others.
f. Sympathy Maxim:
Minimise antipathy between yourself and others;
maximise sympathy between yourself and others.
2.3. SUMMARY
This section has presented a literature review of Proclaim. Its working
definition has been built under the Appraisal framework by P.R.R. White. The
related aspects considered as the preliminary information for the analysis of
proclaim in the next chapters are also discussed, including Hanns and
Palmer’s views of epistemic modality and evidentiality, Yule’s theory of
speech acts, Talmy’s notion of force dynamics and Leech’s politeness
principles. On the preliminary information about Proclaim, I will present my
method of study and result of study in the next chapters.


19

CHAPTER 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN
This study is carried out through a descriptive and qualitative approach.
English is chosen as L2 and Vietnamese as L1.
3.1.1. Research methods
A contrastive analysis of proclaim markers in different kinds of English
and Vietnamese discourse will be conducted so as to draw out some
implications with particular reference to the teaching and learning of proclaim

5) Discussing the findings.
6) Suggesting some implications for English teaching and learning.
3.2. DATA COLLECTION
A corpus of 500 samples of English proclaim markers and 500 samples
of Vietnamese proclaim markers were set up for each language. The data
were mainly collected from conversations, interviews or essays reproduced in
novels, short stories, newspapers by native speakers/writers of English and
Vietnamese.
3.3. DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION AND SAMPLES
Samples of the study were lexical expressions including words, phrases
and clauses realised as proclaim markers grouped under the broad class of
adverbial disjuncts. They were collected from different types of discourse in


21

both English and Vietnamese, e.g. novels, short stories, articles, and
transcription of interviews, ; not only from paper books and newspapers but
also on the internet. Here are my initial word lists of adverbial disjuncts for
investigation.
Table 3.1. The PMs in English
VERBS

NOUNS

ADJECTIVES

ADVERBS

Acknowledge


Assert

No wonder

Naturally

Claim

Of course

Really

Concede

Fact

Surely

Confess

Truth

Undoubtedly

Contend

As for the Vietnamese list of lexical devices I include here a class of
lexical units functioning as adverbs in English. Ngu Thien Hung [3] proposed
that these are structures which exist as a perfect whole and can hardly be

Công nhận

Thực tế

Tất nhiên

Đúng là

Rõ ràng

Đúng rồi/ vậy

Thừa nhận
Thú nhận

Hèn chi/ gì

Công nhận

Quả nhiên
Quả thật/ thực
Tất nhiên là
Thảo nào
Thật/Thực tình
Thật vậy
Quả là

3.4. DATA ANALYSIS
The data were analysed and interpreted contextually. Such pragmatic
factors as the relationships between speakers and hearers, social status and


FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the data analysis.
The result of the analysis is accounted on the syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic basis. The presentation of the linguistic features of PMs is made
both in English and Vietnamese.
4.1. SYNTACTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PMS IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE
This section shows how PMs are formed and how they behave
syntactically in the clausal structure. First PMs are analysed in reference to
the compositional structure of themselves and how their actual positions in
the structure of clause reflect their syntactic roles in the utterance. The
syntactic analysis is closely associated to the identification of the location of
PMs in the structure of functional layers of an utterance.
PMs are distinguished in three positions for the declarative form of the
clause of a simple sentence as follows:
Initial position:

before the subject

Medial position:

immediately before auxiliary or after auxiliary verb

Final position:

after an intransitive verb, an object or a complement

4.1.1. Adverbial structures of PMs in English and Vietnamese

(14) Vừa đặt chân đến làng Giữa hôm qua, nhưng cô bắt đầu cảm nhận
được nỗi vất vả của cuộc sống nơi đây. Thảo nào Khanh cứ bảo: “Em
về rồi khắc biết. Anh chẳng muốn giới thiệu trước đâu.”

[42, p.55]

(15) Rõ ràng tình yêu ấy không phải hướng về ông, mà hướng về chính gã
đệ tử “truyền nhân y bát” của ông.

[40, p.51]

4.1.2. Adjective structures of PMs in English and Vietnamese
In this study, proclaim markers are examined in the structure “verb +
adjective + complement”. The structure is usually used to convey the level of
personal certainty. With a first person pronoun subject it shows the
speaker/writer’s strong belief about the information. In English, they are I am
certain, I’m sure, it’s clear, or it’s natural.