The Expressions of Epistemic Modality in English and Vietnamese: A Contrastive on “thấy” and “nghĩ” in Vietnamese and Mental Verbs in English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic modality is described as the speaker's judgment, assessing the degree of the factual proposition, or the speaker's confidence or non-confidence in the truth value of the proposition. The paper focuses on the expression of “thấy”, “nghĩ” predicates in Vietnamese and compares with mental verbs in English. To achieve the research objectives, the paper uses descriptive, statistical and comparative methods to clarify modality in general and epistemic modality in particular. The paper initially contributes to clarifying the definition, category, and identification of epistemic modality in terms of grammar and vocabulary. Next, the paper points out the similarities and differences in the expression of epistemic modality in English and Vietnamese. The results show that the nature of vocabulary and syntax basically exists value of factuality and non-factuality. The most important feature of epistemic modality is subjectivity and objectivity. The speaker "I/Tôi" clearly expresses or implies commitment for what is said. Understanding and applying modality in general and epistemic modality in particular will help learners acquire language and culture better in the process of communication and translation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".