The English Modal “can” and Its Vietnamese Counterpart

Considering modality as whatever that lies out of the lexis (also called the dictum) of the proposition of a declarative sentence, I have considered the meanings conveyed by the modal verb “can” as well as its English alternative modal expressions, in comparison with those conveyed by its so-called Vietnamese counterpart “có thể”, if possible. If not, other translated versions into Vietnamese are suggested. The English modal verb can is translated into Vietnamese in a number of different ways, and có thể is one of these ways, however frequent and thus prominent it is; in other words, besides có thể, among other Vietnamese counterparts of “can are “được”, “mới ... được”, “có thể ... được”, “có thể sẽ”, “biết”, and “thường”. The alternative modal expressions of “can” as shown in the English declaratives in this paper have plenty of Vietnamese equivalents, as identified in their suggested translated versions. Although these inevitable differences cause both Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English who do a course in Vietnamese a lot of trouble, their potential similarities are the objective bases for successful practice in translating or interpreting. There is no doubt that the interesting and fruitful research on modal expressions in Vietnamese and English declarative sentences is of undeniably practical significance in the current time of world-wide explosion of information and cross-cultural communication.


Introduction
In the current time of world-wide explosion of information and cross-cultural communication, there is an urgent need for the Vietnamese peoples to learn and use the English language efficiently as an international means of communication. So is the sincere desire to express various aspects of the languages, the cultures, and the knowledge of the Vietnamese peoples' lives, as simplest as they may be made known for basic understanding, if not for sympathy? To fulfil such a need, the theory and practice of translation and interpretation from English to Vietnamese and vice versa is constantly under some change, closely related to the gradually increased number of Vietnamese students who have been studying for a Bachelor of Arts in English and whose concentration is Translating and Interpreting, at least in and around Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Generally speaking, it is a challenge for the students to acquire modality in general and the meanings conveyed by the modal verb can as well as its English alternative modal expressions, in comparison with those conveyed by its socalled equivalent Vietnamese có thể, in particular. Playing the role of the nurture of their attempt to overcome such a challenge is the focus of this paper. This hopefully "reinforces the conclusion that the basic facts about meaning in all languages are, by and large, parallel. This is not to deny, of course, that there are interesting differences between languages" [Hurford, Heasley & Smith, 2007: 10]. modality that cause a large number of different or even contradictory opinions" [V.Z. Panfilov, 1977: 37-38; as quoted in Nguyen Minh Thuyet and Nguyen Van Hiep, 1998: 215], I have concentrated in this paper on the ways in which modality is expressed via the modal verb can as well as its English alternative modal expressions in the English declaratives. Then I compare such modal expressions in English with the so-called equivalent có thể in their 1 A number of conventions applied in this paper are: -Original English and Vietnamese declaratives are first numbered, occasionally marked a, b, c, etc. for further consideration and later comparison, and then followed right below by their suggested translated version(s) enclosed within a pair of single quotation marks (' '); -For clarification, can, its English alternative modal expressions, and their Vietnamese equivalents, including có thể, are in italic in the examples given as illustrations in this paper; -The symbol / stands for "or." translated versions in Vietnamese. Whenever có thể is not the optimal choice, other ways of expression are suggested with respect to the intuition of a native speaker of Vietnamese. This also aims to follow Hurford, Heasley & Smith's belief [2007: 10] that "it is possible to translate any sentence of one language (at least roughly) into any other language (however clumsily)."

Scope and Procedure of Research
Approximately five dozen simple declarative sentences have been selected, the third-person-singular subject pronoun he and the lexical verb come back being used as frequently as possible. Then the meanings conveyed by the modal verb can and its English alternative modal expressions are analyzed one by one. Last but not least, ways to translate into Vietnamese these English modal expressions, which are in fact various forms of the English verb phrase in the very sample declaratives chosen from quite clear and thus reliable sources, i.e. from a number of textbooks published by native speakers of English, are suggested, of course in comparison to the Vietnamese expression có thể whenever it is possible. If not, other translated options are then suggested, to fulfil the task of translation practice.

"Can" Describing the Physical or Mental Capacities
of the Subject of the Sentence According to Hofmann [1995: 98], can describes "the physical or mental capacities of the subject of the sentence." (1) He can come back. We use can and be able to alternatively to express present capacities though may is "a little more formal and less usual than can" [Eastwood, 1994: 124]: (2) He is able to come back. A number of Vietnamese and foreign authors of teaching-Vietnamese textbooks [Bui Phung, 1993;Vuong and Moore, 1994;Phan Van Giuong, 1990;Jorden, Sheehan and Nguyen, 1967;and Vu Van Thi, 1996] agree that có thể in this case is equivalent to có thể … được or simply được. Biết is another satisfactory way to translate can. Up to this point of the discussion, I would like to suggest the two ways to translate both (1) and (2): 'Anh ấy (có thể) 2 về được.' or 'Anh ấy có khả năng (sẽ) trở về.' Hofmann [1995: 99] considers can as a "plain form" that can be used for events at any time except in the past, i.e. present, future or always. He gives the three following illustrations:

"Will Be Able to" or "Am/Is/Are Going to Be Able to"
Describing Future Ability Hayden, Pilgrim and Haggard [1972: 110-111] believe that it is quite acceptable for can in (4) to be replaced by will be able to or am/is/are going to be able to, resulting in its synonymous sentences: (6) I will be able to leave in a half-hour. (7) I am going to be able to leave in a half-hour. Accordingly, "Anh ấy có thể (sẽ) trở về" has three possible English versions: (8) He can come back. (9) He will be able to come back. (10) He is going to be able to come back. Eastwood [1994: 124-125], however, doesn't think that (8) and (9) are identical to each other: (8) shows "a possible future action" while (9) refers to "a future ability or opportunity." Alexander [1990: 161] approves of this remark and emphasizes that only will be able to, neither can nor could, expresses "future ability" in the following sentence: (11) Baby will be able to stand up in two weeks. 'Hai tuần nữa 3 (thì) bé có thể đứng chựng được.' Alexander [1990: 158] also distinguishes "general ability in the past" expressed by could or was/were able to, as in:

"Could" − the Past-Tense form of "can" − Describing General Ability in the Past
(12) I could/ was able to run fast when I was a boy. 'Hồi tôi còn là một cậu bé, tôi đã có thể chạy nhanh.' from "the successful completion of a specific action" expressed by was/were able to or managed to, not could, as in: (13) We were able to/ managed to get tickets for the match yesterday.
In this treatment, (14) shares the same meaning with the following (15) and (16): (15) He managed to come back ahead of time. (16) He succeeded in coming back ahead of time. while: (17) He could come back ahead of time. is interpreted in the same way as (12), expressing "general ability in the past" only.

"Be able to" in the Perfect, Infinitive and -Ing Forms
As mentioned above, can is more common than be able to in describing the subject's physical and mental capacities. Nevertheless, in a number of specialized constructions like those of the following perfect, infinitive and -ing forms, only suitable is be able to: (18) He has been able to come back in time for the New Year's Eve.
'Có thể về nhà mỗi kỳ nghỉ cuối tuần là mong muốn tha thiết nhất của tôi lúc này.' It is interesting to recognize that be, conjugated in the perfect present in (18), expresses an action completed in the past but closely connected with another activity that extends into the present or future.

"Could Have + Past Participle" Describing the Past
Ability or the Chance left Undone To say that someone had the ability or the chance to do something but in fact did not do it, we use could have + past participle: (21) He could have come back, but he decided not. 'Anh ấy đã có thể trở về, nhưng rồi anh ấy lại thôi.'

"Couldn't" Describing a Specific Action not Successfully Completed
Generally speaking, to express the subject's inability in the above-mentioned sentences, we make them negative by adding the negative word not. However, it is necessary to notice that the negative forms of (14), (15), (16) and (17)

"Can" Describing Possibility
Can also describes possibility. Thomson and Martinet [1986: 133] believe that the sentence subject + can means "it is possible" or "circumstances permit." Two of their illustrations are: In this treatment, (1') He can come back. means circumstances permit him to come back. No external factor prevents him from doing this.

"May", "Might" or "Could" Describing a Lesser
Degree of Possibility In comparison with can, could signals a lesser degree of possibility though it is usually considered as a reliable substitute for can in this sense. McKay [1995: 192] asserts that may, might and could all express possibility and she also gives their approximate certainty:  Alexander [1990: 157] supports the idea that might is "very uncertain" while could is "fairly certain." In his belief, could can't be a modal verb of the least degree of certainty.

"May", "Might" or "Could" Describing Ways of
Being Less than Certain According to Eastwood [1994: 122], other ways of being less than certain in English are clearly shown not by the modal verbs may, might and could but by either the modal adverbs such as possibly, perhaps, maybe, etc. or modal clauses such as it's possible that, there's a possibility that, etc. Therefore, to say that he will possibly come back, we use one of the following expressions: (27) He could/ may/ might come back.
(29) It's possible that/ There's a possibility that he comes/ will come back.
'Anh ấy có thể (sẽ) trở về.' Coates [1995: 58-59] believes that the speaker also conveys his lack of trust in the proposition of an utterance by using both a modal verb and a modal clause. Below are some of Coates' illustrations:

"Could Have, May Have or Might Have + Past
Participle" Describing Possibility in the Past "Possibility in the past" is a term that refers to "something in the past that is possibly true" [Eastwood, 1994: 124]. Could have, may have or might have + past participle can be used alternatively to express this sense, resulting in the three sentences marked (33-35), which all share the same Vietnamese translated version:

"Can't" and "Couldn't" Describing Impossibility
Can't (not cannot) and couldn't (not could not) are the two negative forms used to express "impossibility", in Eastwood

"Can't" or "Couldn't" Describing Negative
Deduction By giving quite similar examples to those given by Eastwood above, Thomson and Martinet [1986: 148-149] call the very phenomenon "negative deduction." Can't or couldn't in this case is the antonym of must in the following sentences of "affirmative deduction:"  Hofmann [1995: 104-105] explains why can is more common than may in giving permission: "May is not used very much anymore in this meaning, for it depicts possibility that derives from the speaker's authority. Most people use can instead of may as we prefer not to talk about authority in these democratic and egalitarian times, so even if the speaker permits X to do Y, still we would normally say 'X can Y' and use 'X may Y' only when we want to note the authority of the speaker (e.g. a teacher or judge). " Hofmann also asserts that nowadays may is used mostly in a humble formula to request permission 'May I …?' because using may in such a request implies 'You may …' and therefore acknowledges the authority of the person who is to give permission.

"Can" and "Could" Used to Talk About Permission
Respectively in the Present or Future and in the Past According to Eastwood [1994: 120], when "talking about permission", not "giving it or asking for it," we use can (not may) referring to the present or the future and could referring to the past. Some of Eastwood's illustrations are: (49) I can stay up as late as I like. My parents don't mind.

"Be Allowed to" Referring to Giving Permission in the Present or Future; "Could" Referring to General
Permission Also in Eastwood's belief [1994: 120], whenever be allowed to is used instead of can to refer to giving permission in the present or future, it implies "the permission does not depend on the speaker or the person spoken to": (52) I am allowed to use this phone number. 'Tôi có thể/ được phép dùng số điện thoại này.
(53) You won't be able to bring your own food into this café.
'Bạn sẽ không được phép mang thức ăn của mình vào tiệm cà phê này.' Whenever was/were allowed to is used instead of could, it implies "an action that someone did with permission." Accordingly, in order to report somebody's return under the local authorities' permission, for instance, we say: (54) He was allowed to come back after two years in prison.
'Anh ấy đã được phép về nhà sau hai năm trong tù.' And to refer to "general permission" without emphasizing the completion of such an action, we use could: (55) He could come back after two years in prison.

"Be Allowed to", Neither "Can" nor "May", Used with the Perfect or Infinitive Forms
Only be allowed to, neither can nor may, is used with the perfect or infinitive forms: (56) He has not been allowed to come back for years. 'Anh ấy đã không được phép về nhà trong nhiều năm.' (Và hiện vẫn ở cách xa gia đình.) (57) He didn't expect to be allowed to come back home on the Christmas Eve.
'Anh ấy đã không hy vọng được phép về nhà trong đêm Giáng sinh. ' I strongly believe that be permitted to can also take all the positions especially assigned to be allowed to by Eastwood.

In Reference to General Characteristics
Hofmann [1995: 102-103] presents another use of can and could. Although not used so often, it is "a very natural way to express general characteristics." This, in Hofmann's belief, is mastered by only a few foreigners. In this case, can and could depict "something that happens generally or characteristically and that probably annoys the speaker." Some of Hofmann's illustrations are: (58) She can talk your ears off if you don't watch out. 'Cô ấy có thể nói đến khi cái tai của anh rớt lìa ra nếu anh không chú tâm quan sát.' (59) She was in great pain and could get angry over the smallest thing.
'Cô ấy (thì) rất khó chịu và đã có thể nổi giận vì cái chuyện nhỏ nhặt nhất. ' The meaning expressed by can and could here is quite similar to that of will and would. Hofmann confirms this by two ways. Firstly, he gives a few examples in which can substitutes for will (often) and could for would (often) with a small change in meaning. He did not, however, clearly assert what change it is: (60a) I'll spend the whole night, often enough, getting a program to run.
Secondly, Hofmann says that the negative form of can is won't (not can't) and that of could is wouldn't (not couldn't) as illustrated in the negative answers No, she won't and No, she wouldn't used to deny or refute the remarks in (58) and (59).
I have failed to recognize this very use of can and could in a number of English grammar textbooks commonly found in Vietnam. Therefore, I report it with care and with a strong desire for an opportunity to study it further in the future.

In Reference to the Realis Modality
The above-mentioned analysis shows the many-faceted and multi-level modal verb can. There is still another way to clarify the modalities expressed by can and its alternative forms: observing the ways they express the realis modality. Let me compare the following pairs of sentences: (62a) You are right. 'Bạn (thì) đúng đấy.' (62b) You may be right.

Various Ways of Translating "Can" into Vietnamese
The English modal verb can is translated into Vietnamese in a number of different ways, and có thể is one of these ways, however frequent and thus prominent it is; in other words, besides có thể, among other Vietnamese counterparts of can are có thể … được, as in (1); được, as in (3); mới … được, as in (4); biết, as in (5); có thể sẽ, as in (8); and thường, as in (60b).

Means of Expressing Modality in English and Vietnamese
In English, modality is conveyed by the following lexical means of expression: -Modal verbs (or just modals): can, could, may, might, will, would, must, etc.
-Ordinary verbs that temporarily play the role of modal verbs: manage, succeed, fail, etc.
-Special combinations: be able to, be going to, be going to be able to, be allowed to, be permitted to, have a/ the right to, have permission to, etc.
-Modal clauses: I'm not sure, I don't know, I think, I expect, it's possible that, there's a possibility that, etc.
These lexical means sometimes combine with one or more grammatical means of expression, which are also known as morphological means of expression, to show a variety of modal meanings. For instance, the sentence: (66a) Anh ấy chưa thể trở về (được). has two English versions: (66b) 'He hasn't been able to come back yet.' (66c) 'He isn't able to come back yet.' Chưa, which is a Vietnamese lexical item conveying modality, is equivalent to the combination of the two English lexical items, not and yet, and the two English grammatical means, the present tense and the perfect aspect, in (66b). Vuong and Moore [1994: 85] believe that it is quite acceptable for the simple to replace the perfect as in (66c), with no change in meaning.
From the standpoint of the Vietnamese language, the close combination of the English grammatical means and lexical ones in expressing modality constitutes redundancy, which is one of the principal causes of the serious grammatical mistakes frequently made by Vietnamese learners of English in their speech and/ or writing.
In the Vietnamese language, "modal meanings are generally expressed by lexical means, mostly by modal verbs, though others may be conveyed by adverbs such as (làm) rồi '(do) already', (làm) lại '(do) again', (làm) được 'managed to (do)', etc." [Cao Xuan Hao, 1999: 261] Jorden, Sheehan and Nguyen [1967: 3] say that grammatical means do not convey modality in Vietnamese because "unlike English verbs, Vietnamese verbs do not change their form to indicate differences of person, tense, etc. There is nothing in Vietnamese comparable to the difference in English forms like run, runs, ran, running, etc. A Vietnamese verb has only one form." Vuong and Moore [1994: 23] and Cao Xuan Hao [1999: 262] approves of this remark.

Inter-lingual vs. Intra-Lingual Difficulties in the Foreign Learners' Acquiring Modality
According to a hierarchy of difficulty originally proposed by Stockwell, Bowen and Martin [1965], Vietnamese learners of English have to face a lot of difficulties in Level 5 _ Split. This is the most difficult level at which "one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language, requiring the learner to make a new distinction" [Brown, 1994: 196].
Dealing with the very narrow scope of the modal expressions shown in this paper only, Vietnamese learners of English at one time consciously select one from a wide range of shades of meanings assigned to can and its alternatives: they have to choose between "the subject's physical or mental capacities" and "the ability brought about by external circumstances," between "general ability" and "the successful completion of a specific action," between "the present or future ability" and "the past ability," etc. Notice that the list above still fails to cover "permission" and "general characteristics." (See 4.3. and 4.4. respectively.) These difficulties are due first and foremost to the different ways according to which Vietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English get access to reality and then express modality in accordance with their various slices of the real or imaginary world. Let me call them inter-lingual difficulties. Brown [1994: 201], on the other hand, approves of Oller's and Ziahosseiny's idea [1970], asserting that "greater differences do not always result in greater learning difficulty;" they "are often easily perceived and stored in memory" because of their saliency. Basing on my own experience as a life-long non-native learner and university teacher of English as well as on the serious conclusions I have drawn from my two overseas graduate programs in Australia and in the USA, I approve of this idea, too.
Thus, what are the real difficulties facing Vietnamese learners of English, the ones that must be overcome if the learners want to master the ways to express modality in English declarative sentences? In my opinion, these are tricky and sophisticated points within the English language itself. They originate in the complex nature of the expression of ideas via language, and the expressions of modality take up only a small proportion. Let me call them intra-lingual difficulties. Brown [1994: 201-202] warns us of the danger of underscoring the errors that come from the tricky and sophisticated points within a certain language. He says that "intra-lingual factors can lead to some of the greatest difficulties" in the acquisition of a second language. Vietnamese learners can do nothing to change or get rid of the so-called redundancies or the complexities in English. This does not mean, however, that these learners are in a too disadvantageous position to study a language that is quite different from their mother tongue. Being an international language, English has been studied closely and thoroughly all over the world, and the achievements in this field is remarkable. With a little patience and a few required language skills, Vietnamese learners undoubtedly acquire all the different ways of expressing subtle modal meanings in English declarative sentences through a large quantity of current textbooks and other reference periodicals.
At first glance, the British, American and Australian people and those who speak English as their mother tongue seem to have some advantages in learning Vietnamese. They appear to be comfortable, recognizing that two or more "items in their native language become coalesced into essentially one item in the target language" [Brown, 1994: 195]. In the above-mentioned hierarchy of difficulty this phenomenon is referred to as Level 1 _ Coalescence. Studying a few lexical modals such as biết, được, có thể and có thể … được and paying adequate attention to their position(s) and their ability to substitute for one another in Vietnamese utterances, the "true beginners" will be able to express a number of modal meanings. On the other hand, they will face the problem of perceiving various modal shades of meaning in specific contexts. How do they know that có thể in a particular situation signals "physical or mental capacities," "possibility," "permission," or "general characteristics?" The suggested answer is they have to depend on the whole utterance, the whole text or the context. In other words, to understand Vietnamese utterances they have to rely more on contextual clues, much more than they do when they deal with English texts. And this is not always easy for them, those who are familiar with a language almost all modal expressions of which have their own formal marker or markers, all being identified clearly in the structure of any sentence or verb phrase.

Potential Similarities Between English and Vietnamese in Expressing Modality
As far as language functions are concerned, both English and Vietnamese are efficient means of communication; but "modality is expressed differently in different languages" [Hoang Trong Phien; 1980: 51], especially in the two languages of different types like English and Vietnamese. However, it is unnecessary for the differences to play crucial roles throughout the process of comparing the two languages. Within the very differences a lot of similarities will probably be recognized, and they are the objective bases for any translation or interpretation activity to be successfully carried out. Let me illustrate the so-called potential similarities. It is easy enough to find out a number of English sentences that are lexically and structurally equivalent to the following Vietnamese sentences extracted from The Vietnamese And below are their English equivalents: (67) a'. There is no doubt that Nam will win the election.
Certainly/ Undoubtedly, Nam will win the election. b'. Nam will certainly/ undoubtedly win the election. Nam will, without doubt, win the election. c'. That Nam will win the election is certain. d'. In my opinion, Nam will win the election. e'. I strongly believe that/ I do believe that Nam will win the election.
I'm sure (that)/ I'm certain (that) Nam will win the election.
f'. As for Nam, I strongly believe that he will win the election.
As for Nam, I do believe that he will win the election. As for Nam, I'm sure (that)/ I'm certain (that) I he will win the election. g'. Nam will win the election certainly/ undoubtedly. h'. Nam will win the election, and that is certain. Nam will win the election, and there is no doubt about it. These similarities partly prove that studying ways to express modality in English and Vietnamese declarative sentences is interesting and fruitful. Its value is undeniable, especially in the current time of world-wide explosion of information and cross-cultural communication.

Limitation of this Paper
All the sentences analyzed in this paper are in the active voice and the indicative mood; therefore, I have no chance to compare them with those in other moods as well as in the passive voice to appreciate their modal meanings fully. Also, outside the scope of my research is the influence of intonation and other prosodic features on modality. I fail to cover within the limits of this paper context and some marked differences between British English and American English concerning modality, too. All bring about its unavoidable drawbacks.

Conclusion
It is interesting to come up with the fact that English native speakers' perceptions of the meanings conveyed by the English modal verbs are not exactly the same, as illustrated by the approximate certainty expressed by the English modals may, might, and could in McKay [1995: 192] in comparison to other authors' quoted statements, directly or indirectly. This has been raised once when I had a chance to observe a number of my friends and colleagues, who are native speakers of English, responding to how they feel on possible change of meaning when the fronting of the English adverbial of time is applied in a number of selected declaratives 5 . As non-native speakers of English, we have to depend on natives, and in fact we refer back to the natives as frequently as we can. That is how we, as the non-natives, overcome the difficulties in dealing with the different ways of getting access to reality but having to express modality in virtually the same slices of the real or imaginary world, as the natives do, to communicate successfully via the English language.
This probably reflects why non-native speakers of English have been encouraged to think in English and expressed themselves directly in English. As far as I know, confronting this piece of advice, a great number of Vietnamese leaners of English are confused, unfortunately. This paper and the like display an attempt to make clear such a piece of advice, leading these learners along the process of their second language acquisition less painfully. And hopefully learners of Vietnamese, especially those who are native speakers of English, may get benefits from the same pain experienced to explore the Vietnamese language.
"No theory … is complete. That is, no matter how many facts a theory actually succeeds in explaining or predicting, there are always further facts in need of explanation, other facts about which the theory as yet makes no prediction (or possibly about which it makes a false prediction), and facts which do not seem to be readily describable in the terms provided by the theory" [Hurford, Heasley & Smith, 2007: 11]. That is why I would like to publicize the very paper in all modesty but with a strong desire for further consideration on various ways to express modality in English and Vietnamese declarative sentences, beyond the scope of can, its alternative modal expressions in the English language, and its seemingly accepted counterparts in the Vietnamese language, including có thể.