Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research (아시아태평양코퍼스연구)

Institute for Corpus Research (국립인천대학교 코퍼스연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Modal Auxiliary Verbs in Japanese EFL Learners' Conversation: A Corpus-based Study

  • Received : 2020.07.15
  • Accepted : 2021.07.30
  • Published : 2021.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research examines Japanese non-native speakers' (JNNS) modal auxiliary verb use from two different perspectives: frequency of use and preferences for modalities. Additionally, error analysis is carried out to identify errors in modal use common among JNNSs. Their modal use is compared to that of English native speakers within a spoken dialogue corpus which is part of the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners' English. Research findings show at a statistically significant level that when compared to native speakers, JNNSs underuse past forms of modals and infrequently convey epistemic modality, indicating the possibility that JNNSs fail to express their opinions or thoughts indirectly when needed or to convey politeness appropriately. Error analysis identifies the following three types of common errors: (1) the use of incorrect tenses of modal verb phrases, (2) the use of inflected verb forms after modals, and (3) the non-use of main verbs after modals. The first type of error is largely because JNNSs do not master how to express past meanings of modals. The second and third types of errors seem to be due to first language transfer into second language acquisition and JNNSs' overgeneralization of the subject-verb agreement rules to modals respectively.

Keywords

References

  1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.
  2. Boncea, I. J. (2014). Hedging patterns used as mitigation and politeness strategies. Annals of the University of Craiova, 14(2), 7-23.
  3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Chafe, W., & J. Danielewicz. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 83-113). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  5. Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. Kent: Croom Helm Ltd.
  6. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
  7. Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated contrastive approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., & Johansson, M. (Eds.), Languages in Contrast (pp. 37-51). Lund: Lund University Press.
  8. Huddleston, R. (1976). Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua, 40, 331-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90084-X
  9. Ishikawa, S. (2019). The ICNALE spoken dialogue: A new dataset for the study of Asian learners' performance in L2 English interviews. English Teaching, 74(4), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.4.201912.153
  10. Kennedy, G. (2002). Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British national corpus. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurica, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp. 73-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  11. Konakahara, M. (2011). Requests in Japanese learners' English in comparison with British English and Japanese. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University, 18(2), 245-260.
  12. McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers. In Flowerdew, J. (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 182-195). London: Pearson Education.
  13. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2017). Chugakkou gakushu shidou youryou kaisetsu gaikokugo hen [Expository Comments on the Course of Study Guideline for Foreign Languages in Junior High Schools]. Tokyo: Higashiyamasyobo.
  14. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2018). Koutougakkou gakushu shidou youryou gaikokugo hen eigo hen [Expository Comments on the Course of Study Guidelines for Foreign Languages in Senior High Schools]. Tokyo: Higashiyamasyobo.
  15. Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2008). Kenkyu ronbun ni okeru koukaryo houkoku no tameni-kisoteki gainen to chuiten [Basics and considerations for reporting effect sizes in research papers]. Eigokyouiku kenkyu, 31, 57-66.
  16. Negishi, M., Takada, T., & Tono, Y. (2013). A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J. In Galac zi, E. D., & Weir, C. J. (Eds.), Exploring Language Frameworks (pp. 135-163). Cambridge: Cambrid ge University Press.
  17. Nozawa, Y. (2014). An analysis of the use of modal verbs in EFL textbooks in terms of politeness strategy of English. The Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education of Waseda University, 22(2), 19-28.
  18. Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. New York: Longman.
  19. Seog, D. Soon-Young., & Choi, I. (2018). Interlanguage development of young Korean EFL learners' modal usage: A learner corpus study. Linguistic Research, 35, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.35..201809.004
  20. Shirato, J., & Stapleton, P. (2007). Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080960
  21. Wilson, A. (2013). Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In Bieswanger, M., & Koll-Stobbe, A. (Eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability (pp. 3-11). Bern: Peter Lang.