Cover not available
Part of
Tense-Aspect-Modality in a Second Language: Contemporary perspectives
Edited by Martin Howard and Pascale Leclercq
[Studies in Bilingualism 50] 2017
► pp. 183–212

Chapter 6
The acquisition of modal auxiliaries in English by advanced francophone learners

| University of Arizona
| Indiana University Bloomington
This study investigates the acquisition of modal auxiliaries by advanced Francophone learners of English in two different settings: in the United States where the target language is their second language (ESL learners, n = 5) and in France where it is their foreign language (EFL learners, n = 4). American English native speakers served as controls. After presenting a descriptive account of the expression of modality in French and English, we report on a written sentence completion task that was administered during the last session of a larger semi-longitudinal study investigating the expression of tense, aspect and modality by advanced Francophone learners of English. We found that ESL learners, who were within NS range on the pre-test, outperformed EFL learners, but we also found a strong modal and modality effect for both groups. We propose the modal auxiliaries’ varying input frequency, their polysemy, the ambiguous contexts in which they occur as well as a lack of useful negative feedback and of appropriate exposure to pragmatics (particularly for EFL learners) as tentative explanations for their overall poor performance.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Modality
    • 2.1Mood and modal systems
    • 2.2Types of modality
    • 2.3Expressing modality in English
    • 2.4Expressing modality in French
      • 2.4.1Devoir
      • 2.4.2Pouvoir
      • 2.4.3Savoir
      • 2.4.4Falloir
  • 3.Literature review of ESL studies
  • 4.Research questions and methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Elicitation tasks
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.50.07ayo
References (85)
References
Achard, M. 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures. Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The meaning and distribution of French moods and inflections. In Grounding. The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, F. Brisard (ed.), 197–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahern, A., Amenos-Pons, J. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. 2014. Interfaces in the interpretation of mood alternation in L2 Spanish. EUROSLA Yearbook 14: 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Authier-Revuz, J. 2004. La représentation du discours autre: un champ multiplement hétérogène. In Le discours rapporté dans tous ses états, J.M. Lopez-Muñoz, S. Marnette & L. Rosier (eds), 35–53. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ayoun, D. & Rothman, J. 2013. Generative approaches to the L2 acquisition of temporal-aspectual-mood systems. In Research Design and Methodology in Studies on Second Language Tense and Aspect, R. Salaberry & L. Comajoan (eds), 119–156. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ayoun, D. & Salaberry, R. 2008. The expression of temporality in English as a foreign language by French native speakers. Language Learning 58: 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1983. On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Issues in Language Testing Research, J.W. Oller (ed.), 333–342. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caudal, P. & Vetters, C. 2005. Un traitement conjoint du conditionnel, du futur et de l’imparfait: Les temps comme fonction du langage. Cahiers Chronos 12: 109–124.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Finegan, E., Atkinson, D., Beck, A., Burges, D. & Burges, J. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bres, J. & Mellet, S. (eds). 2009. Dialogisme et marqueurs grammaticaux. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967–996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervoni, J. 1987. Les modalités. In L’énonciation, J. Cervoni (ed.), 65–103. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Cho, Y. 2003. Relationship between Grammatical Knowledge and Pragmatic Knowledge/ability: The Case of Epistemic Modality. PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.Google Scholar
Coates, J. 1987. Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society 85: 110–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L. 2002. The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52: 43–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. 2009. Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 2006. The relation between temporal and modal uses of indicative verb forms. Cahiers Chronos 13: 215–227.Google Scholar
Dendale, P. 1994. Devoir épistémique, marqueur modal ou évidentiel? Langue Française 102: 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P. & Van Bogaert, J. 2007. A semantic description of French lexical evidential markers and the classification of evidentials. Rivista di Linguistica 19: 65–89.Google Scholar
Dendale, P. & van der Auwera, J. (eds) 2001. Cahiers Chronos 8.Google Scholar
Dominguez, L. 2013. Understanding Interfaces. Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition of Spanish Subject Realization and Word Order Variation [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1975. Je trouve que. Semantikos 1(1): 63–88.Google Scholar
Ewert, D.E. 2006. The Expression of Temporality in the Written Discourse of L2 Learners of English: Distinguishing Text-types and Text Passages. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Foullioux, C. 2003. Le mode verbal et l’atténuation: À propos de devoir. Thélème, Revista Complutense de Estudios Franceses, Special issue, 109–120.Google Scholar
Gabrielatos. C. & McEnery, T. 2005. Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In Lengua y sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en lingüistica aplicada, P.A. Fuertes Olivera (ed.), 311–331. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Gosselin, L. 1996. Sémantique de la temporalité. Bruxelles: DeBoeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
2005. Temporalité et modalité. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Les modalités en français. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Grinstead, J. 2010. Linguistic interfaces and child Spanish. In New Directions in Language Acquisition: Romance Languages in the Generative Perspective, P. Guijarro-Fuentes & L. Domínguez (eds), 189–218. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. 2002. Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research 8: 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hondo, J. 2012. Unveiling learners’ attention during language processing: The case of epistemic meanings of a modal verb. Language Awareness 21: 249–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, L.F. 2005. “You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!” Modality studies: Contemporary research and future directions. Part I. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1295–1321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1976. An Introduction to English Transformational Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6: 183–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, F. 1986. Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Karkkainen, E. 1992. Modality as a strategy in interaction: epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning 3: 197–216.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22: 502–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronning, H. 1996. Modalité, cognition et polysémie: sémantique du verbe modal ‘devoir’ [Studia Romanica Upsaliensia 54]. Uppsala: Acta universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
2001. Pour une tripartition des emplois de ‘devoir’. In Les verbes modaux, P. Dendale & J. van der Auwera (eds). 67–84. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, L.A. 1999. English Modals in American Talk Shows. PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Larreya, P. 2003. Irrealis, past time reference and modality. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, K., Manfred & F. Palmer (eds), 21–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauze, A. 2008. Le conditionnel: Forme temporelle ou atemporelle? Sciences du Langage 2: 92–106.Google Scholar
Lee, E. & Park, S. 2008. A study of the epistemic modality in college writing. English Language & Literature Teaching 14: 45–58.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2009. The modals ARE declining. Reply to Neil Millar’s Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923-2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 191–220. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 547–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
L’Huillier, M. 1999. Advanced French Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liszka, S. 2015. The L2 acquisition of the English present simple-present progressive distinction: verb-raising revisited. In The Acquisition of the Present, D. Ayoun (ed), 57–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Kifle, N. 2002. Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In Academic Discourse, J. Flowerdew (ed.), 182–195. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. 2001. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual children: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality: Studies in Form and Function, A. Klinge & H. Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Palmer, F.R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Modality in Modern English, R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (eds), 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 1998. Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries. Lingua 105: 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patard, A. 2011. The epistemic uses of the English simple past and the French imparfait. When temporality conveys modality. In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Epistemicity [Human Cognitive Processing 29], A. Patard & F. Brisard (eds), 279–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patard, A. & Richard, A. 2011. Attenuation in French simple tense. Cahiers Chronos 22: 157–178.Google Scholar
Perkins, M.R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. [1999]2000. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. London: Phoenix. (original edition, New York NY: Morrow).Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2001. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain and Language 77: 364–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies. Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robison, R. 1990. The primacy of aspect: Aspectual marking in English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 315–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. The aspect hypothesis revisited: A cross sectional study of tense and aspect marking in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics 16: 344–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salsbury, T. 2000. The Acquisitional Grammaticalization of Unreal Conditionals and Modality in L2 English: A longitudinal Perspective. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Salsbury, T. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In Selected Proceedings from SLRF 99, M. Anderson, C. Klee, F. Morris, B. Swierzbin & E. Tarone (eds), 57–76. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2001. “I know what you mean, but I don’t think so”: Disagreement in L2 English. In Pragmatics and Language Learning [Monograph series volume 10], L.F. Broughton (ed.), 1–25. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Filiaci, F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research 22: 339–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, M. 2001. The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance. Studies in Language 25: 297–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua 114: 873–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thuillier, F. 2004. Synonymie et différences: Le cas de ‘paraître’ et ‘sembler’. In Le verbe dans tous ses états. Grammaire, sémantique, didactique, C. Vaguer & B. La Vien (eds), 161–178. Namur: Presse universitaire de Namur.Google Scholar
Vuillaume, M. 2001. L’expression du futur et du passé en français et en allemand. Recherches Linguistiques 25: 105–124.Google Scholar
von Wright, G. H. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, A. 2006. (De)coding Modality. The Case of Must, May, Måste, and Kan. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Wilmet, M. 1997. Grammaire critique du français. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
2001. L’architectonique du conditionnel. Recherches Linguistiques 25: 21–44.Google Scholar