Modals
in the
English Language Classroom

AL8460 English Grammar for ESL/EFL Teachers
Margo Williams
Spring Semester, February 2003

Abstract

This paper was written to investigate the meaning and implications of the use and instruction of modals in the English language. This investigation will not attempt to provide a discourse on modals/modality to the reader. Rather, it will provide an overview of modals/modality and then analyze the issues and implications of modal usage and instruction in the classroom.

Introduction
I began my investigation with a limited knowledge of this term/verb form. Although I learned to use the verb form "'by ear' from exposure to the language in oral contexts . . . the classroom . . informal, [and] conversational contexts" (Frodesen, J., 2001), I received no direct instruction on this verb form. Studies suggest that students need some input on language structure to contribute to language learning. This "input" includes instruction on the modal verb forms, "one of the most difficult structures that you as an ESL/EFL teacher will have to deal with" (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 80).

Modals
What exactly are modals/modal verbs? Many readings render different definitions of modals. They have been described as auxiliary/helping verbs, because "they 'help' another verb" (Soars &Soars, 1996:146). They are known as "the defective verb" (Jacobs, 217) because they follow none of the regular verb rules. However, Celce-Murcia (1983), defines modals as, "tenseless auxiliaries that take no subject-verb agreement and no infinitive to before the following verb."
Modals are usually the hardest verb forms for non-native speakers to master. Why? They vary in form and type. Some even question whether or not modals are truly a verb. This is because negative forms follow modals instead of precede them, they do not use the -ing suffix, they do not use the -s suffix, and they do not occur as infinitive with to as true verbs do.

In early language development, modal verb forms were originally verbs taking the full range of verb suffixes. However, over time, these verbs became increasingly specialized in their function. Many scholars, therefore, now doubt whether they still belong to the category verb.

There are two types of modals, core (regular) and periphrasitic. May, might, must, can, could, will, would, shall, should, ought, need, and dare are some common core modals. "Periphrastic modals are multiword verb idioms used to express modal notions like probability, possibility, and necessity" (Jacobs, 221). Some examples are has to, has got to, is going to, ought to, needs to, etc. "Although these verb phrases behave more like main verbs that modals" (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 83), they are still considered modals or auxiliary verbs.

In English, modal verbs, in their root form, often express obligation and necessity. Quirk (1985, p. 219) and Biber (Biber et al. 1999, p. 485) review three modal meanings: (i) permission-possibility/ability, (ii) obligation-necessity, and (iii) volition-prediction. Quirk continues to describe the first of each pair as intrinsic (show some human control), and the second as extrinsic (not the result of human control but of human).

Modality
Modality is the meaning associated with the modals used at any given time. There are three primary types: epistemic (belief/logical probability modality), deontic (action modality) (Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D., 1983) and dynamic. Epistemic modality is concerned with the "speaker's commitment to the truth of the preposition and may also refer to a process of inference made by the speaker" (Karkkainen, 198). ELLs develop meaning on the epistemic level by employing modals in possibility, necessity, and prediction to confirm or deny a proposition (Quirk, 1985). Examine the sentence below:
It may snow today.
In this sentence, may expresses a degree of logical probability that is weak rather than strong. The speaker is trying to convey that there is a probability of snow today.

Deontic modality is concerned with, "influencing actions, states, or events" (Karkkainen, 198). In the sentence below we see how may expresses granting permission and thus accomplishes a social interaction (Celce-Murcia, M., 1983).
You may open the window.
Using this modality suggests that the speaker has sufficient status and authority to grant permission. It also suggests that this is a "formal, rather than informal, or the speaker would have used 'can' instead of 'may' for granting permission" (Celce-Murcia., 141).

Unlike deontic and epistemic, dynamic modality does not refer to the speaker. For example in the sentence below:
Juan can play the guitar.
can refers to Juan's ability to play the guitar. Can does not seem to refer to the speaker. That differentiates the dynamic modality from deontic and epistemic.

Teaching Modals in the classroom. What are some issues and implications?
After researching and learning this verb form, I began to wonder about implications for the classroom. Why were these forms difficult for ELLs? From my readings, I discovered the overriding issue is that "not all languages have modal auxiliaries; in those that do, regular verbs or adjective/adverbs are used to express the meanings and functions that modals have in English. (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 83)." Because of this fact, there are many issues surrounding this field of knowledge. However, I will examine a few of these issues and discuss the implications for teachers in the classroom.

During my readings, I was particularly interested in three is reasons why ELLs experienced difficulty grasping modals and modalities. Several authors agreed that these issues were key:
· Lack of adequate explanation of present and future time relationships in modal contexts.
· Lack of adequate explanation of hypothetical and epistemic possibility of modals.
· Cultural influences not adequately accounted for in usage.

Lack of adequate explanation of present and future time relationships in modal contexts.
DeCarrico (1986 p. 665), describing a major problem in ESL (English as a Second Language), suggests that grammar texts do not adequately clarify past time relationships, more specifically the hypothetical past or past conditional. Authors vary with their methods of explaining present and future time relationships in modal contexts. For example, Fingado, Freeman, Jerome, and Summers (1981), discuss the present perfect first with the explanation that it is used for an action completed at some indefinite moment before now (p. 260). Later, the hypothetical past forms are introduce with the explanation that they are used, "when you talk about the past" (p.312). This can become very confusing to ELLs.

However, DeCarrico (1986 p. 678) suggests a five-step sequence for teaching the English modality system:
1. Teach modals in meaning groups, stressing the function and the meanings conveyed by each group.
2. As each group is taught, give only the present forms of all regular modals, based on the formula of modal + V, but include the past form for the irregular ones, one at a time as they are taught.
3. Teach the present conditional.
4. Teach the hypothetical past, stressing that the actual time frame is the modal simple past and that the pattern of modal + have + past participle indicates modal simple past for all regular modals.
5. Teach past conditionals, stressing that nothing new needs to be learned about time relationships or about modal forms. The time relationships and the formula are the same as for the hypothetical past, but the past perfect occurs in the conditional clause, just as in any other past perfect context.

Lack of adequate explanation of hypothetical and epistemic possibility of modals.
Karkkainen (1992, p. 212) discussed another major reason why ELLs, and to some extent native speakers, experience so much difficulty with modal acquisition. "It has been argued that a 'modality reduction' in language learners' use of English is to some extent 'teaching induced'" (Karkkainen, 1992, pg. 212 quoting Holmes). Holmes (1988, p. 38) notes that most textbooks do not adequately cover modals, if they cover them at all. Is this purely coincidental? Karkkainen does not think so. She (Karkkainen, 1992 p. 212) feels the neglect of explicit teaching of modal verb forms, "is due to a lack of research on their function."

How can this problem be addressed? Karkkainen (1992 p. 213) suggests beginning at the level of the sentence and teach the semantics of these items first, "because of the fairly distinct core meanings that they may have." The author further suggests teaching the syntactic patterns related to these meanings. Thus creating the idea of a "modal grammar" (Karkkainen, 1992 p. 214). Teaching ELLs modals and modality should be part of a larger unit for making corrections to our speech patterns.

Cultural influences not adequately accounted for in usage.
There has been much research on the influence of culture on ELLs. Studies (Hinkel, E., 1995) indicate usage of root modals in writing appears to be "culture and context dependent" (Hinkel, p. 337). ELLs who operate within the domains of Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist socio-cultural constructs and presupposed values used the root modals must, have to, and should significantly differently from native English speakers on topics of family, friendships, and traditions. The fundamental social values and presuppositions associated with the notions of harmony, family/group responsibility, and intrinsic sense of obligation and necessity are expressed through root modality in ELLs' writing. This study showed that even after two years of exposure to L2 socio-cultural constructs, ELL did not necessarily assume native-like beliefs and presuppositions, which was still reflected in their writing.

It appears that teaching modals would be more effective if the fundamental notions and values accepted in Anglo-American culture are addressed, and the differences in how ELL and native English speakers view their roles in society and in a community are highlighted. Discussing the cultural norms that lie underneath the various contexts can help with analyzing and teaching modals. How should this be addressed in the classroom?

Hinkel (1995) suggests several possibilities:
· Ask students to note the occurrences of must, have to, should, ought to, and need to when reading. Analyze the context for their socio-cultural implications and discuss them.
· Ask students to note occurrences of these same modals in conversations with native English speakers. Also analyze these conversations for socio-cultural implications and discuss them.
· Contrast examples from ELLs and native English speakers writing on similar topics and speech in formal and informal conversations.
A more thorough analysis of the influence of culture on the use of modal usage is paramount. It "can bring into focus the distinct notions of obligation and necessity in Anglo-American, Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist cultures" (Hinkel, 338).

Conclusion
An instructor thoroughly teaching and explaining a concept is the best way for students to learn. This holds true with the teaching of the concept of modals and modality, which is a very complex indeed. However, this is one area that deserves more than "adequate" teaching and explaining. This may mean addressing more issues than those discussed in this paper such as the context of "modal" lesson, the appropriate level/age to introduce the concept, and even the effect of regional dialects on ELL's modal acquisition. Instead of saying, "Well, that's just what we say." instructors must analyze, synthesize, and present this material to ELLs so that they can internalize it into their own language.

References

Biber, D. & et al. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex, England:
Pearson Education Limited.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1992). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. In
TESOL Quarterly 25 (3), 458-471

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983), The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's
Course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

DeCarrico, J. Tense, Aspect, and Time in the English Modality System. In TESOL Quarterly 20
(4), 665 - 682.

Fingado, G. Freeman, L.J., Jerome, M.R., & Summers, C.V. (1981). The English Connection.
Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Frodesen, J. Grammar in writing (2001). In Teaching English to Speakers of Foreign
Languages.

Jacobs, R. English Syntax, a Grammar for English Language Professionals. New York. Oxford
University Press.

Hinkel, Eli. The Use of Modal Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values. In TESOL Quarterly 29
(2), 325 - 343.

Holmes, J. (1988) Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics 9 (1), 21-44.

Karkkainen, E. Modality as a Strategy in Interaction: Epistemic Modality in the language of
native and non-native speakers of english. In Pragmatics and Language Learning 3, 197 - 216.

Soars, L. Soars, J. (1996) Intermediate Students Book New Headway English Course. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Quirk, R. (1985) The Comprehensive Grammar of English. Essex, England: Addison Wesley
Longman Limited.