Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research (아시아태평양코퍼스연구)

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

DOI QR Code

In My Opinion: Modality in Japanese EFL Learners' Argumentative Essays

  • Received : 2020.07.15
  • Accepted : 2020.12.17
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study seeks to add to the current understanding of learners' use of modality in argumentative writing. A learner corpus of argumentative essays on four topics was created and compared to native English speaker data from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE). The relationship between learners' use of modal devices (MDs) and the devices' appearance in the school's curriculum was also examined. The results showed that learners relied on a very narrow range of MDs compared to those in previous studies. The frequency of use of MDs varied based on the topic and did not seem to be driven by cultural factors as has been previously suggested. Learners used more hedges than boosters on all topics, contradicting most previous studies. Curriculum was determined to have a direct correlation with MD use, and other important factors may include perception of topic and overreliance on certain MDs over others (the One-to-One principal). This research implies that learners' perception of topic should be explored further as a variable affecting MD use. Curricula should be designed based on frequency of MD use by English native speakers, and learners should receive instruction that teaches the norms of MD use in academic writing. The methodology used in the study to determine correlations between MD use and the curriculum has a wide range of potential applications in the field of Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis.

Keywords

References

  1. Biber, D., Johansson S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
  2. Charlow, N., & Chrisman, M. (2016). Deontic Modality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Chen, H. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 17, 2-51.
  4. Chen, Z. (2012). Expressions of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students' writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173-179.
  5. Coates, J. (1995). The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (Eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 55-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and modality in English. In Aarts, B., & McMahon, A. (Eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 269-290). Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effect in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
  8. Halliday, M. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6(3), 322-361.
  9. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90005-1
  10. Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587627
  11. Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
  12. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9, 20-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21
  13. Hu, C., & Li, X. (2015). Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 8(6), 20-31.
  14. Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
  15. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
  16. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
  17. Kiefer, F. (1994). Modality. In Asher, R. E. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 2515-2520). Oxford: Pergamon.
  18. Kim, C., & Suh, H. (2014). Epistemic rhetorical stance: Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 students' English writing. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 22(2), 61-93. https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2014.22.2.61
  19. Lackoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 183-228.
  20. Maynard, S. (1993). Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion, and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  21. McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In Flowerdew, T. (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 182-195). London: Longman.
  22. Milton, J., & Hyland, K. (1999). Assertions in students' academic essays: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. In Berry, R., Asker, B., & Lam, M. (Eds.) Language Analysis Description, and Pedagogy (pp. 147-161). Hong Kong: HKUST.
  23. Oh, S. (2007). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality in Korean college students' writing in English. English Teaching, 62(2), 1-29.
  24. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Saeed, J. (2009). Semantics. Chihester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  27. Takimoto, M. (2015). Assertions and lexical invisibility in EFL learners' academic essays. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.009