Transcript Nkemleke-Modality Cameroon English

The expression of modality in Cameroon
English
1. Introduction
Daniel Nkemleke
2. Data and method
(TU-Chemnitz/
University of Yaounde I)
3. Concept of modality
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions



Summary
Concluding remarks
Pedagogical implication
References
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
1
1. Introduction
Some Pertinent Remakes

Status of modality research in
Cameroon and other ESL varieties

General conception about the
category modality

Aim and scope of study
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
2
2. Data and method
Data
 Corpus of Cameroon English (CCE)
 No. of words: approx. 800,000
 Composition:11 text categories
 Period: 1990 and 1994






Other sources of data for comparison
LOB corpus: a million words (1961-1964)
Coates and Leech (1980): based on LOB
Coates (1983): based on LOB & SEU corpus
Biber et al. (1999): based on LCWSE
Krogvig and Johansson (1981): based on LOB/Brown
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
3
Data and method (Con't)
The corpus-based Approach

Elements of a corpus-based approach
(Biber et al. 1998, Schmied 1993)

analysis of actual and complex patterns of language
use in natural contexts

reliance on a large and principled collection of natural-occurring
texts (a corpus) stored in a computer

dependency on quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques

CamE data is systematically compared with native
English data in analogous contexts, as much as possible
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
4
3 Concept of modality

Terminology/classification
= Rescher (1968), Perkins (1983)
(notion of possible worlds/8 categories)
= Palmer (1979)/Huddleston & Pullum (2002)
(epistemic, root and dynamic distinctions/3 categories)
= Coates (1983)
(epistemic and root distinctions/2 categories)

Common ground
= general acceptance of relevance of the epistemic/root
distinction, at least for English (see Coates 1983 cf.
Sweetser 1982)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
5
Epistemic/root modality: brief definition

Epistemic modality (Greek, epistēmē: "knowledge")
= speaker’s assumption/assessment of possibilities; speaker’s
confidence or lack of confidence in the truth of the proposition
expressed

Root modality (Greek, deontos: "of that which is binding“)
= encompasses meanings such as ‘permission’ and ‘obligation’,
and also ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’
E.g. commissives (promises or threats), directives (requests,
commands, instructions) and volitives (desires, wishes or fears)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
6
Illustration from the CCE: Epistemic “Should“

Epistemic SHOULD express a tentative assumption, an
assessment of probability, based on facts known to the
speaker/writer as in (1) - (2).
[1] How is life in ((PN MBO))? Since I left, everything should be
very well and okay. When I come here I really… (CCE/PL.txt).
[2] …absolute minimum. In the future the aim should be to
recruit people to fill positions left by those going… (CCE/MI.txt).
Note:
* Inderterminacy do exist, and context is important
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
7
Illustration from the CCE: Root “Should“

Root should can display a gradience of meaning ranging from
strong to weak ‘obligation’/‘necessity’ as in (3) – (7).
[3] …thus be acquired. The disciple maker should also give the young disciple
a scheme of work (CCE/RE.txt).
[4] …introduce jangali taxes at the rural level, it should be obligatory for the
citizens to pay (CCE/OP.txt).
[5] Please I am proposing that you should always make arrangements with
male1 of Buea when you want to send things to us (CCE/PL.txt).
[6] …the Lord. Mr. Edzoa advised that it should be solved so as to avoid
nightmares for… (CCE/OP.txt).
[7] …projects underway. Ministers should, as a priority, earmark the
appropriate funds before exploring ways to improve services at…
(CCE/GM.txt).
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
8
4. Discussion

Characteristics of modals

Semantic complexity/overlaps (cf. 4.2 below)
Mono-semantic approaches (Ehrman 1966)
Poly-semantic approaches (Palmer 1979, 1987)
synthesis (Leech/Coates 1980, Coates/Leech 1980, etc.)
•
High frequency in varieties
•
Description usually daunting

Most descriptions sample-based
•


13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
9
4.1 Frequency (absolute/relative) of modals (CCE/LOB)
Modal
CCE
LOB
will
3,250
2,804
would
1,854
may
CCE %
LOB %
will
25.1
19.3
3,002
would
14.3
20.6
1,366
1,323
may
10.6
9.1
202
775
1.6
5.3
2,035
2,141
can
15.7
14.7
could
918
1,744
could
7.0
12.0
shall
413
352
shall
3.2
2.4
should
1,537
1,285
should
11.9
*8.8
must
1,368
1,131
must
10.6
7.8
Total
12,943
14,557
Total
100.0
100.0
might
can
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
Modal
might
10
General trend I: primary vs. tentative forms (CCE/LOB)
Forms
Primary
Tentative
Freq.
difference
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
Modals
will
can
may
shall
would
could
might
should
„
CCE
LOB
7,064
6,620
4,511
6,806
2,553 >P
186 >T
11
General trend II: Difference frequency figures and
percentages of will/would, can/could, may/might,
and shall/should (CCE/LOB)
Modal
pair
Quantitative difference and percentages
CCE
LOB
will
would
1,396 > will
(27.4%)
198 > would
(3.4%)
can
could
1,117 > can
(37.8%)
397 > can
(8.0%)
may
might
1,164 > may
(21.7%)
584 > may
(27.8%)
shall
should
1,124 > should
(74.2%)
933 > should
(57.0%)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
12
General trend III: Frequency of modals across text
types (CCE)
800
will
700
may
Frequency
600
can
500
shall
400
would
300
might
could
200
should
100
must
0
OP SE MI RE NS PP GM PL TR OL AD
Text types
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
13
Some results in individual texts for “Should“



With a frequency of 305, should appears to be one of the
most frequently occurring modal in a single text type in the
CCE, namely Religion
vs.
Krogvig and Johansson (1981:34-35) report that “should
is more frequent in the LOB corpus […] and the overrepresentation is found in all the text categories apart from
D (Religion)”
Surprising is the case of SE and the two press categories
(OP & PP), where one would normally expect a high
concentration of modals, especially those expressing
tentativeness (would, should, could, might)
Observation: “specialization”of functions??
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
14
4.2 Semantic functions of modals in CCE
(Nkemleke 2003) and LOB (Coates 1983)
CCE %
LOB %
must
should
can
could
may
might
will
Hypothetical
Root
Epistemic
Root
Epistemic
Root
Epistemic
Root
Epistemic
Root
Epistemic
Permission
Possibility
Ability
Subjunctive
Root
Epistemic
Root
Epistemic
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
shall would
Modal/basic functions
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
15
4.2 Semantic functions of modals (Con't):
Illustrations by paraphrases
Modal
Epistemic Paraphrase
Root Paraphrase
must
‘I am sure...’
‘ it is imperative/obligatory... ’
(strong)
should
‘ I assume/probably...’
‘ it is imperative/obligatory... ’
(weak)
could
‘ I believe/perhaps...’
‘ it is permissible/possible... ’
may
‘ I believe/perhaps...’
‘ it is permissible/allowed... ’
might
‘ I believe/perhaps...’
‘ it is permissible/allowed... ’
will
‘ I (confidently) predict...’
‘ I am willing/Intend + agentive
verb
shall
‘ I confidently expect...’
‘I predict/it is predictable that... ’
(formal/quasi-legal context)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
16
Words preceding “should“ in the context of
“that-clauses“
Word class
CCE (26 tokens)
LOB (38 tokens)
nouns
home (1), honour (1),
importance (1),
problems (1), night (1),
dignity (1), [name] (1) ,
centre province (1),
a site (1)
basis (1), condition (1), danger (1),
determination (1), idea (2), notion (1)
wish (1), suggestion (2)
verbs
stated (1), said (1)
stated (1), accepted (1),
advised (1), wanted (1),
recommended (2),
received (1), thinking (1),
require (1), praying (1),
pray (1), noted (1),
wish (1)
Adjectives
obvious (1)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
decide (3) ask (2) agree (1) think (1)
necessary (4) natural (2) appropriate (2) sat (1)
wrong (1) amazed (3) fitting (1)
shameful (1) funny (1), undesirable (2)
keen (1) legitimate (2)
17
Words preceding ‘should’ in the context of “thatclauses” (Con't)






CCE
Nouns and verbs > adjectives
> performative verbs (i.e. deontic words referring to acts) (e.g.
‘stated’, ‘said’, ‘recommended’, ‘advise’, ‘pray’) than in LOB (e.g.
‘ask’, ‘decide’).
LOB
adjectives > nouns and verbs
> nominal words referring to epistemic states (e.g. ‘condition’,
‘notion’, ‘suggestion’, ‘danger’ and ‘idea’) than to deontic states
(e.g. ‘determination’ and ‘wish’) as in CCE
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
18
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
to
to
to
to
to
be
tte
be
r
wi
ll in
be
g
su
to
pp
os
ed
ha
to
ve
(g
ot
)t
o
ne
ed
be
tte
r
da
re
ou
gh
t
go
ing
ha
d
be
ab
le
us
ed
be
ha
ve
Absolute frequency
4.3 Frequency of semi-modals (CCE)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Semi-modals in the CCE
19
4.4 Frequency of (epistemic) adverbials in CCE/LOB

18 epistemic adverbials:
certainly, undoubtedly, probably, perhaps,
maybe, possibly, surely, in fact, really, actually,
evidently, apparently, according to, in most cases,
mainly, typically, in my view, in my opinion
•
CCE total: 1,283 (0.16%)
•
LOB total : 2,394 (0.24)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
20
Frequency of (epistemic) adverbials in CCE text types
(cf. General trend III, p. 13 above esp. MI & PL)
Freq. Ep. Adv CCE
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
OP
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
SE
MI
RE
NS
PP
GM
PL
TR
OL
AD
21
4.5 Frequency of adjectival expressions of modality
Freq. in 10,000 words (CCE)
Freq. in 10,000 words (LOB)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
in
tr a
ce
re
u
s
ly
e
lik
t
t
s
y
e
e
n
l
n
l
r
u
e
e
b
b
sa
id
si
vio
ar
ba
s
v
s
p
b
o
e
e
o
c
po
pr
ap
ne
ar
e
l
c
Adjectives
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
22
4.6 Frequency of modal lexical verb expressions
(CCE/LOB)
Freq. in 10,000 words (CCE)
Freq. in 10,000 words (LOB)
ed
it
ap
pe
ar
s
ap
pe
ar
it
ed
it
se
em
s
se
em
it
ee
l
If
el
ie
ve
Ib
Is
up
po
se
hi
nk
It
Ih
op
e
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Modal lexical expressions
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
23
5 Conclusions
5.1 Summary

tendencies for “specialisation” and/or restriction in the use of
linguistic (modal) forms??

modality and its related means of expression appears to be less
often explicitly marked, esp., epistemic forms

reason: processing complexity (Papafragou 1987, Wells 1979)?
educational input? Or L1 influences?
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
24
Conclusions (Con‘t)
5.2 Concluding remarks

related features of modality found in other ESL contexts in Africa
and India (see Sey 1973, Kujore 1985, Schmied 1991, Jowitt
1991 Katikar 1984 )

attestation of similarities (though sometimes based on limited
empirical evidence) confirm the validity of the emerging features
of modality within these varieties
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
25
Conclusions (Con‘t)
5.3 Pedagogic implication


Modality and linguistic expression (Halliday 1994)
context/conventions governing the relationship between
participants in an exchange is essential in language use
(ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions)
Fundamental questions:



how do writers express personal attitudes towards the ideational
content of their message?
how best should propositions be expressed in the light of
unknowns?
how can writers set out the terms of reference from which they
expressed propositions?
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
26
Conclusions (Con‘t)

A view on logical reasoning related to modality
“...the degrees and kinds of strength with which warrants authorize
us to argue vary greatly from one kind of case to another. Some
lead to ‘probable’ conclusions; others establish ‘presumptive’
conclusions; and so on. Most practical reasoning is in fact
concerned with what is ‘probably’, ‘presumably’, or ‘possibly’ the
case rather than with ‘certainties’ alone. So we shall need to look
carefully at the different kinds of qualifying phrases (modals)
characteristic of different type of practical argument.”
(Toulmin et al.1979:26)
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
27
END
Thank you for your attention!
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
28
References






















Biber, D., Johansson, S. Leech G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
London: Longman.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. Croom, Helm.
Coates, J. and Leech, G. (1980) ‘The Meaning of the Modals in Modern British and American English’. York Papers in
Linguistics, 8, 23-34.
Ehrman, M. (1966) The Meaning of the Modals in Present-Day American
English. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Katikar, P.B. (1984) ‘The Meaning of the Modals in Indian English’. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Kolhapur, Shivaji
University.
Krogvig, I. and Johansson, S. (1981) ‘shall, will, should and would in British and American English’. ICAME Newsletter, 5,
32-56.
Kujore, O. (1985) English Usage: Some Notable Nigerian Variations. Ibadan: Evans Brothers Limited.
Leech, G. and Coates, J. (1980) ‘Semantic Indeterminacy and the Modals’. In: Greenbaum, S. et al. (eds.), Studies in
English Linguistics. London: Longman, 79-90.
Nkemleke, D. (2003) ‘A corpus-based study of the modal verbs in Cameroon written English’. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Yaoundé I.
Palmer, F.R. (1979) Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Papafragou, A. (1987) ‘Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence’. Working Papers in Linguistics
9, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College, London, 77-105.
Perkins, M. (1983) Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rescher, N. (1968) Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Sey, K.A. (1973) Ghanaian English: An Exploratory Survey. London: Macmillan.
Schmied, J. (1993) ‘Qualitative and quantitative research approaches. In: Souter, C. & E. Atwell (eds.) Corpus Based
Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 85-96.
Schmied, J. (1991) English in Africa: An Introduction. London: Longman
Sweetser, E.E. (1982) ‘Root and Epistemic Modality: Causality in Two Worlds’. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 484507.
Toulmin S., Rieke, R. and Janiket, A. (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan, New York.
Wells, G. (1979) ‘Learning and using the Auxiliary Verb in English’. In: Lee, V. (ed.) Language Development. London: Crom
Helm.
13/12/2007 TU-Chemnitz
29