1. English and German modality in advanced learner interlanguage
Anita Pavic Pintaric, Leonarda Lovrovic, Nadia Mifka-Profozic
TAML2, York King’s Manor, June

2. Outline Modality: classification of modal verbs
Three languages in focus: English, German, Croatian (differences and similarities)
The study: design and participants
Tests: AJT, SPR
AJT results for German L2
AJT results for English L2
Results for SPR (English L2)
Discussion
Questions, comments

3. Modality can, may/ können, dürfen mögen
Epistemic possibility
She may come later. / Sie mag spätter kommen.
Deontic meaning
Can/May I pour your tea?/Darf ich dir Tee einschenken?
Dynamic meaning
She can drive a car. / Sie kann Auto fahren. RQ
To what extent do Croatian learners of English and Croatian learners of German acquire modal verbs can and may/können, dürfen mögen ?

4. English Croatian German Lexical preferences
Modals have full form, can have object
Lexical preferences
Croatian
modality doesn’t exist as a verb category
English
NICE properties .

5. Differences & similarities
Learning to use modal verbs presents a difficult mapping problem involving matching the lexeme to complex syntax and semantics.
Modal lexemes typically map to multiple meanings, and in turn multiple lexemes may cover a single meaning.
In Croatian, modal verbs are used in deontic and dynamic meaning, but epistemic possibility is not associated with the use of modal verbs.

6. English and German NICE and other properties Negation
Interrogation
Code
Emphatic form
German modals do not have NICE properties but they do have their characteristics that clearly distinguish them from other verbs.
Can be used as full verbs with a direct object
In German, co-occurrence of modals is possible although there are rigid constraints

7. Modal verbs in German
Particularly in spoken language lexical devices (modal particles, modal adverbs) are preferred to the use of modal verbs.
Epistemic background is often signaled with particles wohl, sicher, nur, also.
Epistemicity in German can refer either to judgments or evidentiality (subjectivity or objectivity) whereas in English epistemicity refers only to judgments.

8. The study Design Participants Four groups of participants (N=55)
Grammaticality judgment task (explicit knowledge)
Self-paced reading task (processing, tapping into implicit knowledge)
Discourse completion task
Four groups of participants (N=55)
20 Croatian L1 learners of L2 English (CEFR C1)
20 Croatian L1 learners of L2 German (CEFR C1)
9 native English speakers
5 native German speakers

9. Tests Acceptability Judgment Test:
62 sentences (32 target sentences including the same number of appropriate and inappropriate use of modal verbs can and may/ können, dürfen, mögen.
Classified according to the epistemic, deontic and dynamic meaning of modal verbs.
Self-paced reading task: 24 target sentences, imbedded in the context that gives orientation to the use of a particular modal verb.
The sentences used in both tests – slightly adapted examples from either the Lancaster corpus (Coates, 1983) or British National Corpus.

10. AJT Results: German L2 Semantically acceptable usage
Semantically unacceptable usage

11. AJT Results: German L2
For learners of German L2 there was a significant main effect of group which means that the two groups (learners and native speakers) perform differently)
F (1, 23) = 13.3, p= .001
There was significant interaction between type
(acceptable vs. unacceptable) and modal category:
F(2, 23) = 3. 96, p=.026
Significant differences between the two groups on both semantically acceptable and unacceptable usage of modals where epistemic meaning is expected, and on unacceptable usage where the dynamic meaning of a modal is expected.

12. AJT Results: English L2 Semantically acceptable usage
Semantically unacceptable usage

13. AJT Results: English L2 There was a main effect of group
F (1, 27)= 5.9 , p=.000
but no significant differences between the two
groups on sentences that used modal verbs
appropriately (semantically acceptable usage).
A significant difference was found between the two groups only in those sentences where the use of the modal verb with deontic meaning was semantically unacceptable.

14. Self-paced reading
Psychopy software was used for self–paced reading word by word.
Twenty-four sets of sentences, involving 12 semantically acceptable and 12 semantically unacceptable sentences, plus 12 fillers.
Example:
Angela has recently spent a lot of time travelling and photographing. She may be looking for a new career. Angela is a talented photographer. (semantically acceptable)
Angela has recently spent a lot of time travelling and photographing. She can be looking for a new career. Angela is a talented photographer. (semantically unacceptable)

15. Results SPR SEG 1 SEG 2 SEG 3 SEG 4 SEG 5 SEG 6 EPIST Accept 472 462
492
549
482
463
Unaccept
468
552
583
533
606
451
NNS
DEONT
531
612
485
519
562
376
ungram
414
547
597
578
440
DYNAM
496
521
560
660
683
486
598
671
724
735
493
435
437
537
573
465
490
504
544
819
738
516 NS
487
460
534
529
467
379
412
441
633
518
481
347
568
509
571
672
591
448
593
572
469
685
749

16. Epistemic modals

17. Discussion
Results for self–paced reading task suggest that these learners are not sensitive to semantic violations in the use of epistemic modals although their AJT showed the results that were no different from native speakers’ results. However, they are sensitive to semantic violations where dynamic meaning of a modal is expected.
Interestingly, native speakers didn’t show sensitivity to semantic violations where modals with deontic meaning were used in formal situations (e.g. Visitors may not enter this way/ *Visitors cannot enter this way.

18. Questions? Comments?
Thank you!