English and German modality in advanced learner interlanguage Anita Pavic Pintaric, Leonarda Lovrovic, Nadia Mifka-Profozic TAML2, York King’s Manor, June 20-21 2016

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

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 ?

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 .

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.

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

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.

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

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.

AJT Results: German L2 Semantically acceptable usage Semantically unacceptable usage

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.

AJT Results: English L2 Semantically acceptable usage Semantically unacceptable usage

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.

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)

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

Epistemic modals

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.

Questions? Comments? Thank you!