1. Doğuş Can Öksüz & Kenneth Fordyce York, 21 June 2016
Developmental patterns of the use of modal forms by Turkish learners of English and the potential contribution of explicit knowledge: EVIDENCEs FROM A LEARNER CORPUS INVESTIGATION AND A CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Doğuş Can Öksüz & Kenneth Fordyce
York, 21 June 2016

2. OUTLINE Introduction & Background Theoretical Framework
Research Questions
Methodology
Results
Discussion

3. Introduction & background
The aims of this research are to investigate:
the developmental patterns of the use of the modal forms by Turkish L1 learners of L2 English, and
the potential contribution of explicit knowledge to use of these forms in writing.
In terms of methodology, this research aims to incorporate learner corpus research and correlational analysis.

4. Introduction & background
Deontic and epistemic modal forms
Deontic modality
events that have not taken place but are merely potential
used to express permission, obligation, and ability (Palmer, 1979, 2001).
John must come in now. John can swim,
Epistemic modality
speakers’ attitude to the truth value or factual status of the proposition
used to express possibilities involving differing degrees of commitment (Palmer, 1979, 2001).
John may/must/will be at home.

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Research questions
What is the nature of the developmental patterns on the use of epistemic and deontic modal forms in writing by Turkish learners of English at different levels of proficiency?
What is the nature of the relationship between Turkish learners’ explicit knowledge on modal forms and frequency and accuracy of modal use in writing?

6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Constituent processes of contingency hypotheses
L2 learning is an intuitive statistical problem, and thus fluent L2 users are considered as intuitive statisticians (Ellis, 2006a, 2006b, 2008).
However, despite their frequency, L2 learners could fail to convert some inputs into intakes because of one of the “associative learning factors of contingency.
They collect data on the relative-frequencies of form-function mappings in the current context and figure out probability distribution of interpretation given a formal cue using implicit knowledge, which is optimally prepared by previous linguistic experiences. However, there are many aspects of SLA, which do not seem to be consistent with this characterization.

7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Cue competition:
Most utterances present the learners with a set of co-occurring cues, and the L2 learners’ task is to choose the ones that are truly predictive.
Salience:
Salience is the. general perceived strength of stimuli
Interference:
Interference is a disruption of memory traces because of the presence of related experiences in the memory (Baddeley, 1999, Anderson, 2009).
1)The cues learners explore are “verb agreement morphology, use of the articles, and nominative-accusative cues. Different languages employ these cues to lesser or greater extent.
2)Some grammatical functional items may not be salient for some L2 learners.
3) N. Ellis (2006b, 2008) suggests that interference reveals itself as L1 influence in language learning. Similarities and differences between two languages could have an influence on the whole L2 acquisition process.
We have noted examples of all these associative learning factors in the data.

8. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Overshadowing and blocking
Overshadowing is that if two cues are jointly predict an outcome; salience determines the strength of conditioning to each cue.
Blocking is a type of learned selective attention, produced as a result of overshadowing if A is already associated with the outcome; learners do not notice the association between B and the outcome.
Hypothesis: The evidences of these associative learning factors can be observed in the learners’ use of the modal forms.

9. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Noticing hypothesis
Noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting inputs into intakes (Schmidt, 1990, 1993).
Noticing involves more than simply detecting the input, but it requires controlled activation into the focus of attention (Schmidt 1995).
Detection is defined as registration outside focal or selective attention.
Hypothesis: Learners with higher level of awareness use modal forms more frequently and accurately compared to the learners with lower level of awareness.

10. Methodology Participants (N=46; 24 males, 22 females).
Proficiency levels as low, mid and high groups
The group sizes (low group N=16, mid group N=17, high group N=13).

11. Methodology Instruments and procedure Three instruments;
placement test
metalinguistic knowledge test (MTK)
writing tasks

12. Methodology Writing tasks Task Format Essay Topics Essay writing
Free response (argumentative essay)
1-Living in a small city is easier than living in a big city.
2-The use of internet in modern life is essential.
3-The increasing use of internet in school context replaces the teachers’ role.
Letter writing
Free response (advice letter)
1-How best to learning English vocabulary
2-How to do better on math test
3-How to avoid putting on weight
Participants completed their writing tasks in the computer lab. To prevent participants’ preparing in advance, each group were assigned different essay topics. They were asked to write at least 180 words in 80 minutes for argumentative essays and 125 words in 60 minute. They were only asked to write for the purpose of conveying their message, but not to produce any specific linguistic form.

13. Methodology Metalinguistic knowledge test 12 ungrammatical items
10 on modality
2 verb tenses.
The aim of using these two items was to prevent participants from figuring out what they were tested on. Participants were given unlimited time to make them feel unpressured. In addition, they were asked to write their answers only in their L1 to avoid the factor of inability to explain the rule in L2.

14. Methodology Data analyses (correlation)
Frequency of modal forms and the scores on MKT
Overall accuracy of the use of modal forms with the scores on MKT.
Firstly, frequency of modal devices in participants’ essays and their scores on MKT were correlated to explore whether participants with higher explicit knowledge tend to use modal devices more frequently than those who have lower explicit knowledge. Secondly, overall accuracy of use was correlated with the scores on MKT to examine the potential accessibility of explicit knowledge for the use of modal devices in writing. Accuracy was operationalized as the use of the item in the obligatory context (Pica, 1983).

15. Methodology Data analyses (Learner corpus analyses)
A written learner corpus of tokens
Lexical based frequency analyses
Common misuses of modal forms were
Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA), (Granger, 2002)
Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS)
to investigate the ways of expressing deontic and epistemic modal forms and to identify the frequently used linguistic forms to convey the meaning by the participants at each levels of proficiency. Log-likelihood is a statistical measure used to make frequency comparisons across corpora with different sizes.

16. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Deontic modality by low proficiency group)
Rank
Observed frequency
Normalised frequency
Modal forms 1- 59
14.60
should 2- 41
10.14
can 3- 14
3.46
must 4- 6
1.48
have to 5- 3
074
need to
It should be noted that the modal verbs should and can were the most frequently used forms to express the deontic modality. Learners in the mid proficiency group expressed deontic modality through the identical modal forms with the learners in the low proficiency group. However, some modal verbs including, must, should and can were used at a relatively higher frequency. Nevertheless, according to the log-likelihood test, only modal verb can was used at a significantly higher frequency (4.34>3.84=p<0.05).

17. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Deontic modality by high proficiency group)
Rank
Observed frequency
Normalised frequency
Modal forms 1-
105
24.77
should 2- 68
16.04
can 3- 26
6.13
must 4- 5
1.17
could 5- 3
0.70
necessary 6-
need to 7- 1
0.23
have to 8-
be allowed to
In addition to the forms used by mid and low proficiency group students, modal verb could, modal adjective necessary and deontic expression allowed to were used to express deontic modality. Furthermore, modal verbs should, can, and must were used at a higher frequency than the learners in the low and mid proficiency groups. Nevertheless, only modal verb should was used at a significantly higher frequency (6.15>3.84=p<0.05).

18. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Examples from each groups of proficiency)
Low proficiency group
a) You should use the words in a sentences.
b) Teachers can teach better things than internet.
c) Men must join in the army.
d) You have to work hard to get good grades.
e) You need to take plenty of vitamin.

19. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Examples from each groups of proficiency)
High proficiency group
a) You should go to a doctor.
b) They can carry weapons.
c) I must say something for you.
d) They could manage to survive in the wild life.
e) Teachers are not necessary because we can learn on the internet.
g) If they want, we have to give an opportunity.
h) Children are not allowed to go out.

20. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Epistemic modality by low proficiency group)
Rank
Observed frequency
Normalised frequency
Modal forms 1- 45
11.13
think 2- 19
4.70
will 3- 10
2.47
can 4- 4
0.98
believe 5-
maybe 6- 2
0.49
in my opinion 7- 1
0.24
might
Learners in the low proficiency group expressed epistemic modality through cognitive verbs think and believe, lexical item maybe, and modal verb will, can, and might. Furthermore, epistemic expression in my opinion were used. Cognitive verb think was the most frequently used form to express epistemic modality. Mid proficiency group expressed epistemic modality through wider range of forms than the low proficiency group. In addition to the forms used by the learners in the low proficiency group, cognitive verb hope modal adjective possible, and modal verb may.

21. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Epistemic modality by high proficiency group)
Rank
Observed frequency
Normalised frequency
Modal forms 1- 37
8.73
can 2- 28
6.60
think 3- 18
4.24
will 4- 10
2.35
maybe 5- 6
1.41
in my opinion 6-
would
Modal verb can was the most frequently preferred form to express epistemic modality by the learners in the high proficiency group. modal verb can was used at a significantly higher frequency than by the learners in the low and mid proficiency groups (42.92>15.13=p<0.0001).

22. RESULTS
Lexical-based frequency analyses (Epistemic modality by high proficiency group)
Rank
Observed frequency
Normalised frequency
Modal forms 6- 6
1.41
would 7- 3
0.70
may 8- 2
0.47
could 9-
believe 10
hope
In addition to the previously used devices, modal verbs would and could were used to express epistemic modality.

23. RESULTS Lexical-based frequency analyses Low proficiency group
a) I think English lesson is very hard.
b) You will need English dictionary.
c) Sometimes, internet can be bad for the children.
d) I believe you can memorise easily.
e) Maybe you do not like tree or flower
f) In my opinion, if a woman join in the army, it is good for the country.
g) Things and people might be difficult.

24. RESULTS Lexical-based frequency analyses High proficiency group
a) You can get a vitamin d.
b) I think you should watch movies.
c) You will be healthy.
d) Maybe, you can go abroad with your friends.
e) In my opinion, woman should not be soldiers.
f) Read books, it would improve your vocabulary.
g) This may cause them no think logically.
h) If they join in the army, there could be more people.
j) If you want to manage, you should believe.
k) I hope my advices my advices be useful.

25. RESULTS Lexical-based frequency analyses
The use of modal verbs should, can and must to express deontic modality increased as the level of proficiency had improved

26. RESULTS Lexical-based frequency analyses
The epistemic use of the modal verb can, it showed very different patterns across levels of proficiency. The learners in the low proficiency group used it at a significantly higher frequency than learners in the mid group, however, learners in the high proficiency group used it at a significantly higher frequency than the learners in the mid and low groups.

27. RESULTS Frequent misuses of modal forms Error types Low group
Mid group
High group
Errors in negating modal verbs 2
Inflecting the main verb with –ing following modal verb 8 7
Inflecting the main verb with past tense marker following modal verb 1
Omitting main verb following modal verb 4 5

28. RESULTS Frequent misuses of modal forms Error types Low group
Mid group
High group
Misplacement of the main verb following the modal verb 3 1
Using two modal verbs in the same sentence mistakenly 2
Misplacement of copula/auxiliary be

29. RESULTS Frequent misuses of modal forms
Errors in negating the modal verbs
* You should don’t eat junk food.
* You don’t will be in the here
 Inflecting the main verb –ing, following the modal verb
* You should eating fruit.
*Technology cannot speaking.
Inflecting the modal verb with past tense marker, following the modal verb
* We will met in dragon café.
* You must drank milk.

30. RESULTS Omitting the main verb, following modal verb
*You should good school.
*We need to something.
Misplacement of the main verb, following the modal verb
*You should good school to go.
*You can lots of think.
Using two modal verbs in the same sentence mistakenly
*You should your notebook will finish.
* You must can speak English.
Misplacement of copula/auxiliary verbs
*They are can solve my problems.
* The teacher is can listen their problems

31. RESULTS Contrastive interlanguage analysis Modal forms
Turkish learners
Native speakers
Log-likelihood
should (+)
can (+)
must (+)
could (-)
think (+)
will (+)
maybe (+)
in my opinion (+)
may (-)
would (-)
1.89
1.76
0.45
0.05
0.90
0.47
0.11
0.12
0.04
0.06
0.23
0.36
0.10
0.19
0.07
0.34
00.1
0.15
572.77***
351.72***
85.10***
19.84***
349.76***
5.71*
36.35***
46.62***
16.30***
72.20***
indicates 5% level p < 0.05 ** indicates 1% level p < 0.01 ***indicates 0.1 % level p < (+) indicates overuse, and (-) indicates underuse
participants significantly overused modal verbs should, can, must, will, lexical item maybe, cognitive verb think and epistemic expression in my opinion. On the other hand, they significantly underused modal verbs would, could and may.

32. RESULTS Relationship between use of the modal forms and scores on MKT
Participants’ scores on MKT were correlated with frequency of the modal forms in writing tasks.The relationship was positive and significant.
(r=.63, p< 0.01).
Participants’ scores on MKT were correlated with the accuracy of use in writing. The result was in line with the correlation between frequency of use and scores on MTK. The correlation was positive and significant
(r=.71, p<0.01).

33. Discussion
Constituent processes of contingency hypotheses (Cue competition)
High group students expressed both deontic and epistemic modality through wider range of forms than the low and mid groups.
Learners gradually rely on more cues to express modality.
In the initial stages of L2 learning, learners generally focus on only one cue at a time, and gradually they begin to rely on new cues in combination with the first one (N. Ellis, 2006b, 2008).

34. Discussion Constituent processes of contingency hypotheses (Salience)
Participants’ misuses of modal devices reveal some of the non-salient items related to use of modality.
Main verb, preceded by modal verb,
negative markers of modal verbs
The non-existence of modal verbs in Turkish grammar may cause learners to experience difficulty in figuring out their relationships between the modal verb and the main verb.
There are many non-salient linguistic forms in languages which L2 learners fail to notice particularly in the initial stages of language learning (N. Ellis, 2006b, 2008).

35. Discussion
Constituent processes of contingency hypotheses (Interference)
Some influences of L1 revealed themselves as misuses in participants’ use of modality.
Participants in the low and mid groups misplaced the main verb, which should follow the modal verb.
N. Ellis (2006b, 2008) argues that interference reveals itself as L1 influence in language learning and similarities and differences between L1 and L2 may have an influence on whole acquisition process. Above the sentences are clear examples of L1 influence because Turkish is a canonical SOV language (Kelepir, 2001), and participants used Turkish word order.

36. Discussion
Constituent processes of contingency hypotheses (overshadowing and blocking)
Modal verb can was a significantly overused items whereas modal verbs could and may were underused items.
Can expresses both deontic (ability, permission) and epistemic (possibility) meanings. Could expresses deontic (past ability and permission) and epistemic (possibility, request) meanings.
Possibly learners associated could only with past ability and permission contexts so that they have not produced could to convey epistemic meaning.
There are many evidences of overshadowing in Turkish learners use of modal devices.

37. THANK YOU
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (1st ed.). London: Longman.
Ellis, N. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition:The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acqusition (1st ed., pp. 372–406). London: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language Acquisition as Rational Contingency Learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.
Fordyce, K. (2014). The Differential Effects of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 6–28.
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals (1st ed.). New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). SCHMIDT The role of consciousness in second language learning, 11(2).
Sylviane Granger. (2002). A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching (1st ed., pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.