Scholarlink

<p>Modal verbs (<i>can, could, may, might, will, would</i>) pose a persistent challenge for both learners and educators despite substantial scholarly exploration of the topic. Using an extensive dataset comprising 2,800 essays, this study investigates the variability in the use of modals among English first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners from Asian backgrounds, focusing on the modals <i>can</i> and <i>would</i>. A comparative analysis of collocational patterns identifies these modals as a major source of divergence between the L1 and L2 groups, notably the prevalent use of the negated form of <i>can</i> and the skewed and restricted use of <i>would</i> among L2 learners. Further, while L1 speakers typically employ <i>would</i> to assert the validity of statements with evidence believed to be indisputable, L2 learners tend to use it when presenting opinions with little or no support. The findings identify specific areas requiring pedagogical interventions for L2 learners, and from a methodological perspective, underscore the importance of complementing corpus-driven results with qualitative analyses when seeking to understand the contextual uses of modals. The integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches is a vital step in formulating effective pedagogical strategies to enhance L2 learners’ pragmatic proficiencies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Modal verb variations in L1 and L2 written discourse: a corpus-based analysis of can and would

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Shie Sato

摘要

Modal verbs (can, could, may, might, will, would) pose a persistent challenge for both learners and educators despite substantial scholarly exploration of the topic. Using an extensive dataset comprising 2,800 essays, this study investigates the variability in the use of modals among English first language (L1) speakers and second language (L2) learners from Asian backgrounds, focusing on the modals can and would. A comparative analysis of collocational patterns identifies these modals as a major source of divergence between the L1 and L2 groups, notably the prevalent use of the negated form of can and the skewed and restricted use of would among L2 learners. Further, while L1 speakers typically employ would to assert the validity of statements with evidence believed to be indisputable, L2 learners tend to use it when presenting opinions with little or no support. The findings identify specific areas requiring pedagogical interventions for L2 learners, and from a methodological perspective, underscore the importance of complementing corpus-driven results with qualitative analyses when seeking to understand the contextual uses of modals. The integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches is a vital step in formulating effective pedagogical strategies to enhance L2 learners’ pragmatic proficiencies.