Upload
buinhi
View
231
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running head: MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
1
Modals in Statements of Purpose: A Research Proposal
Dukhayel Aldukhayel, Jee Eun Park, Nichole Oberheu, and Loni Thornson
Colorado State University
2
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Abstract
This research proposal outlines the proposed study that is a comparative analysis of indirectness
strategies in native and non-native English speakers‘ statements of purpose for graduate
application to an American university. It is a collaborative proposal contributed by all our group
members. It begins with a literature review for register of modals, politeness perceptions and
modal uses, and politeness in writing application essays. Afterwards, we give our reasons
(rationale) for conducting our study and also we present our hypotheses. Then, we state our
method for our study, which is based on two corpora. This proposal details each segment of our
method that includes population of participants, data gathering procedure, data analysis, and
application. It finally lists bibliography of all our resources used in the literature review.
Keywords: politeness, indirectness, statements of purpose, modals, intercultural rhetoric
3
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Modals in Statements of Purpose: A Research Proposal
When we look at specific challenges that non-native speakers of English face when
writing applications, there are two aspects that need to be taken into account: the use of
politeness features and the rhetorical aspects associated with the specific genre. While both
politeness and rhetoric are well-researched fields, Ding (2006) suggests that the writing of
personal statements in applications for graduate school is quite under researched. Ding makes a
case for the study of personal statements because they are strongly based in cultural expectations
and values (p. 370). In Ding s corpus-based study on personal statements for graduate school
applications, he finds that the expectations for content and rhetorical structure of personal
statements is somewhat unknown to the applicant and suggests that application writing is a genre
that is under-studied and under-taught (p. 367). His conclusion is that the personal statement, as
one occluded genre, may present extra barriers for writers when they have to cross cultural,
disciplinary, and linguistic boundaries (p.367). Related research in formal writing demonstrates
distinct variations in politeness between native and non-native speakers. One aspect of this
politeness is related to the use of the English modals and quasi-modals which are often used
when making polite requests. The literature review will begin by investigating register and
making polite requests, then it will look at modality as a means for achieving politeness. Next, it
will look at the NS/NNS differences in other formal writings, such as compositions in academic
settings and business letters. Finally, the literature review will look specifically at NS/NNS
perceptions of politeness and their modality in formal writing.
Literature Review
Register
4
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
According to Halliday (1978; 1994), the language we speak or write varies according to
the contexts of situation in which the language is used. The contexts of situation, which is called
register, differ from one another in through three variables: field, tenor, and mode (p.33).These
three variables, taken together, determine the range within which meanings are selected and the
forms which are used for their expressions. Field refers to the social activity in which the
language is being used and what is being talked about. Field embraces subject-matter and also it
means the whole activity where all the interlocutors do in a setting. Tenor is concerned with the
role and ―relationships‖ between interlocutors. For example, when someone is choosing a
sentence type to express a request,- interrogative, declarative, or imperative - he or she considers
the relationship with the person being asked to fulfill it. Mode refers to the ―channel of
communication,‖ whether the language is written or spoken and, with regard to the latter,
whether it is face-to-face or more remote. Cohesive ties in a text, among other things, will be
affected by mode.
Romaine (1994) explains that the concept of register is typically concerned with variation
in language conditioned by uses rather than users. He relates register with style (p. 21), which
can ―range from formal to informal depending on social context, relationship of the participants,
social class, sex, age, physical environment, and topic." Stylistic differences can be reflected in
vocabulary, syntax, and pronunciation. For example, ‗The court ordered the debtor to come.‘
versus ‗The court summoned the debtor‘ shows different use of words depending on the degree
of formality. ‗The senators were called before the committee‘ is preferred in formal speech
instead of ‗The committee called the senators‘ because the passive voice sounds more formal. In
an informal conversation, it is common to pronounce ‗eatin‘ or ‗dancin‘ instead of formal ones
such as ‗eating‘, ‗dancing‘.
5
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Brown and Levinson (1987) use the term ―politeness‖ to explain register. They assume
that people do polite behaviors because of the need to avoid or minimize conflict among social
group members. Brown and Levinson assert that every individual has two kinds of public self-
image. One of them is defined as ―positive face wants,‖ which means individual‘s desire to be
approved of by other people, and the other is defined as ―negative face wants,‖ which means
individual‘s desire not to be imposed in their actions (p.62). When people need to make a
request, this requesting can hurt the hearer‘s ―negative face wants‖ which is termed ―face-
threatening act‖ by (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 65). The higher possibility to hurt the hearer‘s
face wants there is, the more polite expressions are needed.
Brown and Levinson (1987) divide the strategies that people use for the ―face-threatening
acts‖ into three categories: ―positive politeness strategies (p. 103-129),‖ ―negative politeness
strategies (p. 130-210),‖ and ―off record strategies (p. 211-226).‖ Positive politeness strategies
are used in the least threatening situation, and people who use this strategy usually express
solidarity, friendliness, and in-group reciprocity (e.g., You must be thirsty. You ran for more than
two hours without drinks. How about some water?). Negative politeness strategies, which are
used in more threatening situation than positive politeness strategies, are the way people restrain
or avoid imposing on the hearer (e.g., I don’t want to bother you, but could you show me the way
to the post office?”). Off record strategies are used in the most threatening situation, and the
requests are made in an indirect way or the requesters just give hints (e.g., I really tried to keep
the time, but there was an accident on my way here.)
Based on linguistic and socio-linguistic research in register, one can see that making
requests is a complex process that entails many different aspects. Thus, it can be difficult for
language learners to acquire the skills to properly use register. If we then apply this to the
6
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
practice of writing personal statements for graduate programs then we can see that register would
indeed play a large role in terms of the request to be admitted to the program. One way that we
show register is through indirectness. Indirectness makes a request less face-threatening. This
can be accomplished by using the English modal and quasi-modal verbs to indirectly make a
request. However, this modal system can be complex and difficult to master. In order to evaluate
modals we must first understand what they are and why they might be important features in a
statement of purpose.
Modality
There are many different strategies to achieve negative politeness in English. Modality
verbs are one such method. Modal verb forms exist on a continuum that ranges from modal
auxiliaries to lexical verbs. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985) explain that the
continuum begins with the central modals (modal auxiliaries); these include can, could, may,
might, shall, should, will, would, and must. Directly after the central modals are the marginal
modals, these are dare, need, ought to, and used to. Following the marginal modals are the modal
idioms, these are had better, would rather/sooner, be to, and have got to. Next are the semi-
auxiliaries, these include have to, be about to, be able to, be bound to, be going to, be obliged to,
be supposed to, and be willing to. After the semi-auxiliaries are the catenatives, these are appear
to, happen to, seem to, get + -ed participle, and keep + -ing participle. Finally, the continuum
ends with main verb + nonfinite clause, such as hope + to-infinitive, and begin + -ing participle.
Under the classification of current researchers, the modal idioms and semi-auxiliaries are
combined into a group known as the quasi-modals (Krug, 2000; Collins, 2009a; Collins, 2009b).
We have adopted this terminological distinction and are concerned with differentiating the
different formal and functional qualities of the central modals and quasi-modals.
7
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Palmer (1990) defines the formal properties of the central modals under the acronym
NICE. The N of NICE stands for negation (negation occurs directly after the modal auxiliary).
The I stands for inversion (the modal auxiliary is inverted when forming an interrogative). The C
stands for code, or the ―post verbal ellipsis dependent for its interpretation upon previous
context‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Finally, E stands for emphasis, or ―emphatic polarity involving
the use of contrastive stress‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Collins (2009a) describes five further
qualities of the modal auxiliary, these include: Lack of subject-verb agreement and tense; use in
unreal conditionals; and the use of the historical past form (e.g. could and would) to express
remoteness.
For semantic and functional purposes, modal auxiliaries are divided into two classes:
Root (social/necessity) and epistemic (probability). Root is further delineated into two
subheadings: Deontic and dynamic. This division accounts for the origin of the obligation or
necessity; the source of obligation for the deontic modal is said to come from a source outside of
the speaker, whereas the source of the dynamic modal is said to originate from the speaker
(Palmer, 1990). The social function of modality is to complete a variety of different tasks such as
expressing politeness or indirectness during a request, giving permission, or providing advice
(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).
Quasi-modals form a heterogeneous group that is ―formally distinguishable from, but
semantically similar to the modals‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Collins (2009a) differentiates two
general types of quasi-modals based on form: One that demonstrates semi-modal qualities and
one that exhibits lexio-modal properties. The semi-modals are similar to the modal auxiliaries;
that is, they contain an auxiliary verb as their first element, and they have no non-tensed forms.
Indeed, if we were to apply the NICE properties only to the first element of these paraphrastic
8
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
forms, they could be considered nearly identical to the central modals (Collins, 2009a). For
example, she hasn’t got to it yet versus *she has gotn’t to it yet. The lexico-modal class
semantically expresses modality and typically including be as their first element (Collins,
2009a). They are modal-like in demonstrating voice-neutrality and their use in conjunction with
the existential there. However, they also demonstrate non-modal-like features such as, ―the
availability of non-tensed forms, making possible combinations of the type had been meant to
and seems to be going to‖ (Collins, 2009a, p. 17). Membership to this class is not straightforward
and, as Krug (2000) indicates, the formal criteria for quasi-modals are an ongoing process.
According to Krug (2000), although their formal category is seemingly uncertain, there
are three basic criteria for determining whether a complex verb qualifies as a quasi-modal: The
verb form must express semantic relatedness to the modal auxiliaries, idiomacy (a meaning that
goes beyond the form's individual parts), and be undergoing the process of grammaticalization.
Grammaticalization theory predicts that changes occur in phonology, morphology, semantics,
syntax, and pragmatics. In the case of quasi-modals, Krug (2000) argues that this grammatical
transformation is more accurately described as the auxiliarization of quasi-modal form; that is,
particular quasi-modals are becoming more auxiliary-like. Auxiliarization includes many
categorical changes such as tense neutrality, iconicity, subjectification, phonological erosion,
syntactic reanalysis (primarily inversion without do insertion), and the extension from deontic to
epistemic meaning.
In the same way that modals are only a small aspect of ways to make a polite request,
statements of purpose are also a small subset of what can be identified as formal writing. Formal
writing can take place in a number of different settings and for a variety of purposes. However,
our study will be focused on only this small sample of formal writing. As stated by Ding (2006),
9
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
little research has been done on ESP for Statements of Purpose (SOPs). Due to this lack of
research, this proposal will draw upon existing research on politeness in formal writing, which
includes academic writing (compositions) or writing for business purposes.
Politeness in formal writing
Maier‘s (1992) study is an evaluation that looked for politeness in writing business letters
by 8 English native speakers and 10 non-native English speakers. They were asked to write
letters to the manager of the company explaining the reasons for missing the interview and
asking for another chance because they did not show in the day of the interview for the job.
Communication in writing for business played essential roles in all the NSs who were included
in the study because they had jobs in places where writing for business was so important. They
were employed in fields like ―advertising, personnel, administration, translation, sales/marketing,
and technical writing‖ (p. 193). On the other hand, the other subjects of this study who were
NNSs were advanced learners ―in English for International Business at the University of
Minnesota‖ (p. 193). The study shows an obvious difference between the two groups because
the NNSs were ―more personal and direct‖ than NSs (p. 201). For example, a NNS wrote
―[w]ould you please give me one more change for me…[p]lease, please give me one more
interview for me,‖ whereas a NS wrote, ―I would be very grateful if, under the circumstances,
you would grant me another interview‖ (Maier, 1992, p. 194). As you can see, although all the
In a related study, Sims and Guice‘s (1992) study compared 214 inquiry letters written by
NSSs and NNSs to the department of English of North Texas University. All of the participants
were either MA or PhD future students from diverse cultural backgrounds. The researchers
considered six salutations, eight ―complementary closings‖, and one ―appropriate tone‖ as
standards in evaluating the letters based on so many guideline textbooks in business writing (pp.
10
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
28-30). The study states that significant differences were noticed between the NSs and NNSs.
The following is the ―appropriate tone‖ considered by the researchers because it had the first-
person pronouns (I, me, and my) in the ―active voice‖: ―I am planning to begin work on my
doctorate in English in the fall of 1988, and I am interested in your school. Please send me
information about your program at your earliest convenience. My address is...‖ (p. 31). NNSs
committed more errors in all the three previous parts of the inquiry letters. They also
"exaggerated politeness‖ (p. 30). Compared with 18 percent of the NSs letters, more than 40
percent of the letters written by NNSs had exaggerations in politeness.
In a recent study on applicants' cover letters written by 26 Taiwanese and 26 Canadian
students enrolled in college in ―hospitality management‖ major (p. 1), Hou and Li (2011), states
that the cover letters written by Taiwanese students were ―more direct‖ to express their willing
(p.9). The following two examples were written by a Canadian and a Taiwanese student:
―I would like to be considered for the server position which your company advertised on
the Job Portal website. My qualifications and experience complement the responsibilities
outlined in your advertisement and include over 3 years of experience in increasingly
challenging roles‖ (Canadian letter #3).
―Please consider my application for the position of dining room service which was posted
on the Student Job Portal of XXX College‖ (Taiwanese letter #3).
(Hou & Li, 2011, p.9)
Compared with more than half of the Canadian students, only a few Taiwanese students
expressed ―explicit arguments‖ on what advantages the company could have through them when
they were employed.
11
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
These examples all demonstrate that politeness in formal writing can be challenging for
non-native speakers. This is due to differences in linguistic and cultural expectations. As we have
seen politeness can be difficult to master, including the use of the English modal system. This
also applies to politeness when requesting entrance to a program such as is customary in a
statement of purpose. Based on the above outlined research the next section will investigate
cultural differences in perceptions of politeness and how modality is used in native versus non-
native speaker writing.
Perceptions of politeness and modal use
In a study similar to the Ding (2006) study, Al-Ali (2006) compares job application letters
from Jordanian speakers of English as a second language with letters from their native-speaking
competitors. Al-Ali found that there was a distinct difference between the use of negative
politeness features in native and non-native speakers. The non-native speakers were much less
likely to use the negative politeness features. This suggests that there may be a cultural
difference in the way that politeness is shown. The result of this difference, as Al-Ali suggests,
could be that a native English speaking reader expect frequent use of negative politeness
strategies to emphasize the potential employer‘s freedom of action,¨ (132). This demonstrates the
high stakes of application writing and the importance of evaluating politeness strategies across
cultures.
When evaluating politeness, there are a variety of linguistic features that can be
investigated, one of which is the use of modals. According to Hinkel (1995), non-native speakers
may have difficulty with the modal verbs and use them in different contexts from those of native
speaker. The appropriate usage of modals relies on presuppositions commonly known and
accepted in a language community. NNSs usage of modals reflects the pragmatic frameworks
12
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
and norms specific to the learner‘s L1 environment, which may be different from those expected
in L2 conceptual structures. The usage of the root modals must, have to, should, ought to, and
need to in NS and NNS writing appears to be culture and context dependent. The meanings and
contextual implications of English modal verbs and necessity are complex because the conditions
and degrees of obligation and necessity are not always straightforward and obvious. Although
modal verbs are found in all languages, little is known about their uses and pragmatic meanings
in languages other than English in which the notions of obligation and necessity can combine
with other culturally bound notions such as subjectivity, assertion, explicitness, and a degree of
imposition.
In a study comparing Chinese English learners and native English speakers, Lee (2011)
analyses politeness as a cultural phenomenon and how culture influences both the perception and
production of structures related to politeness. He claims that we could proceed with the study of
politeness as different expectations of how interactions should unfold, and how the basic units of
interpersonal interaction (power, imposition, and possible distance) differ or converge in
different cultures to shape these expectations, (29). With this in mind, we can see how difficult
politeness strategies can be to acquire without explicit instruction because there are a variety of
cultural factors that may or may not be clear to the non-native language user.
In a study comparing Japanese students learning English with Japanese-English
bilinguals in the U.S. and native English speaking Americans, it was found that all three
populations perceived the use of modals to influence the level of politeness in a phrase in English
(Kitao, 1990). Another study on perception of politeness related to modal usage, Altman (1990),
suggests that NNS usage of modals of obligation can be perceived to be offensive by NSs. NNSs
interpret the meanings of modals differently from NSs because the NNSs function within the
13
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
domain of different norms, expectations, and cultural values that are transferred to L2 and
reflected in NNS modal verbs use. This suggests that modals are an important factor in politeness
and should be evaluated in order to understand the way that both native and non-native speakers
use them.
Previous related research suggests that there is a noticeable contrast between native and
non-native speakers when performing requests (Cenoz, 1996). This suggests that despite the fact
that each language and culture has ways to accomplish these face acts (such as requests), these
are challenging for second language learners because they are language, culture, and context
specific (Cenoz, 1996). For the purposes of this study we will consider how successful requests
also affect application writing because it can be classified as a request for entrance into a certain
community, either academic or career.
Within the research on politeness, there have been a number of studies that have looked
at differences in politeness in NS/NNS formal writings. DeCarrico (1986) found in NNS usage
of modals in compositions that NNSs use modal verbs in context where native speakers would
not. ESL teachers expressed concern that learners appear to have difficulty using modals in
appropriate contexts. This demonstrates that while perception of politeness has shown to be
similar between NS and NNS, the production and use of modals varies between these two
populations. It follows that NNS variations in the use of modals in application writing could
affect the reader s perception of politeness and perhaps affect the success of the applicant.
As mentioned above, the use of modals in English is a factor in how both native and non-
native speakers perceive politeness (Kitao, 1990). Therefore, it follows that studies in native/non-
native use of modals should be evaluated. In a 2001 study comparing argumentative texts from
Spanish EFL students at a Spanish University and U.S. university students, found that Spanish
14
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
students often use certain modals (can/could) more often than their native-speaking counterparts
(Neff, et. al.). At the same time there is a distinct lack of other modals (may/might) in
comparison to their U.S. counterparts. The authors suggest that this is related to the perception of
risk in using modals that do not correlate well with their first language incorrectly (Neff, et, al,
2001, p.11). They also suggest that the overuse of can in the Spanish students writing is
related to the difference between positive politeness strategies in Spanish and the common use of
negative politeness strategies in English, thus reinforcing the later findings by Al-Ali (2006).
The review of the literature suggests that politeness in application writing, specifically in
statements of purpose, is under-research. In a review of ESL textbooks, Jiang (2005) found that
when analyzing 6 ESL textbooks, register and context are not properly addressed. This
demonstrates that politeness in formal writing is not only under-researched but also under-
addressed in language classrooms. The high-stakes nature of application writing for graduate
level education programs suggests that inadequate instruction on application writing and
politeness could leave non-native applicants at a distinct disadvantage to their native speaking
competitors. Thus, we support Ding (2006) in his claim that application writing is not adequately
addressed in foreign/second language classrooms despite the amount of importance that it
carries. Our study seeks to address this gap in the research and practice to evaluate how native
and non-native speakers use modals differently in application writing. The purpose of this study
is to contribute to the research on rhetorical practices between languages and cultures which can
then be applied to the ESL/EFL teaching practices.
Hypotheses
A statement of purpose is a fundamental part of graduate level university applications in
the United States. According to the literature, there is a clear preference for indirectness in
15
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
statements of purpose in native English speaking cultures. Modals are one particular way to
show indirectness in discourse. Because native English speaking individuals are accustomed to
the rhetoric of application writing, we hypothesize that they will demonstrate a higher overall
frequency of modal use than that of non-native English speakers. Additionally, because the
historic past form of the central modals are considered the most indirect form of these verbs, we
hypothesize that native speakers will also have a higher use frequency of these forms than non-
native speakers. In sum:
1) NS will use more modal forms than NNS.
2) NS will use more historic past modals than NNS.
Method
Participants
We will make a corpus from the 120 statements of purpose that will be collected from the
department of Civil Engineering at Colorado State University. The applicants who will write the
statements of purpose are those who will have just finished their Master‘s degree program and
will be planning to work on the PhD program at the department starting from the fall semester in
2012.Sixty applicants will be American students who have lived and studied in the United States,
which means they are native speakers of English (NS) whose first language is English. The
remaining sixty applicants will be international students who are applying for the PhD program
at CSU after finishing their Master‘s degree program in their homeland. In other words, sixty
applicants will be non-native speakers of English (NNS) whose first language is not English and
who have never lived or studied in an English-speaking environment. To sum up, we will
compare sixty personal statements written by NS with another sixty personal statements written
by NNS.
16
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Data Collection
Individuals will be able to opt into the study through their graduate applications. As stated
previously, participant identity will be kept anonymous. To ensure that both native and non-
native corpora are of similar length, only the first 1000 words of each statement of purpose will
be entered into each corpus.
Data Analysis
Two frequency counts will be performed for this study. The first will consider all types of
modality (central and quasi) for their frequency count (see Appendix A for a list of all modals
used). This will provide separate totals for each participant group. The second frequency analysis
will only account for central modals used in their historic past form. Because these forms are
considered the most indirect—and subsequently the most polite—this will provide an indication
of corpora that contains the highest level of politeness (see Appendix B for a list of all historic
past modals used).
The modal counts will be extracted from the corpora. Each inflected and negative variant
of the modals will be included in the counts (all tokens will be accounted for). After the counts
have been calculated, we will compare the NS token count with the NNS token count for all
modals and the historic past modals using separate t-tests to determine statistical significance.
Conclusion
By conducting this study, which is based on corpora of 120 statements of purpose written
by native and non-native English speakers, we will have a clear image of the differences between
the two groups. These differences among NSs and NNSs in using modals and quasi modals for
politeness in writing statements of purposes should be considered in writing classes in ESL and
EFL classes. Because there is little teaching how to write statements of purpose by the results of
17
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
our study, teachers can rely on that and consider that in writing classes. We hope that Intensive
English Program at Colorado State University (IEP) and other English language institutes around
the world will make more effort in teaching this genre. Since our research will include NNSs
from various backgrounds and we are not going to make a corpus from one cultural background,
our results of each culture background group will be helpful for those IEPs or English language
institutes that have students from the same background culture that of the writers of the
statements of purpose included in our corpora.
Researchers interested in the Intercultural Rhetoric can take our study results as a
springboard for more research in differences among NSs and NNSs in writing application essays.
We are going to make a study on NSs and NNSs of any background. More research is needed in
focusing on NSs for a specific background in order to have more accurate results. More studies
are also needed to include a big number of samples. More studies are needed to study other
statements of purpose written for applying to other subjects or departments in the CSU or other
universities in the United States or any English speaking country.
18
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
References
Al-Ali, M. (2006). Genre-pragmatic strategies in English letter-of-application writing of
Jordanian Arabic--English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 9(1), 119-139.
Altman, R. (1990). Giving and taking advice without offense. In R. Scarcella,
E.Andersen,&S.Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second
language (pp. 95-106). New York: Newbury House.
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. NY: Longman.
Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall
Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carrell, P. &Konneker, B. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgments.
Language Learning, 31, 17-30.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999).The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
guide. Boston: Heinle.
Cenoz, J. (1996). Requests and Apologies: a comparison between native and non-native speakers
of English. Atlantis 18(1-2), 53-61.
Collins, P. (2009a). Modals and quasi-modals in English. New York: Rodopi.
Collins, P. (2009b). Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. WorldEnglishes, 28(3), 281-
292.
DeCarrico, J. (1986). Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 665-682.
19
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Ding, H. (2006). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays
to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 368-392.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly,
29(2), 325–343.
Hou, H & Li, M. (2011).A contrastive rhetoric analysis of internship cover letters by Taiwanese
and Canadian hospitality majors. International Journal of Linguistics,3(1), 1-14.
Jiang, X. (2005) Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34, 36-54.
Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language
in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching
and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kitao, K. (1990). A study of Japanese and American perceptions of politeness in requests.
Doshisha Studies in English, 50, 178-210.
Krug, M. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee, Y. (2011). Comparison of politeness and acceptability perceptions of request strategies
between Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. International Journal
of Language studies, 5(3), 27-34.
Leech, G. (2003). Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. In R.
Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 223-
241). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Maier, P. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English
speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 189-206.
Neff, J., Martinez, F., Rica, J.P. (2001) Non-native argumentative texts in English. Paper
presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO.
Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & J. Svartvik (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. London: Longman.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sims, B, & Guice, S. (1992) Differences between business letters from native and non-native
speakers of English. Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 23-39.
21
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Appendix A
Central Modals Quasi-modals
Can
Shall
Will
May
Must
Could
Should
Would
Might
Dare
Need
Ought to
Used to
Had better
Would rather/sooner
Be to
Have got to
Have to
Be about to
Be able to
Be bound to
Be going to
Be obliged to
Be supposed to
Be willing to
22
MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE
Appendix B
Historic Past Modals
Could
Should
Would
Might