Ibérica ISSN: 1139-7241 [email protected] Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos España
Vázquez Orta, Ignacio A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish Ibérica, núm. 19, 2010, pp. 77-95 Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos Cádiz, España
Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=287024099005
How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 77
A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish1
Ignacio Vázquez Orta Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain) [email protected]
Abstract In the present paper an intercultural quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of modal verbs as epistemic stance markers in SERAC (Spanish-English Research Article Corpus), a corpus of research articles (RAs) in different disciplines, is carried out. The corpus selected for this research consists of 48 Business Management research articles. Special emphasis is laid on the introduction and discussion sections of RAs, where stance devices are most frequently located to pursue convergence with the readership. This kind of intercultural analysis has been achieved through both a bottom-up research approach and a top-down research approach. The results obtained in this study point in the direction that there are obvious differences between the use of modal verbs by native writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native Spanish writers. The most remarkable aspect is that Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedges and boosters. Therefore, they have difficulties in establishing a proper tenor when they write in English. Keywords: research articles, modal verbs, hedges, boosters, epistemic stance.
Resumen Anlisis contrastivo ingls-espaol del uso de verbos modales en la expresin de posicin epistmica en los artculos de investigacin del rea de Direccin de empresas En este artículo se lleva a cabo un análisis intercultural, cualitativo y cuantitativo del uso de los verbos modales como marcadores de posición epistémica en
Ibérica 19 (2010): 77-96 77 ISSN 1139-7241 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 78
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
SERAC (Spanish-English Research Article Corpus), un corpus de artículos de investigación de diversas disciplinas académicas. El corpus seleccionado para este trabajo consta de 48 artículos de Dirección de empresas. Los mecanismos de posición epistémica son más frecuentes en las introducciones y discusiones de los artículos de investigación, con el objetivo de intentar una convergencia con los lectores, por ello, estas secciones se analizan con más detenimiento. El tipo de análisis intercultural mencionado se ha llevado a cabo mediante un enfoque ascendente (bottom-up) y un enfoque descendente (top-down). Los resultados obtenidos en este estudio señalan que hay diferencias importantes entre el uso de los verbos modales por los/as hablantes nativos/as y el uso de los verbos modales por los/as escritores/as españoles/as. El aspecto más notable es que los/as escritores/as españoles/as muestran un uso diferente de los atenuadores e intensificadores. Por tanto, queda patente que tienen dificultades para establecer un tenor adecuado cuando escriben en inglés.
Palabras clave: artículos de investigación, verbos modales, atenuadores, intensificadores, posición epistémica.
1. General introduction and outline of the study This paper carries out an intercultural quantitative and qualitative analysis of the use of modal verbs as epistemic stance markers in SERAC (Spanish- English Research Article Corpus), a corpus of research articles in different disciplines. Section 2 examines the theoretical background to modality and stance, the objectives of the study and its research questions. Section 3 studies the corpus selected for this research consisting of 48 Business Management research articles and how the kind of intercultural analysis mentioned above can be achieved through either a bottom-up research approach or a top-down research approach. In a bottom-up approach, the corpus analysis comes first, and the discourse unit types emerge from the corpus patterns. In a top-down approach, the analytical framework is developed at the outset: the discourse unit types are determined before beginning the corpus analysis, and the entire analysis is then carried out in those terms. Both methodologies are used in this article. Section 4 and 5 offer an account and discussion of the results obtained. Finally, some concluding remarks are made in Section 6.
Ibérica 19 (2010) 78 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 79
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
2. Theoretical background for the study of modality and stance 2.1. Modal verbs as the grammatical expression of stance Stance-taking is one of the most relevant and fundamental human activities accomplished through language. Humans evaluate the world around them, express emotions, beliefs, and desires, and align or disalign with other human beings in social interaction. The concept of “stance” is known under different labels that overlap to various degrees. Stance can be defined as expressing “personal feelings, attitudes, value judgements, or assessments” (Biber et al., 1999: 966) added to the propositional content. Other terms for language used by speakers/writers to express opinion are “modality” (Halliday, 1994), “evaluation” (Hunston & Thompson (eds.), 2000), and “appraisal” (White, 2001). At a textual level, stance meanings can be linguistically realized through different grammatical and lexical devices. By lexical stance marking we mean affective or evaluative word choice that involves only a single proposition. In lexical stance marking value-laden words are used, which differ from grammatical stance devices in that they do not provide an attitudinal or evaluative frame for some other proposition. The existence of a stance is inferred from the use of an evaluative lexical item, usually an adjective, main verb or noun. Grammatical stance devices include two distinct linguistic components, one presenting the stance, and the other presenting the proposition that is framed by that stance. The use of modal verbs is the least clear grammatical marking of stance, because the modal verb (as stance marker) is incorporated into the main clause (expressing the framed proposition) as part of the verb phrase, although it is understood semantically as providing a stance frame for the entire clause (see example 1):
(1) Your team might have been defeated.
Modal verbs are used to express a writer’s stance, expressing either the degree of certainty of the proposition (epistemic modality), or meanings such as permission, obligation or necessity (deontic modality). Without a modal verb, most verb phrases include only a marking of time orientation and not an overt expression of stance2.
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 79 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 80
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
In most cases the stance marker precedes the structure presenting the proposition. Modal verbs also occur before the main lexical verb and thus typically before the presentation of new information in the clause. This ordering of constituents reflects the primary function of stance markers as a frame3 for the interpretation of the propositional information. In most cases, writers first identify their personal perspective, thereby encouraging readers to process the following information from the same perspective. 2.2. Modals and modality Modality is to be understood as a semantic category. Modal auxiliaries express a wide range of meanings, having to do with concepts such as ability, permission, necessity, and obligation. In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999: 485-486) modal verbs are grouped into three major categories according to their meaning: “Intrinsic” modality “Extrinsic” modality 1. Permission/ability/ possibility: “can”, “could”, “may”, “might” 2. Obligation/ necessity: “must”, “should”, 3. Volition/ prediction: “will”, “would”, “shall” By means of modal expressions the writer can evaluate a particular situation in terms of possibility, probability, permission, volition, obligation and necessity. To put it differently, all the above mentioned notions cover the subjective attitude or statement of the writer, who presents his/her personal opinion and relation with reality. Modal verbs can basically express two different kinds of modal meanings, which are referred to as “epistemic” and “deontic” modality. The first expresses the degree of probability, including the logical possibility, necessity, hypothetical meaning, beliefs and predictability. The latter, deontic modality, presents a degree of desirability through permission, obligation, and volition. This terminology agrees, in fact, with the more recent categorization in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English referred to above. The former type of modality concerns actions and events directly controlled by humans or other agents. On the other hand, there is another type of meaning labelled “extrinsic”, which expresses a certain degree of likelihood in terms of possibility, necessity, or prediction. It can be said that the logical status of events is observed by extrinsic modality. Downing and Locke (1999: 382-383) call these meanings “basic modalities”, and they all cover the subjective attitude or statement of the writer, who presents his/her personal opinion and relation with reality. Areas of meaning, such as “permission”, “obligation” and
Ibérica 19 (2010) 80 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 81
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
“volition” which involve some kind of intrinsic control over human events, are classified as intrinsic4 (or deontic) modality, whereas there is the another type of modality labelled extrinsic5 (or epistemic), which “refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood: possibility, necessity or prediction” (Biber et al., 1999: 485). This logical modality involves a human judgement of what is or is not likely to happen6. The first attempt to study the writer’s attitude to the text in academic discourse is found in Biber and Finnegan’s (1989) stance framework. They define “stance” as the grammatical and lexical expression of attitude, feelings, judgments or commitment concerning the propositional content of the message. There are two components of stance in this definition: “evidentiality” and “affect”. Hyland (1999) proposed a model of “stance”, which is more comprehensive than the model put forward by Biber and Finegan (1989). He included three components instead of two: “evidentiality”, “affect” and “relation”. “Evidentiality” has to do with the writer’s commitment to the truth of the propositions s/he presents. Epistemic comment (often achieved through the use of epistemic modal verbs) is a means by which writers can signal their allegiance and express a point of view on a proposition. “Affect” refers to the overt expression by the writer of a range of personal attitudes. The last term, “relation”, is defined as “the extent to which writers choose to engage with their readers, their degree of intimacy or remoteness, and the ways they represent themselves in the discourse” (Hyland, 1999: 101). With these words Hyland includes an element of engagement in his model. Some years later Hyland (2005a) presented a more comprehensive model of “stance and engagement” to account for all the interpersonal resources that are used in academic discourse. Stance marking makes more sense when we take into consideration the addressees of academic writing. Academic writers intrude and make comments on the information they convey through their texts; they convey judgements, align themselves with readers and express solidarity by anticipating objections and responding to an imagined dialogue with others, thus constructing the text with their readers.
2.3. Objectives and research questions This paper describes an analysis of intercultural traits by applying both quantitative and qualitative methods of the use of modal verbs as epistemic
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 81 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 82
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
stance markers in SERAC. The subcorpus selected for this research consists of 48 Business Management research articles. One major difference between the two approaches is the role of the functional versus linguistic analysis. In the top-down approach, the functional framework is primary. Thus, the first step in the analysis is to determine the possible discourse unit types (e.g. move types) and provide an operational definition for each one. This functional framework is then used to segment texts into discourse units. Linguistic analysis is secondary in a top-down approach, serving as an interpretive role to investigate the extent to which discourse units also have systematic linguistic characteristics. In contrast, the linguistic description is primary in the bottom-up approach. That is the reason why, in this piece of research, I adopted the bottom-up perspective first of all, starting with the linguistic description of the English modal verbs as semantic markers of modality to move on to the top-down perspective and interpret the results from this standpoint. The research questions I planned to answer were: 1. What differences are there between the use of modal verbs by native writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native writers? 2. To what extent do the different groups of writers express epistemic stance differently? 3. Is the use of the modals by Spanish academics, writing their articles in English, conditioned by the writing conventions of their national culture –that is, Spanish research writing conventions?
3. Corpus and methodology Out of the 48 articles, 24 articles were written by native English-speaking researchers (coded ENGBM) and the other 24, by native Spanish-speaking academics (coded SPENGBM). The first subcorpus includes 24 RAs from high impact American journals written by English native speakers, and the second one includes 24 RAs from high impact journals written by Spanish native speakers. The analysis has been carried out combining concordance software and manual analysis. The total corpus amounts to 390,468 words; ENGBM including 197,922 and SPENGBM 192,546 words. For comparability criteria, both groups of writers had a university affiliation,
Ibérica 19 (2010) 82 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 83
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
which guaranteed that they were acquainted with academic writing practices, and more specifically, research article writing. For the quantitative analysis, the concordance software Wordsmith Tools 4.0 was used (Scott, 1999). This was combined with a manual qualitative analysis of the examples. Special emphasis has been laid on the introduction and discussion sections, where stance devices are most frequently located to pursue convergence with the readership. Even though epistemic and affective meanings intermesh, in this study they will be treated separately for practical purposes, given that every epistemic judgement carries attitudinal values, but not viceversa7. I will concentrate on modal verbs as markers of epistemic stance, as attitudinal stance is very rarely expressed by modal verbs8. In this piece of research, first the bottom-up perspective is applied to examine modal use frequency in terms of semantic modality markers. The specific research questions were: Do modals in RAs convey epistemic (extrinsic) or deontic (intrinsic) modality? If so, is this consistent across the two subcorpora?
4. Results 4.1. Results for the bottom-up perspective: Modals as expression of epistemic stance The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 7.0 per thousand words, while it is of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution of modals in the two subcorpora is given in percentages in Figures 1 and 2. According to the pie chart in figure 1, the modals “may”, “can” and “will” are very common in ENGBM. At the other extreme, the modals “shall”, “should” are very rare. If we focus on the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time member is less frequent than its partner in all cases except “shall”/“should”. Modal verbs are the most typical realisation of hedges and boosters in English. The modal verbs expressing epistemic meaning are: “may”, “can”, “could”, “would”, “might”. “May” is the most frequent modal verb expressing epistemic meaning in this subcorpus. It is very common, and it is followed by “could”, “can”, “would” and “might”. “Can” is followed by “will”, “may”, “would”, “could” and “might”, according to the frequency rates shown in figure 2 related to SPENGBM.
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 83 4.1. Results for the bottom up perspective: Modals as expression of 04 IBERICA 19.qxpepistemic 4.22/3/10 Results stance 17:21 Página 84 The frequency4.1. Results of occurrencefor the bottom of modal-up perspective: ver bs in ENGBM Modals isas ofexpression 7.0 per thousand of words,epistemic while it stanceis of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution of modals in the two subcorpora is given in percentages in Figures 1 IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA The frequency of occurrence of modal ver bs in ENGBM is of 7.0 per thousand and 2: words, while it is of 5.3 verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. The overall distribution of modals in the two subcorpora is given in percentages in Figures 1 and 2:
might4.31% must4.13% can 19.23%
might4.31% must4.13% can 19.23% may 21.40% A CONT RASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS may 21.40%
could 11.45% According to the pie chart in figure 1, the modals “may”, “can”could and 11.45% “will” are very common in ENGBM . At the otherA CONT extreme,RASTIVE ANALYSIS the modals OF THE USE “shall”, OF MODAL “should” VERBS are
very rare.should If 6.32% we focus on the pairs of central modals, the tentative/past time should 6.32%
memberAccording is lessshall to 3.85%frequent theshall 3.85%pie chart than in ifigurets partner 1, the inmodals all cases “may”, except “can” and “shall” “will”/ “should”.are Modalvery verbs common are the in ENGBM most typical. At the realisationother extreme, of the hedges modals and “shall”, boosters “should” in areEnglish. w illw 18.91% ill 18.91% The modalvery rare. verbs If we expressing focus on thew epistemic ould w pairs ould 10.40% 10.40% of central meaning modals, are: the “may” tentative/past, “can” , time“could” , “would”member, “might” is less. “ frequentMay” is than the i mostts partner frequent in all modal cases except ver b expressing “shall” /“should”. epistemic Modal verbs are the most typical realisation of hedges and boosters in English. meaningThe in modal this verbs subcorpus. expressingFigure It 1 . isPercentage epistemic very of common, modal meaning verbs in andare:ENGBM “may”it. is followed, “can” , “could” by “could”,, Figure 1 . Percentage of modal verbs in ENGBM . “can”,“would” “would”, “might” and “might”.. “ May” is the most frequent modal ver b expressing epistemic meaning in this subcorpus. It is very common, and it is followed by “could”, “can”,6 Ibérica “would” 19 (2010 and): … “might”.-…
6 Ibérica 19 (2010 ): … -… must4.95% might6.00% can 23.86%
must4.95% may 16.60% might6.00% can 23.86%
may 16.60%
could 11.57%
could 11.57%
should 2.80% should 2.80%
shall 10.80%shall 10.80%
w ouldw ould 15.43% 15.43% w ill 18.03%w ill 18.03%
Figure 2. Percentage of modal verbs in SPENGBM. Figure 2. Percentage of modal verbs in SPENGBM. “Can” is followed by “will”, “may”, “would”, “could” and “might”, according t o “Can” theis frequencyfollowed ratesby “will”, shown in“may”, figure 2“would”, related to “could”SPENGBM and. “Can” “might”, is the according modal t o the frequencyverb, most rates frequently shown used in byfigure non - native2 related Spanish to SPENGBMwriters writing. “Can”their articles is the in modal verb,“Can” mostEnglish. is the frequently Nextmodal comes verb, used “will”, mostby nonfollowed frequently-native by Spanish“may”, used and by writers thennon-native“would” writing andSpanish their“shall”. articles writers in English.writingThe theirNext tentative articlescomes mem ber“will”,in (English.“should”) followed Nextis the by least comes“may”, frequently “will”, and used then followed of “would”all modals by “may”,andin this“shall”. and subcorpus. Thethen tentative “would” mem andber “shall”.(“should”) The is thetentative least frequently member used (“should”) of all modals is the in least this subcorpus.If we want to interpret the overall distribution of the modals properly in both frequentlysubcorpora, used we of have all modalsto distinguish in this between subcorpus. their use with intrinsic and extrinsic If we meanings. want to interpret M odals marking the overall permission/possibility/ability distribution of the modals in ENGBM properly are in both If we want to interpret the overall distribution of the modals properly in subcorpora,discussed we below have (see to distinguishalso Figure 3) between. their use with intrinsic and extrinsic meanings.both subcorpora, M odals we marking have to distinguish permission/possibility/ability between their use with in ENGBMintrinsic and are discussedextrinsic below meanings. (see also Modals Figure 3)marking. permission/possibility/ability in ENGBM are discussed below (see also Figure 3).
Ibérica 19 (2010) 84 : 77-96
Ibérica 1 9 (2010 ): … -… 7 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 85
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
48 50
45 48 50 40 36 45
35 40 36 28 30 35 28 30 25 25 20 20 15 11 11 15 11 11 7 10 7 6 10 6 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 maymay can can could could might might
Figure 3. “ can”, “could”, “may”, “might” in ENGBM. Figure 3. “ can”, “could”, “may”, “might” in ENGBM. The permission/ability/possibility modals (“can”, “could”, “may”, “might” ) work The permission/ability/possibilityas epistemic stance markers and modals ar e used (“can”, to present“could”, writer “may”, comments“might” on the) work Theas epistemic permission/ability/possibilitystatus of information stance markers in a proposition. and ar emodals The used meaning to(“can”, present and “could”,use writer of these comments“may”, four modals “might”) on the workstatus are asof multifunctionalepistemicinformation stance in to a differing proposition. markers extents. and The “Might” are meaning used is locatedto and present useat one of writer extreme,these fourcomments it is modals onare themultifunctionalused status only of to information mark to differing logical possibility; in extents. a proposition. at“Might” the other The is extreme, located meaning “can”at andone commonly extreme,use of these it is marks permission, ability and logical possibility. “May” and “could” can express fourused modalsintermediate only to are mark degrees multifunctional logical of possibility. possibility; to Three differing at of the the other extents. permission/possibility extreme, “Might” “can” is modals located commonly at onemarks extreme,(“could”, permission, it“may” is abilityused and only “might”)and tological mark are possibility. used logical almost possibility; “May” exclusively and at tothe“could” mark other logiccan extreme,al express “can”intermediatepossibility commonly degrees in the marks RAs. of possibility.permission,“May” is very Three ability common of and the in logical this permission/possibility function. possibility. Permission “May” is modals and rarely expressed in academic writing. “Could” and “might” are much more “could”(“could”, can “may” express and “might”)intermediate are useddegrees almost of exclusively possibility. to Three mark of logic theal possibilitycommon in when the RAs.expressing“May” logical is verypossibility common than permission in this function. or ability. Permission Let us is permission/possibilityrarelysee expressed some examples in academic from modals the corpus writing. (“could”, with these “Could” modals: “may”and and “might” “might”) are muchare used more almostcommon exclusively when(2) expressingLegumes to mark may logical have logical smaller possibility conversionpossibility than efficiencies in permission the than RAs. cereals. or “May” ability.(ENGBM is Let very us commonsee some examplesin this function.6) from the Permission corpus with is these rarely modals: expressed in academic writing. (3) We also explore the mediating role that SPB productivity, flexibility and “Could”(2) and Legumes“might”cost -effectiveness may are have much smaller success more conversionmight common play betweenefficiencies when design thanexpressing characteristics, cereals. (ENGBM logical possibility than6) permissionsu pervisor/employee or ability.support and Let facility us seecharacteristics. some examples (ENGBM 12) from the corpus with(3) (4)theseWe Thesealso modals: explore costs could the counterbalance mediating role SBP thatbenefits. SPB (ENGBM productivity, 12) flexibility and “Can” is costespecially-effectiveness ambiguous success in the ENGBMmight play subcorpus, between since design it can often characteristics, be interpreted(2) Legumessu aspervisor/employee marking may have either smaller logical support conversion possibil andity facility efficienciesor ability: characteristics. than cereals. (ENGBM (ENGBM 12) 6) (4) (5)These Ironically, costs could when counterbalancemany employees SBPare topped benefits. out, (ENGBM the SBP plan 12) can be (3) We alsoviewed explore as successfulthe mediating in many role ways that because SPB itproductivity, yields a highly flexibility skilled, and “Can” is especiallycost-effectivenesshighly ambiguous paid workforce. success in the(ENGBM might ENGBM 12)play subcorpus,between design since itcharacteristics, can often be interpretedSimilarly,supervisor/employee as marking although “can”either and logical support“may” possibil are and occasionally facilityity or ability: characteristics. used to ma rk permission (ENGBM 12) in(4) the(5) Thesecorpus, Ironically, costs most couldof when thesecounterbalance manyinstances employees can alsoSBP beare benefits. interpreted topped (ENGBMout, as marking the SBP 12) logical plan can be possibility (see example 6) or ability (see example 7): viewed as successful in many ways because it yields a highly skilled, “Can” is especially(6)highly Close paidambiguous supervision workforce. of in SPB (ENGBMthe employees ENGBM 12) can lead subcorpus, to alienation. since (ENGBM it can 14) often beSimilarly, interpreted although as marking “can” and either “may” logical are possibilityoccasionally or usedability: to ma rk permission in the corpus, most of these instances can also be interpreted as marking logical 8 Ibérica 19 (2010 ): … -… possibility(5) Ironically,(see example when 6) manyor ability employees (see example are topped 7): out, the SBP plan can be (6)viewed Close as supervisionsuccessful inof manySPB employees ways because can leadit yields to alienation. a highly skilled,(ENGBM highly 14) paid workforce. (ENGBM 12)
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 85 8 Ibérica 19 (2010 ): … -… 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 86
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
Similarly, although “can” and “may” are occasionally used to mark permission in the corpus, most of these instances can also be interpreted as marking logical possibility (see example 6) or ability (see example 7):
(6) Close supervision of SPB employees can lead to alienation. (ENGBM 14) [The implicit message being that employees cannot be trusted despite their skills]. A CONT RASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS (7) Multiskilled employees in SPB can generally use their talents fully without [The implicit message being t hat employees cannot be trusted despite their supervisionskills]. (…). (ENGBM 14) A CONT RASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS “Could”(7) and “might”Multiskilled are employeesalso used into SPBmake can an implicit generally attribution use their talentsof stance fully without supervision (…) . (ENGBM 14) to the writer, which[The can implicit be easilymessage inferred being t hat fromemployees the cannot text: be trusted despite their “Could” and “might”skills].are also used to make an implicit attribution of stance to the writer,(8) Thesewhich(7) costs canMultiskilled be could easilycounterbalance employees inferred infrom SPBSPB the can benefits. text generally: (ENGBM use their 12) talents fully without supervision (…) . (ENGBM 14) (8) These costs could counterbalance SPB benefits. (ENGBM 12) (9)“Could” Thus,and it is“might” more likelyare also that used such to exchanges make an implicit might have attribution produced of stance a resentful to the(9) demoralizationwriter, Thus, which it can is effect. morebe easily likely (ENGBM inferred that from 13) such the exchanges text : might have produced a resentful demoralization effect. (ENGBM 13) (8) These costs could counterbalance SPB benefits. (ENGBM 12) InIn Figure 44 wewe (9) cancan Thus, observeobserve it is the the more re resultssults likely for that for the such the use exchangesuse of of “can”, “can”,might “could”, have “could”, produced “may” “may” a and and“might” “might” in SPENGBM in SPENGBM.resentful. demoralization effect. (ENGBM 13) In Figure 4 we can observe the re sults for the use of “can”, “could”, “may” and “might” in SPENGBM . 48 50
45 48 50 40 36 45
35 40 36
30 35 25
30 25 25
25 20 20 15 11 15 11 7 10 7 6 104 6 4 3 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 maymay can can could could might might
Figure 4. “ can” , “could” , “may” and “might” in SPENGBM. Figure 4. “ can” , “could” , “may” and “might” in SPENGBM. The modal repertoire of non -native writers (Spanish writers) clearly shows a The modal similar repertoire repertoire use of “may” of nonnon-nativein both-native subcorpora writerswriters, which (Spanish(Spanish runs writers) co unter to clearly its expected shows shows a a similar higher use of frequency“may” ofin use both in RAs subcorpora written by, whichnative English runs cospeakersunter (Biber to its et expected al., similarhigher frequencyuse1999) of–this “may” ofseems use in to bothin suggest RAs subcorpora writtenthat Spanish by, writers’nativewhich Englishrunsuse of countermodal speakers verbs to adaptedits(Biber expected toet al., higher1999) –frequencythethis use seems of their ofto Englishsuggest use in counterparts RAs that Spanishwritten properly. bywriters’ native use English of modal speakers verbs adapted(Biber etto al.,the use 1999) ofThe their–this higher English seems frequency counterpartsto suggest of use of thatproperly.“can” Spanish expressing writers’ epistemic use modality of modal is also verbs adaptedworth to the considering use of theirin the EnglishSPENGBM counterparts corpus. Few occurrencesproperly. of “might” have The higherbeen frequency detected, which of use not of only “can” seems expressing to suggest epistemic that the Spanish modality writers’ is also worth consideringmodalisation in of the possibility SPENGBM nuances corpus. is ratherFew poor, occurrences but als o entails of “might” pragmatic have Ibérica 19 (2010) implications. “ Might” denotes a multiplicity of possibilities (versus the unilateral 86 been: 77-96 detected, which not only seems to suggest that the Spanish writers’ modalisationand less of remote possibility possibility nuances expressed is by rather “could”) poor, that butfacilitate als o the entails construction pragmatic of a “ reader -in -the -text” strategy. Finally, there appears to be a m ismatch in the implications.expression “ Might” of epistemic denotes meanings a multiplicity between of some possibilities modal verbs: (versus “can” the absorbs unilateral and lesssome remote of the possibility the possibility expressed uses of “may” by “could”) and “could”. that facilitate the construction of a “ reader -in -the -text” strategy. Finally, there appears to be a m ismatch in the expression of epistemic meanings between some modal verbs: “can” absorbs 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 87
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
The higher frequency of use of “can” expressing epistemic modality is also worth considering in the SPENGBM corpus. Few occurrences of “might” have been detected, which not only seems to suggest that the Spanish writers’ modalisation of possibility nuances is rather poor, but also entails pragmatic implications. “Might” denotes a multiplicity of possibilities (versus the unilateral and less remote possibility expressed by “could”) that facilitate the construction of a “reader-in-the-text” strategy. Finally, there appears to be a mismatch in the expression of epistemic meanings between some modal verbs: “can” absorbs some of the the possibility uses of “may” and “could”.
4.2. Results for the second perspective: Metadiscourse as a pragmatic- rhetorical perspective In the second stage of this study I adopted a top-down perspective. I moved from a purely textual level to a pragmatic/rhetorical one, in which the choice of modal verbs is closely related to the context in which they operate and the writer’s communicative intention. For that purpose I adopted Hyland’s taxonomy of interactional metadiscourse (Hyland & Tsé, 2004; Hyland, 2005b). There are five categories of interactional metadiscourse: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mentions. Of these I decided to study hedges and boosters, as academic writers mainly use modal verbs to carry out these two complementary rhetorical strategies. Hedges and boosters generally emerge as the most frequently employed interactional metadiscourse markers. These are a principal means by which writers can use English in a flexible way to adopt a stance to both their propositions and their audience. Hedges and boosters are like two sides of a same coin. They are communicative strategies for increasing or reducing the force of statements. Their importance in academic discourse lies in their contribution to a relevant rhetorical and interactive tenor, conveying both epistemic and affective meaning (Hyland, 2004 & 2005a; Hyland & Tsé, 2004). Table 1 shows the frequency and distribution of hedges in the two subcorpora. The overall findings show that international Business Management scholars publishing their articles in English in the American context hedge their discourse more heavily than their Spanish counterparts publishing internationally in English. These results are rather similar to those obtained
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 87 markers. These are a pri ncipal means by which writers can use English in a 04 IBERICA 19.qxp flexible22/3/10 way to17:21 adopt a stancePágina to both88 their propositions and their audience. Hedges and boosters are like two sides of a same coin. They are communicative strategies for increasing or reducing the force o f statements. Their importance in academic discourse lies in their contribution to a relevant rhetorical and interactive tenor, conveying both epistemic and affective meaning (Hyland , 2004 IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA & 2005a; Hyland & Tsé, 2004). Table 1 shows the frequency and distr ibution of hedges in the two subcorpora .
ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage
Hedges 3,174 (16.04 per 100% 1,868 (9.70 per 100% 1,000 words) 1,000 words) Introduction 1,308 41,21% 596 31.91% Methods 202 6.36% 250 13.38% Results 386 12.1 6% 356 19.06% Discussion 1,278 40.26% 666 35.65%
Table 1. Frequency and distribution of hedges.
The overall findings show that international B usiness Management scholars publishing their articles in English in the American context hedge their discours e in previousmore heavily studies than (Vassileva their Spanish (1997 counterparts & 2001) for publishing Bulgarian; internationally Ventola in(1997) for Finnish;English. MartinThese results Martin are (2002 rather & similar 2005) to as those well obtained as Mur in (2007) previous for studies Spanish). They (Vassilevaindicate that ( 1997 different & 2001 ) cultures for Bulgarian; showVentola different ( 199 degrees7) for Finnish of hedging.; Martin The Martin ( 2002 & 2005 ) as well as Mur ( 2007 ) for Spanish). They indicate that percentagesdifferent indicate cultures showthat differentthe Discussion degrees of presents hedging. The the percentages highest incidence indicate of hedgesthat in thethe Discussion ENGBM presents corpus. the This highest is not incidence so high of in hedges the SPENGBM, in the ENGBM where the figurescorpus. for This the is notDiscussion so high inand the Introduction SPENGBM, where sections t he figures are very for thesimilar. Discussion and Introduction sections are very similar. This highest frequency of This usehighest of hedges frequency in the Discussionof use of section hedges of ENGBM in the is Discussion due to the fact section that of ENGBMAmerican is due Business to the Management fact that American scholars seem Business to be moreManagement cautious when scholars seem to be more cautious when expressing the implications and deductions from the results obtained, as well as when stating the limitations of their study.10 Ibérica 19 (2010 ): … -… Now it is time to discuss how hedging modal verbs are preferred in certain sections in the two subcorpora. Modal verbs are the most prototypical realization of hedges in English, which are rhetorical strategies used by writers to tone down the force of the proposition, however “no linguistic items are inherently hedgy but can acquire this quality depending on the communicative context or the co-text” (Markkanen & Schröder, 1997: 4). The modal verbs expressing hedges are: “may”, “would”, “can”, “might”, and “could”. “May” is the most frequent modal verb in both subcorpora. It is extremely common in academic prose. It is followed by “would”, “can”, “might” and “could” in ENGBM. In SPENGBM, “may” is followed by “can”, “could” and “might”. Table 2 shows the frequency and distribution of hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. . The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 5.58 per thousand words, while it is of 4.22 modal verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. More modal verbs are included in the Business Management RAs in the ENGBM subcorpus to soften the force of the arguments than in the Business Management RAs in the SPENGBM subcorpus. North
Ibérica 19 (2010) 88 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxptex t”22/3/10 (Markkanen 17:21 & Schröder, Página 1997: 89 4). The modal verbs expressing hedges are: “may”, “would”, “can”, “might”, and “could”. “May” is the most frequent modal verb in both subcorpora. It is extremely common in academic prose. It is followed by “would”, “can”, “ might” and “could” in ENGBM. In SPENGBM , “may” is followed by “can”, “could” and “might”. Table 2 show s the frequency and distribution of hedgingA CONTRASTIVE modal ANALYSIS verbs OFin THE USE OF MODAL VERBS ENGBM and SPENGBM .
ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Hedging modal verbs 1,1 04 (5.58 p er 100% 836 (4.22 per 100% 1,000 words) 1,000 words) Introduction 474 42.93% 392 46.89% Methods 58 5.25% 48 5.74% Results 44 3.98% 40 4.79% Discussion 528 47.83% 356 42.58%
Table 2. Frequency and distribution of hedging modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM .
The frequency of occurrence of modal verbs in ENGBM is of 5.58 per thousand words, while it is of 4.22 modal verbs per thousand words in SPENGBM. More American-basedmodal verbs areBusiness included Management in the Business scholars Management appear RAs to in be the more ENGBM tentative in theirsub corpusstatements to soften thande force to of protectthe arguments themselves than in the Businessmore against Management possible RAs in the SPENGBM sub corpus. North American -based Business Management criticismsscholars by appear means to beof more modal tentative verbs. in their They statements are perhaps and to protect more themselves aware of the need morefor their against claims possible to be criticisms ratified by and means confirmed of modal verbs.by their They readers. are perhaps more aware of the need for their claims to be ratified and confirmed by their The percentagesreaders. indicate that the Discussion presents the highest incidence of hedgingThe percentages modal indicateverbs in that the the ENGBM Discussion presentscorpus. the In highest the SPENGBM incidence of the highesthedging incidence modal is verbs in the in the Introduction ENGBM corpus. section. In the The SPENGBM frequency the highest of use of incidence is in the Introduction section. The frequency of use of modal verbs in modalthe verbs Discussion in the section Discussion of ENGBM section is due of to ENGBM the fact that is American due to Businessthe fact that AmericanManagement Business scholars Management seem to scholars be more seem cautious to whenbe more expressing cautious the when implications and deductions from the results obtained, as well as when stating expressingthe limitations the implications of their study. and Table deductions 3 summarizes from the the final results results obtained, for hedging as well as whenmodal stating verbs inthe ENGBM limitations and SPENGBM. of their study. Table 3 summarizes the final resultsIGNACIO for hedging VÁZQUEZ ORTA modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM. ENGBM SPENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total IbéricaPercentage 1 9 (2010 ): … -… 11 May 536 48.72% 412 49.28% Would 178 16.12% 144 17.22% Can 198 18.07% 210 25.11% Might 118 10.60% 22 2.64% Could 74 6.49% 48 5.75% Total 1,104 100% 836 100%
Table 3. Types of hedging modal verbs.
As for boosters, results indicate that Spanish Business Management scholars As formake boosters, use of a resultswi der range indicate of boosters that Spanishand include Business some more Management boosters per 1,000 scholars make wordsuse of than a widertheir international range of North boosters American and peersinclude. This some is shown more in Table boosters 4. per 1,000 words than theirENGBM international NorthSPENGBM American peers. This is shown in Total Percentage Total Percentage Table 4. Boosters 1,200 (6.06 p. 100% 1,368 (7.10 p. 100% 1,000 words) 1,000 words) Modal verbsIntroduction are also459 the most38.25% common realizations496 of36.26% boosting (together with hedging,Methods as indicated141 before)11.75% in the ENGBM250 corpus.18.28% Modal verbs are Results 152 12.67% 254 18.57% the secondDiscussion means 448of boosting37.33% in SPENGBM368 after lexical26.90% verbs. Boosting modal verbs are Tablethose 4. Frequency modal and distributionverbs ofwhich boosters in thehelp two subcorpora.express meaning with
Modal verbs are also the most common re alizations of boosting ( together with Ibérica 19 (2010) hedging, as indicated before) in the ENGBM corpus. Modal verbs are the second : 77-96 89 means of boosting in SPENGBM after lexical verbs. Boosting modal verbs are those modal verbs which help express meaning with conviction or r easonable degree of confidence . In line with this, “will” and “should” were studied. “Will” is the most common boosting modal verb in the two corpora. Those tokens of “will” expressing future time were not included in the counts, as they ENGBM SPENGBM 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21Total PáginaPercentage 90 Total Percentage May 536 48.72% 412 49.28% Would 178 16.12% 144 17.22% Can 198 18.07% 210 25.11% Might 118 10.60% 22 2.64% Could 74 6.49% 48 5.75% IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA Total 1,104 100% 836 100%
Table 3. Types of hedging modal verbs.
convictionAs for orboosters, reasonableresults degreeindicate ofthat confidence.Spanish Business In lineManagement with this,scholars “will” and “should”make wereuse of studied.a wider range of boosters and include some more boosters per 1,000 words than their international North American peers. This is shown in Table 4.
ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Boosters 1,200 (6.06 100% 1,368 (7.10 per 100% per1,000 words) 1,000 words) Introduction 459 38.25% 496 36.26% Methods 141 11.75% 250 18.28% Results 152 12.67% 254 18.57% Discussion 448 37.33% 368 26.90%
Table 4. Frequency and distribution of boosters in the two subcorpora.
Modal verbs are also the most common realizations of boosting (together with “Will”hedging, is the asmostindicated commonbefore) boostingin the ENGBM modalcorpus. verbModal in theverbs twoare corpora.the second Those means of boosting in SPENGBM after lexical verbs. Boosting modal verbs are tokensthose ofmodal “will”verbs expressingwhich help futureexpress timemeaning were withnot convictionincluded orin reasonablethe counts, as they aredegree devoid of confidence. of modal, In line epistemic with this, “will”meaning. and “should” The use were of studied. modal “will” in the statement“Will” ofis hypothesesthe most common is veryboosting commonmodal in verbRAsin inthe English.two corpora. The modalThose verb is alsotokens frequentlyof “will” includedexpressing infuture the timesubsequentwere not includedconfirmationin the counts, or refutationas they of are devoid of modal, epistemic meaning. The use of modal “will” in the thosestatement hypotheses.of hypotheses is very common in RAs in English. The modal verb is also frequently included in the subsequent confirmation or refutation of those “Should”hypotheses. expressing “extreme likelihood, or a reasonable assumption or conclusion” (Palmer, 1986: 49) is the other boosting modal verb in Business “Should” expressing “extreme likelihood, or a reasonable assumption or Managementconclusion” RAs(Palmer, in English.1986: 49) Examplesis the other boostingof “should”modal verb expressingin Business deontic meaningManagement of obligationRAs in English.(Quirk Exampleset al., 1985)of “should” are foundexpressing in bothdeontic corporameaning but they of obligation (Quirk et al., 1985) are found in both corpora but they do not do notcontribute contributeto indicating to indicatingthe writers’ the certaintywriters’or certaintyconviction. orResults conviction.are rather Results are rathersimilar similarto those toobtained those obtainedin previous instudies previous(Vassileva studies(1997 (Vassileva& 2001) (1997for & 2001)Bulgarian). for Bulgarian).They indicate Theythat indicatethere are different that theredegrees areof boostingdifferentin different degrees of cultures. Modal verbs expressing the writers’ certainty are more common in the boostingBusiness in differentManagement cultures.RAs in the ModalSPENGBM verbs thanexpressingin the RAs thein writers’the ENGBM, certainty are morealthough common the differences in the areBusiness not reallyA CONTManagement remarkableRASTIVE ANALYSIS (see RAs Table OF THEin 5). theUSE OFSPENGBM MODAL VERBS than in the RAs in the ENGBM, although the differences are not really Business Management RAs in the SPENGBM than in the RAs in the ENGBM, remarkable12 Ibérica (see 19 (2010): Table …-… 5). although the differences are not really remarkable (see Table 5).
ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percenta ge Boosting modals verbs 316 (1.60 p er 100% 338 (1.75 per 100% 1,000 words) 1,000 words) Introduction 204 64.56% 218 64.50% Methods 36 11.39% 38 11.24% Results 14 4.43% 20 5.92% Discussion 62 19.62% 62 18.34%
Table 5. Frequency of distribution of bo osting modal verbs in ENGBM and SPENGBM.
Boosting modal verbs are most frequently included in the Introduction sections in both sub corpora. This higher incidence of use of modal verbs expressing conviction in the Introduction section may have to do with th e more frequent inclusion of hypotheses in this section, the expression of which very frequently Ibérica 19 (2010) 90 : 77-96entails the use of “will”. In both sub corpora, the Discussion section comes second in terms of proportional high incidence of use of boosting modal verbs, foll owed by the sections of Results and Methods. Table 6 summarizes the final results for boosting modal verbs in both ENGBM and SPENGBM.
ENGBM SPENGBM 04 IBERICA 19.qxpBusiness 22/3/10 Management 17:21 RAs Página in the SPENGBM 91 than in the RAs in the ENGBM, although the differences are not really remarkable (see Table 5).
ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percenta ge A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS Boosting modals verbs 316 (1.60 p er 100% 338 (1.75 per 100% 1,000 words) 1,000 words) Introduction 204 64.56% 218 64.50% Methods 36 11.39% 38 11.24% BoostingResults modal verbs 14are most frequently4.43% included20 in 5.92%the Introduction sectionsDiscussion in both subcorpora.62 This 19.62%higher incidence62 of use18.34% of modal verbs expressing convictionTable 5. Frequency in of thedistribution Introduction of bo osting modal verbssection in ENGBM may and SPENGBM.have to do with the
moreBoosting frequent modal inclusion verbs are ofmost hypotheses frequently included in this in section,the Introduction the expression sections of whichin very both subfrequentlycorpora. This entails higher the incidence use of of “will”. use of modal In both verbs subcorpora, expressing the Discussionconviction section in the comes Introduction second section in terms may have of toproportional do with th e morehigh frequentincidence of inclusion of hypotheses in this section, the expression of which very frequently use ofentails boosting the use ofmodal “will”. verbs, In both followed sub corpora, by the the Discussion sections section of Results comes and Methods.second Table in terms 6 ofsummarizes proportional thehigh finalincidence results of use for of boostingboosting modal modal verbs, verbs in foll owed by the sections of Results and Methods. Table 6 summarizes the final both resultsENGBM for boosting and SPENGBM. modal verbs in both ENGBM and SPENGBM. ENGBM SPENGBM ENGBM SPENGBM Total Percentage Total Percentage Will 240 76.52% 250 76.57% Should 76 23.48% 78 23.43% Total 316 10 0% 328 100%
Table 6. Types of boosting modal verbs.
5. Discussion of the results 5. Discussion of the results Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedging and boosting resources, and Spanishhence, writers the establishment show a deviant of a proper handling tenor. of This hedging is related and to theboosting mismatch resources, we observed in the expression of epistemic meaning between some modal verbs: and hence,“can” is used the insteadestablishment of “may” to ofexpress a properpossibility. tenor. This is related to the mismatchPart of wethis observedepistemic mismatch in the mayexpression be caused ofby the epistemic twofold tendencymeaning of thebetween someSpanish modal writersverbs:towards “can” anis used overuse instead of “can”, of “may”on the one to express hand, and possibility. lack of modalisation, on the other. Part of this epistemic mismatch may be caused by the twofold tendency of To begin with, “can” embodies three basic meanings in the two subcorpora under the Spanishconsideration: writers certainty, towards possibility,an overuse and of “can”, politeness/solidarity, on the one hand, all three and lack of modalisation,accounting for on the the overwhelming other. percentage of this verb within their modal To begin with, “can” embodies three basic meanings in the two subcorpora under consideration: certainty, possibility, and politeness/solidarity, all three accounting for the overwhelming percentage of this Iverbbérica 1 within9 (2010 ): … their-… 13 modal repertory (virtually half of the tokens) and for the little variety of this latter in comparison with that of native English writers. While the certainty use constitutes an empty modal meaning equivalent to an absence of modalisation (see examples 10 and 11 below), the possibility use, as has been previously commented, fills the slots that should be occupied by “may” (example 12), and the politeness/solidarity meaning seems to derive from a transfer of pragmatic norms from a first to a second language.
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 91 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 92
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
Such transference of sociolinguistic conventions from Spanish into English conforms to the politeness scheme (-distance, -power) (Neff et al., 2004) and results in “I/we” embeddings (I/we + CAN+ verb of perception or mental verbal activity) seldom used by native English writers. Their purpose is to build a common ground between reader and writer as a positive politeness strategy. In line with this finding, Hernández-Flores (1999) demonstrated that modal verbs performed a similar convergent role in unrequested advice as ways of seeking feedback or inclusion in Spanish conversation. Opposed to this trend, the politeness pattern (+ distance, - power) is found to dominate most of the native English writers’ articles scrutinized. The following examples may help illustrate the foregoing point altogether:
(10) X can be obtained by solving this equation [“can be” could be here substituted by “is”, since the equation is actually solved in the paper]. (11) This can be due to … [native English writers would use “may” instead of “can”] (12) As we can see… [“can” can be omitted here. In fact, native English writers resort to impersonal constructions of the type It can/will be seen that … or As seen/shown in figure X…].
Apart from these pragmatic reasons, the overuse of “can” by Spanish writers appears closely bound to other typological and instructional factors: a) the corresponding Spanish verb “poder” is inherently ambiguous and polysemous (Silva-Corvalán, 1995) for it agglutinates deontic and epistemic meanings (e.g. ability, permission and possibility), as well as the dynamic uses distinguished by Palmer (1990: 35-38). Therefore, it is not surprising that Spanish writers ignore more detailed alternatives like “may” or “might” and set up a symmetrical correspondence of uses with the past form “could”. b) Furthermore, Spanish writers experience a phenomenon of accommodation of their scanty modal repertoire to their actual expressive needs: “can” is the first modal verb learned in Spanish EFL classrooms, and high-school syllabi in general introduce the rest of modal resources sparsely and superficially, embedded in
Ibérica 19 (2010) 92 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:21 Página 93
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
topical units and without much insistence upon the various shades of meaning conveyed by each of them. Another interesting finding of this research is the sketchy modalisation observed in the Spanish articles, which confirms Holmes’s (1988) view that the use of hedges varies cross-culturally. It is also in accordance with Hoye’s (1997) conclusion that native Spanish speakers tend to underuse stance markers in L1 and when speaking English encounter special difficulties with those subject to idiomatic collocations (“may”/“might” + “well”). It should be added that, most probably owing to above mentioned instructional factors, Spanish writers show a deficient handling of hedging and boosting resources. Lack of modalisation seems to be a natural tendency for Spanish writers and is per se a type of boosting device. This fact would partly explain the prevalence of this rhetorical function throughout Spanish RAs with the logical consequence of making refutable, risky or even threatening claims. This suggests considerable lack of expertise on the part of Spanish writers and an ignorance of rhetorical genre standards. Spanish writers predominantly express certainty through the use of “can” and “will” and exhibit a significantly low proportion of probability and possibility meanings through “would”, “should” and “may” (see Figure 2). Native English academic writers, in contrast, show a higher frequency of use of “would”, “should” and “might” in their academic papers. Native English writers would use “should” instead to tone down the brusqueness of the imposition. Notice, however, that in the first two cases (in the use of “can” and “will”), Spanish writers combine deontic modality with the passive voice, which serves as mitigator.
6. Concluding remarks The results obtained in this study point in the direction that there are obvious differences between the use of modal verbs by native English writers and the use of modal verbs by non-native Spanish writers. The most remarkable aspect is that Spanish writers show a deviant handling of hedges and boosters. Therefore, they have difficulties in establishing a proper tenor when they write in English. This is related to the mismatch observed in the expression of epistemic meaning between some modal verbs: “can” is used instead of “may” to express possibility. Spanish writers express epistemic
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 93 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:22 Página 94
IGNACIO VÁZQUEZ ORTA
stance differently. This deviant use of the modals by Spanish academics writing their articles in English is conditioned by the writing conventions of their national culture.
[Paper received April 2009] [Revised paper accepted July 2009]
References Biber, D. & E. Finnegan (1989). “Styles of stance Hyland, K. & P. Tsé (2004). “Evaluative that in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of constructions: Signalling stance in research evidentiality and affect”. Text 9: 93-124. abstracts”. Functions of Language 12: 39-63.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Markkanen, R. & H. Schröder (eds.) (1997). Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken Hedging and Discourse Approaches to the and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education. Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic texts. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Davies, E. (2001). “Propositional attitudes”. Functions of Language 8: 217-251. Martin Martin, P. (2002). “A genre-based investigation of abstract writing in English and Downing, A. & P. Locke (1999). A University Spanish”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses Course in English Grammar. London: Routledge. 44: 47-64.
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). “Frame semantics” in Martin Martin, P. (2005). The Rhetoric of the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Abstract in English and Spanish Scientific Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin. Discourse: A Cross-Cultural Genre-Analytic Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Approach. Bern: Peter Lang. Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold. Mur, M.P. (2007). A Contribution to the Intercultural Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). “Politeness ideology Analysis of Metadiscourse in Business in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of Management Research Articles in English and advice”. Pragmatics 9: 37-49. Spanish: A Corpus-driven approach. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Zaragoza, Spain. Holmes, J. (1988). “Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand women’s and men’s speech”. Neff, J., E. Dafouz, M. Díez, H. Herrera, F. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 49-74. Martínez, J.P. Rica & C. Sancho (2004). “Subjective and objective expression of Hoye, L.F. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in evidentiality in native and non-native English. London & New York: Longman. argumentative texts” in R. Facchinetti & R. Palmer (eds.), English Modality in Perspective. Genre Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) (2000). Analysis and Contrastive Studies, 141-161. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (1999). “Disciplinary discourse writer stance in research articles” in C. Candlin & K. Palmer, F.R. (1990 [1979]). Modality and the Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, Processes and English Modals, 2nd ed. London: Longman. Practices, 99-121. London: Longman. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Writing. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press. Language. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005a). “Stance and engagement: a Scott, M. (1999). WordSmith Tools (Version 4.0). model of interaction in academic discourse”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Discourse Studies 7: 173-192. Silva-Corvalán, C. (ed.) (1995). Spanish in Four Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continents. Studies in Language Contact and Continuum. Bilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown
Ibérica 19 (2010) 94 : 77-96 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:22 Página 95
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF MODAL VERBS
University Press. conferences: Cohesion and coherence in and across conference papers and their discussions” Vassileva, I. (1997). “Hedging in English and in W. Bublitz, U. Lenk & E. Ventola (eds.), Bulgarian academic writing” in A. Duszak (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, 203- to create it and how to describe it, 101-123. 222. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vassileva, I. (2001). “Commitment and White, P.R. (2001). “Appraisal: An Overview”. detachment in English and Bulgarian academic URL: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/ writing”. English for Specific Purposes 20: 83-102. AppraisalGuide/Framed/Appraisal-Overview.htm Ventola, E. (1997). “Semiotic spanning at [10/05/2009].
Dr. Ignacio Vázquez is coordinating a research group (InterLAE) working on writer stance in academic and professional discourse from a socio- pragmatic perspective. At present, the group is developing a new project on generic integrity in academic and professional communication to be completed by 2011.
NOTES 1 This research has been carried out within the framework of the project entitled InterLAE (Interpersonalidad en el Lenguaje Académico Escrito/Interpersonality in Written Academic Language), financially supported by local and national authorities (Diputación General de Aragón (InterLAE group) and Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (HUM2005-03646). 2 The absence of a modal verb (or other stance marker), however, can also be considered as choice of stance, with the writer attributing unquestioned validity to the proposition. This is Davies’ (2001) position. According to this scholar, all finite verbal groups are said to express a “modal” position or stance, which is related to the “exchange” function of the utterance. 3 A term borrowed from Charles Fillmore’s (1982) “frame semantics”. A frame can help create a subjective construal, which is the type of construal in which the speaker as “cognizer” is involved in the very scene s/he is construing. This is contrasted with the objective construal, i.e. the type of construal in which the speaker as “cognizer” is detached from the scene s/he is construing. 4 Intrinsic modality is discourse-oriented. It refers to the speech act. 5 Extrinsic modality is synonymous with extra-propositional modality, expressing the speaker’s attitude towards the content of a proposition. It covers the area of epistemic modality. For Biber et al. (1999: 485) it “refers to the logical status of events or states, usually relating to assessments of likelihood: possibility, necessity, or prediction” and is synonymous with epistemic modality (which for him, however, also includes dynamic modality). 6 There is a basic distinction in English between modals with a specific interpersonal function, like the epistemic modals, and modals that do not have an interpersonal meaning, like the modals of ability and volition. 7 This does not necessarily mean an adherence to the Hallidayan separation of modal and ideational meanings. 8 Biber et al. (1999) say that very seldom can modal verbs with intrinsic meaning be regarded as attitudinal.
Ibérica 19 (2010) : 77-96 95 04 IBERICA 19.qxp 22/3/10 17:22 Página 96