APLNG 597C: Language Analysis
Professor James P. Lantolf
Andrea Tyler
Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction
2008-12-03
Jiyun Kim & Sungwoo Kim
Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction
Table of Contents
1. Traditional view of modal verbs
2. Cognitive linguistic view of modal verbs
3. Visual representation of cognitive linguistic perspective
on English modal verbs
4. Support for the cognitive linguistic view
5. Further issues
Page  2
Background
WANTED: ENGLISH MODAL VERBS
 Some look like brothers (may/might, can/could…) even
though they appear in quite different places.
 Extremely hard to understand
 Even harder to use them properly
 Everyone hates them.
Question: How did you catch English modal verbs?
Page  3
Traditional Approach
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/modalintro.html
Page  4
Traditional (Cont’d)
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/may.html
Page  5
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/might.html
Traditional (Cont’d)
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/may.html
Page  6
http://www.englishpage.com/modals/might.html
Problems of Traditional View
1. Failure to address any systematic patterning found in
the modal system as a whole
2. Relationship between the root uses and epistemic uses
is completely ignored. (e.g. Mother said I should be home
by 10:00. (Root) Door bell rings. Speaker: That should be John
now. (Epistemic))
3. Subtle but fundamental differences in speaker attitudes
are obscured.
As a result, the only approach to mastering modals is to
memorize formulaic expressions for each speech act.
Page  7
Cognitive Linguistics
“Real world” observations of basic force dynamics
provide important event schemas we use to talk about
the non-physical
e.g. I see your point.
I hear what you’re saying.
I have a good grasp of the issues.
I am well grounded in the theory.
His argument forced me to move from my original
position.
This theory has run into a major obstacle.
Page  8
Modal Verbs: Metaphoric extension of force
dynamics into the domain of logic
1. Origin:
Non-modal lexical items  Root  Epistemic
magan (“be strong”)  may / might
moste (past form of mot; “obliged”)  must
2. Root meanings from physical forces, barriers, and
paths
“…we view our reasoning processes as being subject to
compulsions, obligations and barriers just as our realworld actions are subject to modalities of the same
sort” (Sweester, 1990)
Page  9
Modal Verbs: Metaphoric extension of force
dynamics into the domain of logic (Cont’d)
a. You may now kiss the bride.
[no parental, social or institutional barrier now prevents
the bride from being kissed by the groom]
b. John can throw a javelin over 20 metres.
[he is physically capable of doing this]
c. You must move your foot or the car will crush it.
[physical necessity]
Page  10
Tense: Proximal – distal metaphor
(NOW IS HERE – THEN IS THERE)
1. Present tense – Proximal
e.g. “In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species
was published in London. The central idea in this book
is the principle of… In the sixth edition Darwin wrote…”
<foregrounded ideas>
2. Past tense - Distal
e.g. Receptionist: Good morning, Doctor Kim’s office.
Patient: Yes, I wanted to ask you a question.
e.g. I was hoping you were free for lunch.
<politeness>
Page  11
Match each modal with its visual representation
MUST
SHOULD
SHALL
Page  12
Match each modal with its visual representation
MUST
SHOULD
SHALL
Page  13
Support for the CL View: Abbuhl (2005)
Participants
1. LL. M. students in the U.S. who have been using English for
professional work for several years
2. Continued difficulty producing appropriate modals in their
written English discourse
3. Importance of using modals correctly
E.g. If the court finds this argument persuasive, it will find in
your favor. vs If the court finds this argument persuasive, it
could find in your favor.
Page  14
Abbuhl (2005) – cont’d
THE FEEDBACK GROUP
THE MINIMAL FEEDBACK GROUP
10-week writing instruction
Written and oral feedback on both the
content and form
Feedback mainly on content
Focus of analysis: their use of hedges and boosters to signal the writer’s stance
towards the strength of the arguments
1st draft: no differences in each group’s use of hedges and boosters (Mann
Whitney U Test)
30-minute teacher-fronted
presentation on the semantics of
modals, followed by pair work based
on modal charts
Encouraged to read legal documents
extensively
2nd draft: The difference between two groups’s appropriated use of hedges and
boosters was statistically significant. (Mann Whitney U Test / Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks test)
Page  15
Further Issues
1. Methods to develop visual representation
Conceptualization & Corpus-based approach
2. How to incorporate diverse language users’ different
encyclopedic knowledge in different contexts in
developing the visual schema
Visual conceptualization for lawyers vs for EFL learners in
secondary school
3. How to use gestures to enhance learners’
conceptualization of modal verbs
Page  16
Thank you.