1 / 29

Exploring Modality in Cameroon English: A Corpus-based Study

This research delves into the concept of modality in Cameroon English, examining epistemic and root modalities through a corpus-based approach. The study analyzes linguistic patterns in natural contexts using the Corpus of Cameroon English (CCE) and other sources, comparing with native English data. Detailed discussion on modals' semantic complexity, frequency, and overlaps provides insights into language usage. The study contributes to the broader understanding of modality expressions in ESL varieties.

cynthiamatthews
Download Presentation

Exploring Modality in Cameroon English: A Corpus-based Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Daniel Nkemleke (TU-Chemnitz/ University of Yaounde I) 1.Introduction 2. Data and method 3. Concept of modality 4. Discussion 5. Conclusions Summary Concluding remarks Pedagogical implication References The expression of modality in Cameroon English

  2. 1. Introduction Some Pertinent Remakes • Status of modality research in Cameroon and other ESL varieties • General conception about the category modality • Aim and scope of study

  3. 2. Data and method Data • Corpus of Cameroon English (CCE) • No. of words: approx. 800,000 • Composition:11 text categories • Period: 1990 and 1994 • Other sources of data for comparison • LOB corpus: a million words (1961-1964) • Coates and Leech (1980): based on LOB • Coates (1983): based on LOB & SEU corpus • Biber et al. (1999): based on LCWSE • Krogvig and Johansson (1981): based on LOB/Brown

  4. Data and method (Con't) The corpus-based Approach • Elements of a corpus-based approach (Biber et al. 1998, Schmied 1993) • analysis of actual and complex patterns of language use in natural contexts • reliance on a large and principled collection of natural-occurring texts (a corpus) stored in a computer • dependency on quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques • CamE data is systematically compared with native English data in analogous contexts, as much as possible

  5. 3 Concept of modality • Terminology/classification = Rescher (1968), Perkins (1983) (notion of possible worlds/8 categories) = Palmer (1979)/Huddleston & Pullum (2002) (epistemic, root and dynamic distinctions/3 categories) = Coates (1983) (epistemic and root distinctions/2 categories) • Common ground = general acceptance of relevance of the epistemic/root distinction, at least for English (see Coates 1983 cf. Sweetser 1982)

  6. Epistemic/root modality: brief definition • Epistemic modality (Greek, epistēmē: "knowledge") = speaker’s assumption/assessment of possibilities; speaker’s confidence or lack of confidence in the truth of the proposition expressed • Root modality (Greek, deontos: "of that which is binding“) = encompasses meanings such as ‘permission’ and ‘obligation’, and also ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ E.g.commissives (promises or threats), directives (requests, commands, instructions) and volitives (desires, wishes or fears)

  7. Illustration from the CCE: Epistemic “Should“ • Epistemic SHOULD express a tentative assumption, an assessment of probability, based on facts known to the speaker/writer as in (1) - (2). [1] How is life in ((PN MBO))? Since I left, everything should be very well and okay. When I come here I really… (CCE/PL.txt). [2] …absolute minimum. In the future the aim should be to recruit people to fill positions left by those going… (CCE/MI.txt). Note: * Inderterminacy do exist, and context is important

  8. Illustration from the CCE: Root “Should“ • Root should can display a gradience of meaning ranging from strong to weak ‘obligation’/‘necessity’ as in (3) – (7). [3] …thus be acquired. The disciple maker should also give the young disciple a scheme of work (CCE/RE.txt). [4] …introduce jangali taxes at the rural level, it should be obligatory for the citizens to pay (CCE/OP.txt). [5] Please I am proposing that you should always make arrangements with male1 of Buea when you want to send things to us (CCE/PL.txt). [6] …the Lord. Mr. Edzoa advised that it should be solved so as to avoid nightmares for… (CCE/OP.txt). [7] …projects underway. Ministers should, as a priority, earmark the appropriate funds before exploring ways to improve services at… (CCE/GM.txt).

  9. 4. Discussion • Characteristics of modals • Semantic complexity/overlaps (cf. 4.2 below) • Mono-semantic approaches (Ehrman 1966) • Poly-semantic approaches (Palmer 1979, 1987) • synthesis (Leech/Coates 1980, Coates/Leech 1980, etc.) • High frequency in varieties • Description usually daunting • Most descriptions sample-based

  10. 4.1 Frequency (absolute/relative) of modals (CCE/LOB)

  11. General trend I: primary vs. tentative forms (CCE/LOB)

  12. General trend II: Difference frequency figures and percentages of will/would, can/could, may/might, and shall/should (CCE/LOB)

  13. General trend III: Frequency of modals across text types(CCE)

  14. Some results in individual texts for “Should“ • With a frequency of 305, shouldappears to be one of the most frequently occurring modal in a single text type in the CCE, namely Religion vs. • Krogvig and Johansson (1981:34-35) report that “should is more frequent in the LOB corpus […] and the over-representation is found in all the text categories apart from D (Religion)” • Surprising is the case of SE and the two press categories (OP & PP), where one would normally expect a high concentration of modals, especially those expressing tentativeness (would, should, could, might) Observation: “specialization”of functions??

  15. 4.2 Semantic functions of modals in CCE(Nkemleke 2003) and LOB (Coates 1983)

  16. 4.2 Semantic functions of modals (Con't): Illustrations by paraphrases

  17. Words preceding “should“in the context of “that-clauses“

  18. Words preceding‘should’in the context of “that-clauses” (Con't) • CCE • Nouns and verbs > adjectives • > performative verbs (i.e. deontic words referring to acts) (e.g. ‘stated’, ‘said’, ‘recommended’, ‘advise’, ‘pray’) than in LOB (e.g. ‘ask’, ‘decide’). • LOB • adjectives > nouns and verbs • > nominal words referring to epistemic states (e.g. ‘condition’, ‘notion’, ‘suggestion’, ‘danger’ and ‘idea’) than to deontic states (e.g. ‘determination’ and ‘wish’) as in CCE

  19. 4.3 Frequency of semi-modals(CCE)

  20. 4.4 Frequency of (epistemic) adverbialsin CCE/LOB • 18 epistemic adverbials: certainly, undoubtedly, probably, perhaps, maybe, possibly, surely, in fact, really, actually, evidently, apparently, according to, in most cases, mainly, typically, in my view, in my opinion • CCE total: 1,283 (0.16%) • LOB total : 2,394 (0.24)

  21. Frequency of (epistemic) adverbials in CCE text types (cf. General trend III, p. 13 above esp. MI & PL)

  22. 4.5 Frequency of adjectival expressions of modality

  23. 4.6 Frequency of modal lexical verb expressions (CCE/LOB)

  24. 5 Conclusions 5.1 Summary • tendencies for “specialisation” and/or restriction in the use of linguistic (modal) forms?? • modality and its related means of expression appears to be less often explicitly marked, esp., epistemic forms • reason: processing complexity (Papafragou 1987, Wells 1979)? educational input? Or L1 influences?

  25. Conclusions (Con‘t) 5.2 Concluding remarks • related features of modality found in other ESL contexts in Africa and India (see Sey 1973, Kujore 1985, Schmied 1991, Jowitt 1991Katikar 1984 ) • attestation of similarities (though sometimes based on limited empirical evidence) confirm the validity of the emerging features of modality within these varieties

  26. Conclusions (Con‘t) 5.3 Pedagogic implication • Modality and linguistic expression (Halliday 1994) • context/conventions governing the relationship between participants in an exchange is essential in language use (ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions) Fundamental questions: • how do writers express personal attitudes towards the ideational content of their message? • how best should propositions be expressed in the light of unknowns? • how can writers set out the terms of reference from which they expressed propositions?

  27. Conclusions (Con‘t) • A view on logical reasoning related to modality “...the degrees and kinds of strength with which warrants authorize us to argue vary greatly from one kind of case to another. Some lead to ‘probable’ conclusions; others establish ‘presumptive’ conclusions; and so on. Most practical reasoning is in fact concerned with what is ‘probably’, ‘presumably’, or ‘possibly’ the case rather than with ‘certainties’ alone. So we shall need to look carefully at the different kinds of qualifying phrases (modals) characteristic of different type of practical argument.” (Toulmin et al.1979:26)

  28. END Thank you for your attention!

  29. References • Biber, D., Johansson, S. Leech G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. • Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. Croom, Helm. • Coates, J. and Leech, G. (1980) ‘The Meaning of the Modals in ModernBritish and American English’. York Papers in Linguistics, 8, 23-34. • Ehrman, M. (1966) The Meaning of the Modals in Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton. • Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Edward Arnold. • Huddleston, R. and G. Pullum(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Katikar, P.B. (1984) ‘The Meaning of the Modals in Indian English’. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Kolhapur, Shivaji University. • Krogvig, I. and Johansson, S. (1981) ‘shall, will, should and would in British and American English’. ICAME Newsletter, 5, 32-56. • Kujore, O. (1985) English Usage: Some Notable Nigerian Variations. Ibadan: Evans Brothers Limited. • Leech, G. and Coates, J. (1980) ‘Semantic Indeterminacy and the Modals’. In: Greenbaum, S. et al. (eds.), Studies in English Linguistics. London: Longman, 79-90. • Nkemleke, D. (2003) ‘A corpus-based study of the modal verbs in Cameroon written English’. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Yaoundé I. • Palmer, F.R. (1979) Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman. • Papafragou, A. (1987) ‘Modality in language development: A reconsideration of the evidence’. Working Papers in Linguistics 9, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College, London, 77-105. • Perkins, M. (1983) Modal Expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. • Rescher, N. (1968) Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel. • Sey, K.A. (1973) Ghanaian English: An Exploratory Survey. London: Macmillan. • Schmied, J. (1993) ‘Qualitative and quantitative research approaches. In: Souter, C. & E. Atwell (eds.) Corpus Based Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 85-96. • Schmied, J. (1991) English in Africa: An Introduction. London: Longman • Sweetser, E.E. (1982) ‘Root and Epistemic Modality: Causality in Two Worlds’. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers, 8, 484-507. • Toulmin S., Rieke, R. and Janiket, A. (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan, New York. • Wells, G. (1979) ‘Learning and using the Auxiliary Verb in English’. In: Lee, V. (ed.) Language Development. London: Crom Helm.

More Related