Modality: Arabic Learners Expressing Obligation at the Intermediate Level

ED0013 – Second Language Teaching and Learning

Module 2 Essay 1

"Modality: Arabic Learners Expressing Obligation at the Intermediate Level”

By Gareth Williams

MA Applied Linguistics and TESOL

Leicester University 2014

Gareth Williams “Modality: Arabic Learners Expressing Obligation at the Intermediate Level”

2

Contents

1. Introduction Page 3

1.1 Choice of Focus: Modality of Obligation Page 3

1.2 Justification of Choice of Focus Page 3

2. English Modality Page 3

2.1 What is modality? Page 3

2.2 Modality in English Page 4

2.3 Categories of English modality Page 5

3. What words are used to express modality of obligation? Page 6

3.1 “Must” (In regards to obligation) Page 6

3.2 “Have to” (in regards to obligation) Page 7

3.3 “Should” (In regards to obligation) Page 9

4. The importance of context, background assumptions and culture Page 10

5. General problems with learning modality Page 12

5.1 Problems for Arabic learners expressing obligation Page 12

6. Pedagogical Implications Page 15

7. Conclusion Page 15

Bibliography Page 17

Appendices Page 19


3

1. Introduction

1.1 Choice of focus: Modality of obligation

This essay will examine the teaching of modality of obligation for Arabic students at an

intermediate level. This section of the essay will describe the content of the rest of the

essay. The second section of the essay will justify the choice of focus. Section two will

attempt a description of modality as it appears in every language. Section three will

introduce the common words used to express obligation: “must”, “have to” and

“should.” Section four will discuss the importance of context, background assumptions

and culture towards using modality. Section five will focus on problems associated

with learning modals. Section six will propose some pedagogical implications with

reference to those problems identified in section nine. Section seven will provide some

conclusions that this essay has arrived at.

1.2 Justification for Choice of Focus

Expressing obligation is common in communicative interactions so it is highly useful to

Arabic students at an intermediate level (Saeed, 2009). It is an area that is easily

skipped over by the textbooks currently used by Arabic learners of English. The varied

meanings and forms of the modal auxiliaries present challenges for any learners of

English. These challenges are compounded for Arabic learners, as there is no similar

system of modal auxiliaries in their mother tongue.

2. English Modality

2.1 What is modality?

Very broadly, modality is a function of language that communicates statements about,

or on the basis of, situations which need not be real (Portner, 2009). To be more

specific, modality is a form of participation by the speaker in the speech event.


4

Through modality, the speaker associates with an utterance an indication of its status

and validity in his own judgment (Halliday, 1970). Modality, therefore, performs the

function of expressing numerous attitudes and opinions that the speaker has to the

literal meaning of their statements. These attitudes and opinions include permission,

obligation, ability, probability, likelihood, necessity, criticism, advice, and commands,

among many others (Thornbury, 1997).

Bahloul (2008) agrees that, in any language, communication is carried out for the

purpose of influencing the listener’s beliefs, attitudes, or behavior. Therefore, the act of

creating an utterance is to take a stand on the content of a thought as expressed to an

audience. That stance is actuated through the system of modality (Bahloul, 2008).

Bahloul describes every utterance as an interaction between a lexical component and a

modality component. Modality is, therefore, present throughout language as an

inherent characteristic of every utterance.

2.2 Modality in English

In English, modality is expressed in two ways: lexical modality and grammatical

modality. As we can see from Bahloul’s definition, the lexis of English will carry literal

meaning concurrently with modal meaning. Therefore, an example of lexical modality

might be, “I hope the bus arrives on time” where the word “hope” also carries its own

lexical meaning. Modality can also be communicated using adverbs and adjectives, for

example, “likely” and “probably” (Thornbury, 1997).

A distinctive feature of English is the second form of modality: grammatical modality.

This form of modality can be expressed through a range of dedicated auxiliary verbs:

must, may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, and should (Thornbury, 1997). These

pure modals do not carry any independent lexical meaning – they function solely to

convey grammatical modality. Pure modals retain certain formal characteristics: they

are not inflected in the third person, are followed by the “bare infinitive,” are negated


5

by the addition of “n’t” or “not,” are inverted with the subject to form a question, and

they have no past tense form (Parrott, 2012). Others, like “have to” are described as

“semi modals” because, although they perform a similar function, they differ from pure

modals by being marked for tense and number (“have to, had to, has to”).

2.3 Categories of English modality

For the purposes of addressing the modal function of obligation, this essay will focus

on deontic modality with occasional reference to epistemic modality. Portner (2009)

defines epistemic modality as being concerned with knowledge, while deontic

modality is concerned with right and wrong according to some system of rules. Palmer

(1997) gives the following examples:

(a) John must be in his office. (Epistemic modality)

(b) John must come in now. (Deontic modality)

The function of expressing obligation is, therefore, an example of deontic modality.

Some linguists provide four or more categories of modality (Bahloul, 2008; Kratzer,

1977; Palmer, 1997). However, it is acknowledged that these categories are not

exhaustive and often overlap (Bahloul, 2008). By focusing this essay on deontic

modality with occasional comparison to epistemic modality it is hoped that certain

aspects of modal auxiliary verbs, such as the importance of context, will be clarified.

Although most linguists use the terms deontic and epistemic modality, these terms can

usefully be reframed as intrinsic and extrinsic modality. Extrinsic modality focuses on

evaluations of likelihood, certainty or possibility (Thornbury, 2006). For example, “The

bus will probably arrive on time.” Thus extrinsic modality provides a description of the

outside world. Intrinsic modality focuses on notions of obligation, desirability and


6

necessity, for example, “The bus driver ought to drive carefully.” Intrinsic modality

provides an interpersonal reason for acting (Thornbury, 2006). The function of

obligation is an example of intrinsic (or deontic) modality. The speaker is clearly

providing an interpersonal reason to the addressee for acting (or not).

3. What words are used to express modality of obligation?

Focusing on the intrinsic modality of obligation, there are three common ways to

express varying degrees of obligation: “have (got) to”, “must” and “should”. In English,

modals are often present in weak form (Roach, 2010). There is no weak form in Arabic

(Kenworthy, 1988). This can cause confusion for Arabic leaner’s of English, both for

their reception and production of modals.

3.1 “Must” (in regards to obligation)

Meaning:

“Must” is a pure modal verb that is used to describe obligation or compulsion imposed

by the speaker (Leech, 2004). For example, “You must speak to him politely” describes

obligation that the speaker is imposing upon the listener. We can use “must” to give

strong advice or orders to ourselves or others (Swan, 2002).

Many linguists describe the use of “must” in terms of the authority lying within the

speaker (Leech, 2004; Swan, 2002) -‐ contrasting this with the use of “have to” where

the authority exists external to the speaker. While acknowledging this demarcation as

a useful rule of thumb, Parrot (2012), states that many people don’t make this

distinction. He asserts that some people rarely use “must” to express any obligation,

reserving it to express logical deduction or advice.


7

The negative “must not” or “mustn’t” communicates prohibition (DeCapua, 2008), for

example, “You mustn’t speak to him rudely.” “Must” expresses obligation in present

and future.

Form:

Affirmative: (Subject) + must + (bare infinitive)

Negative: (Subject) + must not/mustn’t + (bare infinitive)

Interrogative: Must + (subject) + (bare infinitive)

“Must” cannot be inflected for number or time. There is no past tense form of “must.”

(DeCapua, 2008) It cannot be followed by to + infinitive (E.g. …must to go…) The

question form of “must” uses inversion of subject and modal, for example, “Must you?

Yes, I must.”

Phonology:

In connected speech the elision of the /t/ sound from “must” often occurs because it is

preceeded by another consonant (Lecumberri, 2000).

3.2 “Have (got) to” (in regards to obligation)

Meaning:

“Have to” is modal in meaning but not in form (Parrott, 2012). The meanings of “have

to” relate closely to those of “must” (Leech, 2004). Swan asserts that both “have to”

and “must” can be used in British English to express obligation. He states that “have to”

is the normal form in American English. He explains that, in British English, the use of


8

“have to” indicates the source of authority as being external to the speaker (Swan,

2002). Parrot’s (2012) objection to this distinction (as outlined in 3.1) makes no

mention of the possibility of the difference lying between British and American

English. DeCapua (2008) agrees with Parrot’s objection and prefers to demarcate

“must” and “have to” in terms of strength of obligation – “must” expressing stronger

obligation than “have to.”

The meanings of “Mustn’t” and “don’t have to” are completely different (Swan, 2002)

“You mustn’t do something,” means it is necessary that you do not do it (so don’t do it).

“You don’t have to do something,” means you don’t need to do it (but you can if you

want). (Murphy, 2000) “You mustn’t speak to him rudely,” means the speaker is

prohibiting the listener from speaking rudely. “You don’t have to speak to him

politely,” means the speaker is leaving open the option to speak politely or not.

Form:

Affirmative: (Subject) + have to/has to + (bare infinitive)

Negative: (Subject) + do not/does not/don’t/doesn’t + have to + (bare infinitive)

Interrogative: Do/Does + (subject) + have to + (bare infinitive)

“Have to” is differentiated from “must” in that it is a semi modal. The difference being

that it is inflected for time, number and tense (Thornbury, 2006). The role of “have to,”

is, among other things, to conjugate into the past tense because “must” can’t do that

(Swan, 2002).

Phonology:


9

The pronunciation of “have to” is /hæftəә/ and “has to” is /hæstəә/. In connected

speech, the pronunciation of “have got to” will typically contract to /gɒtəә/. This can

cause confusion for Arabic learners, especially when they are listening to informal

speech.

3.3 “Should” (in regards to obligation)

Meaning:

“Should” is a pure modal verb that expresses weaker obligation than “must” (DeCapua,

2008; Leech, 2004; Swan, 2002). Should” means that something is a good thing to do

or the right thing to do (Murphy, 2000). For example, “You should speak to him

politely.” The function of obligation as communicated by “should” divides further into

duty, advice, and to give opinions of what is right and wrong (Swan, 2002). The

negative “should not” or “shouldn’t” infers the recommendation to not do something,

for example, “You shouldn’t speak to him rudely.”

Form:

Affirmative: (Subject) + should + (bare infinitive)

Negative: (Subject) + should not/shouldn’t + (bare infinitive)

Interrogative: Should + (subject) + (bare infinitive)

Like all pure modals “should” cannot be inflected for number or time. It cannot be

followed by to + infinitive, for example, “[…] should to go.”

Phonology:


10

The “l” in “should” is not pronounced at all. When expressing the negative the elision of

“d” often occurs. For example, shouldn´t = / ʃʊnt/.

4. The importance of context, culture and background assumptions

Many linguists agree that often only context makes modal meaning clear (Parrott,

2012; Thornbury, 2006). Portner (2009) describes the context of modal usage as

speaker, addressee, time of utterance, and place of utterance. Identical utterances

made within different contexts will have different meanings.

Consider the following sentences (a) and (b):

(a) “You should try these pieces of broccoli, the sauce is great!” as spoken by a

mother to her child.

(b) “You should try these pieces of broccoli, the sauce is great!” as spoken by

the same woman to a friend.

Clearly the statement (b) has more of a function of advice to it and the statement (a)

has more of a function of command. The context of addressee has changed the

meaning of the modal “should.”

Hinkel (1995) identifies a further complication in understanding the meaning of

modals by noting that common cultural beliefs and pragmatic assumptions include

views on what is required, necessary, and appropriate. Statements are fundamentally

informed by an individual’s values -‐ values that differ between cultures (Hinkel, 1995).

Hinkel gives the following example, “You must always look after your parents” as

spoken by a Chinese immigrant in a western country. This statement could easily be

influenced by Confucian and Taoist philosophies that imply different nuances of modal


11

meaning than if the same statement was made by a person of a different culture.

Although love for one’s family exists in all cultures in western countries, Hinkel points

out that presuppositions, which underlie our modal statements, are relative to an

assumed norm that is heavily influenced by cultural norms.

Kratzer (1977) encompasses such notions of context and culture by identifying

conversational background assumptions that establish which kind of modal meaning is

implied (deontic or epistemic, for example). By examining the modal “must” closely,

she identifies a core modal meaning along the lines of “in view of x” where “x” is a

background conversational assumption. The background conversational assumption

informs which particular meaning of “must” is intended.

Kratzer raises the following examples:

(a) “All Maori children must learn the names of their ancestors.”

(b) “The ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived from Tahiti.”

The different meanings of “must” used here can be highlighted by what is inferred

within each sentence:

(a) “In view of what their tribal duties are, all Maori children must learn the

names of their ancestors.”

(b) “In view of what is known, the ancestors of the Maoris must have arrived

from Tahiti.”

The conversational background that is inferred by use of the word “must” decides its

intended meaning. The fact that the speaker and listener could understand a particular

conversational background in a different way shows how subjective the meaning of


12

modals can be.

As described above, the meaning of modal auxiliaries can be influenced by context,

cultural expectations, and the background conversational assumptions of speaker and

addressee. These shades of meaning conveyed through modality create challenges for

Arabic learners of English (Saeed, 2009).

5. General problems with learning modality:

In general, all learners of English will have problems using modals and their related

structures because of their varied uses and meanings (DeCapua, 2008). Common

problems for all English learners will include choosing when to use modals, choosing

which ones to use, and constructing questions and negative statements (Parrott,

2012). The meaning of different modals overlaps – sometimes in quite surprising

ways, for example, “may” meaning “must” in some contexts (Charnock, 2009).

Alternatively, their meanings can change in unexpected ways when they are used in

negative sentences, for example, “can’t” and “don’t have to” (Thornbury, 2005). The

same modals can also be used to communicate a variety of different meanings, for

example, the epistemic and deontic “must” (Palmer, 1997).

5.1 Problems for Arabic learners expressing obligation

Arabic students at an intermediate level struggle with the meaning and use of “have

to”, “must” and “should.” Arabic students will have particular problems with

constructing questions because the Arabic language does not invert to create question

statements (Al-‐Mekhlafi, 2013). Furthermore, the inversion of the pure modals “must”

and “should” differ from the semi-‐modal “have to” as the latter deploys “do” and

“does.”

The overlap between the meaning and function of modals cause difficulties for Arabic


13

learners (Saeed, 2009). Arabic learners, for example, struggle to differentiate

accurately between the meaning of “must” and “should”, due to these modals

conveying related senses (Saeed, 2009). Further problems arise as a result of “must”

having different functions, that of expressing logical deduction and expressing

obligation (DeCapua, 2008). Saeed (2009) identifies “should” as a particularly difficult

modal for Arabic learners to master as a result of it being used to convey the functions

of advice, warning, necessity, criticism, regret, and inferring probability (Saeed, 2009).

Arabic is also a language that does not deploy a system of modality through auxiliary

verbs (Al-‐Mekhlafi, 2013; Danks, 2011; Saeed, 2009). Danks (2011) points out that

modality is expressed in a different way than in Arabic, referring to the Arabic

equivalent of “may” attached to verbs via affixation. Al-‐Mekhlafi (2013) states that

Arabic question formation does not involve any auxiliary verb – a clear problem for

Arabic students learning the English auxiliary modal system.

Saeed (2009) goes further and says that there is no system of modality in Arabic at all.

While he agrees that there are some Arabic markers that are somewhat similar to the

modals in English (for example, sa and swafa), he believes that they do not constitute a

modal system that communicates a wide variety of senses and attitudes.

Bahloul’s (2008) definition of modality as described in section 2.1 of this essay makes

clear that all languages must exhibit some characteristics of modality and Arabic is no

exception. However, it is accurate to state that Arabic makes no use of a system of

auxiliary verbs (Al-‐Mekhlafi, 2013), which in English is a significant vessel for

delivering modal meaning. Saeed (2009) is therefore correct to say that English

modality places Arabic learners in a particularly difficult position, as they need to learn

a totally new system (modal auxiliaries) that does not exist in the syntactic system of

their mother tongue.

Saeed (2009) points out that most textbooks attempt a shallow treatment of modals,


14

focusing on form at the expense of more essential aspects, i.e. use and functions, which

renders modals a real challenge even for advanced learners. An examination of two

textbooks, one of which is currently used by more than 1400 Arabic students in a

popular high school in the UAE, lends evidence to such a judgment. As seen in

Appendix A (Evans, 2008), the brief exposure that modality is given arrives in a totally

de-‐contextualized list of gap-‐fill exercises. Furthermore, more than one answer could

be used in several of the exercises. The lack of context, the focus on form and the

superficial approach to these modals largely undermines the effectiveness of this

section of the book.

In Appendix B (Fuchs, 2000), we see an older textbook previously used in UAE

classrooms. More context is provided in this older textbook than in the newer one.

However, although form and function are included for the students, there is no direct

relationship between the examples provided for each modal and the context in which

each modal appears in the text.

Saeed is right to point out the issue of how modality is presented to Arabic learners.

Textbooks tend to deal with modals superficially, with a focus on form at the expense

of meaning and without the necessary degree of context required to communicate the

subtleties of the modal auxiliaries. After a study on verb acquisition by Arabic learners

of English, Saeed (2011) advises that teachers should put vocabulary items in

contextualized passages, which facilitate Arab learners grasping the subtle variations

of meaning that a lexical item possesses.

Such an argument could be extended to the acquisition of modals. As Leech (2004)

points out, modality is difficult to grasp for precisely the reasons Saeed (2011) states;

the shades of meaning conveyed by modality become remolded by social and

psychological factors of everyday communication. These factors include, but are not

limited to, notions of impetus, condescension, civility, diplomacy and sarcasm. We can

infer from Saeed’s position regarding acquisition of vocabulary items in general that


15

Arab learners should be presented with modals within contextualized content. This

will guarantee them the best chance to get a sense of the subtleties of modal meaning.

6. Pedagogical implications

Having identified this area of grammatical confusion, responsibility lies with teachers

to focus on this area rather than to try to teach the whole of grammar (Ellis, 2006).

Suggestions for teaching the modality of obligation to Arabic learners include:

1) Using textbooks that focus on the meaning, form and context of modal

auxiliaries.

2) Placing the modal auxiliaries into context in order to display their meaning

clearly.

3) Raising students’ consciousness of modal auxiliaries; in particular, their role in

question formation and negative statements.

4) Drawing students’ attention to the function of each modal auxiliary as it

appears in any given context.

7. Conclusion

Expressing obligation is an important part of the communication needs of

intermediate level Arabic students. The nature of the meaning and form of the most

common words used to describe obligation, “must”, “have to” and “should”, is such that

they can easily be misconstrued for meaning and misapplied for form. For these

reasons, the modality of obligation is a vital area that must be approached by teachers

of intermediate Arabic students with careful attention.

Word count: 3300


16


17

Bibliography

Al-‐Mekhlafi, M. (2013). A study of question formation in the English writing of Omani Efl learners.

Standard Journal of Education and Essay, 1(4).

Bahloul, M. (2008). Structure and Function of the Arabic Verb. New York: Routledge.

Charnock, R. (2009). When may means must: deontic modality in English statute construction. In

E. C. Traugott (Ed.), Topics in English Linguistics : Modality in English : Theory and

Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Danks, W. (2011). The Arabic Verb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

DeCapua, A. (2008). Grammar for Teachers. New Rochelle: Springer.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly,

40(1).

Evans, V. (2008). Upstream. Berkshire: Express Publishing.

Fuchs, M. (2000). Focus on Grammar -‐ A High Intermediate Course for Reference and Practice.

White Plains: Pearson Education.

Halliday, M. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and

Mood in English. Foundations of English, 6(3).

Hinkel, E. (1995). The Use of Modal Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values. TESOL Quarterly,

29(2).

Kenworthy, J. (1988). Teaching English Pronunciation. New York: Longman.

Kratzer, A. (1977). What "must" and "can" must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1).

Lecumberri, M. (2000). English Transcription Course. London: Hodder Arnold.

Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English Verb. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Murphy, R. (2000). English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: CUP.


18

Palmer, F. (1997). The English Verb. Singapore: Longman.

Parrott, M. (2012). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: OUP.

Roach, P. (2010). English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.

Saeed, A. (2009). Arab EFL Learners' Acquisition of Modals. Research in Language, 7.

Saeed, A. (2011). Arab EFL Learners' Acquisition of Verbs of Senses. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia,

47(1).

Swan, M. (2002). Practical English Usage. Oxford: OUP.

Thornbury, S. (1997). About Language. Cambridge: CUP.

Thornbury, S. (2005). Uncovering Grammar. Oxford: Macmillan.

Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-‐Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan.


19

Appendix A


20

Appendix B


21


22


23


24


25

Documents

Modality: Arabic Learners Expressing Obligation at the Intermediate Level