A Corpus-Based Analysis of Four Modality Types

  • Nam-Kil Kang Department of English Language, Far East University, South Korea
Keywords: corpus, modality, it is certain that S, it is probable that S, it is likely that S, it is

Abstract

The ultimate goal of this article is to provide a frequency analysis of four modality types within the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus (BNC) and to reveal how these four types show differences in the accessibility of the speaker or writer. The COCA and the BNC clearly indicate that "it is possible that S" is the most preferred among the four types in America, whereas "it is likely that S" is the most frequently used type in the U.K. These results lead to the hypothesis that American people prefer using a modality type with the weakest certainty, whereas British people prefer using that with stronger certainty. With respect to the types "it is certain that S" and "it is probable that S", on the other hand, it is important to note that they have a lower functional load than the other types, which leads to the hypothesis that they are currently not preferred by both American people and British people because they are modality types with strong certainty, which American people and British people tend to avoid. A further point to note is that Korean learners of English do not support the hypothesis that native English speakers (American people) prefer using a modality type with the weakest certainty but do entertain the hypothesis that native English speakers (British people) prefer a modality type with stronger certainty to that with the weakest certainty. More specifically, they exhibited a strong preference not towards "it is certain that S", "it is probable that S", and "it is possible that S" but towards "it is likely that S". These results thus provide confirmation that "it is possible that S" is the most accessible type for American people, whereas "it is likely that S" is the most accessible one for British people and Korean learners of English. Additionally, it is worth noting that the fact that the modality types with strong certainty are not preferred by American people, British people, and Korean learners of English may reflect Universal Grammar (Chomsky 2013) and the degree of markedness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Biber, D. (1995). On the Role of Computational, Statistical, and Interpretive Techniques in Multi-dimensional Analysis of Register Variation. Text 15 (3): 314-370.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. Praeger, New York.

Chomsky, N. (1989). Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. MITWPL 10.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquires: The Framework, Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Jan Uriagerreka (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of

Howard Lasnik. 89-155. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phrase. Michael Kenstowicz (eds) K. Hale: A Life in Language. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.

Crystal, D. (1996). A Dictionary of Linguistic and Phonetics. Blackwell. Oxford.

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Course Books. English for

Specific Purposes 18 (1): 3-26.

Kang, N-K & Morita, H. (2013). The Acquisition of the Thematic Roles of the English Verb Open

by College Students. International Journal of Smart Home 8: 153-168.

King, R. D. (1967). Functional Load and Sound Change. Language 43: 831-52.

Radford, A. (1981). Transformational Syntax: A Student's Guide to Chomsky's Extended Standard

Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Ringbom, H. (2007). The Importance of Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning:

Comprehension, Learning and Production. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Saeed, J. (2009). Semantics. Oxford: Black Publishers.

Published
2015-05-14
How to Cite
Kang, N.-K. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Four Modality Types. Journal of Information Sciences and Computing Technologies, 3(3), 249-257. Retrieved from http://scitecresearch.com/journals/index.php/jisct/article/view/165
Section
Articles