modals in statements of purpose: a research proposal ... · pdf fileit begins with a...

Running head: MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE

1

Modals in Statements of Purpose: A Research Proposal

Dukhayel Aldukhayel, Jee Eun Park, Nichole Oberheu, and Loni Thornson

Colorado State University

2

MODALS IN STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE

Abstract

This research proposal outlines the proposed study that is a comparative analysis of indirectness

strategies in native and non-native English speakers‘ statements of purpose for graduate

application to an American university. It is a collaborative proposal contributed by all our group

members. It begins with a literature review for register of modals, politeness perceptions and

modal uses, and politeness in writing application essays. Afterwards, we give our reasons

(rationale) for conducting our study and also we present our hypotheses. Then, we state our

method for our study, which is based on two corpora. This proposal details each segment of our

method that includes population of participants, data gathering procedure, data analysis, and

application. It finally lists bibliography of all our resources used in the literature review.

Keywords: politeness, indirectness, statements of purpose, modals, intercultural rhetoric

3


Modals in Statements of Purpose: A Research Proposal

When we look at specific challenges that non-native speakers of English face when

writing applications, there are two aspects that need to be taken into account: the use of

politeness features and the rhetorical aspects associated with the specific genre. While both

politeness and rhetoric are well-researched fields, Ding (2006) suggests that the writing of

personal statements in applications for graduate school is quite under researched. Ding makes a

case for the study of personal statements because they are strongly based in cultural expectations

and values (p. 370). In Ding s corpus-based study on personal statements for graduate school

applications, he finds that the expectations for content and rhetorical structure of personal

statements is somewhat unknown to the applicant and suggests that application writing is a genre

that is under-studied and under-taught (p. 367). His conclusion is that the personal statement, as

one occluded genre, may present extra barriers for writers when they have to cross cultural,

disciplinary, and linguistic boundaries (p.367). Related research in formal writing demonstrates

distinct variations in politeness between native and non-native speakers. One aspect of this

politeness is related to the use of the English modals and quasi-modals which are often used

when making polite requests. The literature review will begin by investigating register and

making polite requests, then it will look at modality as a means for achieving politeness. Next, it

will look at the NS/NNS differences in other formal writings, such as compositions in academic

settings and business letters. Finally, the literature review will look specifically at NS/NNS

perceptions of politeness and their modality in formal writing.

Literature Review

Register

4


According to Halliday (1978; 1994), the language we speak or write varies according to

the contexts of situation in which the language is used. The contexts of situation, which is called

register, differ from one another in through three variables: field, tenor, and mode (p.33).These

three variables, taken together, determine the range within which meanings are selected and the

forms which are used for their expressions. Field refers to the social activity in which the

language is being used and what is being talked about. Field embraces subject-matter and also it

means the whole activity where all the interlocutors do in a setting. Tenor is concerned with the

role and ―relationships‖ between interlocutors. For example, when someone is choosing a

sentence type to express a request,- interrogative, declarative, or imperative - he or she considers

the relationship with the person being asked to fulfill it. Mode refers to the ―channel of

communication,‖ whether the language is written or spoken and, with regard to the latter,

whether it is face-to-face or more remote. Cohesive ties in a text, among other things, will be

affected by mode.

Romaine (1994) explains that the concept of register is typically concerned with variation

in language conditioned by uses rather than users. He relates register with style (p. 21), which

can ―range from formal to informal depending on social context, relationship of the participants,

social class, sex, age, physical environment, and topic." Stylistic differences can be reflected in

vocabulary, syntax, and pronunciation. For example, ‗The court ordered the debtor to come.‘

versus ‗The court summoned the debtor‘ shows different use of words depending on the degree

of formality. ‗The senators were called before the committee‘ is preferred in formal speech

instead of ‗The committee called the senators‘ because the passive voice sounds more formal. In

an informal conversation, it is common to pronounce ‗eatin‘ or ‗dancin‘ instead of formal ones

such as ‗eating‘, ‗dancing‘.

5


Brown and Levinson (1987) use the term ―politeness‖ to explain register. They assume

that people do polite behaviors because of the need to avoid or minimize conflict among social

group members. Brown and Levinson assert that every individual has two kinds of public self-

image. One of them is defined as ―positive face wants,‖ which means individual‘s desire to be

approved of by other people, and the other is defined as ―negative face wants,‖ which means

individual‘s desire not to be imposed in their actions (p.62). When people need to make a

request, this requesting can hurt the hearer‘s ―negative face wants‖ which is termed ―face-

threatening act‖ by (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 65). The higher possibility to hurt the hearer‘s

face wants there is, the more polite expressions are needed.

Brown and Levinson (1987) divide the strategies that people use for the ―face-threatening

acts‖ into three categories: ―positive politeness strategies (p. 103-129),‖ ―negative politeness

strategies (p. 130-210),‖ and ―off record strategies (p. 211-226).‖ Positive politeness strategies

are used in the least threatening situation, and people who use this strategy usually express

solidarity, friendliness, and in-group reciprocity (e.g., You must be thirsty. You ran for more than

two hours without drinks. How about some water?). Negative politeness strategies, which are

used in more threatening situation than positive politeness strategies, are the way people restrain

or avoid imposing on the hearer (e.g., I don’t want to bother you, but could you show me the way

to the post office?”). Off record strategies are used in the most threatening situation, and the

requests are made in an indirect way or the requesters just give hints (e.g., I really tried to keep

the time, but there was an accident on my way here.)

Based on linguistic and socio-linguistic research in register, one can see that making

requests is a complex process that entails many different aspects. Thus, it can be difficult for

language learners to acquire the skills to properly use register. If we then apply this to the

6


practice of writing personal statements for graduate programs then we can see that register would

indeed play a large role in terms of the request to be admitted to the program. One way that we

show register is through indirectness. Indirectness makes a request less face-threatening. This

can be accomplished by using the English modal and quasi-modal verbs to indirectly make a

request. However, this modal system can be complex and difficult to master. In order to evaluate

modals we must first understand what they are and why they might be important features in a

statement of purpose.

Modality

There are many different strategies to achieve negative politeness in English. Modality

verbs are one such method. Modal verb forms exist on a continuum that ranges from modal

auxiliaries to lexical verbs. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985) explain that the

continuum begins with the central modals (modal auxiliaries); these include can, could, may,

might, shall, should, will, would, and must. Directly after the central modals are the marginal

modals, these are dare, need, ought to, and used to. Following the marginal modals are the modal

idioms, these are had better, would rather/sooner, be to, and have got to. Next are the semi-

auxiliaries, these include have to, be about to, be able to, be bound to, be going to, be obliged to,

be supposed to, and be willing to. After the semi-auxiliaries are the catenatives, these are appear

to, happen to, seem to, get + -ed participle, and keep + -ing participle. Finally, the continuum

ends with main verb + nonfinite clause, such as hope + to-infinitive, and begin + -ing participle.

Under the classification of current researchers, the modal idioms and semi-auxiliaries are

combined into a group known as the quasi-modals (Krug, 2000; Collins, 2009a; Collins, 2009b).

We have adopted this terminological distinction and are concerned with differentiating the

different formal and functional qualities of the central modals and quasi-modals.

7


Palmer (1990) defines the formal properties of the central modals under the acronym

NICE. The N of NICE stands for negation (negation occurs directly after the modal auxiliary).

The I stands for inversion (the modal auxiliary is inverted when forming an interrogative). The C

stands for code, or the ―post verbal ellipsis dependent for its interpretation upon previous

context‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Finally, E stands for emphasis, or ―emphatic polarity involving

the use of contrastive stress‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Collins (2009a) describes five further

qualities of the modal auxiliary, these include: Lack of subject-verb agreement and tense; use in

unreal conditionals; and the use of the historical past form (e.g. could and would) to express

remoteness.

For semantic and functional purposes, modal auxiliaries are divided into two classes:

Root (social/necessity) and epistemic (probability). Root is further delineated into two

subheadings: Deontic and dynamic. This division accounts for the origin of the obligation or

necessity; the source of obligation for the deontic modal is said to come from a source outside of

the speaker, whereas the source of the dynamic modal is said to originate from the speaker

(Palmer, 1990). The social function of modality is to complete a variety of different tasks such as

expressing politeness or indirectness during a request, giving permission, or providing advice

(Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

Quasi-modals form a heterogeneous group that is ―formally distinguishable from, but

semantically similar to the modals‖ (Collins, 2009b, p. 281). Collins (2009a) differentiates two

general types of quasi-modals based on form: One that demonstrates semi-modal qualities and

one that exhibits lexio-modal properties. The semi-modals are similar to the modal auxiliaries;

that is, they contain an auxiliary verb as their first element, and they have no non-tensed forms.

Indeed, if we were to apply the NICE properties only to the first element of these paraphrastic

8


forms, they could be considered nearly identical to the central modals (Collins, 2009a). For

example, she hasn’t got to it yet versus *she has gotn’t to it yet. The lexico-modal class

semantically expresses modality and typically including be as their first element (Collins,

2009a). They are modal-like in demonstrating voice-neutrality and their use in conjunction with

the existential there. However, they also demonstrate non-modal-like features such as, ―the

availability of non-tensed forms, making possible combinations of the type had been meant to

and seems to be going to‖ (Collins, 2009a, p. 17). Membership to this class is not straightforward

and, as Krug (2000) indicates, the formal criteria for quasi-modals are an ongoing process.

According to Krug (2000), although their formal category is seemingly uncertain, there

are three basic criteria for determining whether a complex verb qualifies as a quasi-modal: The

verb form must express semantic relatedness to the modal auxiliaries, idiomacy (a meaning that

goes beyond the form's individual parts), and be undergoing the process of grammaticalization.

Grammaticalization theory predicts that changes occur in phonology, morphology, semantics,

syntax, and pragmatics. In the case of quasi-modals, Krug (2000) argues that this grammatical

transformation is more accurately described as the auxiliarization of quasi-modal form; that is,

particular quasi-modals are becoming more auxiliary-like. Auxiliarization includes many

categorical changes such as tense neutrality, iconicity, subjectification, phonological erosion,

syntactic reanalysis (primarily inversion without do insertion), and the extension from deontic to

epistemic meaning.

In the same way that modals are only a small aspect of ways to make a polite request,

statements of purpose are also a small subset of what can be identified as formal writing. Formal

writing can take place in a number of different settings and for a variety of purposes. However,

our study will be focused on only this small sample of formal writing. As stated by Ding (2006),

9


little research has been done on ESP for Statements of Purpose (SOPs). Due to this lack of

research, this proposal will draw upon existing research on politeness in formal writing, which

includes academic writing (compositions) or writing for business purposes.

Politeness in formal writing

Maier‘s (1992) study is an evaluation that looked for politeness in writing business letters

by 8 English native speakers and 10 non-native English speakers. They were asked to write

letters to the manager of the company explaining the reasons for missing the interview and

asking for another chance because they did not show in the day of the interview for the job.

Communication in writing for business played essential roles in all the NSs who were included

in the study because they had jobs in places where writing for business was so important. They

were employed in fields like ―advertising, personnel, administration, translation, sales/marketing,

and technical writing‖ (p. 193). On the other hand, the other subjects of this study who were

NNSs were advanced learners ―in English for International Business at the University of

Minnesota‖ (p. 193). The study shows an obvious difference between the two groups because

the NNSs were ―more personal and direct‖ than NSs (p. 201). For example, a NNS wrote

―[w]ould you please give me one more change for me…[p]lease, please give me one more

interview for me,‖ whereas a NS wrote, ―I would be very grateful if, under the circumstances,

you would grant me another interview‖ (Maier, 1992, p. 194). As you can see, although all the

In a related study, Sims and Guice‘s (1992) study compared 214 inquiry letters written by

NSSs and NNSs to the department of English of North Texas University. All of the participants

were either MA or PhD future students from diverse cultural backgrounds. The researchers

considered six salutations, eight ―complementary closings‖, and one ―appropriate tone‖ as

standards in evaluating the letters based on so many guideline textbooks in business writing (pp.

10


28-30). The study states that significant differences were noticed between the NSs and NNSs.

The following is the ―appropriate tone‖ considered by the researchers because it had the first-

person pronouns (I, me, and my) in the ―active voice‖: ―I am planning to begin work on my

doctorate in English in the fall of 1988, and I am interested in your school. Please send me

information about your program at your earliest convenience. My address is...‖ (p. 31). NNSs

committed more errors in all the three previous parts of the inquiry letters. They also

"exaggerated politeness‖ (p. 30). Compared with 18 percent of the NSs letters, more than 40

percent of the letters written by NNSs had exaggerations in politeness.

In a recent study on applicants' cover letters written by 26 Taiwanese and 26 Canadian

students enrolled in college in ―hospitality management‖ major (p. 1), Hou and Li (2011), states

that the cover letters written by Taiwanese students were ―more direct‖ to express their willing

(p.9). The following two examples were written by a Canadian and a Taiwanese student:

―I would like to be considered for the server position which your company advertised on

the Job Portal website. My qualifications and experience complement the responsibilities

outlined in your advertisement and include over 3 years of experience in increasingly

challenging roles‖ (Canadian letter #3).

―Please consider my application for the position of dining room service which was posted

on the Student Job Portal of XXX College‖ (Taiwanese letter #3).

(Hou & Li, 2011, p.9)

Compared with more than half of the Canadian students, only a few Taiwanese students

expressed ―explicit arguments‖ on what advantages the company could have through them when

they were employed.

11


These examples all demonstrate that politeness in formal writing can be challenging for

non-native speakers. This is due to differences in linguistic and cultural expectations. As we have

seen politeness can be difficult to master, including the use of the English modal system. This

also applies to politeness when requesting entrance to a program such as is customary in a

statement of purpose. Based on the above outlined research the next section will investigate

cultural differences in perceptions of politeness and how modality is used in native versus non-

native speaker writing.

Perceptions of politeness and modal use

In a study similar to the Ding (2006) study, Al-Ali (2006) compares job application letters

from Jordanian speakers of English as a second language with letters from their native-speaking

competitors. Al-Ali found that there was a distinct difference between the use of negative

politeness features in native and non-native speakers. The non-native speakers were much less

likely to use the negative politeness features. This suggests that there may be a cultural

difference in the way that politeness is shown. The result of this difference, as Al-Ali suggests,

could be that a native English speaking reader expect frequent use of negative politeness

strategies to emphasize the potential employer‘s freedom of action,¨ (132). This demonstrates the

high stakes of application writing and the importance of evaluating politeness strategies across

cultures.

When evaluating politeness, there are a variety of linguistic features that can be

investigated, one of which is the use of modals. According to Hinkel (1995), non-native speakers

may have difficulty with the modal verbs and use them in different contexts from those of native

speaker. The appropriate usage of modals relies on presuppositions commonly known and

accepted in a language community. NNSs usage of modals reflects the pragmatic frameworks

12


and norms specific to the learner‘s L1 environment, which may be different from those expected

in L2 conceptual structures. The usage of the root modals must, have to, should, ought to, and

need to in NS and NNS writing appears to be culture and context dependent. The meanings and

contextual implications of English modal verbs and necessity are complex because the conditions

and degrees of obligation and necessity are not always straightforward and obvious. Although

modal verbs are found in all languages, little is known about their uses and pragmatic meanings

in languages other than English in which the notions of obligation and necessity can combine

with other culturally bound notions such as subjectivity, assertion, explicitness, and a degree of

imposition.

In a study comparing Chinese English learners and native English speakers, Lee (2011)

analyses politeness as a cultural phenomenon and how culture influences both the perception and

production of structures related to politeness. He claims that we could proceed with the study of

politeness as different expectations of how interactions should unfold, and how the basic units of

interpersonal interaction (power, imposition, and possible distance) differ or converge in

different cultures to shape these expectations, (29). With this in mind, we can see how difficult

politeness strategies can be to acquire without explicit instruction because there are a variety of

cultural factors that may or may not be clear to the non-native language user.

In a study comparing Japanese students learning English with Japanese-English

bilinguals in the U.S. and native English speaking Americans, it was found that all three

populations perceived the use of modals to influence the level of politeness in a phrase in English

(Kitao, 1990). Another study on perception of politeness related to modal usage, Altman (1990),

suggests that NNS usage of modals of obligation can be perceived to be offensive by NSs. NNSs

interpret the meanings of modals differently from NSs because the NNSs function within the

13


domain of different norms, expectations, and cultural values that are transferred to L2 and

reflected in NNS modal verbs use. This suggests that modals are an important factor in politeness

and should be evaluated in order to understand the way that both native and non-native speakers

use them.

Previous related research suggests that there is a noticeable contrast between native and

non-native speakers when performing requests (Cenoz, 1996). This suggests that despite the fact

that each language and culture has ways to accomplish these face acts (such as requests), these

are challenging for second language learners because they are language, culture, and context

specific (Cenoz, 1996). For the purposes of this study we will consider how successful requests

also affect application writing because it can be classified as a request for entrance into a certain

community, either academic or career.

Within the research on politeness, there have been a number of studies that have looked

at differences in politeness in NS/NNS formal writings. DeCarrico (1986) found in NNS usage

of modals in compositions that NNSs use modal verbs in context where native speakers would

not. ESL teachers expressed concern that learners appear to have difficulty using modals in

appropriate contexts. This demonstrates that while perception of politeness has shown to be

similar between NS and NNS, the production and use of modals varies between these two

populations. It follows that NNS variations in the use of modals in application writing could

affect the reader s perception of politeness and perhaps affect the success of the applicant.

As mentioned above, the use of modals in English is a factor in how both native and non-

native speakers perceive politeness (Kitao, 1990). Therefore, it follows that studies in native/non-

native use of modals should be evaluated. In a 2001 study comparing argumentative texts from

Spanish EFL students at a Spanish University and U.S. university students, found that Spanish

14


students often use certain modals (can/could) more often than their native-speaking counterparts

(Neff, et. al.). At the same time there is a distinct lack of other modals (may/might) in

comparison to their U.S. counterparts. The authors suggest that this is related to the perception of

risk in using modals that do not correlate well with their first language incorrectly (Neff, et, al,

2001, p.11). They also suggest that the overuse of can in the Spanish students writing is

related to the difference between positive politeness strategies in Spanish and the common use of

negative politeness strategies in English, thus reinforcing the later findings by Al-Ali (2006).

The review of the literature suggests that politeness in application writing, specifically in

statements of purpose, is under-research. In a review of ESL textbooks, Jiang (2005) found that

when analyzing 6 ESL textbooks, register and context are not properly addressed. This

demonstrates that politeness in formal writing is not only under-researched but also under-

addressed in language classrooms. The high-stakes nature of application writing for graduate

level education programs suggests that inadequate instruction on application writing and

politeness could leave non-native applicants at a distinct disadvantage to their native speaking

competitors. Thus, we support Ding (2006) in his claim that application writing is not adequately

addressed in foreign/second language classrooms despite the amount of importance that it

carries. Our study seeks to address this gap in the research and practice to evaluate how native

and non-native speakers use modals differently in application writing. The purpose of this study

is to contribute to the research on rhetorical practices between languages and cultures which can

then be applied to the ESL/EFL teaching practices.

Hypotheses

A statement of purpose is a fundamental part of graduate level university applications in

the United States. According to the literature, there is a clear preference for indirectness in

15


statements of purpose in native English speaking cultures. Modals are one particular way to

show indirectness in discourse. Because native English speaking individuals are accustomed to

the rhetoric of application writing, we hypothesize that they will demonstrate a higher overall

frequency of modal use than that of non-native English speakers. Additionally, because the

historic past form of the central modals are considered the most indirect form of these verbs, we

hypothesize that native speakers will also have a higher use frequency of these forms than non-

native speakers. In sum:

1) NS will use more modal forms than NNS.

2) NS will use more historic past modals than NNS.

Method

Participants

We will make a corpus from the 120 statements of purpose that will be collected from the

department of Civil Engineering at Colorado State University. The applicants who will write the

statements of purpose are those who will have just finished their Master‘s degree program and

will be planning to work on the PhD program at the department starting from the fall semester in

2012.Sixty applicants will be American students who have lived and studied in the United States,

which means they are native speakers of English (NS) whose first language is English. The

remaining sixty applicants will be international students who are applying for the PhD program

at CSU after finishing their Master‘s degree program in their homeland. In other words, sixty

applicants will be non-native speakers of English (NNS) whose first language is not English and

who have never lived or studied in an English-speaking environment. To sum up, we will

compare sixty personal statements written by NS with another sixty personal statements written

by NNS.

16


Data Collection

Individuals will be able to opt into the study through their graduate applications. As stated

previously, participant identity will be kept anonymous. To ensure that both native and non-

native corpora are of similar length, only the first 1000 words of each statement of purpose will

be entered into each corpus.

Data Analysis

Two frequency counts will be performed for this study. The first will consider all types of

modality (central and quasi) for their frequency count (see Appendix A for a list of all modals

used). This will provide separate totals for each participant group. The second frequency analysis

will only account for central modals used in their historic past form. Because these forms are

considered the most indirect—and subsequently the most polite—this will provide an indication

of corpora that contains the highest level of politeness (see Appendix B for a list of all historic

past modals used).

The modal counts will be extracted from the corpora. Each inflected and negative variant

of the modals will be included in the counts (all tokens will be accounted for). After the counts

have been calculated, we will compare the NS token count with the NNS token count for all

modals and the historic past modals using separate t-tests to determine statistical significance.

Conclusion

By conducting this study, which is based on corpora of 120 statements of purpose written

by native and non-native English speakers, we will have a clear image of the differences between

the two groups. These differences among NSs and NNSs in using modals and quasi modals for

politeness in writing statements of purposes should be considered in writing classes in ESL and

EFL classes. Because there is little teaching how to write statements of purpose by the results of

17


our study, teachers can rely on that and consider that in writing classes. We hope that Intensive

English Program at Colorado State University (IEP) and other English language institutes around

the world will make more effort in teaching this genre. Since our research will include NNSs

from various backgrounds and we are not going to make a corpus from one cultural background,

our results of each culture background group will be helpful for those IEPs or English language

institutes that have students from the same background culture that of the writers of the

statements of purpose included in our corpora.

Researchers interested in the Intercultural Rhetoric can take our study results as a

springboard for more research in differences among NSs and NNSs in writing application essays.

We are going to make a study on NSs and NNSs of any background. More research is needed in

focusing on NSs for a specific background in order to have more accurate results. More studies

are also needed to include a big number of samples. More studies are needed to study other

statements of purpose written for applying to other subjects or departments in the CSU or other

universities in the United States or any English speaking country.

18


References

Al-Ali, M. (2006). Genre-pragmatic strategies in English letter-of-application writing of

Jordanian Arabic--English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 9(1), 119-139.

Altman, R. (1990). Giving and taking advice without offense. In R. Scarcella,

E.Andersen,&S.Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second

language (pp. 95-106). New York: Newbury House.

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. NY: Longman.

Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Carrell, P. &Konneker, B. (1981). Politeness: Comparing native and nonnative judgments.

Language Learning, 31, 17-30.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999).The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s

guide. Boston: Heinle.

Cenoz, J. (1996). Requests and Apologies: a comparison between native and non-native speakers

of English. Atlantis 18(1-2), 53-61.

Collins, P. (2009a). Modals and quasi-modals in English. New York: Rodopi.

Collins, P. (2009b). Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. WorldEnglishes, 28(3), 281-

292.

DeCarrico, J. (1986). Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly,

20, 665-682.

19


Ding, H. (2006). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays

to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 368-392.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language

and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly,

29(2), 325–343.

Hou, H & Li, M. (2011).A contrastive rhetoric analysis of internship cover letters by Taiwanese

and Canadian hospitality majors. International Journal of Linguistics,3(1), 1-14.

Jiang, X. (2005) Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System, 34, 36-54.

Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language

in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching

and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Kitao, K. (1990). A study of Japanese and American perceptions of politeness in requests.

Doshisha Studies in English, 50, 178-210.

Krug, M. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lee, Y. (2011). Comparison of politeness and acceptability perceptions of request strategies

between Chinese learners of English and native English speakers. International Journal

of Language studies, 5(3), 27-34.

Leech, G. (2003). Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. In R.

Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 223-

241). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

20


Maier, P. (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English

speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 189-206.

Neff, J., Martinez, F., Rica, J.P. (2001) Non-native argumentative texts in English. Paper

presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO.

Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & J. Svartvik (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the

English language. London: Longman.

Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Sims, B, & Guice, S. (1992) Differences between business letters from native and non-native

speakers of English. Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 23-39.

21


Appendix A

Central Modals Quasi-modals

Can

Shall

Will

May

Must

Could

Should

Would

Might

Dare

Need

Ought to

Used to

Had better

Would rather/sooner

Be to

Have got to

Have to

Be about to

Be able to

Be bound to

Be going to

Be obliged to

Be supposed to

Be willing to

22


Appendix B

Historic Past Modals

Could

Should

Would

Might

modals in statements of purpose: a research proposal ... · pdf fileit begins with a...

Documents