ommon english auxiliaries prominent linguistic features and possible pedagogical implications = một số trợ động từ thông dụng trong tiếng anh những đặc điểm ngôn ngữ học nổi trội và ứng dụng sư phạm khả hữu

In my observation as an English teacher, I can see that learners of English are likely to commit mistakes related to the uses of these auxiliaries as politeness markers.. different types

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



BÙI ĐỖ HOÀNG HẢI

COMMON ENGLISH AUXILIARIES:

PROMINENT LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND POSSIBLE

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Một số trợ động từ thông dụng trong tiếng Anh: Những đặc điểm ngôn ngữ học

nổi trội và ứng dụng sư phạm khả hữu

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: Engl sh Linguist cs

Co e: 6 2 0 0

Hanoi - 2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



BÙI ĐỖ HOÀNG HẢI

COMMON ENGLISH AUXILIARIES:

PROMINENT LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND POSSIBLE

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Một số trợ động từ thông dụng trong tiếng Anh: Những đặc điểm ngôn ngữ học

nổi trội và ứng dụng sư phạm khả hữu

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: Engl sh Linguist cs

Co e: 6 2 0 0

Supe visor: Assoc Prof Dr Võ Đại Quangg

Hanoi - 2014

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled

“Common English auxiliaries: prominent linguistic features and possible

pedagogical implications” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of MA in English Linguistics

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2014

Bui Do Hoang Hai

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a number of people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc Prof Dr

Vo Dai Quang, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly throughout my growth as an academic researcher

A special word of thanks goes to my colleagues and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my friends for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

ABSTRACT

The thesis is focused on the linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might as

politeness markers in English It is also aimed at investigating different types of mistakes commonly committed by students at Ninh Giang High School Another focus of the thesis is the seeking of possible solutions to the problems encountered

by students in using Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers Also, possible solutions to how the uses of Could, Would, May, Might should be most

effectively taught are offered In addition to these, suggestions for future research are provided

ABBREVIATIONS & TABLES

MoD Deontic modals

MoE Epistemic modals

AdvF Adverbs of frequency

Qnt Quantifiers

Nec Necessary

Psb Possible

Imp Impossible

FTA Face Threatening Act

FFA Face Flattering Act

FSA Face Saving Act

DCT Discourse Completion Task

Q Question

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

ABBREVIATIONS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Aim of the research 1

3 Objectives of the research 1

4 Scope of the research 1

5 Significance of the research 2

6 Structural organization of the thesis 2

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 3

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3

1.1 Review of previous studies related to the research area of the thesis 3

1.2 Theoretical preliminaries 5

1.2.1 English auxiliaries 5

1.2.2 Concept of “Politeness” 8

1.3 Summary 14

CHARPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 15

2.1 Research orientations 15

2.1.1 Research questions 15

2.1.2 Research setting 15

2.1.3 Research approaches 15

2.2 Research methods 15

2.2.1 Data collection instruments 15

2.2.2 Data analysis 17

2.2.3 Procedure 18

2.3 Summary 18

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 19

3.1 Findings & Discussion on linguistic features of Could, Would May, Might 19

3.1.1 Structural features of Could, Would, May, Might 19

3.1.2 Semantico-pragmatic features of Could, Would, May, Might 21

3.1.3 Phonological features 22

3.2 Findings & Discussion on types of mistakes commonly committed by elementary level students at Ninh Giang high school 24

3.2.1 Mistakes related to structural organization of the sentence 24

3.2.2 Mistakes related to semantico-pragmatic usage 24

3.2.3 Mistakes related to phonological features 25

3.2.4 Teaching and learning conditions 25

3.3 Findings & Discussion on the possible pedagogical implications for teaching Could, Would, May, Might 25

* Solutions to the types of mistakes committed by elementary level students at Ninh Giang high school 25

3.3.1 Solutions to mistakes related to structural organization of the sentence 25

3.3.2 Solutions to the types of mistakes related to semantico-pragmatic usage 27

3.3.3 Solutions to mistakes related to phonological features 28

3.4 Summary 28

PART C: CONCLUSION 29

1 Recapitulation 29

2 Conclusions 29

2.1 Conclusions on objective 1 29

2.2 Conclusions on objective 2 30

2.3 Conclusions on objective 3 30

2.4 Recommendations 31

3 Limitations of the current research 31

4 Suggestions for future research 32

REFERENCES 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY 35 APPENDIX I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

In interpersonal communication via English, the auxiliaries Could, Would, May,

Might convey different modal meanings and thus express different attitudes of

language users In my observation as an English teacher, I can see that learners of English are likely to commit mistakes related to the uses of these auxiliaries as politeness markers

For this reason, I have made up my mind to choose this as the topic for my research

2 Aim of the research

This thesis is an attempt to gain an insightful look into the linguistic features of

Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers in interpersonal communication

And, on this basis, possible pedagogical implications might be obtained

3 Objectives of the research

The following have been set forth as specific objectives of the thesis:

(i) Identification of the linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might as

politeness markers in English

(ii) Categorization of the mistakes commonly made by learners of English in using

Could, Would, May, Might as politeness makers

(iii) Possible pedagogical implications in the teaching of Could, Would, May, Might

as politeness markers in interpersonal interaction

4 Scope of the research

All English modal auxiliaries can be employed as politeness markers in

interpersonal communication Among those modal auxiliaries Could, Would, May,

Might lie within the range of most commonly employed politeness markers This

study is confined to linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might as politeness

markers in interpersonal interaction In addition, the thesis is also concerned with

different types of mistakes likely to be committed by learners of English at Ninh

Giang high school in using Could, Would, May, Might and the possible solutions

that might be obtained

5 Significance of the research

The practical value of the thesis lies in the fact that, with the research results

obtained, an insight can be gained into the linguistic features of Could, Would, May,

Might This type of knowledge, to the possible extent, helps facilitate teaching,

translating, and communicating in English

6 Structural organization of the thesis

The study is composed of three main parts

Part A is the introduction which presents the rationale, aim, and scope of the study

as well as the significance of the research

Part B is “Development” which consists of three chapters

Chapter one is about the theoretical background for the research This chapter is aimed at establishing the framework of investigation

Chapter two is entitled “Methodology” This chapter gives a general description of the research method, the subjects chosen for the study, the data collection instruments and the research procedures

Chapter three, “Findings and Discussions”, presents the linguistic features and the results of the survey, observation, and interview These were done by students and teachers Comparison of the students‟ and teachers‟ progress, and some relevant pedagogical implications are brought forward for learners of English

The final part is the “Conclusion” which presents a recapitulation, and provides conclusions on each of the thesis objectives Recommendations and suggestions for

future studies are also herein provided

At the end of the thesis are References and Appendices

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Review of previous studies related to the research area of the thesis

Following are the previous research works directly related to the theme of the thesis:

(i) Politeness markers used in offering assistance in English and Vietnamese, Hồ

Thị Kiều Oanh, No 5(40).2010 Science and Technology magazine,

Da Nang university

This article describes and compares the politeness markers used in the speech act of offering assistance in Australian English and Vietnamese These politeness markers include the strategies and the social deixes (Addressing Terms, Formal Semantic Items, and Pragmatic Particles) investigated in various situational contexts, and then explain the underlying reasons for the similarities and / or dissimilarities in the use

of these politeness markers in terms of face and politeness aspects of the Australian and Vietnamese cultures

This study is related to strategies, politeness markers, formal semantic items, pragmatic particles Strategies of offering assistance: the way the speech act of offering assistance is realized with regard to linguistic forms and means; politeness markers: strategies and social deixes; formal semantic items: formal forms used to show deference.; pragmatic particles: words that have no lexical meaning, used to indicate the grammatical relationship between fully semantic words within a sentence

(ii) A contrastive analysis of the meanings expressed via the modal verbs can, may, must in English and the equivalent expressions in Vietnamese, Nguyễn Minh Huệ,

2010 ULIS

Preliminaries and features of modal auxiliaries in English and in Vietnamese,

making a comparison between modal meanings expressed by can, may, must in

English and their Vietnamese equivalent expressions and offering some suggestions for the application of the study to the teaching of English modals

The thesis has gained a correct interpretation of a modal verb May, accorded a

central place to the role of both speaker and hearer in the construction of meaning and taking account of both social and psychological factors Comparing with

English modal verb May, Vietnamese modal verb is quite ambiguous in nature The

implication of teaching English modal verbs to Vietnamese learners of English: one

of the suggestions is about ways which help learners to realize the meaning of each modal in certain setting by regarding to the context of the utterance That is the reason why teaching English modal verbs faces with great challenges

The issues are left for further research: a contrastive analysis on English and Vietnamese modal systems in expressing the notion of possibility, permission and obligation and a study on linguistic means capable of expressing permission and obligation in English

(iii) A study on politeness strategies manifested in advising in English and

Vietnamese, Lê Thu Thảo, 2008 ULIS

This study is related to positive and negative politeness strategies It has drawn out the important role of politeness in social communication, especially in cross - cultural communication, studied positive and negative politeness strategies manifested in advising in English and Vietnamese, put forward some suggestions for teaching advising situations

This study is only a partial investigation in to the politeness strategies in advising in English and Vietnamese so there are still some important issues that remained unanswered such as “Addressing forms in advising” etc… Particularly it would be useful for English teaching and learning if the future research is focused on “The use of positive and negative politeness strategies of English and Vietnamese people

in daily communication” or “the use of politeness strategies in making suggestions

in English and Vietnamese” in the near future

1.2 Theoretical preliminaries

1.2.1 English auxiliaries

An auxiliary verb is most generally understood as a verb that "helps" another verb

by adding grammatical information to it On this basis, the auxiliary verbs of English can be classified into primary auxiliaries (DO, HAVE, BE) and modal auxiliaries Primary auxiliaries mainly perform grammatical function Modal auxiliaries are those auxiliaries that perform both grammatical and modal function, i.e they express the speaker‟s attitudes towards the propositional content and the interlocutor

1.2.1.1 English primary auxiliaries

English has three primary auxiliary verbs: do, be, and have All three take part in

the formation of various grammatical constructions, but carry very little meaning

themselves For example, the primary auxiliary be is used to form the progressive,

as in: Tim is dancing

It makes little sense to ask what is meant by BE in this sentence Instead, what is of interest is what is does, i.e that it helps form a verb phrase which, as a whole, indicates that Tim's dancing is going on at this moment The same reasoning applies to all the primary auxiliaries They are auxiliaries in the true sense of being 'helpers' in conveying verbal meaning

The verb to be forms the passive voice (The ball was hit by John)

The verb to have forms the perfect tenses (I have decided to retire)

The verb to do enables us to negate or to ask questions (He did not write the book,

Do you mind?)

Notice that each of these verbs can act as a main verb as well, as in I am happy, He

has a lot of money, and He does his own thing

(Source: http://awelu.srv.lu.se/grammar-and-words/selective-mini phrases/primary-auxiliary-verbs/)

grammar/verb-To put it in a nutshell, we can say that primary auxiliaries mainly perform grammatical function rather than convey other types of meaning

1.2.1.2 English modal auxiliaries

Language was first subject to the truth conditional laws of logic, until intensional logic accepted that there is truth relativity in language (speech), an idea that led to the notion of „possible worlds‟, in order to explain modal or temporal operators, among other linguistic aspects that rely on the „points of view‟ difference between language (grammar) and discourse Bally (1932) took over the mediaeval proposition analysis Proposition used to be decomposed into modus and dictum: dictum corresponds to the propositional content, while modus stands for the speaker‟s subjective attitude towards dictum The linguist points out that modality may be both explicit and implicit and the relation between modus and dictum is represented by a scale, having the explicit at one of its ends and the implicit or synthetic at the other, where modality is incorporated in dictum Modal verbs are implicit morphological manifestations of modality (Boicu, 2007: 2)

There are 10 core or central modals in English: can, could, may, might, must, ought,

shall, should, will, and would Other verbs including need, had better and invariant be may also function as modals (or semi-modals)

Palmer (2001: 7) proposes a binary distinction the former separates „non-modal‟ from „modal‟ and is associated with the notional contrast between „factual‟ and

„non-factual‟ or „real‟ and „unreal‟, although a more satisfactory terminology has been used in recent years: „realis‟ and „irrealis‟ Modality belongs to the „irrealis‟ domain, along with some tenses and moods

The second distinction Palmer makes divides modal verbs in keeping with the two main semantic categories: epistemic and deontic

Halliday (1970), in his systemic functional grammar, distinguishes between two systems that he calls „modality‟ and „modulation‟ The former concerns the utterance through which the speaker subjectively qualifies his involvement in the truth value of the propositional content It is associated with semantic categories such as „probable‟, „possible‟, „virtually certain‟ and „certain‟ This system was derived from what Haliday considered to be the interpersonal metafunction of language

Modulation concerns the ideational metafunction of the content and of the conditions that influence it Its types are defined in terms of „permission‟,

„obligation‟, „ability‟, „desire‟, etc The cause of ambiguity would be the fact that the two systems are semantically similar, since they both underlie the same group of modal verbs

Hoffman (1993) states that there are four main modalities contained by logical, epistemic, deontic and capacity modals He puts forward the assumption that

“Natural languages have three basic logical modal concepts: [Nec] necessary, [Psb] possible and [Imp] impossible; the first two are defined and given symbols in logic”

The linguist adds: “The big division in English linguistic modality is between the

epistemic ones which relate propositions one to another, and the others which generally have some subject-orientation” (emphasis in the original)

The author analyzes the similarities between the two main series of modal verbs, epistemic modals (MoE) and social deontic modals (MoD) and parallels them with quantifiers (Qnt) and adverbs of frequency (AvF), in a table of seven degrees of

„strength‟ concerning all the four classes of elements

“These seven degrees of „strength‟ range from [Nec] (necessary) down to [Imp] (impossible) and are found in many guises in most languages, though specific words may well be missing (as in MoD, and especially for the capacity modals) for intermediate terms Quantifiers form the most complete scale in most languages” (Hoffman 1993: 111)

The correlation among the above-mentioned categories is shown in the following Table (Hoffman 1993: 112):

1.2.2 Concept of “Politeness”

Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context

“Politeness is the art of choosing among your thoughts.” Madame de Stael (Abel Stevens, 1880)

Have you ever ordered at a restaurant in a foreign country only to get an ugly look from the waiter? Have you ever asked somebody to do you a favor, only then to have them refuse with an upset tone in their voice? Well, maybe your problem when speaking English comes down to a lack of politeness

The English language is full of these little formalities which can definitely determine whether you‟re going to make a good first impression on someone or not

We have this unspoken etiquette when asking for information, or even when we‟re offering something and we have to take into consideration how we are offering it Using “please” and “thank you” is necessary in most situations In a lot of

situations, people expect a sort of indirect way of speaking to each other, which can

be interpreted as for the sake of showing politeness

(Source: http://reallifeglobal.com/how-to-be-polite-in-english)

* “Face” and “Face Threatening Act” (FTA)

Brown and Levinson (1978) provide a slightly different perspective on politeness phenomena which they have studied in more widely diverse languages and cultures They suggest that the origin of politeness phenomena is the same in all societies All human beings, in order to enter into social relationships with each other, must acknowledge the “face” of other people

Interestingly enough, central to their theory is the abstract notion of “face” which is derived from that of Goffman (1955) “face-work” (the work of presenting faces to each other, protecting our own face, and protecting the other‟s face), and from that

of English folk term which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, and “losing face”

Brown and Levinson assume that all adult competent members of a society have:

“Face, the public self-image that every member (of a society) wants to claim for himself consisting of two related aspects:

* Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to distraction, i.e to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

non-* Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or personality „crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated‟.”

They point out that it is a universal characteristic across cultures that speakers should respect each others‟ expectation regarding self-image, take account of their feelings, and avoid Face Threatening Acts

(FTAs – acts which threaten the face wants of the speaker, the hearer, or both of them) They also propose 4 kinds of FTAs:

(i) Acts threatening to the hearer‟s negative face by indicating (potentially) that

the speaker does not intend to avoid impeding hearer‟s freedom of action E.g

ordering, suggesting, advising, reminding, threatening, warning, offering, promising, complimenting

(ii) Acts threatening to the hearer‟s positive face by indicating (potentially) that the speaker does not care about the addressee‟s feeling, wants, etc – that in some

important respect, he does not want hearer‟s wants E.g disapproving, contempting,

complaining, criticizing, disagreeing, accusing and raising taboo topics

(iii) Acts threatening to the speaker‟s negative face E.g accepting an offer,

accepting thanks, excusing, promising unwillingly

(iv) Acts threatening to the speaker‟s positive face E.g apologizing, accepting

compliments, and confessing (Shohibussirri, 2011: 14-15)

* Face Flattering Act (FFA)

Politeness strategies (following Dacia Dressen-Hammouda‟s work):

“Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2011) has argued that viewing politeness solely as deflecting

„face-threatening acts‟ is misleading, because politeness is about more than just repairing threats It also includes „anti‐threats‟: people work to save face and enhance it Accordingly, she proposes „face-flattering acts‟ (or FFAs, also „face-enhancing‟ or „face-giving‟) as a counterpoint to face‐threatening acts (FTAs) Whereas FTAs are softened (through indirectness and reductors), FFAs are reinforced (thanks a lot/very much/a million) but never diminished (thanks a little)”

* Face Saving Act (FSA)

Source: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/facesavr.htm

“Face saving (or saving face) refers to maintaining a good self image People who are involved in a conflict and secretly know they are wrong will often not admit that they are wrong because they don‟t want to admit they made a mistake They therefore continue the conflict, just to avoid the embarrassment of looking bad”

* Could, Would, May, Might as linguistic means employable for producing FSAs

+ Positive and Negative Politeness

According to Yule (2006), A Positive Politeness leads the requester to appeal to a common goal, and even friendship, via expressions Usually the on-record expression does represent a greater risk for the speaker of suffering a refusal and may be preceded by some „getting to know you‟ talk For examples:

a How about letting me use your pen?

b Hey, buddy, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me use your pen

(Yule, 1996: 64)

A Negative Politeness is typically expressed via questions that contain a modal verb This strategy also results in forms which contains apology for the imposition For examples:

a Could you lend me a pen?

b I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something?

c I know you’re busy, but I might I ask you if–em–if you happen to

have an extra pen that I could, you know–eh–maybe borrow?

(Yule, 1996: 64) According to Brown and Levinson (1987), Positive Politeness orients to preserving the positive face of others to emphasize one‟s solidarity with the addressee Negative Politeness orients to maintaining the negative face of others when one‟s tend to opt for the speech strategies emphasize one‟s deference to the addressee + Mitigating Devices

Mitigating devices is used to soften the speaker‟s demands or orders, so the damage

to the hearer can be lessened These on-record politenesses may be followed by

„please‟ and „would you?‟ For examples:

a Would you lend me your pen?

b Lend me your pen, please

c Have some more cakes

(Yule, 1996: 63)

Take the situation of a student and his teacher The student wants to borrow his teacher‟s pen and he will use either statement (a) or (b) The word „would‟ is a polite word and it is used to make a polite request, and the word „please‟ is same as

„would‟; when there is no „would‟ word, we can add „please‟ to be sounded more polite, even the statement begins with a verb but there is a word „please‟ it is considered as polite In statement (c), it starts with a verb but it is not a command or

an order, because „have‟ here has the different function as an allowance or invitation

+ Indirectness

Indirectness is a universal phenomenon in all natural languages (Thomas, 1995: 119) and it functions as “as a form of politeness” (Lakoff, 1990: 34) It is often concerned with politeness as a result of the difference between the structure and the communicative function of utterances For examples:

This is a conversation between a non-teaching staff member and a lecturer:

A: I suppose you are going to the Main Campus, sir (?)

B: Yes

A: May I join you in your car, then?

B: Okay

In the above conversation, A knows that B is on his way to the Main Campus

but he uses indirectness as a politeness strategy by first using intonation (with no obvious question marker) to present a declarative as an interrogative He further uses an interrogative or a question to make his request If he says, „I want to join you in your car‟, he would definitely flout the politeness maxims of Lakoff: „Don‟t impose‟ and „Give options‟

* Politeness markers

“Politeness markers can be understood as expressions added to the utterance to

„show deference to the addressee and to bid for cooperative behavior‟ The most

obvious example of a politeness marker in English is please, but there are others,

e.g., if you wouldn’t/don’t mind, tag questions with the modal verb will/would

following an imperative structure (Close the door, will you/would you?), etc.”

* Polite requests with " I " as the Subject

May I and Could I are used to request permission

They are equally polite

Note:

In a polite request, Could has a present or future

meaning, not a past meaning

Might is also possible: Might I borrow your pen? Might I is quite formal and polite; it is used much

less frequently than May I and Could I

Can I

?

Can I borrow your pen?

Can I is used informally to request permission,

especially if the speaker is talking to someone s/he

knows fairly well Can I is usually considered a little less polite than May I or Could I

* Polite requests with "You" as the Subject

1.3 Summary

In short, this chapter provides a review of some major theoretical points related to

investigations into English auxiliaries in general and English modal auxiliaries

Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers in particular Modality in language

is the speaker‟s attitude to the proposition of the utterance It can be seen from what

has been presented above that Could, Would, May, Might are commonly employed

as linguistic means for preserving negative face of the interlocutor in an interaction; and they can be employed as a means for producing face saving acts (FSAs) in interpersonal communication

Could you

?

Could you pass me the salt

(please)?

Basically, could you and would you have the

same meaning The difference is slight

Would you = Do you want to do this please? Could you = Do you want to do this please,

and Is it possible for you to do this?

Could you and would you are equally polite

Can you

? Can you (please) pass the salt?

Can you is often used informally It usually

sounds less polite than could you or would

A person usually responds in the affirmative

to a polite request If a negative response is necessary, a person might begin by saying "I'd like to, but " (e.g I'd like to pass the salt, but

I can't reach it")

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research orientations

2.1.1 Research questions

The thesis seeks answers for the following research questions:

(i) What are the linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might as politeness

markers in English?

(ii) What are the types of mistakes commonly committed by learners of English in

using Could, Would, May, Might as politeness makers?

(iii) What are the pedagogical implications for the teaching of Could, Would, May,

Might as politeness markers?

2.1.2 Research setting

The study has been conducted at Ninh Giang High School in Hai Duong The instruments used to gather the data are questionnaires supported by observation and interviews The researcher gave questionnaires to 90 elementary level students

2.1.3 Research approaches

This research is intended to be mainly qualitatively conducted Elements of quantification are also employed to seek and to support the reliability of the comments qualitatively arrived at via documents analysis, analysis of the data obtained by way of questionnaires, interviews, and via inferencing

2.2 Research methods

This thesis can be seen mainly as a descriptive research In describing and

establishing linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might and the mistakes

committed at Ninh Giang High School, a number of data collection instruments have been resorted to The details are as follows:

2.2.1 Data collection instruments

In order to collect information about the teacher‟s and students‟ teaching, learning

ability and discover how well the students use Could, Would, May, Might as

politeness markers through the research, the researcher has used document analysis, questionnaires, observation, and interviews as employable instruments

* Document analysis

One of the focuses set out for the thesis is the establishment of linguistic features of

Could, Would, May, Might These features can be revealed via keen observation on

the analyzed data It then follows from this that document analysis should be seen as

a data collection instrument This means the analysis conducted on the data obtained from different sources is sure to bring about useful information on the auxiliaries under investigation The assumption here is “The more multi-dimensional the analysis is, the more informative the results are”

In other words, document analysis can be seen as both as a technique and as an

effective tool for establishing linguistic features of Could, Would, May, Might with

respect to structural organization, semantico-pragmatic traits and phonological characteristics

* Survey questionnaire

Questionnaires have commonly been seen as one of the most effective data collection instruments in survey research The main purpose of the questionnaires designed for this research is to collect different types of mistakes committed by

students in using Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers These

questionnaires are to be organized in accordance with the types of mistakes collected, viz structural mistakes, semantico-pragmatic mistakes and phonological mistakes The questionnaires administered to students are structured in the form of (i) multiple choice questions, (ii) cloze test (gap filling), (iii) DCT (Discourse Completion Task), (iv) sentence building on the basis of given words

With the diversity of forms in the questionnaires, an overview of different mistakes committed by students can be obtained And, on account of the established types of mistakes, possible solutions to the problems might be worked out

* Interview

Much the same as questionnaires, interview is also an effective data collection instrument in survey research The major purpose of the interviews conducted for this research is to identify the mistakes committed by students in the pronunciation

of Could, Would, May, Might in their strong forms and weak forms

The response formats employed in these interviews are both “structured response formats” and “unstructured response formats” The structured response formats are provided in the forms of gap-filling, multiple choice questions and checklists The structured response interviews are conducted to gain quick access to the types of mistakes anticipated The unstructured response interviews are to seek students‟

levels of awareness on how to use Could, Would, May, Might and the difficulties they encounter in learning to use Could, Would, May, Might

* Observation:

This is one of the most important activities in the process of doing my research By observing 2 classes at different times, I have had some pieces of evidence for my thesis:

• Mrs Thuy‟s class (at Ninh Giang high school, date of observing: March 4, 2014): I was participating in this class of Elementary as an attendee At first, the

teacher introduced the modal verbs (Would: offering), the students just listened and

paid attention to the teacher‟s explanations In the second time, there were handout and the students had to do and speak Most of the student could answer it this time while they were paying attention to the exercise given

• Mr Thanh‟s class (at Ninh Giang high school, date of observing: March 24, 2014) he also provided a good exercise for his students After they understood Modals of Polite Request for the first time, he gave them the small exercise This was the exercise activity, so he asked them to choose the best answers then explain

2.2.2 Data analysis

To fulfill the purpose of finding out teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes toward Could,

Would, May, Might, their difficulties and to suggest feasible solutions, the designed

survey questionnaire was displayed clearly on each task in the form of tables and figures Then, tables and figures were thoroughly analyzed and interpreted to serve for more effective discussion of the findings as well as more reliable assessments and suggestions for the future study

2.2.3 Procedure

In general, the research has undergone 3 phases as follows:

- Phase 1: I spent the first 2 weeks to prepare for my research, from choosing the sources to determining the goals that I would like to achieve

- Phase 2: all the survey questionnaires and interviews are designed carefully and given to the students and teachers at Ninh Giang High School The data is then analyzed This period was about 3 weeks long

- Phase 3: the rest of the time I concentrate on writing the first draft, review it and then complete the whole version of the paper

2.3 Summary

Chapter 2 has provided some information on the employed research method, the data collection instruments which consists of data analysis, questionnaires, interviews, observation; procedure of the study and data analysis techniques as well The results obtainable via the methods will be presented in the next chapter

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

In the previous chapter, details of the subjects, data collection tools, and procedures

of the research have been described The analysis of the data collected presented in this chapter The results of the study are to be reported on each of the objectives of the research

3.1 Findings & Discussion on linguistic features of Could, Would,

May, Might

3.1.1 Structural features of Could, Would, May, Might

The structure of a modal verb is simple: there is never a conjugation or a non-finite form and they can take the negation directly

Modal verbs always appear at the beginning of the verb phrase in English Unlike other verbs, modal verbs do not show numbers The six primary verb phrase combinations in English are:

modal verb + simple form modal verb + have + past participle modal verb + be + present participle modal verb + have + been + past participle modal verb + be + past participle

modal verb + have + been + present participle

(Source: http://sdhanel.com/grammar/modalverbtesl.html)

* You might try the cheesecake

* You might have tried the cheese cake

From the 2 above examples, we have seen the position of modal verbs in a sentence:

Subject + Could/ Would/ May/ Might + infinitive

* You might try the cheesecake

(i) Modal verbs are a type of auxiliary verb we use with other verbs to add more meaning to the verb After modal verbs we use the infinitive form without “to”

E.g You might take photographs (not: You might to take …)

(ii) Modals do not change in the third person singular form (he/she/it) in the present simple, or no “-ing” and “-ed” forms

E.g Mary may leave now (not: Mary mays …)

(iii) Modals are not used with the auxiliary verb “do” to form the negative, we add

“not” after the modal To ask questions, we put the modals in front of the subject

E.g Hey, you couldn’t pass me that plate, could you?

Could I have a taste?

Beyond these 'time' meanings, the primary function of modals is related to stance: e.g the expression of possibility or obligation It is important to note that the modals related to past time can be used in hypothetical instances to refer to present

or future time In these cases, the modal is a powerful linguistic way to convey politeness

* Could you pass me the cheese?

* Would you (be so kind as to) do this?

The two sentences above show the politeness Could and Would are the two modal

verbs, employed to convey In other words, they are auxiliaries as politeness markers

* Could you pass me the cheese? means "Please pass me the cheese”

* Would you (be so kind as to) do this? means "Please do this”

The English modal auxiliaries are can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, and would All of these can be negated, either grammatically („will not‟) or morphologically (won‟t): won't, wouldn’t, mustn’t, can’t, couldn’t, mayn’t (rare),

mightn’t, shan’t (marked), shouldn’t

3.1.2 Semantico-pragmatic features of Could, Would, May, Might

3.1.2.1 Common features shared by Could, Would, May, Might

(i) These auxiliaries express modality, both epistemic and deontic

Eg: He might be there

He may go

(ii) These auxiliaries, to the extent possible, act as politeness markers They can be employed as linguistic means for the realization of face saving acts In this sense, they are mitigating devices (mitigaters)

Eg: Would you send me your document?

(iii) Pragmatically, they all can act the tag component in tag questions

Eg: Never mind, would you?

3.1.2.2 Specific features of Could, Would, May, Might

Listed below are the modal meanings contained in these four auxiliaries:

Could

Similar to "can" is "could," which has the same meanings but expresses slightly different sentiments or moods "Could" is generally more polite than "can" and is also how we use "can" in the past tense For example, "could" as "to be able to" expresses ability in the past: "When he was five, he could already read." In terms of

"to be allowed to," "could" expresses more polite permission than "can": "Could I please say something?" The final meaning, "it is possible," expresses possibility and

is used in the same way as "can": "Heavy drinking could cause liver cancer."

Would

We use would mainly to talk about the past, the future in the past, express the conditional mood We also use would for other functions, such as: expressing desire, polite requests and questions, opinion or hope, wish and regret We use would when we ask somebody else to do something for us (request) "Would" is more polite than "Could" For example: would you do me a favor? (very polite) = could you do me a favor? (polite) would you get me some bread, please? (very

polite)= could you get me some bread, please? =(polite) would you open the window? = could you open the windows? “Would” in polite requests and questions

* Would you open the door, please? (more polite than: Open the door, please.)

* Would you go with me? (more polite than: Will you go with me?)

* Would you know the answer? (more polite than: Do you know the answer?)

* What would the capital of Nigeria be? (more polite than: What is the capital

of Nigeria?)

May

The modal verb "may" means "to be allowed to" and "it is possible or probable." The first meaning, not unlike "can," expresses permission, as in "May I please have seconds?" In this sense, "may" is generally seen as more polite and grammatically correct than "can." The second meaning of "may" expresses possibility or probability in the same way as "can" and "could": "Heavy drinking may cause liver cancer." We use "may," "can," or "could" like this when something is possible but not 100 percent certain

Might

"Might" is to "may" as "could" is to "can," as it has the same meanings but is used

as a more polite way to express the speaker‟s attitudes So "might" expresses more polite permission, as in "Might I have seconds?" It also expresses a weaker

possibility or probability, as in "Heavy drinking might cause liver cancer, but we

really are not sure."

3.1.3 Phonological features

3.1.3.1 General phonological features of Could, Would, May, Might

+ All words (Could, Would, May and Might) have weak forms and strong forms By

“strong form” we mean the fact that the words are strong uttered By “weak form”

we mean that the words are uttered with little force

+ They are not inflected for tense and number

e.g Simon might swim not Simon mights swim

[mait] [maitz]

3.1.3.1 Specific phonological features of Could, Would, May, Might

* Strong and Weak forms of “Would”

Example: I would like some fish and chips.

+ Strong forms /aɪ wʊd laɪk sʌm fɪʃ ænd tʃɪps/ This version sounds unnatural and more difficult to understand for a native speaker

+ Weak forms /ɑ wəd laɪk səm fɪʃ ən tʃɪps/and we can use weaker forms sometimes:/ɑd laɪk səm fɪʃ ən tʃɪps/ so we can see that the auxiliary verb "would" has two weak forms /wəd/ and /d/

* Strong and Weak forms of “Could”

The auxiliary verb “Could”, as the verb can, is used in its strong form when

it occurs at the end of the sentence

Strong form /kʊd/ – (Example: Everybody could Or so he could)

Weak form /kəd/ – (Example: He could wait Or Could you spell your name for me,

please?)

* Strong and Weak forms of “May”

“May”: /mei/ - uttered with strong force → strong form

- uttered with little force as compared to the strong form → weak form

+ Future Expectation (Possible) (Weak form): He may play

+ Probability of Present event (Weak form): He may be playing (now)

+ It's a possibility (Strong form): It may not be true

* Strong and Weak forms of “Might”

“Might”: /mait/ - uttered with strong force → strong form

- uttered with little force as compared to the strong form → weak form

+ Future Expectation: Weak form: (Possible) He might play

+ Probability of Present event: Weak form: He might be playing (now)

+ When talking about either future or current states (Strong form):

- Present: Ask John, he might know the answer

- Future: Ask him tomorrow, he might know then

+ It's a possibility (Strong form): I said she might consider a new haircut

3.2 Findings & Discussion on types of mistakes commonly committed by elementary level students at Ninh Giang High School

3.2.1 Types of mistakes related to structural organization of the sentence

Most students understood their tasks when they dealt with exercises on Could,

Would, May, Might But they did not know how to form a modal auxiliary verb,

may be they did not remember the rules, some remembered but not correctly They did not know whether to put a modal auxiliary verb or a main verb, form a modal sentence, and complete transformations Like in these sentences:

- He may (drive) a car

→ He may driving a car Or He may to drive a car

- She (would not) do that

→ She not would do that

- Could you _ me the way to the post office, please? →

Could you telling me the way to the post office, please?

3.2.2 Types of mistakes related to semantico-pragmatic usage

- Sometimes in some contexts, they did not know what modal verb to put in because they could not understand the content of the sentences or paragraphs Like in the sentence:

- ……… you like a drink?

→ Can you like a drink?

- Students do not master the rules and context of Could, Would, May, Might so it can lead to wrong translations

Eg: - Would you please send me the document by email? → Bạn cần phải gửi tài liệu cho mình qua email?

3.2.3 Types of mistakes related to phonological features

(i) Students are likely to use strong forms of Could, Would, May, Mightin all cases (ii) Many students have the habit of pronouncing these verbs wrongly In other case, when I asked students to pronounce for “could”, many of them pronounced that it was “/kut/”, “/ku…s/, not “/kʊd/, /kəd/”

3.2.4 Teaching and learning conditions

Based on the students‟ and teachers‟ feedback in the interview questions and class observation, I have got some results hereafter presented:

All textbooks and lesson plans are prepared and selected from the internet and printed newspaper by teachers Moreover, students themselves have currently been required to prepare class presentation for given technical topics They have to search internet or other resources themselves All respondents agree that they have never given the opportunity to go to available workshops at their school for experience and observation or to attend meeting with participation of technical teacher to help them consult practical experience This data raises a question for the department and the school managers There is still single a technique to teach

Could, Would, May, Might; explanations and doing exercises Teachers only base

themselves on the content of the lesson, the students‟ level, and the grammatical items they want to teach but don‟t find a suitable method by which they can achieve the best results

3.3 Findings & Discussion on the possible pedagogical implications for

teaching Could, Would, May, Might

* Solutions to the types of mistakes committed by elementary level students at Ninh Giang High School

3.3.1 Solutions to mistakes related to structural organization of the sentence

English language learners are often confused by Could, Would, May, Might as

politeness markers because they are used differently than other verbs and in a wide variety of situations There are a couple methods you can use to teach students One

is to introduce only a few words at a time and complete several practice activities before attempting to introduce additional vocabulary Another way you can teach is

to structure your lessons around their uses You could leave all Could, Would, May,

Might as politeness markers written on the board for the whole chapter but use only

the ones appropriate for giving advice in one lesson and politeness in another for instance

* Introduction

Start by introducing all Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers you wish

to talk about This may include Could, Would, May, Might, depending on the level

of your class, you can narrow it down to those you feel are most important Obviously there are no images that can help students understand the meanings of these words so you can do pronunciation practice simply by pointing to the words

on the board In your introduction you can cover some rules that apply to all Could,

Would, May, Might as politeness markers Unlike most verbs, no -s is needed to

form the third person singular For example “He could ~.” is correct, while “He

work.” is incorrect Adding not forms the negative structure Additionally they

always require another verb because they cannot act as the main verb in a sentence

and they only have present tense forms so unlike the word swim, there is no past tense form for Could, Would, May, Might as politeness markers This may seem like

a long and confusing introduction but it is best after the pronunciation practice to

simply write the Could, Would, May, Might and their rules off to the side of the

board for reference

* Practice

Some of the words you want to focus on in this section are Could, Would, May,

Might Talk to your students about things they can do and practice using Would in

the target structure because this will be the easiest word to start off with Next you

should talk about Might; “Might I take these tests?” So as you can see just this, it is

best to introduce structures gradually and to plan lots of practice activities for each

3.3.2 Solutions to mistakes related to semantico-pragmatic usage

The following techniques can be employed as solutions to the problems encountered

by students in using Could, Would, May, Might

In this kind of exercise, students are given some part of a sentence or a paragraph They are asked to complete the sentence or the paragraph Completion exercises can also be gap filling like close reading texts

E.g Exercise 1: Complete the following sentences using suitable word

1 …… I have something to drink?

2 …… you please email that document to me? I need it

3 ……… you mind buying two loaves of bread on your way home?

 Situation practice

One of the important things in teaching Could, Would, May, Might is that students

must know how to use the structures in the right situations Therefore, situation practice is necessary The situations the teacher uses for practice must be from easy

to difficult and must be closed to real life situations

E.g Ask polite questions in the following situations Use any appropriate word

1 You’re in office You’re cold The window is opened

2 You’re at a bar You want some more wine

 Free practice

For this kind of practice, students have the chance to use the Could, Would, May,

Might and their equivalent structures to give their own politeness requests One

common activity that can be used to practice the use of Would is “if you want to

invite your friend…” With a pen and a piece of paper, students are asked to move

round the classroom to ask their friends and note down the information After adequate time for practice, students are asked to report back to the whole class on the information they have

However, there is no single method or technique used to teach a particular language point because the background of learners, situations, teaching and learning