Cover not available

In:Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 179–204

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language

The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage

ORCiD logo with link | New Mexico State University
ORCiD logo with link | University of California, Santa Barbara
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.07des
In this study, we apply Gries and Divjak’s Behavioral Profile approach to compare native English can and may, learner English can and may, and French pouvoir. We annotated over 3,700 examples across three corpora according to more than 20 morphosyntactic and semantic features and we analysed the features’ distribution with a hierarchical cluster analysis and a logistic regression. The cluster analysis shows that French English learners build up fairly coherent categories that group the English modals together followed by pouvoir, but that they also consider pouvoir to be semantically more similar to can than to may. The regression strongly supports learners’ coherent categories; however, a variety of interactions shows where learners’ modal use still deviates from that of native speakers.
References (42)
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arppe, A. (2008). Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography: A study of synonymy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartning, I. (2009). The advanced learner variety: 10 years later. In E. Labeau, & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 11–40). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in language and discourse . Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byloo, P. (2009). Modality and negation: A corpus-based study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1980). On the non-equivalence of may and can . Lingua , 50(3), 209–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi modals in English . Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Haan, F. (1997). The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study . New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts, & A. MacMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 268–287). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deshors, S.C. (2010). A multifactorial study of the uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sussex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D.S., & Gries, St. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2(1), 23–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon , 3(2), 188–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phasal verbs in English and Russian. In K. Dziwirek, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 273–296). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, C., & Sarmento, S. (2006). Central modals in an aviation corpus: Frequency and distribution. Letras de Hoje , 41(2), 215–240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In W.C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317–340). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010a). Behavioural Profiles 1.01: A program for R 2.7.1 and higher.
Gries, St. Th., & Deshors, S.C. (To appear). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Divjak, D.S. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics: Myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 333–354). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal , 34, 121–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hermerén, L. (1978). On Modality in English: A study of the semantics of the modals . Lund: LiberLäromedel/Gleerups.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R.D. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I., & Fant, L. (2005). High Level Proficiency in Second Language Use. Research program for Riksbanken Jubileumsfond. (Stockholm university) [URL].
Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilborn, K., & Ito, T. (1989). Sentence processing strategies in adult bilinguals. In B. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 257–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klinge, A., & Müller, H.H. (2005). Modality: Intrigue and inspiration. In A. Klinge, & H.H. Müller (Eds.), Modality studies in form and function (pp. 1–4). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004). Meaning and the English verb . London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2004). A unified model of language acquisition. Retrieved from [URL] [Accessed 18 June 2010].
Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Herrera H., Martínez, F., & Rica, J.P. (2003). Contrasting the use of learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In S. Granger, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (pp. 211–230). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English modals . London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2007). Interaction of modality and negation. In W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, & A. Pokojska (Eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in Honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (pp. 224–254). Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for statistical computing . Vienna, Austria. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salkie, R. (2000). Corpus linguistics: A brief guide to research in French language and linguistics. AFLS Cahiers , 6, 44–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2004). Towards a non-unitary analysis of modality. In L. Gournay, & J.-M. Merle (Eds.), Contrastes: mélanges offerts à Jacqueline Guillemin-Flescher (pp. 169–182). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97–121). New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Adolf, Philippa
2024. Differential object marking in the L2 Spanish of L1 German speakers: A corpus-based analysis. In Spanish as a second and third language [Romanistik, 42], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Bębeniec, Daria
2024. In search of methodological standards for corpus-based cognitive semantics: The case of Behavioral Profiles. Studia Neophilologica 96:2 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Dubois, Tanguy, Magali Paquot & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2023. Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: the genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Dubois, Tanguy, Magali Paquot & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2025. Future-time reference in spoken EFL. Journal of Second Language Studies 8:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
ÖZBAY, Ali Şükrü & Zehra GÜRSOY
2023. Computerized corpus as a tool for educational technology and learning in the analysis of four-word recurrent expressions. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning 6:1 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska
2022. The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Bernaisch, Tobias
2020. Introduction. In Gender in World Englishes, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bouhlal, Fatma, Marlise Horst & Juliane Martini
2018. Modality in ESL Textbooks: Insights from a Contrastive Corpus-Based Analysis. The Canadian Modern Language Review 74:2 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Christopher J., Jack Joyce & Chris Robson
2017. Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests . Applied Linguistics Review 8:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Wulff, Stefanie
2017. What learner corpus research can contribute to multilingualism research. International Journal of Bilingualism 21:6 ► pp. 734 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th. & Tobias Bernaisch
2016. Exploring epicentres empirically. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 37:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors
2015. EFL and/vs. ESL?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue