The use of english modals by first-year students of the department of anglophone studies

III.2.2 - Modal Production

We wanted to know how appropriately students could use the modals. First of all, we shall present the results and comment them; and then, we shall make some comments on production.

We shall present scores and comments, the distribution of modals to meanings, the confusions between modals, the use of modals to express ambiguity, and the students' preference of modals.

III.2.2.1 - Scores and comments

III.2.2.1.1 - Scores of the deontic meaning production and comments

Part four was designed to assess the use of modals to express the deontic meanings. It was scored out of seven. The scores and comments follow:

Chart 14: Scores of the deontic meaning production and comments

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	0
1	3
2	9
3	14
4	14
5	17
6	4
7	1

One student scores 7/7 while 3 students score 1/7. The chart shows that 36 students get the average whereas 26 fail to have it. The numbers give respectively 58.06 % and 41.93 %. More than half of students get the average in the production of modals to express deontic meanings. What is the case of the epistemic meanings?

III.2.2.1.2 - Scores of the epistemic meaning production and comments

This part was about the epistemic meanings; it was scored out of three. The scores follow:

Chart 15: Scores of the epistemic meaning production

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	9
1	31
2	21
3	1

40 students fail to get more than 1.5 out of 3 in this part while 22 do. That is, 35.48 % succeed in this part, against 64.51%. There is more failure than success in the production of modals to express the epistemic meanings. Only 1 student gets 3/3 whereas 9 students scores 0/3.

III.2.2.1.3 - Scores of the deontic or/and epistemic meaning production

and comments

Students were given all the meanings - the deontic meaning and the epistemic meaning - and they had to use modals to express them. This part was scored out of 10. The scores are presented in a chart.

Chart 16: Scores of the deontic or/and epistemic meaning production

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	1
1	2
2	8
3	15
4	13
5	8
6	13
7	2
8	0
9	0
10	0

1 student has 0 out of 10; the best mark is 7 out of 10 and 2 students have got it.

39 students failed to get the average whereas 23 students took the part successfully. The percentage of success is 37.09% and that of failure is 62.90%. More than half of students fail in this part, where meanings are mixed. Let's now analyze the test one in general.

III.2.2.1.4 - Scores of the test on production and comments

The test number two aimed at finding how well students can produce modal verbs appropriately in say contexts. The analysis of data gives the following results.

Chart 17: Scores of the test on production

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	0
1	0
2	0
3	2
4	0
5	4
6	4
7	7
8	8
9	10
10	10
11	7
12	3
13	6
14	1
15
16
17
18
19
20

The chart shows that 2 students got 3 out of 20 and 1 student got the best mark of 14 out of 20. 35 students missed the average whereas 27 passed the test. Only 43.54 % of students succeeded in production of modals while 56.45 % failed. In all, there is more failure than success.

III.2.2.1.5 - Partial conclusion on scores of production

When all the scores of production are considered in terms of failure, the epistemic use of modals has the highest percentage (64.51 %). It means that the use of the epistemic modals is the least known domain of students. If we compare the two meanings it appears that students do better in the deontic use of modals (58.06 % of success) than in the epistemic use (35.48 % of success). In the sixth part, where the uses are mixed, the degree of success is 37.09 %. In fact, the combination of the deontic meaning and the epistemic one should give, logically, 46.99 % of success in part six. But it is not so in part six as the percentage of success is 37.09 %. There is a decrease of 9.9 %. This means that 9.9 % of students found some of the right modals in the preceding parts but they failed in the part six. We are allowed to say that they have found the right modals by chance, or they failed in using the right modals by chance. At all account, modals are used haphazardly.

III.2.2.2 - Distribution of modals to meanings

In our attempt to assess students' use of the modal verbs we proposed the ideas and ask them to use modals to express them. Each student used modals to express the ideas. Sometimes the right modal is used and sometimes, the wrong modal is used.

Chart 18: Distribution of modals to meanings

WRONG MODAL MEANING	CAN	WILL	SHALL	MAY	MUST	COULD	WOULD	MIGHT	SHOULD	NOTHING
INVITATION	8 12.92%	2 3.22%		1 1.61%		9 14.51%	6 9.67%	5 8.06%	3 4.83%
GIVING PERMISSION	4 6.45%	14 22.58%	4 6.45%	18 29.03%	4 6.45%	9 14.51%	4 6.45%	13 20.96%	6 9.67%	2 3.22%
ADVISABILITY	2 3.22%	8 12.92%	3 4.83%	5 8.06%	19 30.64%	34.83%	10 16.12%	8 12.92%		3 4.83%
NECESSITY	5 8.06%	8 3.22%	9 14.51%	2 3.22%			3 4.83%	11 17.74%	23 37.09%	2 3.22%
OBLIGATION				1 1.61%	54 87.09%		2 3.22%		15 24.19%
GENERAL REQUEST	18 29.03%	4 6.45%	2 3.22%	14 22.58%		17 27.41%	5 8.06%	5 8.06%	5 8.06%	6 9.67%
ASKING FOR PERMISSION		1 1.61%	2 3.22%						2 3.22%
POSSIBILITY	13 20.96%	4 6.45%	5 8.06%	5 8.06%	7 11.29%	8 12.92	5 8.06%	5 8.06%	1 1.61%	4 6.45%
PROBABILITY	7 11.29%	14 22.58%	3 4.83%	17 27.41%	1 1.61%	19 30.64%	7 11.29%	13 20.96%	4 6.45%	4 6.45%
CERTAINTY	5 8.06%		2 3.22%	4 6.45%	10 16.10%	3 4.83%	5 8.06%	7 11.29%	6 9.67%3	3 4.83%
BOTH	6 9.67%	6 9.67%		12 19.35%	2 3.22%	12 19.35		6 9.67%	8 12.92%	2 3.22%

54 students out of 62, that is 87.09% of students wrongly used WILL. Either they don't know that WILL expresses obligation or they don't take into account the context, or they do think obligation is expressed only by MUST. In the sentence «You will go to war or my name is not Captain Blood» the context is situated in a wartime. So, the speaker, who is authoritative, will oblige certainly a soldier to go to war. It is imperative. Here, the testees underlook the context of situation (wartime), the addressor (a captain) and the addressee (a soldier, presupposed). Students failed to infer the addressee. Moreover, 37.09 % of students used SHOULD to express necessity when they should use MUST. By using SHOULD it may appear a piece of advice instead of a necessity. So, they fail to transmit the right idea. In the sentence, «Honey, you are sick, you must take these tablets to feel well» the lover is not advising, he is implicitly saying «if you don't take these tablets you will not feel better or you will die». The testees did not perceive this implicature. Besides, some students failed to use modals to express say ambiguity. For instance, 12 students used MAY to express both obligation and probability whereas 8 students used SHOULD to express both permission and possibility.

Furthermore, we wanted to know the least known meaning. We counted the number of modals attributed wrongly to meanings, and the number of times wrong modals were used to express each meaning. We ranked them in decreasing order in the following chart.

Chart 19: Frequency of distribution of modals to meanings

	PROBABILITY	GIVING PERMISSION	POSSIBILITY	GENERAL REQUEST	ADVISABILITY	CERTAINTY	NECESSITY	BOTH	INVITATION	OBLIGATION	ASKING FOR PERMISSION
CASES	10	10	10	9	9	9	8	8	7	4	3
USES	89	78	57	76	61	45	57	54	34	72	5

The chart displays that probability is the meaning to which students give wrong modals the most. The 9 modals plus «blanks» are used to express probability and happens 89 times. By «both» we mean the deontic meaning and the epistemic meaning. Students could not use a simple modal to express the two meanings at the same time (8 cases and 54 times). The following section is about the wrong use of modals to express ambiguous meanings.

III.2.2.3 - Use of modals to express ambiguity

In the test, one sentence was given with two meanings (possibility or giving permission) and another sentence with the meanings (obligation or probability). We aimed at finding out how far students perceive the ambiguity of meanings and the difficulties to use a single modal to express both meanings. By determining the rates of ambiguity of modals we shall know if they are aware of the ambiguous meanings of modals. Apparently, very few are not aware of this ambiguity. The chart below shows the results.

Chart 20: Ambiguous use of modals

WRONG MODAL AMBIGUOUS MEANINGS	CAN	WILL	COULD	WOULD	MIGHT	SHOULD	SHALL	MAY	MUST	NOTHING
POSSIBILITY OR PERMISSION	1 1.61%	5 8.06%	7 11.29%		1 1.61%	4 6.45%			2 3.22%	1 1.61%
OBLIGATION OR PROBABILITY	5 8.06%	1 1.61%	5 8.06%		5 8.06%	4 6.45%		12 19.35%		1 1.61%

19.35 % of students think that MAY expresses the ambiguity between obligation and probability. No student uses would or shall. We shall study the cases and uses.

Chart 21: Frequency of ambiguity

	OBLIGATION OR PROBABILITY	POSSIBILITY OR PERMISSION
CASES	7	7
USES	33	8

The use of modals to express both obligation and probability seems more difficult (7 cases, 33 uses) than that of possibility or permission.

To use one modal to express both meanings is easier (7 cases) than to use one modal to express specific meaning (10 cases, cf. chart 12).

The fact that students used wrong modals to express meanings or the ideas suggested in the test may be due to the confusions they make about modals.

III.2.2.4 - Confusion between modals

Many students confuse meanings. They use one modal to express a given meaning instead of using the appropriate modal. When the appropriate modal is not used, the meaning of the sentence or the idea suggested is changed into another idea, or into delirious meaning. For instance, a student used must instead of will to express certainty. So, the sentence «...accidents will happen» became «...accidents must happen», and «...a girl can betray her lover» became «...a girl must betray her lover».

The chart below shows the different confusions between modals.

Chart 22: Confusion between modals

WRONG MODAL MODAL MEANING	CAN	MAY	MUST	COULD	MIGHT	SHALL	SHOULD	WILL	WOULD	NOTHING
CAN		22 35.48%	7 11.29%	29 46.77%	18 29.09%	6 9.67%	10 16.12%	10 16.12%	8 12.92%	3 4.83%
MAY	16 25.80%		8 12.92%	19 30.64%	5 8.06%	6 9.67%	12 19.35%	19 30.64%	2 3.22%	5 8.06%3
MUST	13 20.96%	19 30.64%		16 25.80%	14 22.58%	10 16.12%	37 59.67%	14 22.58%	6 9.67%	3 4.83%
COULD	19 30.64%	15 25.19%			4 6.45%	3 4.83%	3 4.83%	5 8.06%		6 9.67%
MIGHT						2 3.22%	2 3.22%	1 1.61%
SHALL	9 14.51%	1 1.16%		11 17.74%	4 6.45%		4 6.45%	2 3.22%
SHOULD	5 8.06%	14 22.58%	20 32.25%	15 24.19%	17 27.41%	5 8.06%		11 17.74%	12 19.35%	5 8.06%
WILL	5 8.06%	7 11.29%	59 95.16%	20 32.25%	9 14.51%	4 6.45%	15 24.19%		12 19.35%	3 4.83%
WOULD	18 29.03%	14 22.58%			4 6.45%	1 1.61%	1 1.61%	4 6.45%		6 9.67%

The highest confusion lies between MUST and WILL: 95.16 % of students misused MUST for WILL. 59.67 % of students used SHOULD where they had to use MUST. Some modals are confused with others. The degree of confusions follows:

Chart 23: Frequency of confusions between modals

	WILL	MUST	CAN	SHOULD	MAY	COULD	WOULD	SHALL	MIGHT
CASES	9	9	9	9	9	7	7	6	3
USES	134	132	113	104	92	55	48	31	5

The least known modal, that is the most confusing, is WILL as it is used in 9 cases and 134 times. Then come MUST (9 cases, 132 uses), CAN (9 cases, 113 uses), SHOULD (9 cases, 104 uses).

If students confuse modals, it may be due to the fact that many modals can be used to express the same idea or meaning without changing the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the modals CAN or Will can be used to express general request as in «...can/will you help me with this job?». Also, the modals CAN/MAY/COULD/MIGHT can be used to express «asking for permission as in «...can/may/could/might I go now?». Some students prefer some modals to others.

III.2.2.5 - Students' preferred modals

Students' modal preference is shown in the below chart.

Chart 24: Preference of modals

USE OF RATHER THAN	CAN	MAY	COULD	MIGHT	WILL	WOULD
CAN		35 56.45 %	5 8.06 %	22 35.48 %	4 6.45 %
MAY	25 40.32 %		5 8.06 %	22 35.48 %
COULD	13 20.94 %	17 27.41 %		28 35.48 %		5 8.06 %
MIGHT	11 17.74 %	16 25.80 %	5 8.06 %
WILL	28 45.16 %
WOULD			4 6.45 %

When students have the choice to use modals they prefer some to others. On the chart, it appears that if students have the choice between MAY and CAN, 40.32 % prefer CAN whereas 56.45 % opt for MAY. If they have the choice between CAN and COULD, 8.06 % prefer COULD while 20.96 % will use CAN. The degrees of preference between can, may, could, might, will, would are as follows, decreasingly:

Chart 25: Frequency of preference of modals

	CAN	COULD	MAY	MIGHT	WOULD	WILL
CASES	4	4	3	3	1	1
USES	77	19	68	64	5	4

The preferred modal is CAN. In the current chart, «cases» is the sum of the numbers taken vertically from the preceding chart.

After the presentation of the different results of the production, we shall comment the findings from these results on the production of modals.

III.2.2.6 - Comments on production

When we consider all the results we have found, we are bound to say that students can't use the modal verbs appropriately. 41.93 % of students fail to use the appropriate modals to express the deontic meaning, while 64.51 % of students fail when it comes to the epistemic meanings. It appears that students have more difficulties to express the epistemic meanings than the deontic ones.

The students' level is very low regarding the average level of the sample. Their level is fairly good when they are asked to express the deontic meanings (3.79/7), insufficient when they have to express the epistemic meanings (1.22/3) and when meanings are combined (3.98/10).

In general, students fail to use the modals to express meanings. The level of students in production is insufficient (9/20).

The low scores of students may be due to their ignorance of modals though they can be using modals as they were taught to do so. If some students confuse modals, some do not try at all. The latter leave the blanks maybe because of ignorance. Thus, in the test on production, there were 28 blanks left empty. That is, about 45.16 % of students leave a blank. The reason they have blank may not be different from the one of students who refused to take the test. Here again, there is the strategy of avoidance as in recognition. The similarities between recognition and production bring us to draw some general conclusions.

III.2.3 - Partial conclusions and verification of the hypothesis

Our findings evidence that students don't master the English modal auxiliary verbs since, averagely, 48.38 % get the average in our tests on the English modals. The students' level is low since their average level on modals is 9.54/20. A comparison of the two tests reveals that students can identify the meanings of modals (53.22 %) more than they are able to produce modals (43.54 %). Students understand the meanings of modals when they are addressed but they cannot use modals to express their thoughts. Some students do produce modals «correctly» or understand their meanings, however, about 11 % of students use them haphazardly, which may bring them sometimes to betray their thoughts. Those who do not want to say nonsense about modals abstain. About 32.25 % of students abstain to react about modals, not to mention those who did not take the test. Only 5.63 % of the students of first year accepted to be tested. Girls seem to be more reluctant than boys regarding modals, as only 3.22 % of the 465 girls of the class sat for the tests while 7.31 % of the 670 boys of first year took the tests. Among the testees, there were only 2 repeaters of the class. Repeaters may believe they master modals, although they need to be tested to confirm their belief.

We have also found that students do better in deontic meanings than in epistemic ones. In fact, in recognition 50 % succeed in deontic meanings versus 38.70 % in epistemic ones. As for production, 58.06 % succeed in deontic versus 35.48 % in epistemic. These numbers may be attributed to students' deontic tendency. As a matter of fact, we have found that 54.04 % of students are inclined to deontic meanings though they confuse them with one another.

There are also confusions between the deontic meanings and the epistemic meanings. However, there is more confusion between the kinds of meanings than between their types. Indeed, the highest confusion between the kinds of meanings is 75.80 % (confusion between obligation and necessity), 70.96 % (confusion between probability and possibility); whereas the confusion between the deontic meaning and the epistemic meaning is 53.22 %. We can conclude that students misuse modals not because modals express both deontic meaning and epistemic meanings, but because modals are subtle in the kinds of meanings they express.

We discover further that students mix up meanings together as well as modals. They do not master meanings and modals to the same level. Talking of production, the least known modals are, decreasingly, WILL, MUST, CAN etc., and the least known meanings are, decreasingly, probability, giving permission, possibility etc. they confuse modals such as MUST with WILL (95.16%), SHOULD with MUST (59.67%).

Students also prefer some modals to others. Thus, CAN is preferred to COULD, COULD to MAY, etc.

As recognition is concerned, the least known modals are MUST, MAY, SHOULD etc., and the least known meanings are, decreasingly, obligation, advisability, giving permission etc.

It appears that the mastery of meanings or modals depends on recognition and production. That is, there is a variation of knowledge depending on, whether students are addressed or they address. They may recognize some meanings, but be unable to use modals to express them.