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

III.2.1 - Meaning Recognition

In the first test we wanted to know which meaning students would give to the modals proposed in sentences.

The results on scores, the distribution of meanings to modals, the confusions between types of meanings, the confusion between kinds of meanings and the students' modality tendency are presented.

III.2.1.1 - Scores and comments

III.2.1.1.1- Scores of the deontic meaning recognition and

comments

The first part was scored out of seven and was about the deontic meaning of modals. Here are the different marks with the number of students.

Chart 4: Scores of the deontic meaning recognition

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	0
1	5
2	12
3	14
4	12
5	12
6	5
7	2

On the left of the chart there are marks and on the right there are the numbers of students who get these marks. For example, five (5) students get the mark one out of seven (1/7). The students who get the average, that is, more than four out of seven (4/7) are separated from those who don't get it. So, thirty-one (31) students out of sixty two get the average. This number corresponds to fifty per cent (50%) of the testees. Half of the testees recognize the right meanings and half of them fail to recognize the appropriate meanings within the deontic meaning. 2 students get 7/7.

III.2.1.1.2 - Scores of the epistemic meaning recognition and

comments

The second part dealt with the epistemic meanings. It was scored out of three. The results are as follows:

Chart 5: Scores of the epistemic meaning recognition

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	10
1	28
2	8
3	16

In this part thirty-eight (38) students don't get the average but twenty-four

(24) do. This makes respectively 61.29 % and 38.70 %. In this regard, we can say that most of the testees don't know the epistemic meanings. Though 16 students get 3/3, 10 students get 0/3.

III.2.1.1.3 - Scores of the deontic or/and epistemic meaning recognition and comments

Part three was a combination of the deontic meaning and the epistemic one. There were four sentences in each kind of meaning. The following chart displays the marks with the number of students corresponding to them.

Chart 6: - Scores of the deontic or/and epistemic meaning recognition and comments

MARKS	NUMBER OF STUDENTS
0	0
1	1
2	10
3	16
4
5	12
6	11
7	6
8	4
9	1
10	1

By combining the two types of meanings, 56.45 % of the testees get the average, opposed to 46.54 %, those who don't get the average (27/62 and 35/62). 1 student gets 10/10 while the lowest mark is 1/10.

III.2.1.1.4 - Scores of the test on recognition and comments

The test one aimed at finding how many students could recognize the meanings of modals. The answer is as follows:

Chart 7: Scores of test on recognition

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

In the test on recognition, in general, 33 students out of 62 get the average while 29 get less than 10 out of 20; this is respectively 53.22 % and 46.77 %. More than half of the testees get the average, they recognize the right meanings. The best mark is 18/20 and the lowest is 4/20.

III.2.1.1.5 - Comments on scores

When scores are analyzed, it appears that students do better in deontic meanings (50%) than in epistemic meanings (38.70 %). When the two meanings are mixed up, students do better (56.45 %). The last performance may be due to the fact that some students, who have not got the right meaning in the first two parts, get the right meaning in the third part. In part one 50% of students got the average; logically, in part three less than 50% of students were expected to get the average (44.35 %). The result is reverse as 56.45 % of students have the average in part three. There is an increase of 12.10 %. We may conclude that 12.10 % find the right meanings by chance. After having analyzed students' marks we shall analyze the answers to the exercise.

III.2.1.2 - Distribution of meanings to modals

By asking students to find the right meanings for the modals proposed we wanted to know if they would give the right meaning to the modal. We notice that every student attributes at least one wrong meaning to a modal and every meaning was attributed at least one wrong modal. These wrong meanings attributed to modals appear in the following chart. From left to right there are meanings attributed to modals wrongly; from up to down there are the different modals. The box «nothing» is used for the sentences not filled by students. The modals «could» and «would» were not used in our test. At the intersection of modals and wrong meanings there are the numbers of students who used ithem and their percentages in comparison to the total number of students. For example, 6 students wrongly think that WILL expresses General Request, that is 9.67 % of the testees think so.

CHART 8: Distribution of meanings to modals

WRONG MEANING MODAL	GENERAL REQUEST	ASKING FOR PERMISSION	INVITATION	GIVING PERMISSION	ADVISABILITY	NECESSITY	OBLIGATION	POSSIBILITY	PROBABILITY	CERTAINTY	NOTHING
CAN	2 03.22%		4 6.45 %						3 4.83%	5 8.06%
WILL	6 09.67%	1 01.61%	2 03.22%		4 06.45%	14 22.58%	1 01.61%	17 27.41%	20 32.25%	1919 30.64%	3 4.83%
MAY	16 25.30%	8 12.92%	7 11.29%	15 24.19%	7 11.29%	3 4.83%	4 6.45%	3 4.83%	36 58.06%	1 1.61%	1 1.61%
SHALL	11 17.74%	8 12.92%	6 9.67%	6 9.67%	4 6.45%	15 24.19%	1 1.61%	1 1.61%	2 3.22%		1 1.61%
MUST	3 4.83%	25 40.32%	4 6.45%	5 8.06%	7 11.29%	17 27.41	46 74.19%	11 17.74%	1 1.61%	20 32.25%	3 4.83%
MIGHT							1 1.61%		32 51.61%	10 16.12%
SHOULD	4 6.45%	1 1.81%	5 8.06%	1 1.61%	5 8.06%	11 17.74%	9 14.51%	29 46.77%	4 6.45%	18 29.03%	4 6.45%

According to the above chart, 74.19 % of students wrongly attribute Obligation to MUST; that is, whenever they see MUST they think of obligation. This can be due to the fact that they are taught that MUST expresses Obligation. They do not know that MUST can express something else according to the addressor. Most of them think so in the sentence «You must see a doctor, father». Students focus on what they are taught than to reality. «Father» is the addressee, the speaker is probably a child. Morally speaking, a child cannot oblige his father to do whatsoever. 58.06 % of students wrongly believe that MAY expresses probability while 51.61% wrongly say that MIGHT expresses probability. The results show that the meanings of modals are ignored. We have classified modals from the least known to the best known in the following chart, derivated from the above chart.

In the chart below, we use the term «case» to qualify the number of wrong meanings attributed to the modal. For example, there are 4 meanings wrongly used for «can» (general request, invitation, probability and certainty). So there are 4 cases. The term «uses» refers to the number of times wrong meanings are attributed to modals. The uses of «can» are 14 [(2general request) + (4 invitation) + (3 probability) + (5 certainty) = (14 uses)]. It is the horizontal line that is considered.

CHART 9: Frequency of distribution

	MUST	MAY	SHOULD	WILL	SHALL	CAN	MIGHT
CASES	11	11	11	10	10	4	2
USES	142	102	91	87	55	14	43

The least known modal is MUST because it is used in 11 cases or situations, and 142 times. The above chart does not include the results of the sentences number one and number four of part three as these sentences contain two meanings at the same time. We constructed them so because we wanted to identify students' modality tendency through them. It's the reason why we did not say their meanings.

III.2.1.3 - Students' modality tendency

We purposely left two sentences without contexts for the students to give the meanings according to their perception. The modals being ambiguous, each student interprets them.

CHART 10: Modality tendency

MEANING MODALS	DEONTIC MEANING	EPISTEMIC MEANING	SOMETHING ELSE	NOTHING
MUST	56 90.32%	5 8.06%	1 1.61%
CAN	11 17.74%	45 72.58%	5 8.06%	1 1.61%

As students were given the choice between the epistemic meaning and the deontic

meaning, 90.32 % of students preferred the deontic meaning with MUST, and 8.06 % of students opted for the epistemic meaning with MUST. 72.58 % of students chose the epistemic meaning for CAN whereas 17.74 % of the students chose the deontic meaning. Averagely 40.32 % of students preferred the epistemic meaning while 54.03 % had a deontic tendency. So, students' modality tendency is the deontic meaning.

Regarding the percentage, we can say that the percentage of the deontic meaning with MUST may be linked to students' perception of obligation since most of them believe that MUST always expresses obligation. As for the high percentage of CAN with the epistemic meaning students may be confusing possibility with ability. Furthermore, the high percentage of the deontic meaning over the epistemic may be related to the fact that students have social values that conditioned them to have social tendency. Psychologically, students may be giving little importance to logic as logic is the basis of epistemic meanings. They may not be very futuristic by projecting events; they may lack entrepreneurial flair. The tendency may also be due to the confusion of meanings. In the following point, we shall verify whether they make differences between meanings.

III.2.1.4 - Confusion between the kinds of meanings

By «kinds of meanings» we mean the different meanings modals express such as «obligation, possibility». To find whether students make differences between modals, we use a chart on which there are expected meanings from students, and the meanings students attributed wrongly to modals. We use here the methods used for chart 8.

Chart 11: Confusion between the kinds of meanings

WRONG MEANING EXPECTED MEANING	GENERAL REQUEST	INVITATION	GIVING PERMISSION	ASKING FOR PERMISSION	ADVISABILITY	NECESSITY	OBLIGATION	POSSIBILITY	PROBABILITY	CERTAINTY	NOTHING
GENERAL REQUEST		2 3.22%	5 8.06%	23 37.09%		13 20.96%	11 17.74%				1 1.61%
INVITATION	9 14.51%		3 4.83%	8 12.92%	1 1.61%	1 1.61%		1 1.61%	2 3.22%
GIVING PERMISSION	6 9.67%	7 11.29%		2 3.22%	2 3.22%	2 3.22%	3 4.83%	2 3.22%	1 1.61%		1 1.61%
ASKING FOR PERMISSION	10 16.12%	3 4.83%	11 17.74%		4 6.45%1 1.61%
ADVISABILITY	3 4.83%	5 8.06%	1 1.61%	1 1.61%		11 17.74%	9 14.51%	2 3.22%	3 4.83%	3 4.83%	2 3.22%
NECESSITY	1 1.61%				6 9.67%		44 70.96%				1 1.61%
OBLIGATION	5 8.06%	7 11.29%	4 6.45%	1 1.61%	8 12.92%	30 48.32%		2 3.22%	3 4.83%	20 32.25%	2 3.22%
POSSIBILITY		1 1.61%	6 9.67%	3 4.83%	2 3.22%		1 1.61%		47 75.8%	15 24.19%
PROBABILITY	2 3.22%	1 1.61%			4 6.45%	3 4.33%	12 19.35%	34 54.83%		34 54.83%	3 4.83%
CERTAINTY	3 4.83%	1 1.63%			1 1.63%	3 4.83%	1 1.61%	13 20.96%	18 29.03%		3 4.83%
DEONTIC OR EPISTEMIC											1 1.61%

In the chart we observe that students confuse meanings. Many meanings are confused with others: 75.80 % of students wrongly use probability for possibility; 70.96 % of students confuse obligation with necessity; 54,83 % of students confuse possibility with probability; certainty with probability.

Students' confusion between probability and possibility may be due to their misunderstanding of these meanings or to their thinking systems. Indeed, if they don't know the meanings they cannot use them appropriately. However, there may be some psychological attitudes that urge them to think that what is possible is probable. They are confusing, someway, theory and practice as possibility is linked to theory and probability to facts. Students may be dealing in their everyday life with theories; they may not be realistic enough. Is this phenomenon due to the social context or to the teaching and learning system? Further research needs to be done in this sense.

If we analyze the students' answers under a psychological viewpoint, we may say that most of them fear the authority. That is, they are still under the control of some authority. They don't have the freedom of acts. 70.96 % of them think that what is necessary is obligatory. Which is not true for someone who can resist and disobey to what other people think is obligatory. What is necessary is not necessarily obligatory.

Students confuse kinds of meanings, and the most confused meaning is supposed to be the least known. The board below ranks them by using the term cases and uses as for the chart 9.

Chart 12: Frequency of confusion of the kinds of meanings

	OBLIGATION	ADVISABILITY	GIVING PERMISSION	PROBABILITY	CERTAINTY	POSSIBILITY	INVITATION	GENERAL REQUEST	ASKING FOR PERMISSION	NECESSITY	BOTH
CASES	10	10	9	8	8	7	7	6	5	4	1
USES	82	40	26	93	42	75	25	55	29	52	1

By «both,» we mean «the epistemic meaning and the deontic meaning». Students seem to ignore deeply obligation. Instead of saying obligation, they use the other meanings. 10 other meanings are proposed instead of obligation, and this, 82 times. Then come advisability (10cases, 40 uses) and giving permission (9 cases, 26 uses). The kinds of meanings more confused are deontic. In the following section we shall analyze the confusions between the epistemic meaning and the deontic meaning.

III.2.1.5 - Confusion between the types of meanings

By «types of meanings» we mean the deontic meaning and the epistemic meaning. Our interest in this point is to find out how much students confuse the two meanings: how many students use the deontic meaning wrongly for the epistemic meaning and vice versa. The analysis of the data leads us to the following chart.

Chart 13: Confusion between types of the meanings.

WRONG MEANING EXPECTED MEANING	EPISTEMIC MEANING	DEONTIC MEANING	NOTHING
EPISTEMIC MEANING		27 43.54 %	34 6.45 %
DEONTIC MEANING	33 53.22 %		3 4.83 %

The chart shows that 53.22 % of students wrongly use the epistemic meaning for the deontic meaning and 43.54 % do the reverse. 11.29 % of students do not make up their minds. This result proves that students are deontic-based since most of them (53.22 %) attribute the epistemic meaning to the deontic one. That is, besides the deontic meanings use rightly they think some epistemic meanings are also deontic. This chart also witnesses the miscellaneous confusions within the deontic meaning. The epistemic meaning may be less confused because it is not well known: the phenomenon of avoidance.

After having studied the different confusions students have, we shall give an overall comment on test one.

III.2.1.6 - Comments on recognition

A glance at recognition reveals that students have a low understanding of the meanings of modals regarding the hair-raising confusions they make about the meanings of modals.

If the average level of the sample is calculated, the students' level is under average with the epistemic meaning (part two of the test), 1.48/3; and fairly good with the deontic meaning (part one of the test), 3.59/7. Their level is fairly good when meanings are combined (part three of the test), 5.06/10; thereon the level in the test about the recognition of the meanings of modals is fairly good (test one), 10.09/20.

The level of students is not null, but they make some confusions that bring us think that they use the meanings randomly and thoughtlessly. For example, according to the chart 5, 40.32 % of students say that MUST expresses asking for permission and 6.45 % say that MAY expresses obligation, while 17.74 % confuse asking for permission and giving permission.

Those who don't want to make such mistakes leave some blanks. Thence, there were twelve (12) blanks in test one; that is, 19.35% of students leave blanks. Those who leave the blanks may be applying the language learning strategy of avoidance. They can be therefore ranked in the group of those who did not take the test.

The recognition of modals seems not to be easy for students. We shall analyze their production in the next point.