英语专业学生写作中情态动词的使用研究
摘要
情态意义表示说话者对所述命题的真实性判断(李基安，1999)，也是表达人际关系的重要因素之一，不同的情态或语气具有不同的表达方式。由于情态涉及讲话者对自己讲话的命题的成功性和有效性所作的判断，在命令中要求承担的义务，或在提议中要表达的个人意愿，情态助动词就理所当然地成了表达情态意义的一种主要方式(李杰、钟永平，2002)。情态动词是一个复杂的语言系统的一个分支，具有满足语义和语用两个方面的需要，在表达语用上，各个情态动词之间具有微妙的变化含义，即使母语使用者也无法解释其中的微妙变化。很多学者从不同角度对情态动词的使用进行了相关研究。首先，研究者发现很多第二外语学习者在选择使用合适的情态动词上具有一定困难，与本族语使用者存在很大的区别(郑晓园，1999)，在使用表示“必须”和“义务”含义的情态动词也不例外，包括MUST，HAVE TO，SHOULD，OUGHT TO and NEED TO. DeCarrico对非母语使用者第二语言写作中的情态动词以及老师对这些使用方法的反应进行了研究，发现非母语使用者在使用情态动词时存在过度使用的情况，特别是在母语使用者避免使用情态动词的地方(1986)。Cook提出非母语使用者在使用情态动词的过程中之所以存在障碍，主要原因来自于这些情态动词本身所具有的以及当时语境所隐含的含义(1978，转引自Hinkel，1995)。另外，Hinkle(1995)关于情态动词的最新研究则认为，对上述情态动词MUST，HAVETO，SHOULD，OUGHTTO和NEEDTO表述“必须”和“义务”的过程中，其正确选择和使用取决于使用者的文化习惯和当时的语境，即使是英语水平高的使用者，甚至那些国外生活多年的人，在使用这些情态动词表达“必须”和“义务”时仍然会回归到自己的文化习惯中。也就是说，这些情态动词的使用与英语水平无相关，那么，同一母语不同英语水平的外语学习者在使用上述情态动词也应该没有使用频率上的显著差异。
基于上述假想，本文通过对四个年级的385份学生作文中使用该五个情态动词表示“责任”和“义务”时的频次进行显著性差异对比，对Hinkle的结论进行印证。结论表明四个年级的学生在使用该五个情态动词表达“责任”和“义务”时在使用频次上没有显著性差异，在某种程度上说明在其使用过程中受到母语的决定性影响，发生了文化迁移，而英语水平在此过程中没有发挥明显的作用，从而使第一个假设失败。但是根据数据结果，大三学生的使用频次上较符合预期的期待，虽然与其他三个年级的比较没有出现显著性差异，但由于差异，说明其文本语气比较礼貌、更加委婉、更能说服读者接受其观点。
所以该文章建议，教师在教授该类情态动词时，不要过分强调其语法上的正确使用方法，尤其是在大学的教授过程中，而应该把重点放在其内在隐含的语用意义上，提醒学生注意文化以及文体和在写作过程中的作用，除此之外，还应提高学生的读者意识。
Researchers find that nonnative speakers of English have different problems in using root modal verbs, MUST, HAVE TO, SHOULD, OUGHT TO and NEED TO, to express obligation and necessity in appropriate contexts. Some find these modals have some kind of underlying meanings and contextual implications (cook, 1978), which is difficult for language learners. What is more, Hinkle doubts that there is a certain relationship between the usage of these modal verbs and the first language culture of speakers; therefore, he conducts a research by comparing the texts of native speakers and those who use English as a second language with a higher language proficiency level. The results of this study indicate that the usage of the root modals must, have to, should, ought to, and need to in NS and NNS writing appears to be culture and context dependent (Hinkle, 1995). That is to say, the usage of these modal verbs is specific to the learner's first language environment; meanwhile, the language proficiency level and exposure to the foreign language do not play an important role during the communicative process. Therefore, a hypothesis may be obtained that, with Chinese as their common native language, Chinese English learners at different English proficiency levels do not vary significantly in their ability of using modal verbs to express root meanings of obligation and necessity.
To verify the hypothesis, a writing test was held in The English Education Department of The Capital Normal University on October the 27th, 2005. 384 students from freshman to senior students took part in the test simultaneously. All the students were asked to have an important writing assessment rather than an educational research to guarantee the results. These essays were compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitively. The 385 essays afterwards were typed into computer to form a small corpus about 135,000 words by using software called WordPilot, then the frequency of each modal verb was counted by the way of concordancing to observe the differences among the five modal verbs and different proficiency levels. Furthermore, other results, including mean and deviation, were also computed and analyzed by T-test by software SPSS. As for the quality data, the texts also were studied to get some information that how the usage of these five modal verbs was influenced by Chinese culture. Such modal verbs as can, may, might, shall were also counted and analyzed in the same way to study other problems of stylistics and tone. The results of the study indicate that these college students of all proficiency levels are inclined to overuse such root modal verbs must, have to, should without significant differences to express obligation and necessity due to Chinese culture that attached great importance to social and family responsibility, loyalty, the supreme of education and so on. And their essays tended to be impolite and offensive.
Modal verbs are an important tool to realize pragmatic and semantic function in communication, as a result, the lack of appropriate usage of modal verbs will cause people to feel uncomfortable and awkward inevitably, especially to native speakers. Therefore, both teachers need to raise their awareness as well as students themselves to use modal verbs to perfect their communicative skills.
基于上述假想，本文通过对四个年级的385份学生作文中使用该五个情态动词表示“责任”和“义务”时的频次进行显著性差异对比，对Hinkle的结论进行印证。结论表明四个年级的学生在使用该五个情态动词表达“责任”和“义务”时在使用频次上没有显著性差异，在某种程度上说明在其使用过程中受到母语的决定性影响，发生了文化迁移，而英语水平在此过程中没有发挥明显的作用，从而使第一个假设失败。但是根据数据结果，大三学生的使用频次上较符合预期的期待，虽然与其他三个年级的比较没有出现显著性差异，但由于差异，说明其文本语气比较礼貌、更加委婉、更能说服读者接受其观点。
所以该文章建议，教师在教授该类情态动词时，不要过分强调其语法上的正确使用方法，尤其是在大学的教授过程中，而应该把重点放在其内在隐含的语用意义上，提醒学生注意文化以及文体和在写作过程中的作用，除此之外，还应提高学生的读者意识。
Researchers find that nonnative speakers of English have different problems in using root modal verbs, MUST, HAVE TO, SHOULD, OUGHT TO and NEED TO, to express obligation and necessity in appropriate contexts. Some find these modals have some kind of underlying meanings and contextual implications (cook, 1978), which is difficult for language learners. What is more, Hinkle doubts that there is a certain relationship between the usage of these modal verbs and the first language culture of speakers; therefore, he conducts a research by comparing the texts of native speakers and those who use English as a second language with a higher language proficiency level. The results of this study indicate that the usage of the root modals must, have to, should, ought to, and need to in NS and NNS writing appears to be culture and context dependent (Hinkle, 1995). That is to say, the usage of these modal verbs is specific to the learner's first language environment; meanwhile, the language proficiency level and exposure to the foreign language do not play an important role during the communicative process. Therefore, a hypothesis may be obtained that, with Chinese as their common native language, Chinese English learners at different English proficiency levels do not vary significantly in their ability of using modal verbs to express root meanings of obligation and necessity.
To verify the hypothesis, a writing test was held in The English Education Department of The Capital Normal University on October the 27th, 2005. 384 students from freshman to senior students took part in the test simultaneously. All the students were asked to have an important writing assessment rather than an educational research to guarantee the results. These essays were compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitively. The 385 essays afterwards were typed into computer to form a small corpus about 135,000 words by using software called WordPilot, then the frequency of each modal verb was counted by the way of concordancing to observe the differences among the five modal verbs and different proficiency levels. Furthermore, other results, including mean and deviation, were also computed and analyzed by T-test by software SPSS. As for the quality data, the texts also were studied to get some information that how the usage of these five modal verbs was influenced by Chinese culture. Such modal verbs as can, may, might, shall were also counted and analyzed in the same way to study other problems of stylistics and tone. The results of the study indicate that these college students of all proficiency levels are inclined to overuse such root modal verbs must, have to, should without significant differences to express obligation and necessity due to Chinese culture that attached great importance to social and family responsibility, loyalty, the supreme of education and so on. And their essays tended to be impolite and offensive.
Modal verbs are an important tool to realize pragmatic and semantic function in communication, as a result, the lack of appropriate usage of modal verbs will cause people to feel uncomfortable and awkward inevitably, especially to native speakers. Therefore, both teachers need to raise their awareness as well as students themselves to use modal verbs to perfect their communicative skills.
引文
Andrew, J. I. (1983). Communication and meaning: an essay in applied modal logic. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Cenoz, J. et al. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language aquisition: psycholinguistic perspectives. England ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Cheng, C-Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory. In L.Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham, England: Croom Helm.
Collins, P. (1991). The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics. New York: Longman.
Cook, W. (1978). Semantic structure of English modals. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 5-16.
DeCarrico, J. (1986). Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly,20, 665-682.
Ehrmann,M.E. (1966). The meaning of the modals in present-day American English. Paris:Mouton & Co.
Halliday ,M. A. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Haviland, W. A. (1991). Anthropology. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Heaton, J.B. (2004). Writing English Language Tests. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.
Hinkel, E. (1995). The Use of Modal Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values. TESOL Quarterly,29, 325-343.
Hughes, A. (2005). Testing for Language Teachers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.
Li Renzhi. (2004). Modality in English and Chinese: a typological perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich.:UMI.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
Lewis, D. (1991). Scorekeeping in a language game. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lycan, W.G (1994). Modality and meaning. Klawer Academic publishers.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, R. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. NY: Syracuse University Press.
Marsella, A. J. (1985). Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Mettinger, A. (2000). The history of English in a social context: a contribution to historical sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,.
Pan Yulin, (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: a sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longrnan.
Papafragou, A. (2000). On speech-act modality. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 519-538.
Papafragou, A. (1998). Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries. Lingua, 105,1-47.
Powys, J. C. (1929). The meaning of culture. New York: W.W. Norton & company, inc.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longrnan.
Richards, J. (2004). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Beijing.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Perkins, M.R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.
Samovar. L & Porter, R. (2000) Communication between cultures. Stanford: Clark Baxter.
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98-111). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.Kasper & S.Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinaga, S. H. (1998). Global bridges: a comparative study of the cultural values of China,Malaysia and the United States. Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verstrate, J.C. (2001). Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1505-1528.
Wang, S.L. (2003). Prediction? Prescription? An analysis of Chinese and English modalities: a comparative approach. Dissertation Abstracts International. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI
陈淑芳，2003，二语学习中的话语迁移，《云梦学刊》第3期。
戴炜栋、张红玲，2000，外语交际中的文化迁移及其对外学教改的启示[J]，《外语界》第2期。
窦琴、赵焕茹，2002，跨文化交际中的文化迁移问题，《延安教育学院学报》第3期。
何伟，2003，will与shall的系统功能语法解释，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
黄和斌、戴秀华，2000，双重情态动词的句法、语义特征，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
胡文仲，1994，跨文化交际学选读，湖南教育出版社。
李杰，2005，情态的表达与意识形态的体现[J]，《外语学刊》第4期。
李杰、钟永平，2002，论英语的情态系统及其功能[J]，《外语教学》第1期。
李基安，1998，情态意义研究[J]，《外国语》第3期。
李基安，1999，论情态意义与情态助动词意义[J]，《外国语》第4期。
李战子，2000，情态——从句子到语篇的推广[J]，《外语学刊》第4期。
李战子，2005，从语气、情态到评价，《外语研究》第6期。
梁晓波，2002，情态的多维研究透视[J]，《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
刘延征、李庆学，2004，论文化迁移对语言交际能力的影响，《齐鲁学刊》第4期。
潘飞南，2004，论关联理论对英语情态动词的译释加工[J]，《江西社会科学》第5期。
欧阳宁先，1998，以WILL为例论情态助动词运用的三分法，《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》第3期。
邱述德，1995，情态动词的语用分析[J]，《外国语》第4期。
万茂林，1994，情态语言形式与礼貌[J]，《外语学刊》第6期。
王建华，1996，对英语情态动词研究的反思[J]，《外国语》第5期。
王建华，1998，情态意义与礼貌，《四川外语学院学报(重庆)》第2期。
王清杰，2005，中国英语学习者情态动词语料库使用调查[J]，《哈尔兵学院学报》第6期。
王文字、文秋芳，2002，母语思维与二语写作——大学生写作过程研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期。
魏本力，2005，情态动词的量值取向，《外语学刊》第4期。
文秋芳、丁言仁、王文宇，2004，中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向——高水平英语学习者语料对比分析，《外语教学与研究》第4期
文秋芳、俞洪亮、周维杰，2004，《应用语言学——研究方法与论文写作》，外语教学与研究出版社。
熊美华、余妹容，2005，跨文化交际中的文化迁移[J]，《江西社会科学》第7期。
杨信彰，2006，英语的情态手段与语篇类型，《外语与外语教学》第1期。
杨玉晨，1998，情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格，《外语与外语教学》第7期。
易仲良，2000，论英语动词情态语法范畴[J]，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
于爱平，2004，汉英交际中的文化迁移[J]，《大连教育学院学报》第3期。
余泽超，2002，从情态与礼貌之关系看英语写作教学，《浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期。
郑晓园，1999，东方文化价值观对英语情态动词使用的影响[J]，《上海理工大学学报》第1期。
郑雯嫣，2003，学术论文中情态助动词的语用功能分析，《山东外语教学》第5期。
Cenoz, J. et al. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language aquisition: psycholinguistic perspectives. England ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Cheng, C-Y. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory. In L.Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham, England: Croom Helm.
Collins, P. (1991). The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics. New York: Longman.
Cook, W. (1978). Semantic structure of English modals. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 5-16.
DeCarrico, J. (1986). Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality system. TESOL Quarterly,20, 665-682.
Ehrmann,M.E. (1966). The meaning of the modals in present-day American English. Paris:Mouton & Co.
Halliday ,M. A. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Haviland, W. A. (1991). Anthropology. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Heaton, J.B. (2004). Writing English Language Tests. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.
Hinkel, E. (1995). The Use of Modal Verbs as a Reflection of Cultural Values. TESOL Quarterly,29, 325-343.
Hughes, A. (2005). Testing for Language Teachers. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.
Li Renzhi. (2004). Modality in English and Chinese: a typological perspective. Ann Arbor, Mich.:UMI.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
Lewis, D. (1991). Scorekeeping in a language game. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lycan, W.G (1994). Modality and meaning. Klawer Academic publishers.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, R. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. NY: Syracuse University Press.
Marsella, A. J. (1985). Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Mettinger, A. (2000). The history of English in a social context: a contribution to historical sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter,.
Pan Yulin, (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: a sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. (1990). Modality and the English modals. London: Longrnan.
Papafragou, A. (2000). On speech-act modality. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 519-538.
Papafragou, A. (1998). Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries. Lingua, 105,1-47.
Powys, J. C. (1929). The meaning of culture. New York: W.W. Norton & company, inc.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longrnan.
Richards, J. (2004). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Beijing.Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Perkins, M.R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.
Samovar. L & Porter, R. (2000) Communication between cultures. Stanford: Clark Baxter.
Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.),Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98-111). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.Kasper & S.Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinaga, S. H. (1998). Global bridges: a comparative study of the cultural values of China,Malaysia and the United States. Ann Arbor, Mich. : UMI.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verstrate, J.C. (2001). Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1505-1528.
Wang, S.L. (2003). Prediction? Prescription? An analysis of Chinese and English modalities: a comparative approach. Dissertation Abstracts International. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI
陈淑芳，2003，二语学习中的话语迁移，《云梦学刊》第3期。
戴炜栋、张红玲，2000，外语交际中的文化迁移及其对外学教改的启示[J]，《外语界》第2期。
窦琴、赵焕茹，2002，跨文化交际中的文化迁移问题，《延安教育学院学报》第3期。
何伟，2003，will与shall的系统功能语法解释，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
黄和斌、戴秀华，2000，双重情态动词的句法、语义特征，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
胡文仲，1994，跨文化交际学选读，湖南教育出版社。
李杰，2005，情态的表达与意识形态的体现[J]，《外语学刊》第4期。
李杰、钟永平，2002，论英语的情态系统及其功能[J]，《外语教学》第1期。
李基安，1998，情态意义研究[J]，《外国语》第3期。
李基安，1999，论情态意义与情态助动词意义[J]，《外国语》第4期。
李战子，2000，情态——从句子到语篇的推广[J]，《外语学刊》第4期。
李战子，2005，从语气、情态到评价，《外语研究》第6期。
梁晓波，2002，情态的多维研究透视[J]，《解放军外国语学院学报》第1期。
刘延征、李庆学，2004，论文化迁移对语言交际能力的影响，《齐鲁学刊》第4期。
潘飞南，2004，论关联理论对英语情态动词的译释加工[J]，《江西社会科学》第5期。
欧阳宁先，1998，以WILL为例论情态助动词运用的三分法，《湖南师范大学社会科学学报》第3期。
邱述德，1995，情态动词的语用分析[J]，《外国语》第4期。
万茂林，1994，情态语言形式与礼貌[J]，《外语学刊》第6期。
王建华，1996，对英语情态动词研究的反思[J]，《外国语》第5期。
王建华，1998，情态意义与礼貌，《四川外语学院学报(重庆)》第2期。
王清杰，2005，中国英语学习者情态动词语料库使用调查[J]，《哈尔兵学院学报》第6期。
王文字、文秋芳，2002，母语思维与二语写作——大学生写作过程研究，《解放军外国语学院学报》第4期。
魏本力，2005，情态动词的量值取向，《外语学刊》第4期。
文秋芳、丁言仁、王文宇，2004，中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向——高水平英语学习者语料对比分析，《外语教学与研究》第4期
文秋芳、俞洪亮、周维杰，2004，《应用语言学——研究方法与论文写作》，外语教学与研究出版社。
熊美华、余妹容，2005，跨文化交际中的文化迁移[J]，《江西社会科学》第7期。
杨信彰，2006，英语的情态手段与语篇类型，《外语与外语教学》第1期。
杨玉晨，1998，情态动词、模糊语言与英语学术论文写作风格，《外语与外语教学》第7期。
易仲良，2000，论英语动词情态语法范畴[J]，《外语与外语教学》第3期。
于爱平，2004，汉英交际中的文化迁移[J]，《大连教育学院学报》第3期。
余泽超，2002，从情态与礼貌之关系看英语写作教学，《浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版)》第3期。
郑晓园，1999，东方文化价值观对英语情态动词使用的影响[J]，《上海理工大学学报》第1期。
郑雯嫣，2003，学术论文中情态助动词的语用功能分析，《山东外语教学》第5期。