Taking a concept-oriented approach to modality, the study seeks to explore whether advanced English language learners (ELL) of various ethnic backgrounds have some common pattern of modality use in English in the context of peer feedback and to what extent modality is a reflection of their modified (bilingual) pragmatic competence.
Nine advanced English language learners with various ethnic backgrounds took part in the study. Participants produced three peer reviews for the project. All students were provided with a handout to guide their peer feedback. The format of peer feedback was not fixed: the handout was provided as guidance rather than a required template to fill in.
Using prior identified categories as my guidance in this data-driven approach to identifying ELL patterns of modality use, I have established a data-driven categorization of modality devices. The expansion and modification of formerly identified categories were caused primarily by the inclusion of constructions and phrases in addition to isolated lexical items. In order to cover the most persistent modality devices in this study in full, both evaluations and/or suggestions are included in my analyses. I propose using a continuum to lay out the interrelations between evaluation and suggestion on the one hand, and their relation to epistemic and deontic modality in the specific context of feedback.
There is reason to believe that such a pattern can be identified. However, there are several devices the use of which varies greatly among speakers. Following the dual language model where the use of L2 after achieving certain L2 proficiency is guided by the ‘Common Underlying Conceptual System’ (CUCS) (Kecskes, 2010) that reflects the blend of sociocultural value systems of two languages, it is possible to predict that the variability in L2 production is a reflection of the subjects’ CUCS that contains the modified elements of their L1 socio-cultural value system.
References:
Kecskes, I. (2010). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 91-109.
