Abstract
In this paper we discuss the empirically documented difference in a mock-jury judgement task between native speakers of English and speakers of English as a second language. We discovered a difference between these two populations in the understanding of events described by witnesses with regard to the use of verbs may and might. The events described with may were scored much higher on the possibility and witness certainty scales than when the same events were described with might by the non-native English speakers. On the other hand, the native speakers of English did not judge the events described with may and those with might differently. Further, the results for the non-native speakers did not vary based on their L1. A closer look at a sample of textbooks has provided support for the hypothesis that it is the L2 instruction materials and a specific learner strategy that are the most likely causes of the significant difference in inference and judgement between the two speaker groups. We discuss these findings in light of their applicability in, and their relevance for, legal contexts of witness testimony and jury judgement as well as their pedagogical implications and applications.
Acknowledgment
The author hereby expresses gratitude to the anonymous reviewers who have been extremely helpful and whose comments have inspired numerous improvements in the paper. Thanks are also due to the journal editor, Li Wei, for providing an expedient and supportive review process. Any remaining errors are exclusively the author’s.
References
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.9Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages and of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1956. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Collins’ Easy learning grammar and punctuation. 2015. Birmingham: Collins.Search in Google Scholar
Gordon, E. M. & I. P. Krilova. 1967. Modality in modern English. Hilssdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Filipović, L. (in press). Applying language typology: Practical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages. In I. IbarretxeAntuñano (ed.) Motion and space across languages and applications [Human Cognitive Processing Series]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Filipović, L. & J. A. Hawkins. 2013. Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics 51(1). 145–176.10.1515/ling-2013-0005Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundation of Language 6. 322–361.Search in Google Scholar
Hoye, L. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar
Lick, D. J. & K. L. Johnson. 2015. The interpersonal consequences of processing ease: Fluency as a metacognitive foundation for prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(2). 143–148.10.1177/0963721414558116Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, R. 1991. Words and worlds: On the linguistic analysis of modality. Berlin: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, R. 2003. Modal auxiliary constructions, TAM and interrogatives. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 47–70. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.5Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1979. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1163/9780585474199Search in Google Scholar
Pinto, D. & C. de Pablos-Ortega. 2014. Seamos pragmaticos: Introducción a la pragmática española. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech &. J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Rabadán, R. 2006. Modality and modal verbs in contrast: Mapping out a translation(ally) relevant approach English-Spanish. Languages in Contrast 6(2). 261–306.10.1075/lic.6.2.04rabSearch in Google Scholar
Swan, M. & C. Walter. 2011a. Oxford English grammar course (intermediate). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Swan, M. & C. Walter. 2011b. Oxford English grammar course (advanced). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Trbojevic, I. 2012. Modal hedges in para-pharmaceutical product instructions: Some examples from English and Serbian. LFE:Revista de lenguas para fines específicos 18. 71–92.Search in Google Scholar
Whittacker, S. F. 1987. Might may be right? English Today 11. 35–36.10.1017/S026607840001364XSearch in Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & V. A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79Search in Google Scholar
Websites
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-may-and-might
http://www.qlmediation.com/author/andrewhildebrand/
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc-certainly-europe-next-9273951
Appendix
Experimental stimuli
Statement 1
There was a lot of noise in front of the co-op. Two men were having a heated discussion in a foreign language. When Mr Jimenez threw the bottle towards the car, the man standing beside it may have been hit. [version 2: When Mr Jimenez threw the bottle towards the car, the man standing beside it might have been hit.]
Statement 2
I was standing at the bus stop, waiting for the 9.07 to the park &ride. Jerry was running very fast around the corner and that is the moment when he must have collided with the postman.
Statement 3
I was sitting on one of the new benches. The man rushed into the park, past the benches and then made a sharp turn towards the playground. He might have thrown the bag before entering the playground. [version 2: He may have thrown the bag before entering the playground.]
Statement 4
I was standing on the platform when suddenly a man appeared out of nowhere. He reached for his pocket watch, he looked a bit nervous. I then saw him hobble over to the information desk, and after chatting to a railway worker there he moved along. He may have dropped the keys somewhere around there. [version 2: He might have dropped the keys somewhere around there.]
Statement 5
The knocking on the door was deafening but I did not open. I was not expecting anybody at that hour. It will have been a prank by the rowdy kids next door.
Statement 6
He was speaking very slowly, asking for directions to the ferry. I had an impression that he was an elderly man, like in his 70ies or something, because of his low husky voice and all, but he might have been younger, just pretending to sound older, you know what I mean? [version 2: he may have been younger]
Raw scores by participant
Possibility of Occurrence Scale
| Participants | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En |
| MAY | MAY | MIGHT | MIGHT | MUST | MUST | WILL | WILL | |
| P1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| P5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P6 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P8 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| P9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| P10 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P11 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| P12 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| P13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P14 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| P15 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P16 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| P17 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P18 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P20 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P21 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P22 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| P23 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P24 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P25 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| P26 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P27 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P28 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| P29 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| P30 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Total | 79 | 91 | 79 | 50 | 144 | 143 | 130 | 123 |
Estimated Witness Certainty Scale
| Participant | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En | L1 En | L2 En |
| MAY | MAY | MIGHT | MIGHT | MUST | MUST | WILL | WILL | |
| P1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| P7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| P8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| P9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| P10 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| P11 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| P12 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| P13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| P14 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P15 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P16 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| P17 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| P18 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P20 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| P21 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P22 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| P23 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P24 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| P25 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| P26 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| P27 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| P28 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| P29 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| P30 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Total | 80 | 88 | 76 | 42 | 140 | 138 | 133 | 121 |
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
