Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 7, 2017

Processing epistemic modality in a second language: a self-paced reading study

  • Nadia Mifka-Profozic EMAIL logo


The current study brings together two novel perspectives: one is concerned with second language acquisition of complex modal semantics by learners of a Slavic (Croatian) language, and the other relates to online processing of modal auxiliary verbs in L2 English. The study sought to examine how English L2 learners process modal verbs can and may in their epistemic, deontic, and dynamic meaning, referring to epistemic possibility (e. g. He may come to the party), to giving or asking permission (You may/can come in), or to the expression of ability (He can speak four languages). Participants were a group of Croatian university students majoring in English (N=12) and a group of English L1speakers studying at a UK university (N=8). They all completed a self-paced reading task which is thought to be tapping into implicit linguistic knowledge. Results suggest that Croatian speakers acquire the dynamic and deontic modal meaning up to the native level, but they differ from English native speakers as far as epistemic modal semantics is concerned. The results are in line with previous studies in L1 and L2 research which demonstrated delayed acquisition of epistemic modality in comparison with non-epistemic modality. However, the findings also contribute to research on cross-linguistic influences and L1 concept transfer, suggesting that features and their related concepts which are not instantiated in one’s L1 may not be fully acquired even at more advanced levels.


Bybee, Joan & William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics and historical word formation, 59–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Coates, Jeniffer. 2014. The semantics of modal auxiliaries. Oxon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Laura. 2002. The roles of L1 Influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52(1). 43–94.10.1111/1467-9922.00177Search in Google Scholar

Dittmar, Norbert & Heiner Terborg. 1991. Modality and second language learning: A challenge for linguistic theory. In Tom Huebner & Charles Albert Ferguson (eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theory, 347–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.2.19ditSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 14–172.10.1017/S0272263105050096Search in Google Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 1992. Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(3). 297–322.10.1017/S027226310001113XSearch in Google Scholar

Gopnik, Alison & Henry Wellman. 1994. The Theory theory. In Lawrence Hirschfeld & Susan Gelman (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, 257–293. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752902.011Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, R. & Sarah Ann Liszka. 2003. Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In Roeland van Hout, Aafke Hulk, Folkert Kuiken & Richard Towell (eds.), The lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisition, 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.30.03hawSearch in Google Scholar

Hopp, Holger. 2006. Syntactic features and reanalysis in near–native processing. Second Language Research 22(3). 369–397.10.1191/0267658306sr272oaSearch in Google Scholar

Hopp, Holger. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non–native and native speakers. Lingua 120(4). 901–931.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004Search in Google Scholar

Just, Marcel Adam, Patricia Carpenter & Jacqueline Woolley. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General 111(2). 228–238.10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228Search in Google Scholar

Karabalić, Vladimir. 2011. Sintaksa glagola nepotpunog značenja u hrvatskom i njemačkom jeziku na primjeru modalnih glagola [‘The syntax of defective verbs in Croatian and German language, the example of modal verbs’]. Suvremena lingvistika 72. 171–185.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 1986. Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815058Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1987. Meaning and the English verb. Longman: London and New York.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 223–240. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Liszka, Sarah Ann. 2004. Exploring the effects of first language influence on second language pragmatic processes from a syntactic deficit perspective. Second Language Research 20(3). 212–231.10.1191/0267658304sr238oaSearch in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Noveck, Ira. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78(2), 16–188.10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00114-1Search in Google Scholar

Odlin, Terence. 2005. Cross-linguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25. 3–25.10.1017/S0267190505000012Search in Google Scholar

Ozturk, Ozge & Anna Papafragou. 2015. The acquisition of epistemic modality: From semantic meaning to pragmatic interpretation. Language Learning and Development 11(3). 191–214.10.1080/15475441.2014.905169Search 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

Palmer, Frank. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 1–17. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895339Search in Google Scholar

Papafragou, Anna. (1998). The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind and Language 13(3). 370–399.10.1111/1468-0017.00082Search in Google Scholar

Papafragou, Anna & Ozge Ozturk. 2006. Children’s acquisition of epistemic modality. Cascadilla Proceedings project, Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Jonathan. 2007. PsychoPy– Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of neuroscience methods 162(1–2). 8–13.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Jonathan. 2009. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 2. 10. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008Search in Google Scholar

Pliatskias, Chrostos & Theodoros Marinis. 2013. Processing of regular and irregular past tense morphology in highly proficient second language learners of English: A self-paced reading study. Applied Psycholinguistics 34(5). 943–970.10.1017/S0142716412000082Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Leah & Sarah Ann Liszka. 2013. Processing tense/aspect agreement violations on-line in the second language: A self-paced reading study with French and German L2 learners of English. Second Language Research 29(4). 413–439.10.1177/0267658313503171Search in Google Scholar

Stephany, Ursula. 1986. Modality. In Paul Fletcher & Michael Garman (eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development, 375–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620683.022Search in Google Scholar

Stewart, Andrew J, Matthew Haigh & Evan Kidd. 2009. An investigation into the online processing of counterfactual and indicative conditionals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(11). 2113–2125.10.1080/17470210902973106Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(2). 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rse of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55.10.2307/414841Search in Google Scholar

von Stutterheim, Christiane. 2003. Linguistic structure and information organization: The case of very advanced learners. EUROSLA Yearbook 3. 183–206.10.1075/eurosla.3.11stuSearch in Google Scholar

Wells, Gordon. 1981. Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620737Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-9-7
Published in Print: 2017-9-26

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 9.2.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow