Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T04:20:25.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting the Subtle Distinctions: Should versus Had Better

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Roann Altman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Careful observation of the speech of even advanced learners of English often reveals usage that deviates in some way from the target language. One area of difficulty appears to be the system of modality that includes such forms as must, have to, should, had better, can, and may, among others. Some errors are purely grammatical in nature. For example: (1) (a) In fact, they musted to return back home.

(b) Perhaps if I went to France maybe I can do it.

Others are not so much ungrammatical as inappropriate. For example, (2) (a) Should I give you the receipt for this? uttered by a bank teller should actually have been shall, since the teller was not really asking me for my advice but was trying to find out whether I wanted the receipt. In (2b), (2) (b) I should take this English class.

the student was actually trying to ascertain which section of a class to sign up for, and really needed to convey that he was required to take that particular class. In order to ascertain the possible cause for these persistent misuses of the modals, several measures of modal usage were developed and administered to groups of native and non-native speakers. The results showed that the understanding non-natives have of expressions of modality is qualitatively different from the understanding of natives. Some possible causes for this discrepancy in understanding are suggested along with possible solutions for remedying the problem.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 80 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Azar, B. 1981. Understanding and using English grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Close, R. 1965. A reference grammar for students of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Davis, P. 1977. English structure in focus. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. 1982. Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.Google Scholar
Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.. 1975. A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. 1979. Modality and the English modals. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Praninskas, J. 1975. Rapid review of English grammar (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1983. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Paper presented at the Xth University of Michigan Conference on Applied Linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 28–30, and revised for presentation at the Second Language Research Forum, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, November 11–13.Google Scholar