THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL

Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring, 2022, 93-108

http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2022.19.1.6.93

The Journal of Asia TEFL

http://journal.asiatefl.org/
e-ISSN 2466-1511 © 2004 AsiaTEFL.org. All rights reserved.

Can and Could in Academic Writing: A Corpus-Driven Comparison of

English L1 and Vietnamese EFL Students

Lauren Whitty
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Jean Parkinson
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Ha Thi Phuong Pham

FPT University, Hanoi, Vietnam

The English modal system is complex, and linguistic descriptions of the modals present varied
accounts of the meanings that modal verbs express. It is therefore unsurprising that English modal
auxiliaries can present difficulties for language learners. Focusing on can and could, this article uses
the highly graded academic writing in the Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers (MICUSP)
to describe epistemic modal use of can and could by L1 writers. This description is then employed in
analysing the use of can and could in academic writing by Vietnamese learners of English, and in
discussing atypical uses. Our analysis found that atypical uses of could involved the use of could to
express meanings in contexts where likelihood was relatively high, making can more appropriate.
Based on this analysis, pedagogical applications are suggested for English language teaching.

Keywords: academic writing, EFL learners, English modals can and could, MICUSP, corpus-
driven, classroom pedagogy

Introduction

It is well-known that English language learners find difficulty in using the English modal auxiliaries
(e.g., Hinkel, 2009; Lancaster, 2011; Millan, 2008). These difficulties are augmented by the multiple roles
that modals play; for example, the form could is used as the past form of can, for polite requests and
suggestions, in the conditional, as well as a mere possibility. These difficulties in everyday use extend to
academic writing as well.
Categorising meaning in the English modal system, Biber (2006) classifies can and could as
‘possibility modals’ which express the meanings of possibility, permission and ability. Of these three
meanings, possibility is the meaning expressing epistemic stance, or how committed a speaker/writer is to
a proposition, or speaker/writer assessment of its likelihood. In academic writing, Biber et al. (2002, pp.
178-179) describe could as being “used almost exclusively to mark logical possibility,” with can being
“used for both ability and logical possibility”; this raises the question for students of when to use could
for epistemicity, and when to use can. Additionally, though can is used more frequently than could
(Becker & Feng, 2020; Biber et al., 1999), some studies overlook can having an ‘epistemic’ use (e.g.,

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 93

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

Hyland, 1996). The role of can and could in expressing epistemic meaning is important because as
Hyland (1994) asserts, “academic writing involves epistemic modality” (p. 240). We begin by looking at
how linguists have characterised can and could in relation to epistemicity. We then consider studies of
epistemic modality in academic writing, particularly those that mention use of can and could.

Discussions of Epistemic Use of Can and Could in Linguistics

While could has a long history of being recognized for its ‘epistemic use’ in academic writing (e.g.,
Coates, 1983, 1995; Hyland, 1996; Leech & Coates, 1980), can used epistemically is not as readily
acknowledged (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman 2016; Holmes 1988; Huddleston & Pullum 2002;
Hyland 1996). Huddleston and Pullum (2002) assert that can can be used epistemically but “restricted to
non-affirmative contexts” (p. 180). Hyland (1996) found that could was used to “express hedging” (p.
261) in four different corpora he examined, yet he too did not consider epistemic uses of can. Holmes
(1988) includes can’t and cannot in her list of markers of epistemic modality, but not can. In contrast,
Biber et al. (1999) identify can used in academic prose to “mark logical possibility” (p. 491). Furthermore,
Coates (1995) and Collins (2009) provide examples where can is used epistemically.
As well as the differing positions on whether can conveys epistemicity, another issue that linguists do
not agree on is the modal strength, or level of certainty, that can and could convey. For example, when
assigning value to the modals on a scale of certainty, Diver (1964, pp. 330-331) places can at the bottom
of his scale and notes that “can admits only that the occurrence is a possibility”. Similarly, Halliday
(1970) identifies can as a “weak” (p. 348) possibility, and Penhalluriack (1981, p. 588) and Leech (2004,
p. 82) describe can as being merely a “theoretical possibility”. These descriptions depict the use of can to
be that of ‘possibility’ or “weak” ‘possibility’.
This differs from Close (1975, p. 273), who assigns can as being more certain than could. Close (1975)
states, “Could also serves as a milder, more hesitant alternative for can” (p. 270) which is also supported
by the research of Lingard and Watling (2021) who in their table of “selected verbs and adverbs to
express epistemic modality”, include could as “weak” certainty and can as “moderate” certainty (p. 141).
This is the position we also arrived at through our analysis.

Epistemic Modality and the Use of Can and Could in Academic Writing

Using can and could, and also other epistemic modals, allows writers to hedge their claims. Such
hedging conveys the writer’s assessment of certainty, of the validity of a claim or of the likelihood of an
event. Barton (1993) notes that the use of hedges is a key way that writers convey their epistemic stance
towards the validity of propositions under discussion. Crosthwaite et al. (2017) view hedges as ‘central
rhetorical devices’ that allow writers to make claims in ways that are likely to be acceptable to readers. In
fact, Barton (1993) suggests that skilled use of hedges is one of the aspects of writing that distinguishes
skilled academic writers from inexperienced student writers. However, even expert L2 writers’ use of
epistemic modals may differ from that of native English writers. For example, Carrió Pastor (2014) found
a high frequency of can in the writing of Spanish research article writers.
Becker and Feng (2020, pp. 262-263) report hedging to be a prominent use amongst the possibility
modals in their study of student academic writing. Indeed, as will be seen later in this article, most uses of
can and could in our data express epistemic possibility. In addition, the difficulties experienced by the L2
writers in our study involved instances of can and could related to epistemic possibility. However,
although epistemic possibility is the most frequent meaning in academic writing, as well as the meaning
causing most difficulty for L2 writers, it is the ability meaning, not the epistemic possibility meaning of
can and could that is a focus in English language textbooks (Whitty, 2019) and consequently of much
EFL teaching about modals.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 94

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

These difficulties of not fully grasping the intricacies of meaning in the English modal system are also
found in Bayyurt’s (2010) study on positioning in Turkish students’ academic writing in English.
Similarly, Park (2012) and Oh and Kang (2013) found difficulties with epistemic modal meaning in the
English writing and speech of Korean students, with Park (2012) reporting a distinct over-reliance on can.
Hu and Li’s (2015) study reports similar difficulties in the English writing of Chinese writers. Both their
study and that of Oh and Kang (2013) found that learners’ use of epistemic modality became more native-
like with increased proficiency.
The high frequency of the epistemic possibility meaning of can and could in academic writing and the
important role of these modals in expressing stance mean that they are an essential focus for teaching. In
our study, we explore this meaning of can and could in writing by both first language writers (L1) and
English as a foreign language (EFL) writers. Concentrating on the register of academic writing, with a
focus on can and could (‘epistemic’ use), this paper examines three different sets of student writing in
English: (1) native English essays in Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP) (2009);
(2) non-native MA level student essays from a university in New Zealand; and (3) non-native BA student
essays from two Vietnamese universities. It is worth noting that in data sets (2) and (3), the students share
an L1 of Vietnamese.
Through our investigation of native English essays in MICUSP, we explore how L1 students use can
and could in academic writing. Specific to can and could, many studies of academic writing include can
and could in the category of “possibility” modals (e.g., Biber et al., 1999; Becker & Feng, 2020; Carrió
Pastor, 2014), yet do not examine this pair closely. In particular, the reason why a writer would choose to
use can over could and vice-versa is often overlooked. With this problem in mind, we examine the use of
can and could in L1 writing, positing that while both convey epistemicity, can conveys a higher
likelihood, and could a lower likelihood. Based on these differences in likelihood, we then go on to
compare our L1 data to our L2 data.
By examining the use of can and could in these three sets of academic writing: non-native BA students,
non-native MA students, and native English speakers in MICUSP, we are able to see how each group uses
can and could epistemically to meet the demands of academic writing. Results of this research can benefit
practitioners with an interest in developing English language learners’ academic writing skills and
contributes to Bayyurt’s (2010) call for a “need for further research on how students use hedging and
other metadiscoursal devices in various disciplines” (p. 23).

Research Questions

Our study was guided by the following questions. We address these in the Qualitative Discussion section
below.

1. In their academic writing, how do L1 student writers use can and could to convey epistemicity?
2. How do EFL students use can and could epistemically in academic writing? What difficulties, if
any, are observed?

Methodology

Data in the Study

Our data consist of three sets of data from students of different proficiency levels. This follows the
work of Esfandiari and Ahmadi (2021) who use three sets of data from different skill levels, from the data
of MA theses to PhD dissertations, to the highest skill level of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Our first
set of data, used in Section 5.1 to examine how L1 student writers use can and could, is from the

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 95

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

MICUSP corpus. Like our other datasets, it also contains academic writing. It includes 155 A-graded
argumentative essays written by University of Michigan students. Texts selected were written by L1
writers. The essays were from various levels and span sixteen disciplines. Our second set of data is
academic assignments written by Master’s students at a New Zealand university (MA-EFL); their English
proficiency was IELTS 6.5. The final dataset includes short essays by EFL students in their second year
of their Bachelor’s degree (UG-EFL) at Vietnamese universities; their English proficiency was around
IELTS 5-6. These two groups of EFL students shared the mother tongue of Vietnamese. Table 1 details
the study’s data.

TABLE 1
Data in the Study
Data sets Disciplines Number of texts Number of words Text type
MICUSP Various 155 436,169 Argumentative essay
MA-EFL Applied 21 47,425 Long-form essay
Linguistics/TESOL
UG-EFL English Language 231 74,318 Short essay
Teaching,
Translation, and
Interpretation

McEnery and Kifle (2013) note that age, year, and course of study “are often very different” (p. 185)
among writers in learner corpus-based studies, which can impact on the written product (Ji, 2011). In the
present study, although the student writers’ disciplines and topics differed, and although they were
writing different types of essay, the tasks in all three groups required writers to demonstrate a command
of conventional academic rhetorical and linguistic structures, including expression of epistemic
possibility. The students’ shared L1 for the MA-EFL data sets and UG-EFL data sets meant that the
awkward instances in the data better presented themselves as patterns and allows for the next phase of this
study to go deeper by examining the ‘steps’ a Vietnamese language learner takes to master can and could
in academic writing. Furthermore, our second author’s L1 is Vietnamese which allowed for a richer
understanding of the data.
Considering the balance and size of the data sets, striking a balance across corpora would be ideal
(Bestgen, 2020), but difficult to attain in practice (McEnery & Hardie, 2011). A more practical
perspective is whether the data sets used can help answer the research question and the kind of linguistic
features we want to study (Brezina, 2018). According to Brezina, for the investigation of grammatical
phenomena, even a small corpus can be sufficient. Previous research demonstrates that small and
specialised corpora better serve pedagogical purposes because they contain examples closer to students’
needs which teachers can draw from (Flowerdew, 2005), as well as pedagogically relevant because they
are compiled with a particular group of learners in mind (Chang, 2012; Tribble, 2012). In addition, the
size of our data set is compensated for by our textual analysis approach which allows for deeper
understanding and interpretation of the phenomena under investigation.
A total of 100 instances of can and could from each data set was analysed. First, all instances were
identified in each source. Then, each data set was imported into Wordsmith Tools 6.0 (Scott, 2012).
Although this sample size is relatively small, 100 instances of each allowed for an in-depth manual
analysis, taking careful consideration of context. This in-depth analysis is particularly important when
considering words like can and could which have a range of meanings depending on context.

Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to answer our two research questions. For both
questions, we used qualitative text analysis methods to identify and categorise instances of can and could.
We also used descriptive statistics to calculate the number of tokens, the raw frequencies, and frequencies
per 10,000 words (for normalising the frequencies across data sets of different sizes) in each of the three

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 96

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

sets of data. In addition, we used log-likelihood tests, which are commonly used in corpus linguistics
research (Brezina, 2018), to check the significance of differences (if any) regarding the frequency
distributions of can and could across our datasets. To address the possibility of Type I error, we applied a
Bonferroni correction. The results of the statistical analysis will be presented in Table 2.
Because this project has a specific focus on epistemic instances of can and could, we ensured that only
epistemic instances were captured in the data. This required a manual analysis of each data set, in which
each form was searched and coded for those to include or exclude. This process was done by two authors,
and when differences arose, the third author was consulted.
Starting with could, instances that were omitted were those of past time and those with a could +
present perfect construction; neither communicates likelihood. In instances where could is used in past
time, there is no assessment of likelihood presented. Instead, the writer provides an account of a situation
in the past. Instances with a could + present perfect construction do not account for occurrences in non-
past time as there is a connection between past time and non-past time. Furthermore, this construction has
no counterpart with can. In other words, can + present perfect (e.g., can have received) is not used in
English.
In addition, 16 further uses of could by UG-EFL group were removed from the data. These instances
were all the identical formulaic chunk “No sensible person could deny that…”. Consultation with the
students’ teacher suggested that this chunk might have been present in an exemplar essay shown to
students. Once all of the past time and irrelevant constructions such as can/could + present perfect were
removed, this left 34 instances of could from the UG-EFL writers. Table 3 below shows the number of
instances analysed from each data set.
Once our coding of which instances to include/exclude and setting up the framework for analysis were
complete, both can and could in the UG-EFL and MA-EFL data sets were coded as ‘compatible’ or
‘awkward’. Instances coded as ‘compatible’ are those where we, the researchers, experience no stumbling
block in understanding the communicative output. Conversely, instances coded as ‘awkward’ are those
where we encounter difficulty, which was evidenced by: a need to perform multiple readings of the same
utterance to attempt comprehension, a lack of general understanding of the utterance and/or attempting to
fill in other lexical items for can/could in the hopes of making sense of the utterance. An example of a
‘compatible’ and ‘awkward’ instance can be found in (1) and (2) respectively.

(1) The findings of this analysis can be used to instruct, as well as support learners in identifying
audience and purpose [MA-EFL, MAS1]
(2) As a rule, product quality is determined by the effort put upon producing and could only be
tested after the product is purchased. [UG-EFL, UGPR]

Example (1) causes us no difficulty in processing. However, in (2) the lower level of certainty of could
with the context “as a rule” is conflicting. This is because one would expect a “rule” and the procedure
that accompanies it (“only be tested after the product is purchased”) to have a higher level of certainty, as
is conveyed when can is used in place of could: As a rule, product quality is determined by the effort put
upon producing and can only be tested after the product is purchased. The instance is in a context
relating to the habitual, usual, or general case, where can is appropriate because can indicates that
likelihood is relevant to the utterance, but at a higher level of certainty (compared to could). This higher
level of certainty results from its habitual, usual or general case: it has been the case in the past, so there’s
no reason to believe it is not possible again. However, the element of likelihood communicated by can
indicates that there is no guarantee that the same outcome will always occur.
While we recognize the subjectivity of this process, and the subjectivity inherent in our roles as
analysts, we attempt to combat this subjectivity through our transparent methodology and framework, and
a consistent approach to our analysis of data. For our analysis process, the first author (L1 speaker of
English) identified ‘compatible’ and ‘awkward’ instances of can and could. Then, the third author (L1
speaker of Vietnamese and L2 of English) reviewed the first author’s coding. When differences arose, the

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 97

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

second author (L1 speaker of English) was consulted until agreement was reached. Our process of
collaborative coding resulted in a satisfactory inter-rater reliability score (.94).
Overall, the examples above demonstrate two key points that we focus on in this study: in academic
writing can and could are employed to express epistemicity, and between can and could, can gives a
sense of higher level of certainty.

Quantitative Results

In this section we compare the frequency of can and could in our three sets of data, using descriptive
statistics to compare these frequencies. Table 2 shows the frequencies of can and could in our three data
sets. A comparison of the L1 corpus (MICUSP) and the more proficient EFL group, MA-EFL, suggests
similar frequencies of the two tokens. In contrast, frequencies of both tokens in the less proficient EFL
group (UG-EFL) shows that their use of can is significantly higher than in either the L1 corpus
(MICUSP) or in the more proficient EFL group (MA-EFL), while the use of could by the less proficient
UG-EFL group was much lower than in either of the other two groups. These differences align with the
findings of Hu and Li (2015) and Oh and Kang (2013) that frequency of use of modals becomes more
native-like with increased proficiency. The differences shown in Table 2 were tested using log-likelihood
and the Bonferroni correction was applied to address the possibility of Type I error. A p value of 0.008
was achieved, suggesting significant differences regarding: (1) can between MICUSP and UG-EFL (LL =
531.87, p < 0.008), (2) could between MICUSP and UG-EFL (LL = 19.90, p < 0.008), and (3) can
between UG-EFL and MA-EFL (LL = 159.35, p < 0.008). The results we achieved for can and could
from MICUSP compared with MA-EFL was LL = 3.82 (p < 0.05) and LL = 1.48 (p < 0.05) and for could
between UG-EFL and MA-EFL was LL = 4.51 (p < 0.05) suggesting the differences between them were
not significant.

TABLE 2
Frequencies of ‘Can’ and ‘Could’
Data Set Tokens Can Could
Raw freq. Freq./10,000 w Raw freq. Freq./10,000 w
MICUSP 436,169 1,059 24.3 538 12.3
MA-EFL 47,425 138 29.1 49 10.3
UG-EFL 74,318 631 85.0 50 6.7

Regarding could in the MA-EFL data, though we set out to examine 100 random instances, we found
only 49 instances in the data set. Of the 49 instances of could in the MA-EFL data set shown in Table 2,
18 were not included in the analysis because they expressed past time, or a could + present perfect
construction. Once these were removed, this left only 31 instances of could in the MA-EFL data set.
Similarly, of 53 instances of could in the UG-EFL data set, 19 were not included in the analysis because
they expressed past time, or a could + present perfect construction. As shown in Table 3, the total number
of instances of could in the two EFL data sets is low, and this is a limitation of the amount of data
collected. Nevertheless, the size of the data set was still large enough for some interesting findings to
emerge. We discuss these in the section below.

TABLE 3
Number of Instances of ‘Can’ and ‘Could’ Examined from Each Data Set
Data Set Can Could
Total Awkward Compatible Total Awkward Compatible
MICUSP 100 - 100 100 - 100
MA-EFL 100 5 (5%) 95 (95%) 31 11 (35%) 20 (65%)
UG-EFL 100 3 (3%) 97 (97%) 34 6 (18%) 28 (82%)

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 98

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

Qualitative Discussion

In this section we discuss our data qualitatively, in order to answer the questions of how L1 and L2
writers use can and could in their academic writing.

In Their Academic Writing, How Do L1 Student Writers Use Can and Could to
Convey Epistemicity?

To answer our first research question concerning how can and could are used epistemically in
academic writing by writers for whom English is a first language, we drew on written data in MICUSP
corpus. Following Close (1975), we approach our analysis using two main principles. The first is that can
is used in academic writing as a marker of epistemicity; the second is, when faced with a choice between
can and could, writers choose can to communicate a higher level of certainty and could to communicate a
lower level of certainty. Both of these are exemplified in the examples below from MICUSP.
Use of can in academic writing as a marker of epistemicity is demonstrated in Examples (3) and (4)
below. Note in (3), the use of “help”, compared to “can help” in (4).

(3) I’m particularly interested in the ways in which comics help us see how particular narrative
conventions and visual idioms work to enscript [sic] our critical perspectives (Tensuan 951).
[1MICUSP, MIIP]
(4) The following example can help illuminate this position. [MICUSP, MICS]

In (3), there is no reason for the writer to introduce likelihood. The writer instead uses the indicative
(“help”) to communicate that there is no questioning whether “comics help us see...”. Instead, for the
writer, it is a given, or ‘fact’, that “comics helps us see”, and the writer is “particularly interested in” this
fact.
Using “can help” in (4) in contrast with “help” in (3), the writer introduces likelihood, as the writer
cannot assume that for every reader the example provided will “illuminate this position”. The writer
includes can to communicate this is not guaranteed for all readers. This can in academic writing allows
writers to hedge claims.
Our second feature, that when faced with a choice between can and could, writers choose can to
communicate a higher level of certainty, and could to communicate a lower level of certainty, is
demonstrated in (5) and (6).

(5) More and more studies are currently underway investigating the effects of an externally applied
electric field to a cell’s biology. It has been proven that external electric fields can be used to
modify certain cell behaviors. [MICUSP, MIEF]

In (5), can is used to communicate that not every study resulted in x. However, due to the context that
studies have been done which have “proven” x, can communicates a higher level of certainty, compared
to could in (6).

(6) If legislators make laws due to these suits against the actions of pregnant women their rights will
continue to be restricted. A ban on drinking could lead to legislation against smoking and even
drinking caffeine. [MICUSP, MIRA]

That (6) is hypothetical is evidenced by “if”. Could, being lower than can in certainty, is appropriate, as
the claim, or speculation, made is based on a hypothetical situation.

1 Each data example is followed by the data source, and individual writer.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 99

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

In both instances above, we recognize that writers are not just faced with a choice of can or could, and
that there are multiple choices in the system of modals available to the writers (e.g. must, may, should).
Of course, these choices are narrowed down by the communication goals of the writer, and this analysis
discusses the different communicative effects of can and could and to posit why a writer may choose one
over another, particularly because can and could are often presented together in linguistic research.

How Do EFL Students Use Can and Could Epistemically in Academic Writing?
What Difficulties, If Any, are Observed?

The above analysis using the MICUSP data set allowed us to answer the first research question
concerning how L1 student writers use can and how they use could in cases of conveying epistemic
possibility. We found that can is used to convey a higher likelihood than could. In this section we
consider our second research question concerning how EFL students use can and could for logical
possibility in academic writing, and the difficulties we observed.
Before we move forward with this section, we present Table 4 which provides a summary of the results
showing similarities and differences between the three different data sets.

TABLE 4
Summary of Similarities and Differences in Data Sets
FEATURE MICUSP MA-EFL UG-EFL
can used epistemically for higher likelihood + + +
could used epistemically for lower likelihood + + +
use of can where could would be more appropriate - + +
inappropriate modal used - + +
use of can where a modal was not necessary - + -
use of could where can would be more appropriate - + +
a different modal from could would be more appropriate - + +
two modals used together - - +
Note. + feature is present, - feature is not present

As may be expected, all three data sets have representation of can and could used epistemically, can for
higher likelihood and could for lower likelihood. The MA-EFL and UG-EFL data sets collectively
contain all the ‘awkward’ instances which are detailed below, while not surprisingly, the MICUSP data
set contains none of these ‘awkward’ instances. We provide examples of each of the above in our analysis
below.
Appropriate uses of can and could in the EFL data sets corresponded to the meanings demonstrated
above using the L1 MICUSP data. Example (1) above is one such instance. We therefore focus in this
section on the “awkward” instances of can and could in the two EFL data sets. Because numbers of these
‘awkward’ instances were low, these are considered together. The eight awkward uses of can (five from
the MA-EFL writers and three from the UG-EFL writers) were of three types. These were firstly, the use
of can where could would be more appropriate. Secondly, in some cases writers recognized that a modal
was necessary, but selected the inappropriate modal. The third type involved the use of can where a
modal was not necessary.

Use of “Can” Where “Could” Would be More Appropriate

Five of the eight awkward instances of can used can where could would be more appropriate. Example
(7) shows an instance of this. In (7) the author put forward his/her own judgement about the likelihood of
x occurring, marking this with can. Therefore, because the statement is based on the author’s own
judgement of likelihood, could is more appropriate than can, as can would indicate that x is more certain
(e.g., because it has been proven or seen in the past). Can in this example suggests likelihood but at a
higher level of certainty (compared to could); hence, can suggests the author is basing likelihood on more

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 100

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

than just his/her own judgement; however, there is nothing in the context to indicate that can (higher level
of certainty) should be used.

(7) It seems that this move appears very rarely in the conference abstracts. Only 1 author mentioned
the amount of time to emphasized her working experience which can be related or useful to the
activity in the research paper. [MA-EFL, MAS3]

In (7), our reading was that the writer intends to hedge the possibility of the “working experience”
being “useful to the activity in the research paper”, so again could rather than can is appropriate. Support
for this comes from the context which states that this move “appears very rarely” which indicates the
writer lacks a large number of examples on which to base his/her stance.

Selection of the Wrong Modal

In two out of the eight awkward instances of can, the wrong modal was selected. Though the focus of
this study is can and could, we note that examples such as (8) show this second type of awkward use of
can where the writer recognizes that a modal is relevant to the message, but uses the epistemic modal can
instead of a prediction modal like will or should.

(8) Libraries as a resource is time consuming, so it seems that a short time is not enough for students
to look for the information. It may take some time for you to find the right book, whereas using
internet as source of information is time saving and can only take five minutes to find. [UG-EFL,
UGFI]

Use of “Can” Where a Modal is Unnecessary

Only one of the eight awkward instances of can involved use of can where a modal was unnecessary.
Example (9) is an example.

(9) […] we see that the study in A3 used questionnaires, which is the data in itself. Familiar
language use here can be “To address this, I draw upon data collected from…” (A4) “This study
analysed X” (A5) [MA-EFL, MAS4]

In Example (9), the writer discusses their analysis of conference abstracts, referring to specific
instances (“A4” and “A5”) in their own data. Use of can and the mention of specific examples present
conflicting messages. Because can indicates likelihood, and because the writer provides exact context
from the study, the appeal to likelihood is unnecessary, as there is no questionability around the language
used; the writer reproduces the “language” direct from the study. Firstly, the mention of specific instances
suggests a focus on these instances and what they mean in the writer’s data. In contrast, can implies a
focus on what phrases are possible or usual in texts that discuss the use of empirical data. “Familiar
language use” agrees with this second meaning, suggesting usuality. A more appropriate way of
expressing this might be “familiar language uses are…”.
In addition to the three types of awkward uses of can outlined above, there were three types of
awkward use of could. As shown in Table 3, a total of 17 instances of could were analysed by us as
awkward. This included 11 in the MA-EFL data and six in the UG-EFL data.

Use of “Could” in a Context Relating to the Habitual, Usual, or General Case

Nine of the 16 awkward instances of could involve using could where the writer is referring to a
specific example in the context, thus making it more certain than could implies. In (10), the writer

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 101

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

analyses a radio interview between the interviewer “Hill” and the interviewee “Menon”. The writer
argues that in general, people who listen to the interview, as well as readers of the student’s text are able
to see that “Hill had a particular interest with the subject matter”. This suggests that can rather than could
is appropriate as can is necessary to talk about what people in general can see.

(10) Hill would like to make a strong confirm that it was herself who had read the commentary from
Menon’s book rather than being told by anyone else. From here, it could be seen that Hill had a
particular interest with the subject matter. [MA-EFL, MS5]

A Modal Other Than “Could” Would be More Appropriate

A second type of awkward use of could involves cases where the writer feels that a modal is necessary,
but the meaning intended would be better expressed by a different modal, or even an auxiliary verb. Five
instances, all in the MA-EFL data, were of this type.
In (11), the writer discusses the limitations of their study. Could in this context seems to convey strong
uncertainty, suggesting that the “results and findings” are incorrect. A weaker modal like might seems
more appropriate and this weaker level of modal strength is supported by may in the same sentence.

(11) Due to the fact that only eight conference abstracts in this paper are analyzed while hundreds of
abstracts in other researches are done to find the results; therefore the results and findings could
not be showed in an exact way and other abstracts may not completely match the results and
findings of our group in general. [MA-EFL, MAS6]

In (12) the writer makes reference to where further information can be found. Could is inappropriate
because it implies that the possibility that a “completely different move structure” is to be found in
“Yakhontova (2001)” is relatively weak. However, the writer clearly has evidence that this is the case
(perhaps through reading “Yakhontova (2001)”), so in this case a more appropriate formulation of the
writer’s meaning is “a completely different move structures for the same genre, … can be/was/is found in
Yakhontova (2001)”.

(12) Subjectivity can be considered as another issue even though I am aware that any and all written
research papers undeniably carry an amount of subjectivity to them. In this case, a completely
different move structures for the same genre, i.e. conference abstracts, could be found in
Yakhontova (2001). [MA-EFL, MAS4]

Example (13) is part of the writer’s introduction; the writer is outlining firstly their purpose and then
how this will be accomplished in their text. They have definite knowledge of the fact that later in their
text they outline “pedagogical implications”, so an indication of likelihood is not appropriate. Therefore,
an auxiliary indicating future action is appropriate: “pedagogical implications will be suggested”.

(13) the goal of this study is to achieve a thorough understanding of the communicative purposes and
functions that different moves of the conference abstract have and how they work together to
accomplish the overall communicative purpose of this genre. Hence, some possible pedagogical
implications could be suggested as a further discussion. [MA-EFL, MAS7]

Two Modals Used Together

There was a single instance of the third type of awkward usage of could. Example (14) is a syntax error in
which the writer does not recognize that in the past context two modals with similar meanings cannot
be used simultaneously. Either “could not” or “were not able to” is more appropriate here.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 102

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

(14) Without satellite, radio wave could not be able to be transferred around the world because of
the absence of this conductive device [UG-EFL, UGPT]

Finally, there was one instance in which meaning of could was indeterminate, because of
syntactic/lexical errors.
Interestingly, nine out of 11 of the awkward uses of could by MA-EFL writers used the passive voice,
using the structure: could + be + past participle. These are seen in “could be seen” (Example 10), “could
not be showed” (Example 11), “could be found” (Example 12), “could be suggested” (Example 13) and
“could not be able to be transferred” (Example 14). Thus, most awkward instances of could in the MA-
EFL data used the passive voice, while most appropriate instances used the active voice. Similarly, of the
five awkward uses of could by the UG-EFL writers, three used the passive voice (e.g. “could not be
ignored”). In these instances, three elements are used by students to project an academic stance. These are
the use of passive constructions combined with the use of modal verbs and with the use of common
academic reporting verbs like see, show, observe, find and suggest (Swales & Feak, 2000). Focus on
could in conjunction with the passive voice and with common academic reporting verbs would clearly be
a useful pedagogical application.

Pedagogical Implications

There are three findings of our study that would be useful for pedagogy. Firstly, we found that the most
common misuse of can is its use in contexts where could would be more appropriate. Secondly, the most
common misuse of could was its use in contexts relating to the habitual, or general case where can would
be appropriate. Our third finding was that inappropriate use of could often co-occurs with use of the
passive voice. This section considers what teachers and writing instructors can do to support accurate use
of can and could in EFL writing.
Because the L2 data came from Vietnamese speakers, the awkward instances found could be target
areas for English language instructors teaching Vietnamese students English. This study could be
replicated with other speakers learning English and provide a more in-depth understanding of the use of
can and could in academic writing, with the goal of assisting English language learners in recognising the
subtleties of can and could, and helping them master these subtleties. While Becker and Feng (2020)
found can to be the most frequent modal in their data, Hyland’s (1999) study of hedging in research
articles does not mention the use of can. Therefore, pedagogically, the first step is for EFL instructors to
draw attention to the place of can in academic writing. This is particularly necessary because Biber
(2006) found modals like can, and could to be more frequent in spoken language; this may mean that
there is a connection between participants’ misuse of can and could and the development of the more
formal tone required in academic writing.
Perhaps this is why we see that coursebooks gradually build students' understanding of modal meaning.
For example, the New Headway coursebook series (Soars & Soars, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Soars et al.
2000, 2007), which is a popular textbook series in Vietnam, builds students’ understanding of could. It
does this by describing its most basic use as the ‘past of can’ in the elementary level (Soars et al., 2000, p.
141), moving on to the idea of ‘possibility’ in the intermediate level (Soars & Soars, 2003b, p. 147), and
then to could described as ‘least certain’ in the advanced level (Soars & Soars, 2003a, p. 147). However,
could is only considered in the “Grammar Reference” section; only the advanced book has a specific unit
on modal auxiliary verbs. Providing examples of could and can, in order to demonstrate their effect on
conveying likelihood, would be valuable. A suggestion for pedagogy is to provide learners with earlier
and more exposure to the use of could. This would be particularly useful for less experienced learners
such as the EFL-UG students in our study, who used could much less frequently and can much more
frequently than the MICUSP and MA-EFL writers.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 103

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

The most common difficulty of the MA-EFL students in our study was use of could in contexts of
greater levels of likelihood. This is seen in Example (12), where use of could (“conference abstracts,
could be found in Yakhontova (2001)”), when in fact the writer had sufficient evidence. The use of can in
this utterance would have made the student’s message more certain and hence, more convincing.
Therefore, specific instruction on the difference in messages in can and could when used in academic
writing, would contribute to students being able to argue more clearly and compellingly, for example, in
argument essays. Given our findings of this usage in the MA-EFL students’ writing, this would be a
particularly useful focus for pedagogy with more advanced students.
As noted above, use of can and could in conjunction with use of the passive voice appears to be
challenging to students, and would be a promising direction for pedagogy. Indeed, practice of the passive
voice in conjunction with modal verbs is suggested by Hinkel (2004), who further notes that common
academic reporting verbs such as considered, suggested (Example 13), and found (Example 12) and are
used more frequently as passive rather than active constructions in academic writing. As we note above,
the combined use of academic reporting verbs, the passive voice, and modal verbs, is important for
students in projecting an academic stance. Again, given the extensive use by the MA-EFL writers of the
passive voice together with modals, this would be another useful focus for pedagogy with more advanced
EFL writers.
Becker and Feng (2020) suggest the use of MICUSP’s concordancing function, to fine-tune students’
control of modal meaning. They suggest that writing instructors could ask students to search MICUSP for
particular modals and to examine their authentic use in context. For example, students would benefit from
searching for instances of can and could in MICUSP, to compare the degree of likelihood expressed by
each of them. Allowing students to consider concordance lines in good student writing would be useful to
students in avoiding this. However, it is important to provide plenty of context without which intended
meanings cannot be understood.
Granger (2009) recommends the use of data-driven activities in which writing instructors explicitly
point out to L2 learners where can and could are appropriately or inappropriately used in learner writing
with the support of authentic contexts. Another option is for writing instructors to encourage L2 writers to
build their own specialised corpora where appropriate and inappropriate uses of can and could are
annotated.
Finally, Moon et al. (2019) found that reading comprehension abilities had a positive effect on writing
in their study of Korean EFL learners. Exposure to the nuances of can and could in reading could
contribute to English language learners becoming more proficient when expressing various levels of
certainty in academic writing.

Conclusions

Our study is the first to focus specifically on the difference in use of can and could in academic
writing. This study found that the more proficient EFL group, MA-EFL, used the modals verbs can and
could about as frequently as did L1 writers of the MICUSP corpus. However, our study found that the
MA-EFL writers did not use these modals to express likelihood as accurately as the L1 writers did.
Particularly, their use of could was problematic, especially when used as part of a passive construction.
The study found that the most frequent awkward use of could involved the use of could to express a
general meaning. This was found in more than half of the awkward uses of could (e.g., (10)). In such a
case the event has strong likelihood, so can is appropriate. In contrast with the MA-EFL writers, the UG-
EFL group used can far more frequently and could less frequently than either the L1 or MA-EFL groups.
Contrary to our expectations, the less proficient UG-EFL group did not produce more awkward uses of
can and could than the MA-EFL writers. Indeed, the opposite was the case. However, the more proficient
MA-EFL group used these modals in the expression of more complex ideas, and they used them in
conjunction with more complex linguistic constructions. For example, the awkward uses of could by the

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 104

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

MA-EFL group were mostly found in conjunction with the passive voice. Both of these grammatical
features, together with the academic reporting verbs that usually co-occurred with them, are important
features of academic writing and show the MA-EFL writers’ ability to present their ideas with an
appropriate level of hedging in their academic writing.
Thus, although this study provides no clear evidence of gradual development in the use of modals can
and could, it documents greater command of academic style by the more proficient, more academically
advanced EFL writers and offers suggestions for instructors of all English levels on how to help students
fine-tune their writing skills with regard to can and could.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Ha Hoang for her valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. Our
sincere thanks also go to our participants for their contribution in the form of text.

The Authors

Lauren Whitty (corresponding author) completed her doctorate at Victoria University of Wellington in
the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. Her current research interests include the
English modal system, and her recent and forthcoming publications include, respectively, A corpus and
coursebook analysis of the English quasi-modal be able to: What can instructors do? and Repositioning
can: Modifications to the English “modal” system.

Email address: lauren.whitty@vuw.ac.nz

Jean Parkinson is associate professor of applied linguistics and TESOL at Victoria University of
Wellington in New Zealand. Her research interests include the discourse of science, and she has published
widely on language use in vocational education, most recently in a co-authored book English for
vocational purposes: Language use in trades education (Routledge).

Email address: jean.parkinson@vuw.ac.nz

Ha Thi Phuong Pham received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand in 2019. She is a lecturer at FPT University in Hanoi, Vietnam. Her research interests
include peer feedback, ESL/EFL writing, CALL, and technology-assisted L2 writing. Her most recent
article was published in Computer-Assisted Language Learning.

Email address: haptp@fe.edu.vn

References

Barton, E. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55(7), 745-
769. https://doi.org/10.2307/378428
Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliaçoes
e perspectivas: Mapeando os estudos empiricos na area deHumanas [Appraisals and perspectives:
Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities] (pp. 163-184). The Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 105

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

Becker, K., & Feng, H.-H. (2020). Stance in unpublished student writing: An exploratory study of modal
verbs in MICUSP’s Physical Science papers. In U. Römer, V. Cortes & E. Friginal (Eds.),
Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer
expertise (pp. 255-278). John Benjamins.
Bestgen, Y. (2020). Comparing lexical bundles across corpora of different sizes: The Zipfian problem. Journal
of Quantitative Linguistics, 27(3), 272-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2019.1566 975
Biber, D., (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers [Studies in
Corpus Linguistics 71]. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. N. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English:
Workbook. Pearson Education.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. Pearson Education.
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide (1st ed.). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899
Carrió Pastor, M. (2014). Cross-cultural variation in the use of modal verbs in academic English. SKY
Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 153-166.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for
English language teachers (3rd ed.). Heinle Cengage Learning.
Chang, P. (2012). Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic
approach. ReCALL, 24(2), 209-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000079
Close, R. (1975). A reference grammar for students of English. Longman Group.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.
Coates, J. (1995). The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In J. Bybee & S.
Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse: Vol.32 Typological studies in language
(pp. 55-66). John Benjamins.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi.
Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L. & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and
professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107-123. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
Diver, W. (1964). The modal system of the English verb. Word, 20(3), 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00437956.1964.11659826
Esfandiari, R., & Ahmadi, M. (2021). Syntactic complexity measures and academic writing proficiency:
A corpus-based study of professional and students’ prose. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(3), 745-
763. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.3.1.745
Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text analysis in
EAP/ESP: countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific
Purposes, 24(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.09.002
Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign
language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Studies in corpus linguistics (Vol. 33,
pp. 13-332). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.04gra
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and
mood in English. Foundations of Language, 6(3), 322-361.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching
Research, 8(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr132oa
Hinkel, E. (2009). The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal
of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21
Hu, C., & Li, X. (2015). Epistemic modality in the argumentative essays of Chinese EFL learners.
English Language Teaching, 8(6), 20-31.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 106

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes,
13(3), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3
Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written
Communication, 13(2), 251-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K.
Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145-154). Longman.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
Ji, X. (2011). Topic effects on writing performance: What do students and their writings tell us? The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(1), 23-38.
Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in economics:
Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4), 1-23.
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Leech, G., & Coates, J. (1980). Semantic indeterminacy and the modals. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, & J.
Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk (pp. 79-90). Longman.
Lingard L., & Watling C. (2021) Story, not study: 30 brief lessons to inspire health researchers as
writers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_21
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395
McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2013). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language
writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182-195). Routledge.
Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. (2009). Michigan Corpus of Upper-lever Student papers
[Corpus]. The Regents of the University of Michigan. https://elicorpora.info/main
Millan, E. L. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: the use of hedges boosters and
approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In S. Burgess & P. Martín-Martín
(Eds.) English as an additional language in research publication and communication, (pp. 65-82),
Peter Lang.
Moon, Y., Choi, J., & Kang, Y. (2019) Does reading and vocabulary knowledge of advanced korean EFL
learners facilitate their writing performance? The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(1), 149-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.1.10.149
Oh, S. Y., & Kang, S. J. (2013). The effect of English proficiency on Korean undergraduates’ expression
of epistemic modality in English argumentative writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4), 97-132.
Park, H. (2012). Modality in Korean learners' spoken interlanguage. English Language & Literature
Teaching, 18(1), 197-216.
Penhalluriack, J. (1981). A form-content analysis of the modern English systems of time and
occurrence. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
Scott, M. (2012). WordSmith Tools 6.0 [Lexical Analysis Software]. Stroud.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2002). New Headway: Beginner student’s book. Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2003a). New Headway: Advanced student’s book. Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2003b). New Headway: Intermediate student’s book (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2005). New Headway: Upper-intermediate student’s book (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Soars, L., Soars, J., & Wheeldon, S. (2000). New Headway: Elementary student’s book. Oxford
University Press.
Soars, L., Soars, J., & Wheeldon, S. (2007). New headway: Pre-intermediate student’s book (3rd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills.
University of Michigan Press.

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 107

Lauren Whitty et al. The Journal of Asia TEFL
Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2022, 93-108

Tribble, C. (2012). Corpora in the language teaching classroom. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopaedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1175-1181). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.
1002/9781405198431.wbeal0226
Whitty, L. (2019). An investigation of the modal can in an English language coursebook series. The
TESOLANZ Journal, 1, 1-15.

(Received October 28, 2021; Revised February 20, 2022; Accepted March 18, 2022)

 2022 AsiaTEFL All rights reserved 108