See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235340455

Teaching modality in context: A sample lesson

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

5 4,951

1 author:

Jorge Arús Hita

Complutense University of Madrid
101 PUBLICATIONS 555 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MOONLITE View project

Quoting and reporting across languages: A system-based and text-based typology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Arús Hita on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching Modality in Context: A Sample Lesson

Jorge Arús Hita

Abstract
This paper shows an application of SF theory to L2 (second-language) teaching, in particular
EFL (English as a foreign language). The systemic conception of context and language as a
continuum proves helpful in the design of a L2 teaching method in which language is taught
in context, with lexicogrammatical realizations reflecting choices at the level of the context of
situation and, ultimately, instantiating the context of culture, in this case that of the English-
speaking world.
I start with a brief presentation of the method and its SF-based theoretical
underpinnings, followed by a sample lesson addressing the use of English modality. The
sample lesson will show how to integrate the teaching of modality in a contextualized model
both as regards the textbook material and the ample practice available to learners in the
workbook.
The sample lesson presented in this paper is part of the author’s ongoing work in the
development of the EFL teaching method Live in English. As for the theoretical basis for the
treatment of modality, it draws on systemic literature as well as current research carried out
at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

1. Introduction
This paper brings together work done in the context of two different projects. The first one is
the research project Las funciones discursivas de las expresiones de modalidad epistémica en
inglés y en español (‘Discursive Functions of Expressions of Epistemic Modality in English
and in Spanish’), presently being carried out at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid by a
group of researchers under the lead of Marta Carretero. The second one is a personal
undertaking which consists in the development of an EFL teaching method based on a
conception of language inspired by SF theory. The combination of both projects results in the
proposal that in these pages is made for the teaching of English modality to Spanish EFL
learners.
The choice for the study of modality is motivated by the importance of this area of the
lexicogrammar, particularly in the English language, as attested by the numerous publications
totally or partially devoted to it (e.g. Coates 1983; Palmer 1990; Hoye 1997; Downing 2001;
Halliday & Matthiessen 2004 [chapters 4, 10] or Wierzbicka 2006 [chapter 8], to name but a
few). Wierzbicka – talking about the learning of epistemic modality, which is the subject of
this paper – observes:

Nina Nørgaard (ed.) 2008. Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use.

Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication vol. 29
(ISSN 0906-7612, ISBN: 978-87-90923-47-1)
 Given the role of English in the contemporary world, we must also recognize the
needs of learners of English all over the world, who, to be proficient in English, have
to learn not only new words and grammatical constructions but also new meanings and
new ways of speaking. They have to learn that the need to qualify one’s statements
and differentiate one’s degree of ‘epistemic commitment’ is greater in English than in
most other languages and that ‘speaking English with the appropriate degree of
conviction’ (Holmes 1983) can present a great difficulty for students of English as a
second language. (2006: 251)

In a very similar line, and within the SF theoretical framework, Hasan and Perrett
speak of the importance of modality in the context of EFL teaching: “to exercise some degree
of control over one’s interactive context without in the process alienating others is clearly
important for successful negotiations. And an insight into how ‘modal auxiliaries’ help or
hinder these processes is clearly relevant” (1994: 217). These authors also defend the use of a
functionally based approach to the teaching of English modality because learners “will need
to be alerted to the various ways in which different shades of meaning can be construed, and
this will require going beyond modal auxiliaries as items whose identification is based on
purely morphological and/or phonological criteria” (1994: 217). This is precisely the
approach taken in this paper: the SF-based sample lesson presented here tries to expose
learners to the nuances of modality and teach them to express those nuances when expressing
themselves.
I will not delve in these pages into the description of the method to which this lesson
on modality belongs. That has been done elsewhere (Arús 2005, 2007), which will allow me
here to focus on the actual treatment of modality. Occasional references will be made,
however, to generalities of the method whenever the discussion may benefit from it.
The paper unfolds as follows. After this introduction, the next section provides a brief
overview of the lexicogrammar of modality in which the findings of the above-mentioned
project are contrasted with the description of MODALITY systems in SF theory. In the light
of these classifications of modality, the sample lesson is then presented, with a detailed
account thereof and numerous illustrations of the different activities that can be found. The
final section offers some conclusions and pointers to the future.

2. Modality systems
Based on the existing literature on modality as well as on the compilation and analysis of a
corpus of over 1,500,000 words, Carretero et al. (2007), identify the following four types of

366 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

modality: a) Epistemic, having to do with the different degrees of probability, e.g. (1, 2); b)
Deontic, concerning different degrees of obligation, e.g. (3, 4); c) Dynamic, referring to the
different degrees of predisposition (ability-tendency), e.g. (5, 6); and d) Boulomaic, which
concerns the different degrees of volition/wish, e.g. (7, 8).1 These four categories are very
much in consonance with those identified by Halliday and Matthiessen in their representation
of the system network of English modality, as illustrated by figure 1.

(1) He must be about to arrive

(2) It may rain today
(3) You mustn’t do that
(4) You can leave now
(5) I could swim when I was five years old
(6) It can rain a lot in April around here
(7) He just won’t accept the truth
(8) She’d rather stay home

probability
modalization
MODALITY usuality

TYPE obligation
modulation
inclination

modality VALUE median

high
other
low

positive
POLARITY
negative

Figure 1: English modality systems (Adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 150)

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 367

 Thus, the modalization categories of probability and usuality in figure 1 would
correspond to epistemic and dynamic in the classification by Carretero et al. whereas the
modulation categories of obligation and inclination are the same as deontic and boulomaic, as
is confirmed by the examples given by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 618) reproduced
below as (9-12).

(9) [probability] There can’t be many candlestick-makers left

(10) [usuality] It’ll change right there in front of your eyes
(11) [obligation] The roads should pay for themselves, like the railways
(12) [inclination] Voters won’t pay taxes any more

Because of the exact correspondence between both classifications and given both that
this is a paper within a systemic volume and that SF theory underlies the method to which the
lesson on modality to be presented belongs, we can safely base the rest of the discussion in
this section on Halliday and Matthiessen’s system network of modality. The system network
in figure 1 is also good for Spanish (it should be remembered that the teaching method aims at
Spanish EFL learners). As we are going to see, however, the lexical realizations of the
different semantic choices reveal a number of pitfalls, when considered cross-linguistically,
that should be addressed so as to avoid interference from Spanish into English. In particular,
the main risk of interference concerns the expression of low positive probability, as will be
understood if we consider the following examples of selections from the modality network
and their prototypical realizations:

(13) (a) [positive: high: probability:] Æ [English:] must

(b) [positive: high: probability:] Æ [Spanish:] deber, tener que
(14) (a) [positive: high: obligation:] Æ [English:] must
(b) [positive: high: obligation:] Æ [Spanish:] deber, tener que

(15) (a) [positive: median: probability:] Æ [English:] should, will

(b) [positive: median: probability:] Æ [Spanish:] debería, future simple
(16) (a) [positive: median: obligation:] Æ [English:] should
(b) [positive: median: obligation:] Æ [Spanish:] debería

368 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

(17) (a) [positive: low: probability:] Æ [English:] may, might, could
(b) [positive: low: probability:] Æ [Spanish:] poder, podría
(18) (a) [positive: low: usuality:] Æ [English:] can
(b) [positive: low: usuality:] Æ [Spanish:] poder
(19) (a) [positive: low: obligation:] Æ [English:] can
(b) [positive: low: obligation:] Æ [Spanish:] poder

What we see in the contrastive pairs (13-19) is something that mostly concerns the
expression of probability and obligation, given that these are the two kinds of modality with
the strongest lexical affinities. For instance, we see in (13, 14) that the prototypical
expressions of high probability and high obligation share lexical realizations, both in English
(must) and in Spanish (deber, tener que). The same is the case with median probability and
obligation, where in both languages realizations are the same for both types of modality, as
illustrated by (15, 16).2 The only difference is that where English uses a modal operator (will),
Spanish resorts to the inflectional expression of the future simple. However, since the same
morphological contrast exists in the non-modal use of the future, the expression of median
probability is, in principle, as unproblematic as that of high probability.
Turning to low probability, however, we find a potential problem of interference
which is actually a source of errors for many Spanish EFL learners. We see in (17-19) that in
Spanish the realization poder is shared not only by probability and obligation but also by
usuality. English also shares the realization can in the expression of obligation and usuality,
so these two kinds of modality pose no problem to Spanish learners. The problem arises with
the expression of low probability, where English does not have the realization can but, as seen
in (17a), may, might, could. Since learners associate the English realization can with the
Spanish realization poder, and given that Spanish low probability is typically expressed by
means of poder, it is a fact (see Zamorano & Arús 2007) that Spanish speakers tend to use
can in English when may, might or could should be used.
To the impingement of can on the expression of probability, an additional problem
must be added which is not reflected in (13-19). It is often the case that modal meaning,
notably low probability, is expressed in Spanish not subjectively and implicitly, i.e. as verbal
operator, but objectively, either explicitly, i.e. with the modality expressed in a projecting
clause, or implicitly, i.e. by means of an adverb or adverbial expression. Thus the Spanish

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 369

realizations (20a) and (20b) are favoured over (20c) to express the same low epistemic
meaning as English (2), above (it may rain today).

(20) (a) Puede que llueva hoy (literally ‘it is possible that it rains today)
(b) A lo mejor llueve hoy (literally ‘perhaps it rains today´)
(c) Puede llover hoy (literally ‘it may rain today´)

The discussion in this section suggests that the main problems to be expected by
Spanish EFL learners regarding the expression of modality come from the area of epistemic
modality, i.e. from the expression of probability. It is time now, then, to tackle this issue.

3. Sample lesson
In a lesson addressing the expression of probability, the best context will be one calling for
speculations. We should, first of all, determine the place that such a lesson would occupy
within the proficiency scale so that the text and activities to be included reflect that level. A
look at the descriptors of The Common European Framework of Reference takes us to B2,
where the following competences are outlined: “… speculate about causes, consequences,
hypothetical situations; take an active part in informal discussions in familiar contexts,
commenting, putting point of view clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and
responding to hypotheses” (Council of Europe 2001: 35). It seems clear, then, that a lesson
dealing with the lexicogrammar of speculations should reflect the B2 level; that is precisely
the level of proficiency aimed by the sample lesson here presented.
The lesson script that can be found in the appendix at the end of this paper specifies
the functional goal in question, i.e. speculating, and tries to accommodate the use of epistemic
modals in an authentic-looking text. The situation represented in the script is supposed to be
part of a video-program covering the length of the four books of the method, in which the
three protagonists – Hillary and Noel, American siblings, and Jorge, a Spanish student –
travel across the English-speaking world. On this occasion, as specified in the script, they find
themselves at Holyhead port (Wales, U.K.) on their way to catching a ferry to cross to Dublin
(Eire).
A look at the script, where epistemic modals have been emboldened to facilitate the
tracking thereof, shows different examples of the use of modal verbs to express various
degrees of probability. Thus we find four examples of expression of high probability, all of
them with must (21-24), three instances of expression of median probability, two of them

370 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

realized by should (25, 26) and one by will (27), and three tokens of low probability, two of
them realized by may (28, 29) and one by could (30).

(21) Look; that must be the ticket office

(22) That must mean there are tickets for today’s crossing.
(23) They must get them on the Internet
(24) That must be our boat
(25) They should have tickets for today
(26) That should be no problem
(27) That’ll be the V.I.P. lounge
(28) Those people may be buying tickets for some other day
(29) You may be lucky
(30) The sea could get a little choppy later on

These uses of epistemic modals in the lesson will allow the achievement of a number
of goals related to the general didactic goal of the lesson, i.e. using modal operators to
speculate with varying degrees of certainty. Firstly, learners are repeatedly exposed – here the
instructor’s mediation is crucial – to the actual use of the modal operators rather than, as we
saw is often the case in Spanish, objective ways of expressing modality such as the ones seen
in (20) in the previous section. Secondly, learners have the opportunity – again, guided by
their instructor – to observe the absence of can as a realization to express probability. Thirdly,
all these realizations of expressions of probability take place in a contextualized way, which
fosters the learning of the lexicogrammar as a reflection of semantic criteria (i.e. the degrees
of probability) and extralinguistic criteria (i.e. those proper to the situation).
Because dealing with the grammatical aspects of a lesson is often drudgery for
learners and a consequent source of hesitation for instructors, it is recommendable for the
actual grammar practice in the lesson not to appear as something meaningless and out of
context. That gives learners the idea, as Alice Omaggio puts it, “that the focus of the lesson is
on talking about the language rather than on taking in the language” (1986: 419, emphasis in
original). The avoidance of such meaninglessness is what drives the comprehension questions
in figure 2 and the activities in figure 3. As we can see, the comprehension questions address
several issues of the situation, most of them unconcerned with the lesson’s lexicogrammatical
point, including a reference to something that goes beyond the context of situation to the
context of culture as is the last question about the expression I’m the king of the world. Yet a

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 371

few of the questions refer to passages where epistemic operators were used and where the
answers demand the correct understanding and use of such operators. Those specific
questions are emboldened in figure 2 and should elicit the following approximate answers: for
Noel there must be tickets for that day whereas for Hillary those people might be buying
tickets for another day; he thinks there must be tickets for that day; people must get their
tickets on the internet; the sea could get a little choppy later on.

COMPREHENSION
Why does Noel ask Jorge and Hillary to keep their fingers crossed?
Noel and Hillary make different interpretations of the line at the ticket office. What are they?
What does the man in front of them think? Why?
Does the sales agent give them hope at first?
Are they getting single or return tickets? Why?
Do they pay full fare?
Is the ferry they are taking very empty, half full or very full?
Why is the ticket office so quiet, then, according to Hillary?
How much do the tickets cost? Do they pay cash?
Will the sailing conditions be good or bad? All day?
Why does Jorge think the boat on deck 2 is theirs?
What does Jorge mean by ‘beggars can’t be choosers’? Why does he say that?
How long is the trip?
Why, do you think, Jorge says ‘I’m the king of the world’? Have you heard that before?

Figure 2: Comprehension questions

Following the requisites of communicative foreign language teaching the activities in figure 3
move from more guided to more open-ended so learners have the possibility to move from the
actual drilling of the structure to increasingly creative ways of putting it into practice (see
Omaggio 1986: 411). In our permanent attempt to avoid presenting the grammar crudely and
meaninglessly, even the most guided practice, i.e. the drill, is contextualized as much as pos-
sible: several of the drilled structures allude to episodes in the day’s story (he might be at the
ticket office; he’ll be boarding...). In turn, exercise 1 and the final role-play show absolute
contextualization, both internally, i.e. each activity represents a contextual whole, and exter-
nally, i.e. with relation to the lesson’s topic. The underlined modal operators in exercise 1 are
the expected answers (they would appear as gaps in the learners’ book), whereas the final

372 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

role-play should allow learners to express something as important and potentially complicated
as their ‘epistemic commitment’ regarding a number of travel-related issues. This should be
the first step towards their expanding the use of expressions of probability to other fields.

DRILL
1. You/she/they, etc./be tired Æ you must be tired, etc.
that/her car Æ that must be her car
those/his books Æ those must be his books
these/her keys Æ these must be her keys
…
2. You/she/they, etc./be lucky Æ you may be lucky, etc.
He/she/they/come soon Æ he may come soon, etc.
He/she/they/at the ticket office Æ he may be at the ticket office, etc.
…
3. You/she/they, etc./be lucky Æ you might be lucky, etc.
He/she/they/come soon Æ he might come soon, etc.
He/she/they/at the ticket office Æ he might be at the ticket office, etc.
…
4. That/his car Æ that should be his car
Those/his books Æ those should be his books
These/her keys Æ these should be her keys
He/she/they/be here soon Æ he should be here soon, etc.
…
5. He/she/they/at the ticket office Æ he’ll be at the ticket office, etc.
He/she/they/boarding Æ he’ll be boarding, etc.
He/she/they/be tired Æ he’ll be tired
…

EXERCISE 1
While Hillary and Jorge talk about the V.I.P. lounge, they don’t see Noel leave them. Complete their
conversation with five different modal verbs expressing probability.
HILLARY: It must be nice to travel in the V.I.P. lounge, sitting on comfortable seats.
JORGE: Yes, they may even give you free drinks and magazines; who knows. By the way, where’s
Noel?
HILLARY: He’ll be buying a soda. He likes to drink something when he travels.
JORGE: He should be near here, then. This is the cafeteria area.
HILLARY: Do you think? There could/might be more cafeterias on the other end of the ship.

ROLE PLAY
Imagine you are on the ferry to Dublin with a friend. Working in pairs, make a conversation where you
speculate about a number of things such as:
Location of toilettes; Number of people on board; Weather during crossing; Arrival time; Possibility to
buy gifts on board

Figure 3: Lesson’s activities for the classroom

As the preceding discussion suggests and as the caption in figure 3 clearly indicates, the acti-
vities so far illustrated and commented upon are all of them intended for the classroom sett-
ing. Because classroom instruction is only part of the picture, the method presented in these
pages includes revision material and activities to be done by learners as after-the-class assign-

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 373

ments. Figure 4 shows the revision component of the workbook. After a review of the voca-
bulary specific to the lesson, we can appreciate the systemic orientation of the method in the
system network that learners are requested to complete, in this case by filling in the gaps in
the boxes with the lexical realization corresponding to each co-selection from the MODALI-
TY TYPE, VALUE and POLARITY systems. This is an example of how overt systemic prac-
tice can help L2 learners: system networks reflect choices that we actually make when we
speak and L2 learners are, unlike native speakers, aware of those choices. Native speakers
make their linguistic choices in an intentional yet automatic or unconscious way, which con-
trasts with the more or less conscious way – depending on their proficiency level – in which
foreign language speakers make their choices. Therefore, provided that they avoid complex
terminology, e.g. by using probability instead of epistemic, system networks give learners the
opportunity both to relate the lexicogrammar to semantics and to recreate the mechanics of
actual speech production.

WORKBOOK
Review:

ESSENTIAL VOCABULARY
Nosey ticket office sail keep your fingers crossed
Convenient a line / queue pay cash you’ve been very helpful
Seasick the low season must beggars can’t be choosers
Choppy a single ticket may
A return ticket might
The V.I.P. lounge should
Boarding time will
A spot

NETWORK OF THE DAY: Complete the boxes:

probability Modal:
MODALITY
usuality
TYPE Modal:
obligation

inclination Modal:
modality
VALUE high
median
low

positive
POLARITY
negative

Figure 4: Review material in learner’s workbook

374 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

 If figure 4 shows the review component from the workbook, figure 5 shows some of
the activities from the practice component. As in the classroom practice, activities evolve
from guided to more open-ended, yet without the need, in this case, for a drill activity given
that learners have at this point been sufficiently exposed to the nitty-gritty of the lesson’s
lexicogrammar. Thus, a good candidate for exercise 1, not expounded in figure 5 for reasons
of space, would be a slash or a cloze (i.e. fill-in-the-blank) activity, always keeping in mind
the importance of the internal and external contextualization of the activity, as can be
observed in exercises 2 and 3. The former helps learners empathize with the story, and
therefore with the target culture, by asking them to correct Jorge’s diary, this character being
intended to represent the learners’ alter ego. The modal auxiliaries that are incorrectly used in
exercise 2 are highlighted in figure 5 for illustration purposes; they would, of course, lack any
sort of highlighting in the workbook. Exercise 3, in turn, allows learners both to use modals in
a communicative, creative way and to practice the written productive skill.

Practice:

EXERCISE 1
…
EXERCISE 2
As every evening, Jorge is writing his diary and, being tired just like every evening, he makes some
mistakes. Help him get his expressions of probability right by correcting his mistakes.

It can be very exciting to work on a ferry, seeing a lot of people ready to enjoy their
holidays. Of course, I’m sure there may be regular passengers too, coming back and forth for
business or working purposes. One may to see some celebrities occasionally, too.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that working on a ferry could be dangerous. Weather
conditions will eventually make a boat sink. I suppose it doesn’t happen very often, but the
possibility is always there.
I’m stopping here for today. The crossing has been a very exciting experience and I’m
exhausted now. Tomorrow there is a lot of walking to do. We must be lucky and have good weather.
I don’t like visiting cities in the rain.

EXERCISE 3
You’re travelling to Dublin from your country, not by boat but by plane. Write a short text (around
80 words) where you speculate about the things that you’ll probably find or have to do and those that
you’ll definitely find or have to do. Use the modals seen in this lesson.

Figure 5: Practice material in learners’ workbook

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 375

4. Final remarks and pointers to the future
The sample lesson presented in these pages aims to provide an attractive way of dealing with
something as complicated (see Wierzbicka’s quotation in introduction) as the expression of
self-commitment. The contextualization sought all throughout the lesson should guarantee the
learning of modality as more than a morphological issue, thus solving the caveat posed by
Hasan and Perret, also in the introduction.
Learning the lexicogrammar meaningfully and in context, together with the gradual
transition from guided to open-ended practice with the modal operators to express probability,
fosters independent language users. This, in turn, facilitates the achievement of a narrow Zone
of Proximal Development (ZPD), the term coined by Vygotsky (1978) to refer to the gap
between what learners can do aided by their instructor and what they can do unaided. If the
classroom setting successfully recreates the real target context of culture, i.e. that of English
speaking countries, with realistic situations and ways of negotiating them, learners should be
prepared to negotiate those situations not only without their instructors’ aid but also in the
actual target context of culture. This is tantamount to creating what Di Pietro (1990) calls self-
regulated L2 speakers.
In its attempt to be as communicative and functional as possible, this method tries to
teach English by making learners practise the four skills and engage in a great deal of
interaction. However, since everyday, real-life communication is mostly oral and, most
importantly, since “it is in the most unself-monitored spontaneous speech that people explore
and expand their meaning potential” (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 34), oral comprehension
and production are given priority. The former comes through the lesson’s story that learners
watch and listen to, and through the verbal exchange with the instructor in the classroom
activities, these providing at the same time occasion for oral production. The written skills are
practised through the written activities, notably the final activity in the workbook (see figure
5, above) as regards written production, whereas written comprehension takes place when
going through the review section of the workbook, including the system network, as well as
when reading the instructions and text in the different activities in the practice section.

As for the four domains within which, according to the Common European
Framework of Reference, language activities are contextualized, i.e. the public, the personal,
the educational and the occupational, the different situations portrayed throughout the method
give ample opportunity for reflecting all of them. In the lesson used on this particular
occasion, the story takes place within a combination of two of these domains; the public

376 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

domain, comprising “family relations and individual social practices” (Council of Europe
2001: 14) is pervasive throughout the different chapters of the story given that the three
friends are together most of the time, whereas the specific situation, as well as many others in
the book, is also included in the public domain, i.e. that concerning “ordinary social
interaction” (Council of Europe 2001: 14). In this case social interaction involves the
negotiations to purchase a ferry ticket at Holyhead Port.
As said in the introduction, the sample lesson here presented is part of an ongoing
project consisting of the development of the EFL teaching method to which it belongs. Future
work will therefore seek to improve the design of the method and, concerning the teaching of
modality, other sub-areas will have to be covered, not only across the general system of
MODALITY, i.e. dynamic, deontic and boulomaic modality, but also within epistemic
modality, e.g. the expression of probability through adverbs (e.g. certainly, probably, surely),
through projecting clauses (e.g. I think [that]…), etc. These should be introduced at different
stages of proficiency; adverbial modality, for instance, should arguably not be explicitly dealt
with before level B2+. Adverbial modality is in fact widely neglected as such by EFL
teaching methods. The detailed level of description of the lexicogrammar that system
networks provide, as is the case with Matthiessen’s (1995) description of English
lexicogrammar, allow pinpointing the different areas to be covered by a comprehensive EFL
method. This comes into its own when the English systems are compared with the
corresponding Spanish systems, which, as we saw above, permits the identification of such
specific pitfalls as the potential – in fact actual – inclination by Spanish speakers to use can in
the expression of low probability. The completion of this comprehensive EFL teaching
method is a challenge for the times to come.

Jorge Arús Hita, Lecturer

Facultad de Filología Inglesa
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
jarus@filol.ucm.es

Notes
1
All examples (1-8) illustrate verbal modality, exclusively. This is done both to simplify the
illustration and because verbal modality is precisely the one addressed in the sample lesson. Precisely
for this reason, the system network in figure 1 does not include the system of ORIENTATION, with
its different options (see the original in Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 150); all cases here considered
correspond to implicit subjective orientation, i.e. modality expressed through modal operators.
2
Where the realization is illustrated as an infinitive (e.g. deber, ‘must, have to’) it means that it is used
in the different forms of the indicative. Where it is illustrated as a conditional mood form (e.g.
debería, ‘should’, literally ‘would have to’) it means that the modal operator is used in any of the
persons of that specific mood and tense; thus debes ir (‘you must go’) vs. deberías ir (‘you should
go’).

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 377

References
Arús, Jorge (2005). “Exploring Meaning-Making: Field and the Ideational Metafunction”.
Paper presented at the 17th Euro-International Systemic Functional Conference and
Workshop, King’s College, London. Submitted for publication to the Asian EFL
Journal.
Arús, Jorge (2007). “Teaching to ‘Live’ in English: A Sample Lesson”. Paper presented at the
XXX de TESOL-SPAIN Conference, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain.
Carretero, Marta, Juan Rafael Zamorano, Jorge Arús, Francisco Nieto, Cristina Alonso &
Asunción Villamil (2007). “An Approach to Modality for Higher Education Students of
English” in Marta Genís, Elena Orduna & David García-Ramos (eds.), Proceedings of
the IV ACLES Conference. Hoyo de Manzanares: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija: 91-
101.
Coates, Jennifer (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Di Pietro, Robert J. (1990). “Interactive Discourse in the L2 Classroom” in M. A. K. Halliday,
John Gibbons & Howard Nicholas (eds.), Learning, Keeping, and Using Language, Vol. 1.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 419-432.
Downing, Angela (2001). “‘Surely you knew!’: Surely as a Marker of Evidenciality and
Stance”. Functions of Language 8.2: 251-282.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (2004). An Introduction to Functional
Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
Hassan, Ruquaia & Gilian Perrett (1994). “Learning to Function with the other Tongue: A
Systemic Functional Perspective on Second Language Teaching” in Terence Odlin (ed.)
Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 179-
226.
Holmes, Janet (1983). “Speaking English with the Appropriate Degree of Conviction” in
Christopher Brumfit (ed.) Learning and Teaching Languages for Communication.
Applied Linguistics Perspectives. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching
and Research: 100-113.
Hoye, Leo Francis (1997). Modals and Adverbs in English. London: Longman.
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (1995). Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems.
Tokyo: International Language Science Publishers.

378 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Omaggio, Alice C. (1986). Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-oriented Instruction.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Palmer, Frank Robert (1990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna (2006). English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zamorano, Juan Rafael & Jorge Arús (2007). “Modalities in Contrast: Where and Why Spanish
ESL Learners Struggle with the Expression of Modality in English” in Proceedings of the
XXIV International AESLA Conference: 813-818.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 379

 Appendix: Lesson Script

Notio-functional goal: Speculating; Setting: Holyhead port; Lexicogrammar: modal

operators: probability.

HILLARY: So you think we’ll find tickets to sail this afternoon?

NOEL: Maybe, maybe not. We’ll find out shortly; keep your fingers crossed.
JORGE: Look; that must be the ticket office. There’s a line of people.
NOEL: That must mean there are tickets for today’s crossing.
HILLARY: I don’t see why, Noel. Those people may be buying tickets for some other day.
NOEL: Be optimistic, sister, be optimistic.
JORGE: Guys, don’t start, please…
NOEL (to the person in front of them in the queue): Excuse me, sir; are you buying tickets for
today?
MAN: That’s my intention, why?
NOEL: Sorry, I don’t want to sound nosey. I just wanted to know if they sell tickets for the
same day.
MAN: Oh, I see…they should have tickets for today. It’s the low season and, as you can see,
it’s not too busy around here.
NOEL: Thanks; you’ve been very helpful.
MAN: Not at all. Good luck.
(5 minutes later…) SALES AGENT: How can I help you?
NOEL: Hi, I’d like to know if you have any tickets for today.
SALES AGENT: You may be lucky; let’s see…how many do you need?
NOEL: Three, please. We’ve got student cards; (producing them) here you are.
SALES AGENT: return?
NOEL: Single, please. We don’t have a return date yet.
SALES AGENT: That’s three singles, then…well, you’re lucky; there are four places on the
14.30 ferry, in 55 minutes time. That’s all we have.
JORGE (to Hillary): The ticket office is very quiet. Do you think people buy their tickets well in
advance?
HILLARY: They must get them on the Internet. It’s a lot more convenient than lining, or
queuing, as they say around here.
SALES AGENT (Handing in the tickets): Here you are. That’s £60, please; student fare.
NOEL: Can I pay with Amex?
SALES AGENT: You can indeed, young man… …if you’ll sign here…
NOEL: thank you, sir. You’ve been very helpful.
SALES AGENT: Not at all.
NOEL: Oh, one last thing. Do you know what the sea is like today? My sister can get really
seasick.
SALES AGENT: That should be no problem. The sea could get a little choppy later on, but
sailing conditions are just fine right now.
…
NOEL: Ok, guys; dock 2. That must be our boat. It’s boarding time.
…
JORGE: Quite luxurious, this ship. Check out that lounge.
HILLARY: That’ll be the V.I.P. lounge. That’s not for us, I’m afraid.
JORGE: Well, beggars can’t be choosers, as I read somewhere the other day.
NOEL: Good expression, Jorge. You’re learning fast. Anyway, crossing time is over three
hours. We should try to find a convenient spot to enjoy our trip.
JORGE: Sure; off to Ireland; (stretching his arms open) I’m the king of the world!

380 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

View publication stats