Modal verbs, irregular verbs, passive forms and verb complementation

This section explains the extent of variation that can be witnessed in the students’ use of modal verbs (Section 8.3.1), irregular verbs (Section 8.3.2), the passive (Section 8.3.3) and verb complementation (Section 8.3.4). These are phenomena that arose from the results in an interesting way.

8.3.1 Modal verbs

The test provided no instruction on whether students were allowed or expected to use modal verbs in their responses. In this study, very few students did so early in the test, but many felt drawn to modal verbs in some of the slots towards the end of the test. No student used a modal auxiliary in more than six slots, and some never used them. The book key gives the correct answer with a modal auxiliary in five slots: slots 49, 74, 99, 103 and 106. In slot 49 (He ___

(not/see) me, though, because it was dark outside), only one student used the form couldn’t

see, which the book key acknowledges as the expected answer together with didn’t see. The use of the word would in slot 74 is discussed in Section 8.7. Both can and could are possible in slot 99, as discussed in Section 8.2.

Students mainly used modal auxiliaries in slots 103 and 106, although the numbers remained small. In slot 103 (... he ___ (leave) the Sterns’ house before half past nine), four students used a modal auxiliary and produced must have left, would have left and should have left. Of the forms, teachers particularly liked must have left; they were more cautious with the other two modal forms. In slot 106 (Lucy ___ (not/walk) to the village and back, if ...), both can and could were used in altogether seven different forms. Teachers approved of their use particularly in could not have walked / couldn’t have walked, and some also in cannot have walked / can’t have walked. However, only 20 students used verb forms with a modal auxiliary in this slot. Students did not use modals very extensively elsewhere, either. In slots where the book did not expect a modal auxiliary, may and shall did not appear at all, while might and must were used in one slot each. Should appeared in six slots, can in 3 slots and could in 5 slots. Only will and would were used more extensively, will in 17 slots and would in 22 slots. This may be because students did not come to think of the possibility of using modals in the test for other purposes than referring to the future or expressing a condition. The use of modals is visualised in Table 31 below.

Table 31. The use of modal verbs in the study

Modal verb Number of students Number of verb forms Number of slots

may 0 0 0 might 1 1 1 must 2 1 1 shall 0 0 0 should 7 6 6 can 28 10 3 could 44 14 5 will 101 18 13 would 293 39 22

8.3.2 Irregular verbs

Students mainly seemed to know how to use irregular verbs and only a few misspelled them (see also Section 8.2). In total, a regularised form of an irregular verb was used in 415 instances in 23 slots, which is about 6% of all the forms provided in those slots. For example, told was provided correctly by 312 out of the 319 students in slot 11 and took by 299 students in slot 18. Two students provided telled in slot 11 (and by slot 30, one of them had already learned to use

told; a few students produced a form that looked like an attempt to produce told but they misspelled the word) and five taked in slot 18 (in slot 43, three new students used taked and one of these students had learned took). One student spelled comed in slot 24, while 278 used came. The past form let was created by 300 students in slot 63, and 302 students produced bought in slot 86, with 6 students writing buyed and one buyd. A vast majority of students, 307, used met in slot 92, with only one meeted. Found was given by 300 students in slot 98 as opposed to three students with founded and five with finded. Three students gave meaned in slot 102.

According to Finegan (2004, 548), children learning English as their first language most frequently overgeneralise the regular ending to the following verbs: eated, maked, finded, hitted, falled, doed, speaked, breaked, goed and runned. Of these, only finded was frequent in this study; goed or doed were not provided at all, and there were no instances of get(t)ed or maked either. The rest of the words on Finegan’s list (2004, 548) were not required in the test. Some of the verbs that are irregular in standard English may be regular in some dialects or regional varieties of English; for example, seed is used in some southern American dialects instead of saw, while seen is used to replace saw in the north (Leith 2007, 137), and went is an appropriate past participle of go in Irish English (Rhys 2007, 209). Rhys (2007, 211) further maintains that some native speakers are also unsure about the distinction between the past tense and the past participle in some irregular verbs. However, whether the Finnish students who provided such forms were aware of these dialectal forms cannot be confirmed.

A few problems with irregular verbs did occur, for example with the verb see. The form saw was produced by 303 students in slot 45, but it was slightly misused in did saw as well. One student, however, formed sawed in slot 47 and seven students wrote had sawn and 17 had saw in slot 95; there was also one was saw and one has been saw. This indicates that some students were confused with the irregular verb see and the regular verb saw or failed to distinguish between the past simple and the perfect participle form. Regarding the verb hear, 27 students formed the past tense as heared in slot 23 as opposed to 283 students with heard. Of these 27 students, 22 made the same error in slot 26 together with four new students, who originally produced the correct form. In addition to stood in slot 48, 26 students spelled standed, and in slot 70, there were 33 students attempting to use leaved either alone or in various multi-word combinations, such as had already leaved; in slot 80, leaved was only given by 23 students. Furthermore, although 273 students created lost in slot 90, there were also 26 students with losed, six with loose and four with loosed. A number of students (10) also struggled with the

word be, using didn’t be, did not be and did’nt be in slot 82 instead of weren’t or were not. The case of spill is discussed below in Section 9.2.2; creep is discussed in Section 8.7.

At times, the uncertainty some students had with irregular forms was reflected in their marking of the past time twice, either by adding –ed after the irregular form (as in tooked) or by using the irregular form after did not or didn’t, or sometimes the emphatic did (as in didn’t murdered or did saw). This double past marking occurred 147 times in 22 slots (2% of all the forms in those slots). The most common was didn’t saw in slot 49 (where the expected form is didn’t see), which was provided by 22 students; did not saw was given by two students and didn’t seen by one student. In slot 96, 13 students provided didn’t had or did not had, and 14 students provided either did not even went, didn’t even went, didn’t even gone or yet some other form with two markings for past tense in slot 100. The confusion with the forms of be was also evident in slot 82, with didn’t were or didn’t was given by six students. Double past markings occasionally also affected regular verbs. Examples are didn’t murdered and did not murdered in slot 6 (20 students in total) and didn’t answered, did not answered, didn’t aswered and didn’t answerd in slot 51 (13 students in total); even doesn’t answered was suggested.

Thus, although the majority of students mastered the use of irregular verbs, a handful seemed uncertain about them. It cannot be concluded why the verb see caused such difficulty, unless this reflects some confusion with the regular verb saw. In addition, a small number of students struggled with the verb be, which is somewhat surprising given its frequency. However, some forms of the verb be bear little similarity to the infinitive, and the fact that be is also used in a variety of ways as an auxiliary may have confused the students.

8.3.3 The passive

There were only two slots in the test where the passive was supposed to be used, although some students attempted to create a passive elsewhere as well. However, the students had great problems forming the suitable passive form in slot 108, although they scored better in slot 4. This is perhaps because the required form in slot 108 (She ___ (still/shout at) by her father

at nine-fifteen) was the past progressive form combined with the adverb still and preposition

at, which turned out to be very challenging for the students. Only 28 students managed to supply the expected form, was still being shouted at. Forty-eight students managed to produce a suitable passive form but without the progressive, and 102 formed the progressive without the

passive, while another 48 did so as well but ignored the preposition. The students suggested a total of 44 different forms for this slot, which was the greatest number of variant forms produced per slot (tied with slot 100).

Students succeeded better in slot 4 (It was soon clear that he ___ (murder)), where 68 students created had been murdered and 173 provided was murdered. Given that 44 students provided no answer to this slot, the percentage of students who successfully produced a passive form was much greater in this slot, particularly since 18 more students produced a form that looked like an attempt to create a passive form. In slot 4, most students managed to provide some attempt at a passive, with only about 10 students providing an active sentence (some students provided forms that are difficult to categorise). In contrast, about 210 students provided an active-looking form in slot 108. It seems, indeed, that students found slot 4 much easier to identify as a slot requiring the passive than slot 108. This may be because of the other aspects of verb usage that students needed to remember and apply in slot 108. Thus, perhaps the combined challenge of using the progressive with the words still and at made slot 108 more difficult for the students. The Swedish-speaking and bilingual students were slightly better at identifying the need for a passive in these two instances, but the difference was very small. In slot 4, most of them (19 out of 21) provided a passive either in the past perfect or the past, while in slot 108, the bilingual and Swedish-speaking students provided ten different forms, and only three students (out of 21) provided the expected form, was still being shouted at. However, six Swedish-speaking and bilingual students were able to form a passive without the progressive, which is proportionally more than Finnish students. It seems that the Swedish-speakers were not fully able to benefit from the similarity in the structure of the passive in Swedish and English. However, this may be because Swedish has several structures to choose from to provide a passive, and only one of them resembles that used in English passive formation (see Section 5.1.2).

The students in this study were not likely to use passive forms when the active was expected, but there were a few instances where the passive was used in these situations. This happened 67 times in 27 slots, a mere 1% of all the forms provided. Most of these were single instances or given by two to four students, but eight students provided a passive form in slot 31 (was decided, has been decided, had been decided) and six students in slot 61 (was planned, was planed), while as many as 18 provided a passive in slot 59 (was called). Although it is somewhat difficult to understand why another person would decide for Dorothy in slot 31 (I ___ (decide)

rather later than I ___ (plan) to be because ...), the passive in slot 59 (I ___ (call) at the Sterns’ house at nine-fifteen) can be understood if students were not familiar with the word

call (at) in the sense of ‘visit’ but only in the sense of ‘phone’, in which case the passive makes a little more sense.

8.3.4 Verb complementation

There were two sources of variation in verb complementation in this test, with how to continue a sentence with a second verb after a particular main verb has been given. Typically, this means choosing between the infinitive with or without to, using the gerund (the –ing form) or using a subordinate clause, for example with that. English verbs tend to follow a particular pattern, with some verbs only allowing one of the above ways of complementation, while other verbs are more versatile, but occasionally have a difference in meaning between two types of verb complementation. This phenomenon is also discussed in Section 9.2.2, with comments on a change in contemporary usage that has increased verb complementation with the gerund in this type of structures.

According to English Grammar in Use, in structures such as make somebody do something, you do not use the infinitive marker to before the infinitive (Murphy 2004, 110). The majority of the students (172) seemed to be familiar with the rule and produced take in slot 33 (... so she

made me ___ (take) Dad’s tea into his study), but 100 students provided to take. Only one of

the teachers was willing to accept to take and one found such use questionable; the others found the form inappropriate.

The verbs try and start can be followed with either the infinitive or –ing, with a slight difference in meaning. After try in slot 72 (I tried ___ (explain) to Trevor why ...), students offered to explain much more often (230 students) than explaining (34), and some students (45) also suggested explain without to. Teachers were unanimous with accepting to explain as the best form, but only 6 treated explaining in the same way; others either found it acceptable (2 teachers), questionable (one teacher) or inappropriate (4 teachers). After start in slot 87 (...