<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Isfahan</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Applied Research on English Language</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2252-0198</Issn>
				<Volume>2</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>02</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>How textbooks (and learners) get it wrong: A corpus study of modal auxiliary verbs</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>33</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>44</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">15462</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22108/are.2013.15462</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Laleh</FirstName>
					<LastName>Khojasteh</LastName>
<Affiliation>Shiraz University of Paramedical Sciences, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Hayo</FirstName>
					<LastName>Reinders</LastName>
<Affiliation>Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2013</Year>
					<Month>01</Month>
					<Day>09</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Many  elements  contribute  to  the  relative  difficulty  in  acquiring  specific  aspects  of  English  as  a &lt;br /&gt;foreign  language  (Goldschneider  &amp;  DeKeyser,  2001).  Modal  auxiliary  verbs  (e.g.  could,  might), &lt;br /&gt;are  examples  of  a  structure  that  is  difficult  for  many  learners.  Not  only  are  they  particularly &lt;br /&gt;complex  semantically,  but  especially  in  the  Malaysian  context  reported  on  in  this  paper,  there  is &lt;br /&gt;no direct equivalent in the students’ L1. In other words, they are a good example of a structure for &lt;br /&gt;which  successful  acquisition  depends  very  much  on  the  quality  of  the  input  and  instruction &lt;br /&gt;students  receive.  This  paper  reports  on  analysis  of  a  230,000  word  corpus  of  Malaysian  English &lt;br /&gt;textbooks,  in  which  it  was  found  that  the  relative  frequency  of  the  modals  did  not  match  that &lt;br /&gt;found  in  native  speaker  corpora  such  as  the  BNC.  We  compared  the  textbook  corpus  with  a &lt;br /&gt;learner  corpus  of  Malaysian  form  4  learners  and  found  no  direct  relationship  between  frequency &lt;br /&gt;of presentation of target forms in the textbooks and their use by students in their writing. We also &lt;br /&gt;found a very large percentage of errors in students’ writing. We suggest a number of possible &lt;br /&gt;reasons for these findings and discuss the implications for materials developers and teachers. </Abstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Modal auxiliary verbs</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Malaysia</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">corpus</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">textbook</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">material development</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://are.ui.ac.ir/article_15462_461d732f82c2468535ba758c19ae1256.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
