2.1 Previous research on the use of interpersonal meaning-making features

An investigation into how Norwegian EFL writers in lower secondary school use inter-personal meaning-making features was conducted by Hasund and Hasselgård (2022). They explore features related to writer/reader visibility (WRV) in argumentative and ex-pository genres and found that young Norwegian EFL learners are visible writers, exhib-iting an overuse of WRV features compared both to more advanced Norwegian EFL writers and to native writers. In particular, Hasund and Hasselgård (2022) identified the frequent use of first-person pronouns and modal verbs, and some use of the subjective stance expression “I think” and modal adjuncts like “maybe” and “really”. These findings are in line with other studies of Scandinavian EFL learners in tertiary education (cf. e.g. Aijmer 2002; Hasselgård 2009).

Ryshina-Pankova (2011) researched developmental changes in the use of interactional resources as the first part of the clause (i.e. in theme position) by university GFL learners in FL book reviews. She found that interpersonal themes expressed by modal adjuncts such as “möglicherweise” and “it”-constructions like “es war interessant” were used min-imally in comparison to thematising the writer, reader, or book, with the former making the texts appear more subjective. Looking at GFL learners’ texts holistically, Maden-Weinberger (2009) identified a global tendency by university GFL learners to overuse modality markers of non-epistemic modal verb type compared to native speakers. Amongst other things, she found a frequent use of the Konjunktiv II form of the modal verb “mögen” and explained this with the learners’ higher inclination for expressing their own or other people’s intentions or volition in their essays (165). Yet Maden-Weinberger (2009) also pointed to the text-type sensitivity of this overuse (169–170). In line with Hasund and Hasselgård (2022), she found, for example, an overuse of modality markers in the case of argumentative texts.

Regarding the question of how GFL learners acquire modal verbs longitudinally, the find-ings by Maden-Weinberger (2009) were close to those by Lindemann (1996). Among other things, Lindemann (1996) found that Norwegian secondary school GFL learners experience problems in acquiring the German system of modal verbs, despite the similar nature of the systems of Norwegian and German. She also concluded that learners acquire the modal verbs in GFL by drawing on their existing language repertoire in Norwegian and English. This applied to the modal verb systems of “kunne”/ “can”, “må”/ “must”, “skulle”/ “shall” and “ville”/ “will”, with the learners trying to assign the most approxi-mate lexemes of German to those verbs of the basic system (see also Hasund/Hasselgård 2022). Accordingly, the verbs most prevalent in the students’ learner language are “kön-nen”, “müssen”, “sollen” and “wollen” – which, according to Lindemann (1996), already allow the learners to express varied meanings at that stage of the learning process. In comparison, the acquisition of, for example, “dürfen” expressing allowance and of the Konjunktiv II form “möchte” (“mögen”) for expressing a wish is found to be more complicated for the learners.

Overall, the studies that investigate modal assessment strategies in learners’ texts show similar interpersonal patterns. First, learners’ texts are often considerably subjective at earlier developmental stages. Second, many learners express personal stances in similar ways, for example through the construction “I think”. The studies indicate that these fea-tures are those which Norwegian learners are most familiar with. In addition, the studies point to various reasons why particular patterns of modal assessment resources occur, namely language development (cf. e.g. Maden-Weinberger 2008), a more speech-like style in writing (cf. e.g. Aijmer 2002), the influence of the mother tongue (cf. Hasselgård 2009; Lindemann 1996) and textbook-/teacher-induced influences, as well as the topic of a text (cf. Aijmer 2002). Regarding the latter, Aijmer (2002) calls for further research to take topic more closely into consideration when studying modality in learner writing. Aijmer (2014) further stresses the need for widening the focus on modal assessment in research and recommends doing so from a functional framework, with the latter accounting for a wide range of interpersonal features and strengthening the relationship between form and function. Moreover, Aijmer (2002) underlines the crucial nature of modal assessment features in the establishment of style and tone in a learner’s text – for example, by pointing to the influence which modals expressing certainty have on the rhetorical effect of the text. All this underlines the importance of further research on patterns of modal assessment and their linguistic representation, including with respect to pre-tertiary GFL contexts and different writing situations.

2.2 Modal assessment strategies

The following descriptions of modal assessment strategies are largely based on Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) and Andersen and Holsting (2015). The former work, together with the previous editions that were initially authored only by Halliday, constitutes the most central descriptive framework within SFL theory. Andersen and Holsting (2015) present detailed functional grammar descriptions of another Germanic language, namely Danish. This is significant given the lack of detailed SFL descriptions of German – the work by Steiner and Teich (2004) comprises only concise descriptions. In this section, all examples on the clause level presented in German have been created by me.

As mentioned earlier, modal assessment subsumes the ways of assessing a proposition subjectively (cf. Halliday/Matthiessen 2014). To that end, ideas are not only realised as being either positive or negative, such as “Sie hat die Prüfung (nicht) bestanden” but are located along different subjective meaning dimensions as in “Sie kann die Prüfung nicht bestehen”, “Sie muss die Prüfung bestehen” or “Hoffentlich besteht sie die Prüfung”. In line with Andersen and Holsting (2015; cf. also Halliday/Matthiessen 2014), four main modal assessment strategies can be identified: (a) modality, (b) temporality, (c) intensity and (d) comment (see Table 1). In the following paragraphs, these are explained in detail.

Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 176) define (a) modality as the region of uncertainty in between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in which a proposition (i.e. exchange of information) or proposal (i.e. exchange of goods and services) is located. With respect to modality, two major sub-types are commonly differentiated, and these are modalisation and modulation. Accord-ing to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 176–177), modalisation relates to propositions and concerns those assessments associated with the idea of modality in a strict sense, i.e. the degree of (1) possibility (probably yes, maybe no) and the degree of (2) usuality (always yes, sometimes no) (see Table 1). As an example of the subtype modalisation, the modal verb “muss” in “Tom muss beim Training sein” expresses that the language user assesses the incident of Tom being at training as very likely. Accordingly, the different modal verbs and modal adjuncts of modalisation type express varying degrees of likelihood or usuality. In contrast, modulation relates to proposals and locates a message between the poles of ‘do it’ and ‘don’t do it’ (177). Concerning the example of “Tom muss Fahrrad fahren”, the language user expresses a strong degree of obligation for Tom to ride a bike. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) consider modulation in terms of the subcategories of obligation and inclination, which Andersen and Holsting (2015) differentiate further into (3) allowance and (4) liability on the one hand, and (5) will and (6) ability on the other (see Table 1). Liability subsumes the categories of self-commitment, commitment, and necessity (216). While the distinctions regarding modality are very specific, Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 181) stress this level of detail as important as “in the analysis of discourse (…) all these variants are likely to be met with, and their differences in meaning may have a marked effect on the un-folding and impact of the discourse” (see also Maden-Weinberger 2008).

The interpersonal assessment of (b) temporality locates propositions in the subjective dimension of time. It expresses how time is perceived by the speaker or what attitude the speaker has towards a course of time (Andersen/Holsting 2015: 223–224; Halliday/Matthiessen 2014: 187–188). Accordingly, Andersen and Holsting (2015) also assign adjuncts such as “plötzlich” to this category, stating the speaker’s surprise.

If speakers assess a proposition in terms of (c) intensity, they express how extensive, se-rious or natural they consider an action or incident, such as in ”Ich habe mir nur/fast/tatsächlich mein Bein beim Unfall gebrochen”. Andersen and Holsting (2015) define intensity as one category with various meanings, having either the pur-pose of weakening or reinforcing a proposition (221–222; see also Halliday/Matthiessen 2014: 188–189).

Another kind of modal assessment is (d) commenting on a proposition (or proposal), for example by expressing how desirable, correct or significant something is. Both Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 187–193) and Andersen and Holsting (2015: 224–226) stress that this strategy comprises various meanings and aims at commenting within or outside of the boundaries of a sentence. The former is, for example, the case in “Klugerweise hörte er auf seinen Vater” and the latter in “Ganz ehrlich, du solltest auf deinen Vater hören“.

Modal assessments are realised through different linguistic resources. In the current study, these resources are analysed and described according to the following three categories: (i) modal verbs, (ii) modal adjuncts and (iii) paraphrased forms realised through related adjectival and noun groups and verbal constructions (cf. e.g. Halliday/Matthiessen 2014; Maden-Weinberger 2008). It is important to note that this is only one of several ways to categorise modal resources and that the categories do not represent closed groups either.

(i) Modal verbs are resources associated with the modal assessment category of (a) mo-dality (cf. Andersen/Holsting 2015; Halliday/Matthiessen 2014). In German, the modal verb system is typically described in terms of six core verbs (“müssen”, “können”, “dürfen”, “sollen”, “wollen”, “mögen”) (cf. e.g. Duden-Grammatik 2016; Helbig/Buscha 2013). Nevertheless, the definition of modal verbs in the German language is still ambig-uous (cf. e.g. Diewald 1999; Helbig/Buscha 2013; Hentschel/Weydt 2003), partly because the same verbs may sometimes be used as the only verb in German clauses. Also, there are verb groups such as the modal infinitive with “sein” and “haben” and verbs like “lassen” or “werden” that can express modal meaning comparable to that of the modal verbs. In addition, the use and meanings of the six core modal verbs are difficult to describe in clear and concise ways. This is why, for example, Hentschel and Weydt (2003: 80–82) and Helbig and Buscha (2013: 132) draw on additional criteria such as intensity, formality, or tense to describe the differences between “dürfen” / “können” (allowance), “sollen” / “müssen” (liability) and “wollen” / “möchte” (will). Commonly, the modal verbs are also differentiated in terms of epistemic use when expressing possibility and non-epistemic use when modulat-ing a message (cf. e.g. Duden-Grammatik 2016: 571). For the current study, a brief over-view of modal verbs must suffice. In Table 2, an attempt is made to assign the six Ger-man modal verbs to the modality categories presented above. The asterisks in Table 2 mark Konjunktiv II forms.

(ii) Modal adjuncts are realised either as adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, comprising items such as “schon”, “noch immer”, “dem Anschein nach” or “im Großen und Ganzen”. They have the function of expressing temporality, intensity and comments, as well as modality of modalisation type (possibility and usuality) (cf. Andersen/Holsting 2015; Halliday/Matthiessen 2014: 419–423). In traditional German grammar descriptions, the group of modal adjuncts is generally linked to classifications such as “Modalwörter” or “Kommentaradverbien” (cf. e.g. Duden-Grammatik 2016: 598–599; Helbig/Buscha 2013: 430–439).

(iii) Meanings expressed by modal verbs and modal adjuncts can also be encoded in par-aphrased ways by transforming them into a clause including a verb or adjective with modal meaning (see examples 1.–3.). Helbig and Buscha (2013: 438–439) consider these forms as modal paraphrase constructions, while Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 679–685) term them explicit forms and distinguish them further as being either subjective, when formed with “ich” (see example 1.), or objective, when encoded in the relative “es ist” clause (see examples 2. and 3.). In addition to explicit forms, some modulation and comment subtypes can also be expressed with predicators of modal meaning (Halliday/Matthiessen 2014: 186) (see example 4.). Overall, the classification and identification of paraphrased forms is more ambiguous, as they do not take the form of a word but of a group or clause.

1. Ich glaube, dass sie heute arbeitet.

2. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass ….

3. Es ist überraschend, dass ….

4. Er hat das Recht, dort zu fahren.

3.1 Data

The data of this study stems from the German part of the TRAWL Corpus (cf. Dirdal et al. 2022). This corpus is still under compilation and contains texts retrieved from in-class work (ordinary writing activities, homework, school tests or mock exams) written by Norwegian secondary school learners of English as a first FL (beginning in year 1, aged 5–6), and German, French and Spanish as an L3 (beginning in year 8, aged 13–14).

Four subsets of the German part of TRAWL make up the data, which have the following four-letter codes in the corpus (cf. Dirdal et al. 2022): SCHU, FREU, JUNG, GESE (see Table 3). The responses stem from year 12 mock exam contexts in which the learners were in their fifth year of GFL learning. Here, it was customary practice up to and including the school year of 2020/21 to have a first task that is obligatory for all learners and revolves around a topic closely linked to the learners’ everyday life, combined with the instruction to write a short text of three to five sentences. The four subsets were chosen because all learner group members responded to the same task, which led to larger data sets. In addition, the subsets present tasks that were of similar structure and elicited re-sponses of comparable text length. In order to obtain broader insights into strategies and resources applied, I chose to use the data from two different learner groups, including in total 51 responses. Similar data from further learner groups was not available in the cor-pus. Both learner groups, here called group A and B, consisted of 13 GFL learners (aged 17-18) respectively (for further information on the learner codes, see appendix). The data sets were collected in the school years 2020/21 (group A) and 2018/19 (group B).

Table 3 presents the writing prompts that elicited the short text responses from either learner group A or B, together with the codes of the parent data sets in the TRAWL Cor-pus. I also added translations to the prompts and underlined words/groups which are indi-cators of modal assessment. In the third column of the table, I added information on which strategy is indicated. It needs to be stressed that the strategy of ability outlined for the FREU prompt has to be understood as ability due to external circumstances and not to one’s own capacity. Here, one could speak of possibil-ity but in a modulating sense (cf. Maden-Weinberger 2009: 158).

Table 4 provides further information on the data of this study. It shows how many learn-ers of the respective learner group responded to each prompt and provides information on the number of words per response (mean length, and the lowest and highest value). Even though the higher number of words observed in learner group B might be an indication of more advanced skills compared to learner group A, the study does not control for lan-guage skills.

3.2 Analytical approach

The empirical data is analysed in two steps, first through quantitative overviews of learn-ers’ modal assessment strategies, followed by a qualitative close reading of the learners’ strategies. In the quantitative part, each learner text was analysed for instances of modal verbs, modal adjuncts and corresponding paraphrases, as well as for which modal as-sessment (sub)types they express in line with the categorisations by Andersen and Holsting (2015) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) (see also section 2.2). For two main reasons, this analysis was conducted manually. First, paraphrases of modal assessment in particular are part of a set of open class items (cf. e.g. Maden-Weinberger 2009: 104), and to allow for automatic retrieval, this class of resources would have had to be narrowed down. Considering the small amount of data available for this study, I assessed this to be a disproportionate effort. Second, and most importantly, the main aim of the current study was to investigate the meanings that underlie quantitative patterns and not to investigate consistent developmental patterns (cf. e.g. Durrant/Brenchley/Clarkson 2020). Searching for quantitative patterns manually thus allowed me to explore modal assessment resources in all their breadth and to observe the underlying meanings in depth.

3.3 Methodological limitations

A main limitation of this study is that it is of restricted generalisability. The data is small and represents short text responses to only four writing prompts of varying character. In addition, the data stems from only two different learner groups which were not controlled for their specific language level. Regarding the analytical approach, it also appears difficult to maintain a thoroughly lexicogrammatical perspective. While certain paraphrased forms such as “Es ist wichtig” can clearly be assigned to grammatical descriptions as provided by, for example, Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), rephrased expressions such as “Ich finde … wichtig” or “… ist wichtig in meinem Leben” are not clearly outlined by the scholars. Another main limitation of this study is that quantitative patterns are analysed manually and the categorisations made have not been cross-checked by others. While the categorisations are based on extensive grammatical descriptions, the possibility of errors cannot be ruled out.

While both larger and more homogeneous data sets and a corpus-based statistical analysis would have been valuable for making reliable statements about the learners’ interpersonal strategy use, this study makes an important contribution as it considers corpus data pre-senting texts and prompts retrieved from an authentic classroom situation. Thus, the find-ings can provide valuable initial insights into the learners’ interpersonal strategy use and their linguistic repertoire regarding modal assessment resources, which again is relevant to future research on interpersonal meaning-making and the discussion of grammar teaching.

4.1 Modal assessment strategies – Overview

Figure 1 shows an overview of the types of assessment strategies found in the learner responses, together with the number of responses in which this strategy was applied at least once. The overview presents several general insights into modal assessment across the responses. First, all major assessment strategies can be found in the data of this study (i.e. across in total 51 responses). Second, modality of the modulation type presents itself as a major assessment strategy across all four writing prompts. Third, the overview shows a high number of comment strategies in the responses to two writing prompts. However, these, as well as indications of temporality, appear as highly dependent on the topic or writing prompt. The following sections present in more detail the use of different assessment strategies and resources regarding the four different writing prompts.

Figure 1: Number of learner responses with modal assessments of the various types

4.2 Modal assessment strategies of modality, intensity and temporality type

An overview of the distinct kinds of modality assessment strategies (modalisation and modulation) found in the learner responses is provided in Figure 2, together with the number of responses in which this strategy was applied at least once. The figure shows that the types of modality assessment vary from prompt to prompt. While the responses particular to FREU and to JUNG are character-ised mostly by assessments of the same type (ability or allowance), the assessments of modality appear varied in the responses to SCHU and GESE.

Figure 2: Number of learner responses with assessments of modality of the various types

In the following, the use of the different modality assessments across the individual prompts is described in detail, also with a focus on the resources used. Due to the distributions presented in Figure 2, the descriptions focus first on the strategies applied to FREU and JUNG, followed by those to GESE and SCHU. In all examples provided in this section, assessments of modality are marked in bold, those of TEMPORALITY are capitalised and those of intensity as underlined.

In ten out of all twelve responses to FREU, the assessment strategy of ability can be observed. This reflects the type of assessment indicated in the writing prompt by the modal verb “können”. Across those ten responses where ability is indicated, around two thirds of all propositions comprise possible activities that can be done with a good friend (see example i.). The other two learner re-sponses differ in that they contain propositions that are either not assessed in terms of modality or only assessed in terms of liability (see examples ii. and iii.). As can be seen in the examples i. and iii., learners also assessed how natural common activities with a friend or requirements of a good friend are in terms of intensity.

• i. Zum Beispiel kann man ins Kino gehen, Computerspiele spielen oder (…). Wir können auch einfach miteinander reden. (P60660)

• ii. Ich bin mit meinem guten Freund zu Oslo gewesen. (…) Wir haben es sehr Spaß hier. (P60666)

• iii. Ein guter Freund muss natürlich werden ganz glaubhaft. … Zu der Letzt müssen dich und deinen Freund ganz Spaß haben. (P60667)

Most often, the responses to JUNG contain propositions unassessed in terms of modality and deal with what happens when one turns eighteen. However, almost all responses also present at least one assessment of allowance (see examples iv. and v.). The learners characteristically state what they/people turning eighteen are allowed to do, and sometimes also what parents are not allowed to do any longer. In total, this strategy is applied to more than a quarter of all propositions. Another modality assessment strategy applied additionally in two responses is liability, used to express impa-tience regarding becoming independent (see example vi.). These meanings are partly also created through assessments of temporality (see examples v., vi.). Addi-tionally, some assessments of intensity can be found where learners express how natural life at the age of eighteen and the associated opportunities are to them (see examples iv. and vi.).

• iv. Ein achtzehnjähriger ist verantwortlich für seine Wirtschaft. Er ist nicht abhängig von seinen Eltern, und er kann eigentlich machen was er selbst wollen. (P60269)

• v. Man ist ENDLICH selbstständig und man kann über sich selbst bestimmen. Die Eltern haben auch nicht so sagen, wenn man 18 wird. (P60261)

• vi. Ein Leben als 18, sieht für mich wirklich gut aus. Aber es gibt ein Problem (…). Das heißt, dass das Leben NOCH NICHT so verändert wird (…). Man muss also bis 20 warten! (P60264)

In the responses to GESE, there are various propositions that are assessed only in terms of usuality (“jeden Tag”, “immer”, “oft”). These assessments mostly express how often a certain device or app is used (see examples vii., x. and xi.). In addition, seven learners employed assessments of ability (“können”), most often expressing that various things can be done through social media (i.e. in the sense of options) (see example viii.). In some cases, the assessment of ability is also used by learners to express that they are (not) able to live without their mobile phone or social media (see examples ix., x.). In a similar way, two learners also use the assessment of liability (“sollen”) to indicate that they should reduce their screen time (see example x.). In both instances where this is presented as a necessity, the learners present this proposition as something they are sure of, indicated by modalisation resources of possibility (“ich denke”, “ich weiß”). The assessment of possibility is also used in other ways: two learners use modalisation to evaluate their use of social media as (un)likely to be a sign of addiction (see example xi.), while two other learners express certainty concerning the role of social media in their lives (see example ix.).

• vii. Ich benutze Snapchat (…) jeden Tag weil ich mit meinem Freunde da kommuniziere. (P60269)

• viii. (…) weil ich mit Freunde und Familie kommunizieren kann. (P60266)

• ix. Ich denke, dass soziale Medien ganz wichtig in meinem Leben sind. Es ist ein Teil (…), aber ich kann ohne soziale Medien ein paar Tagen überlebe. (P60272)

• x. wenn ich mein Frühstück esse, ist das Handy immer da! Ich kann es nicht wecklegen, obwohl ich weiß, dass ich nicht zu viel Zeit mit meinem Handy brauchen soll. (P60264)

• xi. Meine Mutti fragt mich oft, ob ich abhängig bin, doch ich denke nicht so. (P60271)

In the responses to SCHU, most propositions carry no assessment of modality. Commonly, propositions appear similar to example xii., and sometimes also to example xiii. If a modal assessment strategy is used, this is mostly liability, occurring across six learner responses in one or two propositions respectively (see example xiv.). This strategy can be linked to the wider context of environmental protection, with the propositions being realised as demands for commitment. The second most common as-sessment of modulation is will, expressing that there is a strong motiva-tion to protect the environment (see example xv.). Other minor assessment strategies ap-plied are ability, expressing that life on earth is only possible in a healthy environment (see example xvi.), and modalisation in terms of possibility (see example xv.).

• xii. Der Klimaschutz ist wichtig, weil Menschheit (…) gut Klima brauchen. (P60661)

• xiii. Ich fahre ein Elektroauto und sortiere Müll. (P60670)

• xiv. Wir müssen der Mull recyceln und zusammen arbeiten für ein besser Klima. (P60668)

• xv. Die Erde hast selbstverständig in sehr viele Jahre dauert, und ich denke, dass wir will¹ die Erde behält viel länger. (P60666)

• xvi. (…) so dass Menschen und das Tiere können überleben. (P60664)

Concerning SCHU in particular, the analysis further indicates that modal assessment strategies also interrelate with the subjects chosen in a proposition, which in combination lead to distinct tones. In Table 5, an attempt is made to stress some of those relations (liability, no modal assessment and subject choice) and their impact on the meaning-making process.

As different modal assessments were expressed within and across the responses to the four writing prompts, the linguistic resources indicating modality, temporality and intensity also varied. Table 6 presents what kind of modality markers the learners employed across the prompts, i.e. modal verbs, modal adjuncts and paraphrases, along with the total number of times a specific resource was used. The asterisks (see also Table 7) mark incorrect language learner forms.

In line with the resources commonly associated with modalisation on the one hand and modulation on the other, the overview in Table 6 shows that the learners mostly express the former through modal adjuncts and paraphrases, while modulation is nearly exclu-sively expressed through modal verbs. Regarding the latter, the modal verb most domi-nantly used is “können”. This results from the meanings associated with the prompts of FREU and GESE but also from the fact that all learners realised the meaning of allowance in response to JUNG through “können” as a variant of “dürfen”. Other modal verbs which are commonly found are “müssen”, “sollen” und “wollen”, as-sociated with the meanings of liability and will. The verbs “dürfen” and the Konjunktiv II form of “mögen” appear only once. In response to JUNG, two instances of paraphrased indications of allowance can also be found, realised as the verbal construction “Recht ha-ben” and the modal infinitive “haben zu”.

The modal adjuncts that were used to realise the assessments of temporality and intensity are presented in Table 7. As Table 7 shows, diverse resources were found across the responses, including “endlich” as a frequent resource for expressing temporality and “nur” for expressing intensity.

4.3 Modal assessment strategies of comment type

As shown in Figure 1, comment strategies were particularly common in the responses to SCHU and GESE, and to a smaller degree also to JUNG. Table 8 presents an overview of the types of comment strategies and resources identified in line with Halliday and Mat-thiessen (2014: 191) across the responses.

As Table 8 shows, the learners generally comment in similar ways on propositions with respect to the different prompts. Dominant in responses to SCHU is the expression of significance (see example xvii.), while the learners commonly indicated personal en-gagement or individuality in their responses to GESE (see example xviii.). It needs to be noted that the structure “ich finde … wichtig” is considered a paraphrase of the form “es ist wichtig, dass …”, and the group “in meinem Leben” as a paraphrase for “für mich” (see Table 8). The strategy employed in response to GESE reflects what has been indicat-ed in the writing prompt. As example xviii. shows, indications of personal engagement or individuality can often be found in connection with propositions in which (types of) so-cial media are outlined as significant.

• xvii. Ich finde Umwelt- und Klimaschutz sehr wichtig. (SCHU)

• xviii. Soziale Medien sind sehr wichtig in mein Leben. (GESE)

In response to JUNG, two learners use comments to assess allowances or conditions linked to turning eighteen from an official point of view (see examples xix. and xx., as well as the resources described in Table 7). With this comment strategy, learners express that not every person turning 18 inevitably can or wants to make use of this right.

• xix. In der Theorie, kann man alles allein machen. (JUNG, P60264)

• xx. Viele Leute starten auch über Alkohol zu denken, weil sie das gesetzlich trinken können. (JUNG, P60266)

4.4 Summary of findings

Overall, the analysis of strategies in the learners’ responses to SCHU, FREU, JUNG and GESE shows various modal assessment strategies employed. It became evident that each prompt led to one major strategy employed across the majority of responses, in addition to other further assessment strategies. Table 9 presents an overview of the major and fur-ther strategies observed in the data.

In general, the findings show that the various strategies applied – partly also in combina-tion with one another – led to distinctive social relationships and attitudes being enacted and expressed by the writers. Amongst other things, the learners made calls to save the environment (SCHU), expressed impatience with respect to becoming independent (JUNG), or articulated their view on their own social media use in connection with addic-tion (GESE). The findings further indicate that not only the presence of certain strategies, but also the absence thereof may have important rhetorical effects.

To express assessments of modulation, the learners predominantly drew on the modal verbs “können”, “müssen”, “sollen” and “wollen”. As could further be seen, the encoding of possibility, usuality, temporality, intensity and comments elicited the use of modal ad-juncts or paraphrases, which often were of the same type. Particularly in responses to JUNG, however, it could be seen that the range and type of modal adjuncts in part dif-fered notably from those used in response to the other prompts.

Overview of learner data

Due to standards in TRAWL-based research, this table provides information on the learn-ers that provided the data for this study. The table shows the unique student codes with which each individual learner can be searched in the TRAWL Corpus. As the learners assigned to groups A and B belonged to two different classrooms, their codes differ (in this case, the third digit is different).