Visit www.benjamins.com

On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

Price: £15.00+Taxes
Add to favourites

The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.03war
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
6
3
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.03war
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Full text loading...

References

Adger, D
(2013) Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind and Language, 28(4), 466–478. doi: 10.1111/mila.12027
Bergs, A
(2010) Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics,14(2), 217–238. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000067
Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S , & Finegan, E
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London: Longman.
Boas, H.C
(2001) Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson , A. Wilson , T. McEnery , A. Hardie , & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, (pp.64–73). U.K.: Lancaster
(2013) Cognitive construction grammar. In Th. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boogart, R
(2009) Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.213–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.09boo
Bybee, J
(2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
Cameron, L
(2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511733109
Cappelle, B. , & Depraetere, I
(2014) Modal meaning in construction grammar. Paper presented at The International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE) Conference , 24-27 August 2014, Zürich: Zürich University.
Coates, J
(1983) The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Cruse, A.D. , & Croft, W
(1999) Cognitive linguistics. Draft, version 6. Chapters10–11.
Eide, K.M
(2002) Norwegian modals. PhD dissertation. Department of linguistics, NTNU, Trondheim.
Fillmore, Ch. J
(1982) Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Fried, M
(2009) Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.63–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.04fri
Glynn, D
(2010) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. An introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Quantitative approaches (pp.1–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.1
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Huddleson, R. , & Pullum, G.K
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klinge, A
(1993) The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 315–357. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700000359
Kratzer, A
(1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355. doi: 10.1007/BF00353453
Lundahl, B
(2014) Texts, topics and tasks: Teaching English in years 4-6. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lundberg, G
(2011) De Första Årens Engelska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Martin, W
(1997) A frame-based approach to polysemy. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp.57–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/cilt.177.05mar
Michaelis, L.A. , & Lambrecht, K
(1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
Papafragou, A
(1998) Modality and semantic indeterminacy. In V. Rouchota & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp.237–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.58.11pap
(2000) Modality: Issues in the pragmatic-semantic interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Pinker, S
(2007) The language instinct: How the mind creates language (P.S.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
(2013) Language, cognition, and human nature: Selected articles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328741.001.0001
Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.
Sag, I.A
(2012) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. Closs
(1989) On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
Trousdale, G
(2013) Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
Wärnsby, A
(2002) Modal constructions?The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics, 2.
(2006) (De)coding modality: The case of must, may, måste and kan [Lund Studies in English, Vol. 113]. Lund: Lund University.
http://jbenjamins.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.03war
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address