1887
Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This squib focuses on two main issues. Firstly, it examines the ways in which constructionist approaches to language can bring about an improved theoretical understanding of Double Modals (DMs) in dialects of English. DMs have proved to be a long-lasting, notorious puzzle in formal linguistics, and have not received any general solution today, with much analysis devoted to their constituent structure and their postulated layers of derivation, especially in generative models of language. Usage-based strands of Construction Grammar (CxG) appear to naturally overcome such problems, while conveying a more cognitively and socially realistic picture of such dialect variants. Secondly, and more importantly, we argue that such an improved, constructional understanding of DMs can also contribute to advances in the modeling of dialect syntax in CxG, both theoretically and methodologically. In particular, DMs constitute an interesting case of relatively rare and restricted syntactic constructions in the dialects they appear in, and they are likely to exhibit different rates of entrenchment and network schematicity cross-dialectally. Moreover, the empirical challenges surrounding the measurement of DM usage invite us to refine the methodological concept of triangulation, by sketching a two-step approach with a data-driven study of new types of corpora on the one hand, and a hypothesis-driven experimental account of acceptability in relevant geographical locations on the other.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00050.mor
2020-12-31
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Battistella, Edwin
    1995 “The Syntax of the Double Modal Construction.” Linguistica Atlantica, 17: 19–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beal, Joan
    2004 “English Dialects in the North of England: Morphology and Syntax.” InA Handbook of Varieties of English, Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax, ed. by Bernd Kortmann , and Edgar Schneider , 114–141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bender, Emily
    2007 “Socially Meaningful Syntactic Variation in Sign-Based Grammar.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 347–381. 10.1017/S1360674307002286
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002286 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, Hans
    2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boertien, Harmon
    1986 “Constituent Structure of Double Modals.” InLanguage Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White, ed. by Michael Montgomery , and Guy Bailey , 294–318. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Butters, Ronald
    1973 “Acceptability Judgments for Double Modals in Southern Dialects.” InNew Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, ed. by Charles Bailey , and Roger Shuy , 276–286. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan
    2013 “Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    1986Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Corrigan, Karen
    2011 “Grammatical Variation in Irish English.” English Today27 (2): 39–46. 10.1017/S0266078411000198
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078411000198 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Clerck, Bernard and Timothy Colleman
    2013 “From Noun to Intensifier: Massa and Massa’s in Flemish Varieties of Dutch.” Language Sciences36:147–160. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Wit, Astrid
    2018 “The Semantics of the Simple Tenses and Full-Verb Inversion in English: A Story of Shared Epistemic Schemas.” Constructions and Frames10 (2): 210–233. 10.1075/cf.00019.wit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00019.wit [Google Scholar]
  12. DiPaolo, Marianna
    1989 “Double Modals as Single Lexical Items.” American Speech64 (3): 195–224. 10.2307/455589
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455589 [Google Scholar]
  13. Elsman, Minta and Stanley Dubinsky
    2009 “Double Modal Syntactic Patterns as Single Modal Interactions.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics15 (1): 75–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Falk, Yehuda
    1984 “The English Auxiliary System: A Lexical Functional Analysis.” Language60: 483–509. 10.2307/413988
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413988 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gazdar, Gerald , Geoffrey Pullum , and Ivan Sag
    1982 “Auxiliaries and Related Phenomena in a Restrictive Theory of Grammar.” Language58: 591–638. 10.2307/413850
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413850 [Google Scholar]
  16. Geeraerts, Dirk , Gitte Kristiansen , and Yves Peirsman
    (eds.) 2010Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
    2007 “To Err Is Not All: What Corpus and Elicitation Can Reveal about the Use of Collocations by Learners.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik55 (3): 273–291. 10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.273 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle , and Stefan Gries
    2009 “Corpora and Experimental Methods: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5 (1): 1–26. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele
    2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, Stefan
    2013 “Data in Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 93–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Grieve, Jack , Andrea Nini , and Diansheng Guo
    2017 “Analyzing Lexical Emergence in American English online.” English Language & Linguistics21 (1): 99–127. 10.1017/S1360674316000113
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000113 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2018 “Mapping Lexical Innovation on American Social Media”. Journal of English Linguistics46 (4): 293–319. 10.1177/0075424218793191
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424218793191 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grieve, Jack , Andrea Nini , Diansheng Guo , and Alice Kasakoff
    2015 “Using Social Media to Map Double Modals in Modern American English.” Paper presented atNew Ways of Analyzing Variation 44, University of Toronto, October 25.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hasty, Daniel
    2012 “This Might Could Help Us Better Understand Syntactic Variation: the Double Modal Construction in Tennessee English.” PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hasty, Daniel, Ashley Hesson, Suzanne Wagner, and Robert Lannon
    2012 “Finding Needles in the Right Haystack: Double Modals in Medical Conditions.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics18 (2): 41–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2006 “Corpora and Introspection as Converging Evidence: The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2 (2): 165–195. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.009 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011Preposition Placement in English: a Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2014 “Obtaining Introspective Acceptability Judgments.” InResearch Methods in Language Variation and Change, ed. byManfred Krug, and Julia Schlüter, 99–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale
    (eds.) 2011Variation, Change, and Constructions in English. Thematic issue of Cognitive Linguistics22 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hollmann, Willem
    2013 “Constructions in Cognitive Sociolinguistics.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. byThomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 491–510. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hollmann, Willem, and Anna Siewierska
    2007 “A Construction Grammar Account of Possessive Constructions in Lancashire Dialect: Some Advantages and Challenges.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 407–424. 10.1017/S1360674307002304
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002304 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hollmann, Willem , and Anna Siewierska
    2011 “The Status of Frequency, Schemas, and Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A Case Study of Definite Article Reduction.” Cognitive Linguistics22 (1): 35–54. 10.1515/cogl.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, Nick
    2011 “Multiple Modals.” Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America. Typoscript available at https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/multiple-modals. Last accessed on12/11/2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Huang, Yuan , Diansheng Guo , Alice Kasakoff , and Jack Grieve
    2016 “Understanding US Regional Linguistic Variation with Twitter Data Analysis.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems59: 244–255. 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Huddleston, Rodney , and Geoffrey Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hudson, Richard
    2007 “English Dialect Syntax in Word Grammar.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 383–405. 10.1017/S1360674307002298
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002298 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kristiansen, Gitte , and René Dirven
    (eds.) 2008Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
  39. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, Ronald
    1982 “Space Grammar, Analyzability and the English Passive.” Language58: 22–80. 10.2307/413531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413531 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1986 “An introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Science10: 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mishoe, Margaret , and Michael Montgomery
    1994 “The Pragmatics of Multiple Modal Variation in North and South Carolina.” American Speech69 (1): 3–29. 10.2307/455947
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455947 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mukherjee, Joybrato , and Stefan Gries
    2009 “Collostructional Nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-Construction Associations in the International Corpus of English.” English World-Wide30 (1): 27–51. 10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk [Google Scholar]
  44. Nagle, Stephen
    2003 “Double Modals in the Southern United States: Syntactic Structure or Syntactic Structures?” InModality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti , Frank Palmer , and Manfred Krug , 359–372. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895339.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.349 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ostman, Jan-Öla , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 “Dialects, Discourse, and Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 476–490. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Petré, Peter , and Lynn Anthonissen
    2020 “Individuality in complex systems: a constructionist approach.” Cognitive Linguistics31 (2): 185–212. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0033 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1989 “Verb Movement, UG, and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry20: 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Pullum, Geoffrey
    2007 “Do Double Modals Really Exist?” Language Log. itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005136.html (last accessed on11/12/2020)
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pütz, Martin , Justyna Robinson , and Monika Reif
    (eds.) 2014Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.59 [Google Scholar]
  50. Smith, Jennifer , David Adger , Brian Aitken , Caroline Heycock , E. Jamieson , and Gary Thoms
    2019The Scots Syntax Atlas. University of Glasgow. https://scotssyntaxatlas.ac.uk (last accessed on11/12/2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sprouse, Jon , and Carson Schütze
    2019 “Grammar and the Use of Data.” InThe Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, ed. by Bas Aarts , Jill Bowie , and Gergana Popova . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00050.mor
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00050.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error