1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 14, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to present the results of a corpus analysis aimed at identifying n-grams (i.e., lexical sequences) with the modals , and . While details about the functional profile of these verbs are still being discussed (e.g., Leclercq & Depraetere 2022), it is surprising that relatively scarce attention is given to the lexico-grammatical patterns in which they are found and which come with their own semantic and pragmatic features. Using the methodology developed in Cappelle and Depraetere (2016b), a total of 1,640 n-grams were extracted from COCA (Davies 2008-). A number of these patterns are discussed and, in keeping with the approach developed in Construction Grammar (Hilpert 2019), it is shown that an enhanced understanding of these verbs can be achieved when viewed as part of more complex networks of constructions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
2022-12-22
2025-02-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2004) The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a crosslinguistic perspective. InH. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp.57–78). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.13.05aij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.05aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
    (2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Blumental-Dramé, A.
    (2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boogaart, R.
    (2009) Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar: The case of modal verbs. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.213–241). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.09boo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.09boo [Google Scholar]
  6. Brems, L., Ghesquière, L., & Van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2012) English text construction, special issue: Intersections of intersubjectivity, 5(1). 10.1075/etc.5.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I.
    (2016a) Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7–39. 10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap [Google Scholar]
  9. (2016b) Response to Hilpert. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 86–96. 10.1075/cf.8.1.06cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.06cap [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I., & Lesuisse, M.
    (2019) The necessity modals have to, must, need to and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 220–243. 10.1075/cf.00029.cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00029.cap [Google Scholar]
  11. Clear, J.
    (1993) From Firth principles. Computational tools for the study of collocation. InM. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair (pp.271–292). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.18cle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.18cle [Google Scholar]
  12. Coates, J.
    (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Collins, C., & Postal, P.
    (2014) Classical NEG raising: An essay in the syntax of negation. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027311.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, P.
    (2009) Modals and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042029095
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029095 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cormack, A., & Smith, N.
    (1998) Negation, polarity and V-positions in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 101, 285–322.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cornillie, B., Marín-Arrese, J., & Wiemer, B.
    (2015) Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 291, 1–17. 10.1075/bjl.29.001int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.001int [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online atwww.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dehé, N., & Kavalova, Y.
    (Eds.) (2007) Parentheticals. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.106
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.106 [Google Scholar]
  21. Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G.
    (2018) Modal meaning and illocutionary force: A corpus based analysis of hedged performatives. Paper presented atAMPRA 4 (American Pragmatics Association), University at Albany, State University of New York, 1–3 November.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Depraetere, I., & Reed, S.
    (2011) Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. 10.1017/S1360674310000262
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000262 [Google Scholar]
  23. Depraetere, I. & Verhulst, A.
    (2008) Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics, 121, 1–25. 10.1017/S1360674307002481
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002481 [Google Scholar]
  24. Duffley, P. J.
    (2000) Gerund versus infinitive as complement of transitive verbs in English: The problems of ‘tense’ and ‘control’. Journal of English Linguistics, 281, 221–248. 10.1177/00754240022005018
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00754240022005018 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
    (2008) Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00137.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Flach, S.
    (2020) Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod + adv collocations. English Language and Linguistics, 1–23. 10.1017/S1360674320000301
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000301 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fong, R.
    (2020) Is knowing the constructions enough to understand modality patterns in English?: A response to ‘Taming English modals – how a construction grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs’ by Sergio Torres–Martínez, English Today, 138, 35(2), 50–57, 2019. English Today, 1–7. 10.1017/S0266078420000425
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078420000425 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fraser, B.
    (1975) Hedged performatives. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp.187–210). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2017) Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 671, 155–179. 10.1111/lang.12225
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. T.
    (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.3–25). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  33. de Haan, F.
    (2012) The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: the case of must. English Studies, 93(6), 700–728. 10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 421, 67–82. 10.1007/BF03379873
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379873 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. 10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil [Google Scholar]
  36. (2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. Second edition. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hilpert, M., & Flach, S.
    (2020) Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, fqaa014. 10.1093/llc/fqaa014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa014 [Google Scholar]
  38. Homer, V.
    (2015) Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals. Semantics & Pragmatics, 81, 1–88. 10.3765/sp.8.4
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.4 [Google Scholar]
  39. Horn, L. R.
    (2001) A natural history of negation. Second edition. CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hunston, S.
    (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524773
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773 [Google Scholar]
  41. Huschová, P.
    (2015) Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse. Discourse and Interaction, 8(2), 35–47. 10.5817/DI2015‑2‑35
     https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2015-2-35 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kaltenböck, G.
    (2019) Hedged performatives: Function and grammatical status. Paper presented atThe syntagmatic properties of complementation patterns: Accommodating lexical and grammatical uses of CTP-clauses, Liège, 9–10 May 2019.
  43. Kita, K., Kato, Y., Omoto, T., & Yano, Y.
    (1994) A comparative study of automatic extraction of collocations from corpora: Mutual information vs. cost criteria. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 1(1), 21–33. 10.5715/jnlp.1.21
     https://doi.org/10.5715/jnlp.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  44. Leclercq, B.
    (2019) On the semantics–pragmatics interface: A theoretical bridge between Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Lille.
  45. (2020) Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 225–234. 10.1075/bjl.00048.lec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00048.lec [Google Scholar]
  46. Leclercq, B., & Depraetere, I.
    (2022) Making meaning with be able to: modality and actualization. English Language and Linguistics, 26(1), 27–48. 10.1017/S1360674320000489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000489 [Google Scholar]
  47. Leclercq, B., Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I. & Grandin, C.
    (2023) Necessity modals and the role of source as a predictive factor. InI. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert , Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp.121–151). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nikiforidou, K.
    (2018) Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 251, 543–575. 10.1075/pc.18022.nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18022.nik [Google Scholar]
  50. Nuyts, J., & van der Auwera, J.
    (Eds.) (2016) The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Oakes, M. P.
    (1998) Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Potts, C.
    (2002) The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20(3), 623–689. 10.1023/A:1015892718818
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015892718818 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, H-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speach acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stubbs, M.
    (1995) Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55. 10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu [Google Scholar]
  56. Torres-Martínez, S.
    (2019) Taming English modals – How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs. English Today, 35(2), 50–57. 10.1017/S0266078418000081
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078418000081 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tovena, L. M.
    (2001) Neg-raising: negation as failure?InJ. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sánchez Valencia & T. van der Wouden (Eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items (pp.331–356). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.40.14tov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.40.14tov [Google Scholar]
  58. Wärnsby, A.
    (2002) Modal constructions?The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics, 21.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2016) On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames, 81, 40–53. 10.1075/cf.8.1.03war
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.03war [Google Scholar]
  60. Westney, P.
    (1995) Modals and periphrastics in English. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110958904
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110958904 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wulff, S.
    (2008) Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2013) Words and idioms. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.274–289). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
Loading
From modals to modal constructions
Constructions and Frames 14, 226 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21001.lec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): be able to; can; could; English modal constructicography; modal idioms; modal networks; mutual information; n-grams

Most Cited

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