Modal meaning in Construction Grammar

References

1. Bergs, A
   (2010) Expression of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics, 14(2), 217–238. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000067
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067 [Google Scholar]
2. Biber, D
   (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
3. Boogaart, 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
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.09boo [Google Scholar]
4. Boogaart, R. , & Fortuin, E
   . ( 2016) Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars. In J. Nuyts & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp.514–533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bybee, J
   (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
6. Cappelle, B. , & Depraetere, I
   (2013) Modal verbs from a Construction Grammar perspective. Fifth International AFLiCo Conference, Empirical approaches to multi-modality and to language variation , Université Lille 3, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France, 15-17 May 2013.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Cappelle, B. , & De Sutter, G
   (2010)  Should vs. ought to: A corpus-based multivariate analysis. Sixth International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG-6) , Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, 3-5 September 2010.
   [Google Scholar]
8. De Haan, F
   (2012) The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of must . English Studies, 93(6), 700–728. doi: 10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587 [Google Scholar]
9. Diewald, G
   (2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, SV1(9).
   [Google Scholar]
10. Diewald, G. , & Smirnova, E
    (Eds.) (2011a) Modalität und Evidentialität. Fokus 37. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Diewald, G. , & Smirnova, E
    (2011b) The German evidential constructions and their origins. A corpus based analysis. In T. Mortelmans , J. Mortelmans , & W. De Mulder (Eds.), In the mood for mood (pp.81–100). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi (Cahiers Chronos 23). 10.1163/9789042032705_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042032705_006 [Google Scholar]
12. Goldberg, A. , & Van der Auwera, J
    (2012) This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 461, 109–132. doi: 10.1515/flin.2012.4
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.4 [Google Scholar]
13. Hilpert, M
    (2008) Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
14. Hilpert, M
    (2013a) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
15. Hilpert, M
    (2013b) Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 421, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Morgan, J.L
    (1977) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Technical report No. 52. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17765/ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00052_opt.pdf?seque.
17. Mortelmans, T
    (2000) Konjunktiv II and epistemic modals in German: A division of labour. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.191–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.178.12mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.178.12mor [Google Scholar]
18. Narrog, H
    (2012) Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
19. Stefanowitsch, A
    (2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.09ste [Google Scholar]
20. Van der Auwera, J. , & Plungian, V
    (1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 21, 79–124. doi: 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
21. Wärnsby, A
    (2002) Modal constructions? Lund Working Papers in Linguistics, 21. Lund: Department of English Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]