1887
Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Modal meaning in Construction Grammar, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/cf.8.1.01cap-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.01cap
2016-09-26
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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. (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).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, A. , & Van der Auwera, J
    (2012) This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 46, 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. (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. (2013b) Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 42, 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, 2, 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, 2. Lund: Department of English Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.01cap
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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