Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this paper we aim to show how distinct semantic and pragmatic layers of modal interpretation can be fruitfully integrated within a constructionist approach. We discuss in detail a number of cases from the Simpsons where a modal verb, as part of a longer expression, has a , that is, where it is conventionally associated with a context-specific modal semantic value and, in some cases, with added pragmatic information. is evidenced by the humorous effect that is obtained when a character wilfully or unknowingly ignores standard aspects of interpretation of such a modal verb construction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, K
    (1996) Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boas, H
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boogaart, R. , & Fortuin, E
    . (to appear 2016) Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars. In J. Van der Auwera & J. Nuyts (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd, J.K. , & Goldberg, A.E
    (2011) Learning what NOT to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87(1), 55–83. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S.C
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelle, B
    (2014) Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In R. Boogaart , T. Colleman , & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.251–282). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. . (to appear). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.) Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line. Amsterdam: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carston, R
    (2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 35–62. doi: 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chapman, S
    (2011) Pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M
    (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. corpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Declerck, R. , & Reed, S
    (2001) Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110851748
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110851748 [Google Scholar]
  13. Depraetere, I. , & Reed, S
    (2008) Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English. Paper presented at ISLE 1 , Freiburg, 8-11 October 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000262
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000262 [Google Scholar]
  15. Depraetere, I
    (2010) Some observations on the meaning of modals. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, Offered to Renaat Declerck (pp.72–91). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 160–177. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Depraetere, I. , & Salkie, R
    . (to appear). Saturation, free pragmatic enrichment, completion and expansion: A view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.) Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line. Amsterdam: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C.J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, C.J. , Lee-Goldman, R. , & Rhodes, R
    (2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In I.A. Sag & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.283–299). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gordon, D. , & Lakoff, G
    (1971) Conversational postulates. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 63–84. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Green, G.M
    (2012) Pragmatics and natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics3 (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gries, S. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 31–61. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.1.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.1.02gri [Google Scholar]
  26. Groefsema, M
    (1995)  Can, may, must and should. A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 53–79. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700000566
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000566 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hilpert, M
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jackendoff, R
    (1997) Twisting the night away. Language, 73(3), 534–559. doi: 10.2307/415883
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Leech, G
    (2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levinson, S.C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. McGregor, B
    (2015) Linguistics: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Michaelis, L. , & Lambrecht, K
    (1996) Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mitchell, K
    (2009) Semantic ascent, deixis, intersubjectivty and modality. In R. Salkie , P. Busuttil , & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (pp.55–78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213331.55
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213331.55 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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.
  37. Palmer, F.R
    (1990) Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Papafragou, A
    (2000) Modality and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Perek, F
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmid, H.-J. , & Küchenhoff, H
    (2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  41. Searle, J
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sinclair, J
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  45. Verstraete, J.-C. , D’Hertefelt, S. , & Van Linden, A
    (2012) A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language, 36, 123–153. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver [Google Scholar]
  46. Watts, R.J
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wright, G.H. von
    (1951) An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwicky, A.M. , & Sadock, J.M
    (1975) Ambiguity tests and how to tail them. In J.P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics4 (pp.1–36). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
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