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

Abstract

This paper discusses how modal auxiliaries fit into a constructional view of language and how this view allows us to think in new ways about diachronic meaning change in modal auxiliaries. These issues will be illustrated on the basis of a diachronic corpus-based study of the modal auxiliary , specifically focusing on changes in its collocational preferences during the past 200 years. The main point of this paper is the claim that a constructional view needs to take account of the mutual associations between modal auxiliaries and the lexical elements with which they occur. Changes in these mutual associations are usefully understood as change in a complex network of constructions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil
2016-09-26
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arppe, A. , & Järvikivi, J
    (2007) Every method counts - Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 131–159.
    [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(2), 1–27. doi: 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Biber, D
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Brezina, V. , McEnery, T. , & Wattam, S
    (2015) Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J. , & Fleischman, S
    (1995) Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. , & Pagliuca, W
    (1987) The development of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat , O. Carruba , & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp.109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.48.09byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.48.09byb [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J. , Pagliuca, W. , & Perkins, R.D
    (1991) Back to the future. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II (pp.17–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.04byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.04byb [Google Scholar]
  11. Church, K. , & Hanks, P
    (1989) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Association of Computational Linguistics , Vancouver, British Columbia (pp.76–83).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coates, J
    (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, M
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810-2009. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coha.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Diessel, H
    (2011) Review article of ‘Language, usage and cognition’ by Joan Bybee. Language, 87(4), 830–844. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0082
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0082 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–38. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, O
    (2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Godlberg, A.E
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A.E. , & van der Auwera, J
    (2012) This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 46(1), 109–132. doi: 10.1515/flin.2012.4
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.4 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A
    (2004a) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  22. (2004b) Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.225–236). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. (2011) Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 435–461. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.16.4.01hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.4.01hil [Google Scholar]
  25. (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]
  26. (2013b) Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik42, 67–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Millar, N
    (2009) Modal verbs in TIME. Frequency changes 1923-2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 191–220. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03mil [Google Scholar]
  31. Plank, F
    (1984) The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8(3), 305–364. doi: 10.1075/sl.8.3.02pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.3.02pla [Google Scholar]
  32. Sagi, E. , Kaufmann, S. , & Clark, B
    (2011) Tracing semantic change with latent semantic analysis. In J. Robynson & K. Allan (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp.161–183). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–43. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  34. Taylor, J.R
    (2012) The Mental corpus. How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomasello, M
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Traugott, E.C
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57(1), 33–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Turney, P.D. , & Pantel, P
    (2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Visser, F. Th
    (1969) An historical syntax of the English language. Part 3. First half. Syntactical units with two verbs.Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wheeler, E.S
    (2005) Multidimensional scaling for linguistics. In R. Koehler , G. Altmann , & R.G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics. An international handbook (pp.548–553). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil
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