Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper investigates the use of aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copulars. To examine attractions of aspectual and modal meanings to the VPs in the copular constructions, I carry out collostructional analyses (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003). These attractions are interpreted with respect to (i) the lexicogrammatically coded meaning of the copular clauses and (ii) the pragmatic mechanisms that they trigger (e.g. (non-)exhaustiveness implicature), and (iii) the discursive functions they serve in specific contexts of use. It is crucial that this study takes into account specificational copulars with indefinite vs definite variable NPs, which carry an implicature of non-exhaustiveness vs exhaustiveness respectively. I will argue that the felicity of specific aspectual construals is related to the meanings coded at level (i), while the attraction of modal verbs is related to all three levels.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Collins Wordbanks Online
    Collins Wordbanks Online, https://wordbanks.harpercollins.co.uk/
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  4. Coates, Jennifer
    1983The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Comrie, Bernard
    1976Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William
    1991Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davidse, Kristin & Wout Van Praet
    2019 Rethinking predicative clauses with indefinite predicate and specificational clauses with indefinite variable: A cognitive-functional account. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics6 (38): 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Davidse, Kristin
    1999Categories of Experiential Grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 11). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Declerck, Renaat
    1979 Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics17(9–10): 761–794. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.9‑10.761
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.9-10.761 [Google Scholar]
  10. 1988Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 10.1515/9783110869330
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1991A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2006The Grammar of the English Tense System. In collaboration with Susan Reed & Bert Cappelle. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199888
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199888 [Google Scholar]
  13. Firbas, Jan
    1971 On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Sborník Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brněnské University19: 135–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1992Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gisborne, Nikolas
    2007 Dynamic Modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics4 (2): 44–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1967a Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics3 (1): 37–81. 10.1017/S0022226700012949
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012949 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1967b Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics3 (2): 199–244. 10.1017/S0022226700016613
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1970a Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language6 (3): 322–361.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1970b Language structure and language function. InJohn Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed.London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hawkins, John A.
    1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27(2): 405–442.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1978Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hengeveld, Kees
    1988 Illocution, mood and modality in functional grammar. Journal of Semantics6: 227–269. 10.1093/jos/6.1.227
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/6.1.227 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1989 Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics25: 127–157. 10.1017/S0022226700012123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012123 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heycock, Caroline B.
    2012 Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique57 (2): 209–240. 10.1017/S0008413100004758
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004758 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch
    1999 Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry30 (3): 365–397. 10.1162/002438999554110
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554110 [Google Scholar]
  28. Higgins, Francis R.
    1979The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hjelmslev, Johannes
    1943Grundlag for den projektive geometri. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Huddleston, Rodney
    1984Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165785
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165785 [Google Scholar]
  31. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  32. Keizer, Evelien
    1992Reference, Predication and (In)definiteness in Functional Grammar: A Functional Approach to English Copular Clauses. Utrecht: Drukkerij Elinkwijk Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kratzer, Angelika
    1978Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze. Königstein im Taunus: Scriptor.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lambrecht, Knud
    2001 A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics39 (3): 463–516. 10.1515/ling.2001.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987aFoundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol.1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1987b Nouns and Verbs. Language63 (1): 53–94. 10.2307/415384
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2015 How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics2 (2): 1–45. 10.14706/JFLTAL15121
    https://doi.org/10.14706/JFLTAL15121 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2017 Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. English Text Construction10 (2): 233–248. 10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McGregor, William B.
    1997Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.85
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  44. Narrog, Heiko
    2005a On defining modality again. Language Sciences27: 165–192. 10.1016/j.langsci.2003.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2003.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2005b Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics16 (4): 677–731. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.677
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.677 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nuyts, Jan
    2001Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2005 The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. InAlex Klinge & Henrik Høeg Müller (eds), Modality: Studies in Form and Function. Equinox, London, 5–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2006 Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. InWilliam Frawley (ed.), The Expression of Modality (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Palmer, Frank
    1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Palmer, Frank.
    2001Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. London: Longman. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  51. Palmer, Frank
    2003 Modality in English. InModality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds). Berlin: Mouton, 1–17. 10.1515/9783110895339.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Palmer, Frank Robert
    1990Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Partee, Barbara H.
    1986 Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. InProceedings of NELS, Vol.16, Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Patten, Amanda L.
    2012The English it-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation (Topics in English Linguistics [TiEL] 79). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110279528
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279528 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2016 Well-formed lists: Specificational copular sentences as predicative inversion constructions. English Language and Linguistics22 (1): 77–99. 10.1017/S136067431600040X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431600040X [Google Scholar]
  56. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1972A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Helmut Küchenhoff
    2013 Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics24 (3): 531–577. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8 (2): 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  59. 2005 Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1 (1): 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  60. van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian
    1998 Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology2 (1): 79–124. 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  61. Van linden, An
    2012Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110252941
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252941 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Praet, Wout
    . Accepted. Focus assignment in English specificational and predicative clauses: Intonation as a cue to information structure?Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Praet, Wout & Gerard O’Grady
    2018 The prosody of specification: Discourse-intonational cues to setting up a variable. Journal of Pragmatics135: 87–100. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Praet, Wout & Kristin Davidse
    2015 Revisiting the typology of English copular clauses: ascription and specification in categorizing and identifying clauses. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics4 (15): 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Verplaetse, Heidi
    2003 What you and I want: A functional approach to verb complementation of the modal “want to.” InModality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds). Berlin: Mouton, 151–190. 10.1515/9783110895339.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.151 [Google Scholar]
  66. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2001 Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics33 (10): 1505–1528. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2005 Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality. Journal of Pragmatics37 (9): 1401–1418. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  68. Williams, Edwin
    1983 Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy6 (3): 423–446. 10.1007/BF00627484
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627484 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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