1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 25, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the use and distribution of the synonymous adverbs and in order to determine their functional similarities and differences. After extracting usage data from the British National Corpus (BNC), this study explores the following factors by analyzing the target adverbs in a larger context: (i) the kind of register, (ii) the kind of NP chosen as the subject in clauses, (iii) the kind of modal verb used in the same clause, and (iv) the position occupied by the target adverbs in a clause. The corpus analysis demonstrates that is more prone to subjective use while is a more strongly grammaticalized item, and that the factors related to a highly subjective context contribute much to the variation between the adverbs. In addition, I suggest that both and (in combination with modal verbs or in final position) can be used in an intersubjective context.

© John Benjamins
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
2018-11-02
2025-05-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    (eds.) 2014 Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bellert, Irena
    1977 On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry8(2). 337–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
    1988 Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes11. 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9(1). 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen
    1998 Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech & Susan Conrad
    1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolinger, Dwight
    1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa2. 119–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1977 Meaning and form. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2008 The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan
    1985 Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82. 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Coates, Jennifer
    1983 The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ernst, Thomas
    2004 Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause. Lingua114. 755–777. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00050‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00050-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 Speaker-oriented adverbs. Nat Lang Linguist Theory27. 497–544. 10.1007/s11049‑009‑9069‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 Adverbs and light verbs. InLauren E. Clemens & Chi-Ming L. Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18) 2, 178–195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer
    (eds.) 2003 Modality in contemporary English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1515/9783110895339
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fowler, Henry W.
    2004 Fowler’s modern English usage, 3rd edn.Revised byRobert W. Burchfield. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, Talmy
    1979 On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Greenbaum, Sidney
    1969 Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1970 Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language6. 322–361.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014 Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn.Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  25. Haselow, Alexander
    2011 Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics43(14). 3603–3623. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012a Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. InIrén Hegedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 153–175. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.325.07has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.325.07has [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012b Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication32(3). 182–204. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2013 Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica47(2). 375–424. 10.1515/flin.2013.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.015 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn.Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoye, Leo
    1997 Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoye, Leo & Mihai Zdrenghea
    1995 Modals and adverbs in English with reference to Romanian. Rask2. 25–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jackendoff, Ray
    1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kratzer, Angelika
    1977 What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy1. 337–355. 10.1007/BF00353453
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakoff, Robin
    1972 The pragmatics of modality. CLS8. 229–246.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1. 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  38. Larkin, Don
    1976 Some notes on English modals. InJames D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 387–398. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Leech, Geoffrey
    2004 Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn.Harlow: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lenker, Ursula
    2010 Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lindquist, Hans
    2009 Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Longman Language Activator, 2nd edn. 2002 Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera
    (eds.) 2013 English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110286328
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nuyts, Jan
    2001 Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2012 Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction5(1). 53–76. 10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy [Google Scholar]
  46. Oxford Thesaurus of English, 3rd edn. 2009 Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Palmer, Frank R.
    1990 Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn.London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2001 Mood and modality, 2nd edn.Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  49. Papafragou, Anna
    2000 Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006 Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua116. 1688–1702. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  51. Perkins, Michael R.
    1983 Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Rohdenburg, Günter
    2003 Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. InGünter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–249. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110900019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Scheibman, Joanne
    2002 Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  55. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer
    2007 The Semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198928
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198928 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
    2005 Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1. 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  57. Swan, Michael
    2005 Practical English usage, 3rd edn.Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Swan, Toril
    1988 Sentence adverbials in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Tancredi, Christopher
    2007 A multi-model modal theory of I-semantics: Part I: Modals. Tokyo: University of Tokyo manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tottie, Gunnel
    2002 An introduction to American English. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65. 31–55. 10.2307/414841
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. InBrian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2010 (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2012 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction5(1). 7–28. 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau [Google Scholar]
  65. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher
    2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Watts, Richard J.
    1984 An analysis of epistemic possibility and probability. English Studies65(2). 129–140. 10.1080/00138388408598312
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388408598312 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
Loading
Variation between modal adverbs in British English
Functions of Language 25, 392 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

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