Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-7233
  • E-ISSN: 2589-7241
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This corpus assisted investigation of the auxiliary verb examines the various modalities and functions realised in the register of political briefings given by Scottish (Holyrood) and United Kingdom (Westminster) representatives throughout the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.

A trinocular approach is taken to consider the lexicogrammatical environment of (from around), the discourse semantics of (from above) and the relationship between contraction and meaning (from below).

Our trinocular approach with a focus on as a highly frequent item with great meaning potential has enabled us to gain insights about the nature of how politicians used modality to persuade, organise and empathise within coronavirus media briefings and thus shape their public personas as leaders.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Biber, Douglas
    1988Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  2. BNC Consortium
    BNC Consortium 2007British National Corpus, XML version. Oxford Text Archive. hdl.handle.net/20.500.12024/2554
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyd, Julian & James P. Thorne
    1969 The semantics of modal verbs. Journal of Linguistics5(1). 57–74. 10.1017/S002222670000205X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000205X [Google Scholar]
  4. Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer
    2006 Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk26(1). 3–37. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coates, Jennifer
    1983The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dückers, Michael L. A., C. Joris Yzermans, Wouter Jong & Arjen Boin
    2017 Psychosocial crisis management: The unexplored intersection of crisis leadership and psychosocial support. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy8(2). 94–112. 10.1002/rhc3.12113
    https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12113 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, Norman
    2003Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2013Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315834368
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fetzer, Anita & Peter Bull
    2008 The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics7(2). 271–289. 10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.05fet [Google Scholar]
  10. Finegan, Edward & Douglas Biber
    1986 Toward a unified model of sociolinguistic prestige. InDavid Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and diachrony, 391–397. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.53.35fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.53.35fin [Google Scholar]
  11. Gigliotti, Ralph A.
    2016 Leader as performer; leader as human: A discursive and retrospective construction of crisis leadership. Atlantic Journal of Communication24(4). 185–200. 10.1080/15456870.2016.1208660
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2016.1208660 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K.
    2002 [1996] On grammar and grammatics. InM. A. K. Halliday, On grammar, volume 1 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 384–417. Edited byJonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 [1996] Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. InMichael A. K. Halliday, Language education, volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 97–129. Edited byJonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. with Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  15. Haslam, Alexander S., Niklas K. Steffens, Stephen D. Reicher & Sarah V. Bentley
    2021 Identity leadership in a crisis: A 5R framework for learning from responses to COVID-19. Social Issues and Policy Review15(1). 35–83. 10.1111/sipr.12075
    https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12075 [Google Scholar]
  16. Huddleston, Rodney
    1995 The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language19(2). 399–446. 10.1075/sl.19.2.04hud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19.2.04hud [Google Scholar]
  17. Hunt, Sally
    2021 COVID and the South African family: Cyril Ramaphosa, president or father?Discourse, Context and Media441. 100541. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100541
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100541 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jaworska, Sylwia
    2021 Competence and collectivity: The discourse of Angela Merkel’s media communications during the first wave of the pandemic. Discourse, Context and Media421. 100506. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100506
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100506 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kennedy, Graeme
    2002 Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. InRandi Reppen, Douglas Biber & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.9.06ken
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.9.06ken [Google Scholar]
  20. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubícek, Vojtěch Kovár, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, & Vít Suchomel
    2014 The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography1(1). 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kimps, Ditte, Kristen Davidse & Gerard O’Grady
    2019 English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action: A comparison of the speech function and exchange structure models. Functions of Language26(1). 86–111. 10.1075/fol.18019.kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18019.kim [Google Scholar]
  22. Maercker, Andreas & Julia Müller
    2004 Social acknowledgment as a victim or survivor: A scale to measure a recovery factor of PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress17(4). 345–351. 10.1023/B:JOTS.0000038484.15488.3d
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTS.0000038484.15488.3d [Google Scholar]
  23. Martin, J. R.
    2019 Discourse semantics. InGeoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 358–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.016 [Google Scholar]
  24. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    1995Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Montiel, Christine J., Joshua Uyheng & Erwine Dela Paz
    2021 The language of pandemic leaderships: Mapping political rhetoric during the COVID-19 outbreak. Political Psychology42(5). 747–766. 10.1111/pops.12753
    https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12753 [Google Scholar]
  26. Palmer, Frank R.
    2014Modality and the English modals (2nd edition). Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315846453
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846453 [Google Scholar]
  27. Proctor, Katarzyna I. & Lily I-Wen Su
    2011 The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics43(13). 3251–3266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pyykkö, Riitta
    2002 Who is “us” in Russian political discourse?InAnna Duszak (ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.14pyy [Google Scholar]
  29. Quaglio, Paulo & Douglas Biber
    2006 The grammar of conversation. InBas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 692–723. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  30. Raphael, Beverley
    1986When disaster strikes: A handbook for the caring professions. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sarkar, Anoop
    1998 The conflict between future tense and modality: The case of will in English. University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics5(2). 91–117. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol5/iss2/6
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Williams, Jamie & David Wright
    2022 Ambiguity, responsibility and political action in the UK daily COVID-19 briefings. Critical Discourse Studies, 1–16. (19 August, 2022) 10.1080/17405904.2022.2110132
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2022.2110132 [Google Scholar]
  33. Yzermans, Joris & Berthold P. R. Gersons
    2002 The chaotic aftermath of an airplane crash in Amsterdam: A second disaster. InJohan M. Havenaar, Julie Cwikel & Evelyn J. Bromet (eds.), Toxic turmoil: Psychological and societal consequences of ecological disasters, 85–100. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑0623‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0623-2_5 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): crisis communications; modality; political discourse; trinocular view
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