Article published in:
Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar
Edited by Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructions and Frames 8:1] 2016
► pp. 7–39

Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions

Some evidence from The Simpsons

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 short-circuited interpretation, that is, where it is conventionally associated with a context-specific modal semantic value and, in some cases, with added pragmatic information. Short-circuitedness 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.
Keywords: The Simpsons, short-circuited implicature, semantics-pragmatics interface, modal meaning, language humour, saturation, modal verb constructions
Published online: 29 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap
References

References

Aijmer, K.
(1996) Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Boas, H.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
to appear). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.) Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line Amsterdam Springer Crossref
Carston, R.
(2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S.
(2011) Pragmatics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/Google Scholar
Declerck, R., & Reed, S.
(2001) Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
(2011) Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(2014) Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 160–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Crossref
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.
Green, G.M.
(2012) Pragmatics and natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 31–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groefsema, M.
(1995)  Can, may, must and should. A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 53–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1997) Twisting the night away. Language, 73(3), 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S.C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, B.
(2015) Linguistics: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K.
(1996) Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
Palmer, F.R.
(1990) Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A.
(2000) Modality and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C., D’Hertefelt, S., & Van Linden, A.
(2012) A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language, 36, 123–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, R.J.
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, G.H. von
(1951) An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M., & Sadock, J.M.
(1975) Ambiguity tests and how to tail them. In J.P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 4 (pp. 1–36). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert
2017.  In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line [Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 11], ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert
2020. Not on my watch and similar not-fragments: stored forms with pragmatic content. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52:2 ► pp. 217 ff. Crossref logo
Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse
2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should . Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 220 ff. Crossref logo
Daugs, Robert
2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin & Flach, Susanne
2020. Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Crossref logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2018. Constructions as Triads of Form, Function, and Agency: An Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar Study of English Modals. Cognitive Semantics 4:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Torres–Martínez, Sergio
2019. Taming English modals. English Today 35:2 ► pp. 50 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.