Article published In:
Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar
Edited by Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructions and Frames 8:1] 2016
► pp. 4053
Adger, D
(2013) Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind and Language, 28(4), 466–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A
(2010) Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics,14(2), 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S, & Finegan, E
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C
(2001) Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, (pp. 64–73). U.K.: LancasterGoogle Scholar
(2013) Cognitive construction grammar. In Th. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boogart, 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J
(2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L
(2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I
(2014) Modal meaning in construction grammar. Paper presented at The International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE) Conference , 24-27 August 2014, Zürich: Zürich University.
Coates, J
(1983) The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cruse, A.D., & Croft, W
(1999) Cognitive linguistics. Draft, version 6. Chapters 10–11.Google Scholar
Eide, K.M
(2002) Norwegian modals. PhD dissertation. Department of linguistics, NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J
(1982) Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fried, M
(2009) Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D
(2010) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. An introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Quantitative approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleson, R., & Pullum, G.K
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klinge, A
(1993) The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 315–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A
(1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 337–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundahl, B
(2014) Texts, topics and tasks: Teaching English in years 4-6. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Lundberg, G
(2011) De Första Årens Engelska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Martin, W
(1997) A frame-based approach to polysemy. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 57–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo
Michaelis, L.A., & Lambrecht, K
(1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A
(1998) Modality and semantic indeterminacy. In V. Rouchota & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 237–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Modality: Issues in the pragmatic-semantic interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pinker, S
(2007) The language instinct: How the mind creates language (P.S.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar
(2013) Language, cognition, and human nature: Selected articles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A
(2012) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs
(1989) On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 651, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G
(2013) Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wärnsby, A
(2002) Modal constructions? The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics, 21.Google Scholar
(2006) (De)coding modality: The case of must, may, måste and kan [Lund Studies in English, Vol. 1131]. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Daugs, Robert
Hennemann, Anja
2020. Tal vez es X vs. Tal vez sea X. Probability constructions and the use of mood. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1  pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Kranich, Svenja
Leclercq, Benoît
2022. From modals to modal constructions. Constructions and Frames 14:2  pp. 226 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2022. The role of semiotics in the unification of langue and parole: an Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar approach to English modals. Semiotica 2022:244  pp. 195 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2024. 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.