When speakers are confronted with modal expressions in their native language, specifically those that contain a modal verb, they are able to interpret these expressions as epistemic or non-epistemic, for example. But what enables the speakers to interpret these modal expressions instantly and accurately despite the inevitably complex explanation any linguistic theory needs to evoke to account for this? Modality, modals, and modal interpretations are among those universal tension points where the explanatory value of any theoretical construct is sorely tested.
This paper raises some questions about the adequacy of applying Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006) as a method of analysis of expressions containing modal verbs. In particular, the following issues are discussed: (i) the necessity to postulate a great number of constructions to account for a modal utterance, (ii) the theoretically unrestricted scope of a construction, and (iii) the ever-present problem of indeterminate modal utterances.
Adger, D. (2013). Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind and Language, 28(4), 466–478.
Bergs, A. (2010). Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics,14(2), 217–238.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S, & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London: Longman.
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.: Lancaster
Boas, H.C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In Th. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cruse, A.D., & Croft, W. (1999). Cognitive linguistics. Draft, version 6. Chapters 10–11.
Eide, K.M. (2002). Norwegian modals. PhD dissertation. Department of linguistics, NTNU, Trondheim.
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
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.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Huddleson, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 315–357.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 337–355.
Lundahl, B. (2014). Texts, topics and tasks: Teaching English in years 4-6. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lundberg, G. (2011). De Första Årens Engelska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
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.
Michaelis, L.A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247.
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.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the pragmatic-semantic interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language (P.S.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Pinker, S. (2013). Language, cognition, and human nature: Selected articles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.
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.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. Closs. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 651, 31–55.
2020. Tal vez es X vs. Tal vez sea X. Probability constructions and the use of mood. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 51 ff.
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.
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2022. The role of semiotics in the unification of langue and parole: anAgentive Cognitive Construction Grammarapproach to English modals. Semiotica 2022:244 ► pp. 195 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.