Chapter published in:
The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 205221
References

References

Aijmer, K.
2017The semantic field of obligation in an English-Swedish perspective. In Contrastive Analysis of Discourse-pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres [A special issue of the Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics], K. Aijmer & D. Lewis (eds), 1–32. New York NY: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B.
1999Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Aijmer, K.
2000The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair & M. Hundt (eds), 15–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B., Aijmer, K. & Svensson, M.
2001The English-Swedish Parallel Corpus (ESPC): Manual. Department of English, Lund University. http://​www​.sol​.lu​.se​/engelska​/corpus​/corpus​/espc​.html (15 January 2017).
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B.
2007Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)auxiliaries. A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Haan, F.
2009On the status of ‘epistemic’ must. In Modality in English 3, R. Facchinetti & A. Tsangalidis (eds), 261–284. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Haugen, E.
1976The Scandinavian Languages: An Introduction to Their History. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Johansson, S.
2007Seeing Through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, T.
2000On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 131–148.Google Scholar
2010Falsche Freunde: Warum sich die Modalverben must, müssen und moeten nicht entsprechen. In Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, A. Katny & A. Socka (eds), 133–148. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012Epistemic must and its cognates in German and Dutch. The subtle differences. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2150–2164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J.
2001Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
1986Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2003Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, F. R. Palmer & M. Krug (eds), 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N.
2003Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Modality in Contemporary English, R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (eds), 241–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E.
1999Svenska Akademiens grammatik, Band 4. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Teubert, W.
1996Comparable or parallel corpora. International Journal of Lexicography 9: 238–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R.
2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.
1998Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar