Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 195–222

Chapter 8
Present-day English constructions with chance(s) in Talmy’s greater modal system and beyond

 | University of Liège | KU Leuven
 | University of Liège | KU Leuven
Based on qualitative and quantitative corpus research, this chapter argues that constructions with chance(s) in Present-day English enrich Talmy’s (1988) greater modal system in various ways. Firstly, in their modal uses they are equivalent to core modal auxiliaries and encode especially dynamic and epistemic meanings. We maintain that the partial decategorialization of chance allows for more fine-grained expression of modal meanings by bringing in constructional templates that incorporate slots for potential premodification, as in have a good chance of V-ing. Secondly, they can express caused-modal meanings, in which case a causative operator is added to a basic modal meaning. Finally, structures with chance(s) also exceed Talmy’s (1988) greater modal system, as they can still be used lexically, which core modals no longer can.
Keywords: force dynamics, epistemic modality, dynamic modality, complementation, shell noun, lexicalization, grammaticalization, discourse prominence, decategorialization, verbo-nominal patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Data and methods
  • 3.General overview: Tripartite classification
  • 4.Modalized expressions
    • 4.1Types of modal meaning
    • 4.2Constructional properties
  • 5.Expressions of caused modality
    • 5.1 Chance and Talmy’s greater modal system
    • 5.2Constructional properties
  • 6.Lexical(ized) expressions
    • 6.1Lexical uses: Chance is discourse-primary
    • 6.2Lexicalized uses: Chance in complex predicates
    • 6.3Lexical uses: Chance meaning ‘coincidence’
    • 6.4Regular uses
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpus
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.08van
References (46)
Corpus
WordBanksOnline (WB): Collins WordbanksOnline, HarperCollins. <[URL]> (3 June 2020).
References
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31: 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2015. Fear(s) + complement clauses: Pathways of grammaticalization and lexicalization, In Faits de langue(s). Pour Michel Kefer à l’occasion de son 65ème anniversaire, Lieselotte Brems, Robert Möller & Laurent Raiser (eds), 1–16. Berlin: Epubli.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. The Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English [Topics in English Linguistics 74]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2010. Complex subordinators derived from noun complement clauses: Grammaticalization and paradigmaticity. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1): 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte & Van linden, An. 2018. No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items. Presented at BAAHE (Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education) conference on intensity, University of Mons, 30 November 2018.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 2003. Language and the flow of thought. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 93–111. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & De Wolf, Simon. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Modal modifier constructions with “no question”. Text and Talk 32(5): 569–591.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Van linden, An, Lesage, Jacob & Brems, Lieselotte. 2014. Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: The development of polar, modal and mirative no way-constructions. ICEHL18, University of Leuven, 14–18 July 2014. DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon & Van linden, An. 2015. The development of (there/it is / I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 25–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Van linden, An. 2019. Revisiting ‘it-extraposition’: The historical development of constructions with matrices (it)/(there) be + NP followed by a complement clause. In Crossing Linguistic Boundaries: Systemic, Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in English, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, María José López-Couso, Belén-Méndez Naya & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds), 81–103. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 269–290. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 47–87. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An & Brems, Lieselotte. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder . In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol I [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60(4): 703–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze. Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Modality [The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1], William Frawley (ed.), 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Pieter & Diepeveen, Janneke. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case study of Dutch mogen and moeten . Journal of Pragmatics 42(1): 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: OUP.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition [Topics in English Linguistics 34]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs [Topics in English Linguistics 56]. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An. 2012. Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony [Topics in English Linguistics 75]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An. 2020. The diachrony of stance constructions with ‘no’ chance and ‘no’ wonder . Language Sciences, DOI logo
Van linden, An & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 150–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An, Davidse, Kristin & Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Verbo-nominal expressions with need: the interaction between negation and modality. Presentation Twentieth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 20), Osaka, 26 July 2011. DOI logo
Van linden, An, Davidse, Kristin & Matthijs, Lennart. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: From lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 99–100: 385–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An & Brems, Lieselotte. 2017. Talmy’s “greater modal system”: fitting in verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s) . Presented at the Seventh International Conference of the French Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCo 7), University of Liège, 31 May–3 June 2017.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Wright, Georg H. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Willemse, Peter. 2007. Indefinite possessive NPs and the distinction between determining and non-determining genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 537–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems
2022. ‘Wonder’ Nouns and the Development of a Mirative Constructional Network: An Exercise in Semiotic Diachronic Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.