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. 281–310

Chapter 11
On the (con)textual properties of must, have to and shall

An integrative account

| New Sorbonne University
This paper focuses on the (con)textual properties of root must, shall and have to. It is conducted within an evolving framework, Integrative Grammar. The account of the three modal forms that is given here is integrative in two senses. First, it shows that traditional semantic descriptions fail to account for how these forms are used in discourse and that a comprehensive characterisation of their conditions of use requires that (con)textual factors be taken into consideration. Two contextual levels are considered: the distribution of the modal forms according to discourse modes and their propensity to be used within specific discourse sequences. Second, this study shows that these (con)textual features and the forms’ semantic, pragmatic and even syntactic properties are interconnected and throw light upon one another.
Keywords: English modals, discourse modes, modality, coherence relations, integrative grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse modes
  • 3. Modality: Basic concepts
  • 4.Method
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Root must
    • 5.2Deontic shall
    • 5.3Root have to
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.11fur
References (35)
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 1992. Les textes: Types et prototypes: Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Becker, Oskar. 1952. Untersuchungen über den Modalkalkül. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
British National Corpus, version 2 (BNC World). 2001. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. <[URL]> (3 June 2020).
Charaudeau, Patrick. 1992. Grammaire du sens et de l'expression. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Cibois, Philipe. 2013. TrideuxOri (Version 5.2) [Software]. <[URL]> (3 June 2020).Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged performatives. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 187–210. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Furmaniak, Grégory. 2010. A frame-based approach to modality: The case of obligation. The Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 17–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. La modalité dans les textes. Essai de caractérisation des propriétés textuelles des expressions du nécessaire en anglais contemporain. Habilitation dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne.
. 2019. Les propriétés textuelles des formes modales anglaises: Vers une Grammaire Intégrative. Paper given at the Conference on ‘Le possible et le nécessaire. Domaines conceptuels et expressions de la modalité’, Pau, October 2019.
. 2020. Sur les spécificités discursives de (be) likely . Lexis 15 <[URL]> (25 July 2020).Google Scholar
Hermerén, Lars. 1978. On Modality in English: A Study of the Semantics of the Modals. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krazem, Mustapha. 2011. Présentation: Du genre vers la grammaire. Linx 64–65. <[URL]> (3 June 2020).Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2010. Grammaire explicative de l'anglais. Paris: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert, E. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd edn. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez, Iliana A. 2005. Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3): 174–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurer, José Luiz. 2002. Genre as diversity, and rhetorical mode as unity in language use. Ilha do Desterro 43: 61–82.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds), 45–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 83: 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33: 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pic, Elsa & Furmaniak, Grégory. 2012. Les modes de discours, interface entre texte et grammaire dans les langues de spécialité. ASp 62: 25–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivière, Claude. 1981. Is “should” a weaker “must”? Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlotta. 2003. Modes of Discourse. The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty J. & Kaplan, Jeffrey P. 2003. A pragmatic analysis of the epistemic would construction in English. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds), 71–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Depraetere, Ilse
2022. Sources of Modal Necessity: The Case of Needto’. Journal of English Linguistics 50:4 ► pp. 327 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.