Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:32:47.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Source of modality: a reassessment1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

ILSE DEPRAETERE  and
AN VERHULST
ILSE DEPRAETERE
Affiliation:
UFR des LEA - UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage, Lille III University, 14 Place Bodart Timal, 59058 Roubaix, [email protected]
AN VERHULST
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Leuven, Campus Kortrijk, Department of Linguistics, Etienne Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a description of the sources associated with the necessities expressed by have to and must in the ICE-GB corpus. It provides detailed comments on semantic and pragmatic features of the different sources, which are shown to be more diverse than has previously been claimed. The corpus analysis proves that the traditional distinction in meaning between so-called ‘objective’ have to and ‘subjective’ must is not as outspoken as is assumed, and therefore results in a more accurate description of the similarities and differences in meaning between the two modal markers.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auwera, Johan Van Der & Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 1991. The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik, 145–65. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusho.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 269–90. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged performatives. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and semantics 3), 187–210. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 2000. Patterns of meaning extension, ‘parallel chaining’, subjectification, and modal shifts. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, 149–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. Can, may, must and should: a relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groussier, Marie-Line. 1985. A propos de l'ambivalence épistémique/déontique des auxiliaires must et may. Modèles linguistiques 2, 139–55.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. Kirkwood. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, 322–61.Google Scholar
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. In Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M. & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 73–90. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 32). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1925. A handbook of present-day English, part II: English accidence and syntax 1. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 1982. Quelques remarques sur have to et must. Travaux de l'Université de Saint-Etienne (Centre Interdisciplinaire d'Etude et de Recherche sur l'Expression Contemporaine) 35, 103–21.Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2005. Grammaire explicative de l'anglais, 3rd edition. France: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Linden, An van. 2006. The semantic development of ‘essential’, ‘crucial’ and ‘needful’: Paths to deontic meaning. Preprints Catholic University of Leuven (Department of Linguistics) 241.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1996. The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech 4, 339–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. Robert. 1974. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. Robert. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank R. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 241–66. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregidgo, Philip. 1982. MUST and MAY: Demand and permission. Lingua 56, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1401–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar