Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T18:16:44.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On English modals, modal meaning and argument structure

A response to Fong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2020

Sergio Torres–Martínez Open the ORCID record for Sergio Torres–Martínez [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an interesting paper, Fong (2020) raises objections to my approach to English modals (and modality in general) which he views as too general and not fully compliant with the postulates of Construction Grammar. In this response paper, I intend to explain in some depth the benefits of my approach, as well as the reasons why Construction Grammar, in particular Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006, 2019), needs to be interrogated and adapted as a conceptual framework to explain language learning and processing.

Type
Shorter Article
Information
English Today , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 105 - 113
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bygate, M. 2016. ‘TBLT through the lens of Applied Linguistics: Engaging with the real world of the classroom’ ITL (International Journal of Applied Linguistics 167(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ [accessed 23 June 2020].Google Scholar
De Vignemont, F. 2019. ‘Was Descartes right after all? An affective background for bodily awareness.’ In Tsakiris, M. & Preester, H. De (eds.), The Interoceptive Mind: From Homeostasis to Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–271.Google Scholar
Fong, R. 2020. Is knowing the constructions enough to understand modality patterns in English?: A response to ‘Taming English modals - how a construction grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs’ by Sergio Torres-Martínez, English Today 138, 35(2), 50–57, 2019. English TodayCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, B. M. & Pollatos, O. 2019. ‘The relevance of interoception for eating behavior and eating disorders.’ In Tsakiris, M. & De Preester, H. (eds.), The Interoceptive Mind: From Homeostasis to Awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165-186Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Su, H. 2017. ‘Patterns, constructions, and Local Grammar: A case study of “evaluation”.’ Applied Linguistics, doi:10.1093/applin/amx046 (Accessed 22 June, 2020).Google Scholar
Mandelblit, N. & Fauconnier, G. 1997. ‘How I got myself arrested: Underspecificity in grammatical blends as a source for constructional ambiguity.’ In Foolen, A. & van der Leek, F. (eds.), Constructions in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 167–189.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 2001. ‘Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework.’ Applied Linguistics 22(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. 2007. ‘Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance.’ IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, A. G. 2020. ‘Psycholinguists should resist the allure of linguistic units as perceptual units.’ Journal of Memory and Language, 111, 104070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2014. ‘Introducing conversational grammar in EFL: A case for hedging strings.’ English Today, 30(2), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2015. ‘A constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs.’ English Today, 31(3), 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2016. ‘Working out multiword verbs within an applied cognitive Construction Grammar framework.’ European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1),1–32.Google Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2017. ‘Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A usage-based approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs (and other constructions)’ European Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(2), 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2018a. ‘Constructions as triads of form, function and agency: An applied Cognitive Construction Grammar analysis of English modals.’ Cognitive Semantics, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2018b. ‘Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions.’ Lingua 209, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2018c. ‘Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A usage-based approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs (and other constructions).’ European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2019a. ‘Taming English modals: How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs.’ English Today, 35(2), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2019b. Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A Cognitive Guide to the Teaching of Phrasal Verbs. Medellín: Self-published Monograph.Google Scholar
Torres–Martínez, S. 2020. Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar:186 Phrasal and Modal Verb Tasks. Medellín: Self-published Monograph.Google Scholar
Wickens, T. D. 2002. Elementary Signal Detection Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. 2019. ‘A study into the prototypicality of Chinese labile verbs.’ Cognitive Semantics, 5(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar