Cover not available

Article published In: Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar
Edited by Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructions and Frames 8:1] 2016
► pp. 40–53

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality

Published online: 29 September 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.03war
When speakers are confronted with modal expressions in their native language, specifically those that contain a modal verb, they are able to interpret these expressions as epistemic or non-epistemic, for example. But what enables the speakers to interpret these modal expressions instantly and accurately despite the inevitably complex explanation any linguistic theory needs to evoke to account for this? Modality, modals, and modal interpretations are among those universal tension points where the explanatory value of any theoretical construct is sorely tested.
This paper raises some questions about the adequacy of applying Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006) as a method of analysis of expressions containing modal verbs. In particular, the following issues are discussed: (i) the necessity to postulate a great number of constructions to account for a modal utterance, (ii) the theoretically unrestricted scope of a construction, and (iii) the ever-present problem of indeterminate modal utterances.
References (36)
Adger, D. (2013). Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind and Language, 28(4), 466–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, A. (2010). Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics,14(2), 217–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S, & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H.C. (2001). Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, (pp. 64–73). U.K.: LancasterGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In Th. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boogart, R. (2009). Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 213–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (2014). Modal meaning in construction grammar. Paper presented at The International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE) Conference , 24-27 August 2014, Zürich: Zürich University.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, A.D., & Croft, W. (1999). Cognitive linguistics. Draft, version 6. Chapters 10–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eide, K.M. (2002). Norwegian modals. PhD dissertation. Department of linguistics, NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2009). Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (2010). Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. An introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Quantitative approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleson, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 315–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 337–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lundahl, B. (2014). Texts, topics and tasks: Teaching English in years 4-6. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lundberg, G. (2011). De Första Årens Engelska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, W. (1997). A frame-based approach to polysemy. In H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 57–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Michaelis, L.A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (1998). Modality and semantic indeterminacy. In V. Rouchota & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 237–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). Modality: Issues in the pragmatic-semantic interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language (P.S.). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Language, cognition, and human nature: Selected articles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 651, 31–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wärnsby, A. (2002). Modal constructions? The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics, 21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). (De)coding modality: The case of must, may, måste and kan [Lund Studies in English, Vol. 1131]. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Sazhumyan, Haykanush & Alice Blumenthal-Dramé
2025. The effects of aspect on meaning interpretation in the online and offline processing of modal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 36:3 ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2022. From modals to modal constructions. Constructions and Frames 14:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2022. The role of semiotics in the unification of langue and parole: anAgentive Cognitive Construction Grammarapproach to English modals. Semiotica 2022:244 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Kranich, Svenja
2021. Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English . In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2020.  Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals. In Re-assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Hennemann, Anja
2020. Tal vez es X vs. Tal vez sea X. Probability constructions and the use of mood. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English 1. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue