Cover not available

In:Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 225–252

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

Chapter 9
A genre-based analysis of evaluative modality in multi-verb sequences in English

 | Kobe University
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.09mat
Abstract
This paper explores the nature of evaluative modality in multi-verb sequences with the deictic verb go as the first verb in English. It deals with four types of multi-verb sequences: go-and-V, go-to-V, go-V, and go-Ving. First, the paper proposes a general classification of multi-verb sequences. Second, by using the concepts of cotext and context, it shows the characteristics of each type of multi-verb sequence from the viewpoints of inflection of the first verb, the second verb selection, and genres of language use. Consequently, one conclusion can be drawn: while the go-to-V, go-V, and go-Ving sequences allow for a cotext-based interpretation, the go-and-V sequence can allow for both cotext-based and context-based interpretations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Descriptive and methodological background
    • 2.1Working definitions of cotext and context
    • 2.2The deictic motion verb go
    • 2.3General classification of multi-verb sequences with the first verb go
    • 2.4Relation between cotext and context
  • 3.Four types of multi-verb sequences with the attenuated go
    • 3.1The go-to-V sequence
    • 3.2The go-Ving sequence
    • 3.3The go-and-V sequence
    • 3.4 The go-V sequence
  • 4.Quantitative data of the go-and-V sequence
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (28)
References
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1983. The go-progressive and auxiliary-formation. In Essays in Honor of Charles F. Hockett, Frederick B. Agard, Gerold Kelley, Adam Makkai & Valerie Becker Makkai (eds), 153–167. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe. 2003. On two distinct uses of go as a conjoined marker of evaluative modality. In Modality in Contemporary English [Topics in English Series 44], Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 349–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carden, Guy & Pesetsky, David. 1977. Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-coordination. CLS 13: 82–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1974. Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language 50(2): 316–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gesuato, Sara. 2009. Go to V: Literal meaning and metaphorical extensions. In Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse, Papers form the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29), Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds), 343–360. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. Rethinking context introduction: An . In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds), 1–42. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., McIntosh, Angus & Strevens, Peter. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvald A. & Hyams, Mina M. 1993. On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual come and go . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 313–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Noriko. 2015. Multi-Verb Sequences in English: Their Classification and Functions. PhD dissertation, Kobe University.
Newman, John & Rice, Sally. 2008. Asymmetry in English multi-verb sequences: A corpus-based approach. In Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11], Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 3–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1990. Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern colloquial English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 218–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael. 2010. On going . In Distinction in English Grammar: Offered to Renaat Declerck, Bert Cappelle & Naoki Wada (eds), 169–190. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2013. It is … quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested (BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-ed construction. Journal of Pragmatics 52: 17–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy. 1971. Caught in the act. CLS 7: 254–263.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stahlke, Herbert F. W. 1970. Serial verb. Studies in African Linguistics 1(1): 60–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 1999. The go-and-verb construction in a cross-linguistic perspective: Image-schema blending and the construal of events. Proceedings of the Second Annual High Desert Linguistic Society Conference, 123–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Frederik Theodoor. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, First Half, Syntactical Units with Two Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1969. Phonological constraints in syntactic description. Papers in Linguistics 1: 411–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, Robert Levine (ed.), 327–371. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue