When an ambiguous lexical item appears within a familiar string of words, it can instantly receive an appropriate
interpretation from this context, thus being saturated by it. Such a context may also short-circuit illocutionary and other
pragmatic aspects of interpretation. We here extract from the British National Corpus over 500 internally highly collocating and
high-frequency lexical n-grams up to 5 words containing have to, must, need to, and/or should.
These contexts-as-constructions go some way toward allowing us to group these four necessity modals into clusters with similar
semantic and pragmatic properties and to determine which of them is semantico-pragmatically most unlike the others. It appears
that have to and need to cluster most closely together thanks to their shared environments
(e.g., you may have/need to…, expressing contingent, mitigated necessity), while should has the
largest share of unique n-grams (e.g., rhetorical Why shouldn’t I…?, used as a defiant self-exhortation).
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–189). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Boogaart, R., & Fortuin, E. (2016). Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars. In J. van der Auwera & J. Nuyts (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality (pp. 514–533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.(1987) [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer.
Cappelle, B., & De Sutter, G. (2010). Should vs. ought to. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English linguistics, Offered to Renaat Declerck (pp. 92–126). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Cappelle, B., & Grabar, N. (2016). Towards an n-grammar of English. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 271–302). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Carston, R. (2009). The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62.
Cheng, W. (2007). “Sorry to interrupt, but…”: pedagogical implications of a spoken corpus. In M. C. Campoy & M. J. Luzón (Eds.), Spoken corpora in applied linguistics (pp. 199–215). Bern: Peter Lang.
Clark, W. (1991). Relevance theory and the semantics of non-declarative sentences. Ph.D. dissertation. University College London.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London, Cranberra: Croom Helm.
Cruse, A. D. (2011). Meaning in language (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.) (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Davies, M. (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at [URL]
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL]
De Haan, F. (2012). The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: the case of must. English Studies, 93(6), 700–728.
Depraetere, I. (2010). Some observations on the meaning of modals. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar (offered to Renaat Declerck) (pp. 72–91). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Depraetere, I. (2014). Modal meaning and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 711, 160–177.
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R. (2017). Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: a view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line (pp. 11–38). Cham: Springer.
Depraetere, I., & A. Verhulst. (2008). Source of modality: a reassessment. English Language and Linguistics, 12(1), 1–25.
D’Hertefelt, S. (2018). Insubordination in Germanic. A typology of complement and conditional constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955 (Studies in Linguistic Analysis). Oxford Philological Society, 1–32. Reprinted in F. R. Palmer (Ed.) (1968), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London: Longman.
Flach, S., & Hilpert, M. (2017). From big data to small data and back again: Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses. Talk presented at the 7th International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English (BICLCE7), Vigo, Spain, 28–30 September 2017.
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 31 (pp. 187–210). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must and should: A Relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 53–79.
Gyselinck, E. (2018). The role of expressivity and productivity in (re)shaping the constructional network. Ph.D. dissertation. Ghent University.
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10(23), 146–162.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language, 731, 534–559.
Janda, L. (2009). Linguistic profiles and construction grammar. Paper presented at the Conference “Russkij jazyk: konstrukcionnye i leksiko-semantičeskie podxody”, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–26 March 2009.
Kay, P. (2004). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 675–700). London: Blackwell.
Keckses, I., & Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2017). “It would never happen in my country I must say”: A corpus-pragmatic study of Asian learners’ preferred uses of must and should. Corpus Pragmatics, 1(2), 91–134.
Larreya, P. (1982). Quelques remarques sur have to et must. Travaux de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 351, 103–121.
Lee-Goldman, R. (2011). Context in constructions. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Marasović, A., Zou, M., Palmer, A., & Frank, A. (2016). Modal sense classification at large. Paraphrase-driven sense projection, semantically enriched classification models and cross-genre evaluations. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 141. [URL]
McDonald, S., & Ramscar, M. (2001). Testing the distributional hypothesis: The influence of context on judgements of semantic similarity. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 611–616). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morgan, J. L. (1977). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Technical report No. 52. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [URL]
Nikiforidou, K. (2009). Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp. 16–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53–76 (special issue: Intersections of intersubjectivity).
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon.
Recanati, F. (2012). Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russell & D. Graff Fara (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 67–78). New York: Routledge.
Rivière, C. (1981). Is should a weaker must?Journal of Linguistics, 171, 179–195.
Ruppenhofer, J., & Rehbein, I. (2012). Yes we can!? Annotating English modal verbs. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). European Language Resources Association.
Ruytenbeek, N. (2017). The comprehension of indirect requests: Previous work and future directions. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line (pp. 293–322). Cham: Springer.
Sahlgren, M. (2008). The distributional hypothesis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 33–53.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.
Suzuki, R. & Shimodaira, G. (2015). pvclust: Hierarchical Clustering with P-values via Multiscale Bootstrap Resampling. R package version 2.0-0.
Traugott, E. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Trousdale, G. (2008). A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1(2), 156–177.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103–129.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2023. The semiotics of motion encoding in Early English: a cognitive semiotic analysis of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English. Semiotica 2023:251 ► pp. 55 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 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.