Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 12:2 (2019) ► pp.196–234

Aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copular clauses

| F.R.S.-FNRS | Université de Namur | KU Leuven
This paper investigates the use of aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copulars. To examine attractions of aspectual and modal meanings to the VPs in the copular constructions, I carry out collostructional analyses (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003). These attractions are interpreted with respect to (i) the lexicogrammatically coded meaning of the copular clauses and (ii) the pragmatic mechanisms that they trigger (e.g. (non-)exhaustiveness implicature), and (iii) the discursive functions they serve in specific contexts of use. It is crucial that this study takes into account specificational copulars with indefinite vs definite variable NPs, which carry an implicature of non-exhaustiveness vs exhaustiveness respectively. I will argue that the felicity of specific aspectual construals is related to the meanings coded at level (i), while the attraction of modal verbs is related to all three levels.
Keywords: aspect, collostructional analysis, modality, (non-)exhaustiveness implicature, specificational and predicative copular clauses
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Aspect
    • 2.2Modality
  • 3.Case study
    • 3.1Hypotheses
    • 3.2Data collection and coding
    • 3.3Results
      • 3.3.1Aspect
      • 3.3.2Modality
  • 4.The construal of the VP
    • 4.1Aspect
    • 4.2Modality
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Primary data
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00027.pra
References (68)
Primary data
Collins Wordbanks Online, <[URL]>
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Wout Van Praet. 2019. Rethinking predicative clauses with indefinite predicate and specificational clauses with indefinite variable: A cognitive-functional account. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (38): 1–36.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1999. Categories of Experiential Grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 11). Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17(9–10): 761–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts, and Pseudo-Clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Grammar of the English Tense System. In collaboration with Susan Reed & Bert Cappelle. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1971. On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Sborník Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brněnské University 191: 135–144.Google Scholar
. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2007. Dynamic Modality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4 (2): 44–61.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967a. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1970a. Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English. Foundations of Language 6 (3): 322–361.Google Scholar
1970b. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27(2): 405–442.Google Scholar
1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. Illocution, mood and modality in functional grammar. Journal of Semantics 61: 227–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 251: 127–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline B. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 57 (2): 209–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis R. 1979. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Johannes. 1943. Grundlag for den projektive geometri. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 1992. Reference, Predication and (In)definiteness in Functional Grammar: A Functional Approach to English Copular Clauses. Utrecht: Drukkerij Elinkwijk Utrecht.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze. Königstein im Taunus: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39 (3): 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1987b. Nouns and Verbs. Language 63 (1): 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Vol. 21. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2 (2): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. English Text Construction 10 (2): 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2005a. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 271: 165–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (4): 677–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Alex Klinge & Henrik Høeg Müller (eds), Modality: Studies in Form and Function. Equinox, London, 5–38.Google Scholar
. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The Expression of Modality (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1–26.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and Modality. 2nd edition. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2003. Modality in English. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds). Berlin: Mouton, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Proceedings of NELS, Vol. 161, Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English it-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation (Topics in English Linguistics [TiEL] 79). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Well-formed lists: Specificational copular sentences as predicative inversion constructions. English Language and Linguistics 22 (1): 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Helmut Küchenhoff. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24 (3): 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2 (1): 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van linden, An. 2012. Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Praet, Wout. Accepted. Focus assignment in English specificational and predicative clauses: Intonation as a cue to information structure? Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.
Van Praet, Wout & Gerard O’Grady. 2018. The prosody of specification: Discourse-intonational cues to setting up a variable. Journal of Pragmatics 1351: 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Praet, Wout & Kristin Davidse. 2015. Revisiting the typology of English copular clauses: ascription and specification in categorizing and identifying clauses. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (15): 1–32.Google Scholar
Verplaetse, Heidi. 2003. What you and I want: A functional approach to verb complementation of the modal “want to.” In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds). Berlin: Mouton, 151–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (10): 1505–1528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (9): 1401–1418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (3): 423–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar