A trinocular view of the auxiliary verb will in COVID-19 briefings from Westminster and Holyrood

Beauchamp, David; Gardner, Sheena

doi:10.1075/langct.22011.bea

Article published In:

Language, Context and Text
Vol. 5:1 (2023) ► pp.124–160

A trinocular view of the auxiliary verb will in COVID-19 briefings from Westminster and Holyrood

David Beauchamp | Coventry University, United Kingdom

Sheena Gardner | Coventry University, United Kingdom

This corpus assisted investigation of the auxiliary verb will examines the various modalities and functions realised in the register of political briefings given by Scottish (Holyrood) and United Kingdom (Westminster) representatives throughout the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.

A trinocular approach is taken to consider the lexicogrammatical environment of will (from around), the discourse semantics of will (from above) and the relationship between contraction and meaning (from below).

Our trinocular approach with a focus on will as a highly frequent item with great meaning potential has enabled us to gain insights about the nature of how politicians used modality to persuade, organise and empathise within coronavirus media briefings and thus shape their public personas as leaders.

Keywords: trinocular view, modality, political discourse, crisis communications

Article outline

1.Introduction
2.Review of previous research
- 2.1Crisis communications, leadership and strategies of engagement
- 2.2 Will as a modal auxiliary
- 2.3Personal pronouns preceding will
- 2.4Research questions
3.Data and methodology
- 3.1Texts of briefings
- 3.2Methodology
4.Results: Lexicogrammatical features of will
- 4.1Pronouns preceding will
- 4.2Inclusive and exclusive We will
- 4.3You will
- 4.4 I will
- 4.5Summary
5.Functions of will in discourse
- 5.1Functions of we will in discourse
- 5.2Functions of you will in discourse
- 5.3Functions of I will in discourse
- 5.4Summary
6.The relationship between contraction and meaning
7.Discussion
8.Summary and conclusions
Notes
References

Published online: 26 May 2023

https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.22011.bea

References (33)

References

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BNC Consortium. 2007. British National Corpus, XML version. Oxford Text Archive. [URL]

Boyd, Julian & James P. Thorne. 1969. The semantics of modal verbs. Journal of Linguistics 5(1). 57–74.

Bull, Peter & Anita Fetzer. 2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk 26(1). 3–37.

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Routledge.

Dückers, Michael L. A., C. Joris Yzermans, Wouter Jong & Arjen Boin. 2017. Psychosocial crisis management: The unexplored intersection of crisis leadership and psychosocial support. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy 8(2). 94–112.

Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London & New York: Routledge.

. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge.

Fetzer, Anita & Peter Bull. 2008. The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of Language and Politics 7(2). 271–289.

Finegan, Edward & Douglas Biber. 1986. Toward a unified model of sociolinguistic prestige. In David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and diachrony, 391–397. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gigliotti, Ralph A. 2016. Leader as performer; leader as human: A discursive and retrospective construction of crisis leadership. Atlantic Journal of Communication 24(4). 185–200.

Halliday, M. A. K. 2002 [1996]. On grammar and grammatics. In M. A. K. Halliday, On grammar, volume 1 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 384–417. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

2007 [1996]. Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In Michael A. K. Halliday, Language education, volume 9 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 97–129. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Halliday, M. A. K. with Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London and New York: Routledge.

Haslam, Alexander S., Niklas K. Steffens, Stephen D. Reicher & Sarah V. Bentley. 2021. Identity leadership in a crisis: A 5R framework for learning from responses to COVID-19. Social Issues and Policy Review 15(1). 35–83.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2). 399–446.

Hunt, Sally. 2021. COVID and the South African family: Cyril Ramaphosa, president or father? Discourse, Context and Media 441. 100541.

Jaworska, Sylwia. 2021. Competence and collectivity: The discourse of Angela Merkel’s media communications during the first wave of the pandemic. Discourse, Context and Media 421. 100506.

Kennedy, Graeme. 2002. Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. In Randi Reppen, Douglas Biber & Susan Fitzmaurice (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubícek, Vojtěch Kovár, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, & Vít Suchomel. 2014. The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1). 7–36.

Kimps, Ditte, Kristen Davidse & Gerard O’Grady. 2019. English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action: A comparison of the speech function and exchange structure models. Functions of Language 26(1). 86–111.

Maercker, Andreas & Julia Müller. 2004. Social acknowledgment as a victim or survivor: A scale to measure a recovery factor of PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress 17(4). 345–351.

Martin, J. R. 2019. Discourse semantics. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 358–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1995. Lexicogrammatical cartography: English systems. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers.

Montiel, Christine J., Joshua Uyheng & Erwine Dela Paz. 2021. The language of pandemic leaderships: Mapping political rhetoric during the COVID-19 outbreak. Political Psychology 42(5). 747–766.

Palmer, Frank R. 2014. Modality and the English modals (2nd edition). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

Proctor, Katarzyna I. & Lily I-Wen Su. 2011. The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 43(13). 3251–3266.

Pyykkö, Riitta. 2002. Who is “us” in Russian political discourse? In Anna Duszak (ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures, 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quaglio, Paulo & Douglas Biber. 2006. The grammar of conversation. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 692–723. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Raphael, Beverley. 1986. When disaster strikes: A handbook for the caring professions. London: Hutchinson.

Sarkar, Anoop. 1998. The conflict between future tense and modality: The case of will in English. University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 5(2). 91–117. Available at: [URL]

Williams, Jamie & David Wright. 2022. Ambiguity, responsibility and political action in the UK daily COVID-19 briefings. Critical Discourse Studies, 1–16. (19 August, 2022)

Yzermans, Joris & Berthold P. R. Gersons. 2002. The chaotic aftermath of an airplane crash in Amsterdam: A second disaster. In Johan M. Havenaar, Julie Cwikel & Evelyn J. Bromet (eds.), Toxic turmoil: Psychological and societal consequences of ecological disasters, 85–100. New York: Springer.