Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 223–252

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

| Kobe University

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.

Keywords: multi-verb sequence, evaluative modality, deixis, genre, frequency
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
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.09mat
References

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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carden, Guy & Pesetsky, David
1977 Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-coordination. CLS 13: 82–92.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V.
1974 Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language 50(2): 316–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1971 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.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
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
Halliday, Michael A. K., McIntosh, Angus & Strevens, Peter
1964 The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1978 Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1995 Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.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
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shopen, Timothy
1971 Caught in the act. CLS 7: 254–263.Google Scholar
Stahlke, Herbert F. W.
1970 Serial verb. Studies in African Linguistics 1(1): 60–99.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
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
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1969 Phonological constraints in syntactic description. Papers in Linguistics 1: 411–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, Robert Levine (ed.), 327–371. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar