Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

Source of modality: a reassessment1

  • ILSE DEPRAETERE (a1) and AN VERHULST (a2)
Abstract

This article offers a description of the sources associated with the necessities expressed by have to and must in the ICE-GB corpus. It provides detailed comments on semantic and pragmatic features of the different sources, which are shown to be more diverse than has previously been claimed. The corpus analysis proves that the traditional distinction in meaning between so-called ‘objective’ have to and ‘subjective’ must is not as outspoken as is assumed, and therefore results in a more accurate description of the similarities and differences in meaning between the two modal markers.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Auwera, Johan Van Der & Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79124.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Collins, Peter. 1991. The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik, 145–65. London and New York: Longman.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusho.
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 269–90. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. Hedged performatives. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and semantics 3), 187210. New York: Academic Press.
Goossens, Louis. 2000. Patterns of meaning extension, ‘parallel chaining’, subjectification, and modal shifts. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, 149–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. Can, may, must and should: a relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31, 5379.
Groussier, Marie-Line. 1985. A propos de l'ambivalence épistémique/déontique des auxiliaires must et may. Modèles linguistiques 2, 139–55.
Halliday, M. A. Kirkwood. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, 322–61.
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London and New York: Longman.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. Variation in the distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. In Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M. & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 7390. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 32). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kruisinga, Etsko. 1925. A handbook of present-day English, part II: English accidence and syntax 1. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
Larreya, Paul. 1982. Quelques remarques sur have to et must. Travaux de l'Université de Saint-Etienne (Centre Interdisciplinaire d'Etude et de Recherche sur l'Expression Contemporaine) 35, 103–21.
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2005. Grammaire explicative de l'anglais, 3rd edition. France: Pearson Education.
Linden, An van. 2006. The semantic development of ‘essential’, ‘crucial’ and ‘needful’: Paths to deontic meaning. Preprints Catholic University of Leuven (Department of Linguistics) 241.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myhill, John. 1996. The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech 4, 339–88.
Palmer, F. Robert. 1974. The English verb. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. Robert. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London and New York: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank R. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 241–66. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tregidgo, Philip. 1982. MUST and MAY: Demand and permission. Lingua 56, 7592.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. Scalar quantity implicatures and the interpretation of modality: Problems in the deontic domain. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1401–18.
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Language & Linguistics
  • ISSN: 1360-6743
  • EISSN: 1469-4379
  • URL: /core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed