Article published in:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 220–243

The necessity modals have to, must, need to, and should

Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects

| University of Lille
| University of Lille
| University of Lille
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).
Keywords: necessity modals, n-grams, mutual information, lexically restricted saturation, short-circuiting, illocutionary force, hierarchical clustering analysis, intersubjectivity
Published online: 07 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00029.cap
References

References

Aijmer, K.
(1996) Conversational routines in English: convention and creativity. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Boogaart, R.
(2009) Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: the case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 213–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Brems, L., Ghesquière, L., & Van de Velde, F.
(2012) Intersections of intersubjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 1–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) [1978] Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 237 ]
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I.
(2016a) Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7–39 (special issue: Modal meaning in Construction Grammar). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Response to Martin Hilpert, Change in modal meanings. Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 86–96 (special issue: Modal meaning in Construction Grammar). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Clark, W.
(1991) Relevance theory and the semantics of non-declarative sentences. Ph.D. dissertation. University College London.Google Scholar
Coates, J.
(1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London, Cranberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. D.
(2011) Meaning in language (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H.
(Eds.) (2010) Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2004–) British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/bnc/
(2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/coca/
De Haan, F.
(2012) The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: the case of must . English Studies, 93(6), 700–728. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2014) Modal meaning and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 160–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 238 ]
Depraetere, I., & A. Verhulst
(2008) Source of modality: a reassessment. English Language and Linguistics, 12(1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Hertefelt, S.
(2018) Insubordination in Germanic. A typology of complement and conditional constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 3 (pp. 187–210). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M.
(1995)  Can, may, must and should: A Relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 53–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gyselinck, E.
(2018) The role of expressivity and productivity in (re)shaping the constructional network. Ph.D. dissertation. Ghent University.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.
(1954) Distributional structure. Word, 10(23), 146–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85 (special issue: Modal meaning in Construction Grammar). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73, 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larreya, P.
(1982) Quelques remarques sur have to et must . Travaux de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 35, 103–121.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R.
(2011) Context in constructions. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
[ p. 239 ]
Leech, G.
(2014) The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press/Bradford Books. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 14. http://​csli​-lilt​.stanford​.edu​/ojs​/index​.php​/LiLT​/article​/view​/65
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.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L.
(1977) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Technical report No. 52. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://​www​.ideals​.illinois​.edu​/bitstream​/handle​/2142​/17765​/ctrstreadtechrepv01977i00052​_opt​.pdf​?seque
Nikiforidou, K.
(2009) Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp. 16–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J.
(2012) Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53–76 (special issue: Intersections of intersubjectivity). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russell & D. Graff Fara (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp. 67–78). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rivière, C.
(1981) Is should a weaker must? Journal of Linguistics, 17, 179–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sahlgren, M.
(2008) The distributional hypothesis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, R. & Shimodaira, G.
(2015) pvclust: Hierarchical Clustering with P-values via Multiscale Bootstrap Resampling. R package version 2.0-0.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E., & König, E.
(1991) The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1 (pp. 189–218). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 240 ]
Trousdale, G.
(2008) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1(2), 156–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C., & D’Hertefelt, S.
(2016) Running in the family. Patterns of complement insubordination in Germanic. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Dynamics of insubordination (pp. 65–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T.
(2006) Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 february 2021. 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.