[en] Based on qualitative and quantitative corpus research, this chapter argues that constructions with chance(s) in Present-day English enrich Talmy’s (1988) greater modal system in various ways. Firstly, in their modal uses they are equivalent to core modal auxiliaries and encode especially dynamic and epistemic meanings. We maintain that the partial decategorialization of chance allows for more fine-grained expression of modal meanings by bringing in constructional templates that incorporate slots for potential premodification, as in have a good chance of V-ing. Secondly, they can express caused-modal meanings, in which case a causative operator is added to a basic modal meaning. Finally, structures with chance(s) also exceed Talmy’s (1988) greater modal system, as they can still be used lexically, which core modals no longer can.
Research center :
Lilith - Liège, Literature, Linguistics - ULiège
Disciplines :
Languages & linguistics
Author, co-author :
Van linden, An ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : ling., litt. et trad. > Linguistique synchronique anglaise
Brems, Lieselotte ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : ling., litt. et trad. > Langue anglaise & Linguist.synchro.& diachro.de l'anglais
Language :
English
Title :
Present-day English constructions with chance(s) in Talmy’s greater modal system and beyond
Publication date :
November 2020
Main work title :
Re-assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, Co-text, and Context
Author, co-author :
Schulze, Rainer
Editor :
Hohaus, Pascal
Publisher :
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Collection name :
Studies in Language Companion Series 216
Pages :
195–222
Peer reviewed :
Peer reviewed
Name of the research project :
Negation and grammaticalization. The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with ‘no’ need, ‘no’ wonder, ‘no’ chance, ‘no’ way
WordBanksOnline (WB): Collins WordbanksOnline, HarperCollins. (3 June 2020).
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31: 569–606. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020
Brems, Lieselotte. 2015. Fear(s) + complement clauses: Pathways of grammaticalization and lexicalization, In Faits de langue(s). Pour Michel Kefer à l’occasion de son 65ème anniversaire, Lieselotte Brems, Robert Möller & Laurent Raiser (eds), 1–16. Berlin: Epubli.
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. The Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English [Topics in English Linguistics 74]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252927
Brems, Lieselotte & Van linden, An. 2018. No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items. Presented at BAAHE (Belgian Association of Anglicists in Higher Education) conference on intensity, University of Mons, 30 November 2018.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 2003. Language and the flow of thought. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 93–111. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Davidse, Kristin & De Wolf, Simon. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Modal modifier constructions with “no question”. Text and Talk 32(5): 569–591.
Davidse, Kristin, Van linden, An, Lesage, Jacob & Brems, Lieselotte. 2014. Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: The development of polar, modal and mirative no wayconstructions. ICEHL18, University of Leuven, 14–18 July 2014. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1099.2961
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon & Van linden, An. 2015. The development of (there/it is / I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.02dav
Davidse, Kristin & Van linden, An. 2019. Revisiting ‘it-extraposition’: The historical development of constructions with matrices (it)/(there) be + NP followed by a complement clause. In Crossing Linguistic Boundaries: Systemic, Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in English, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, María José López-Couso, Belén-Méndez Naya & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds), 81–103. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2006. Mood and modality in English. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 269–290. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch12
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 47–87. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/417135
Gentens, Caroline, Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An & Brems, Lieselotte. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.05gen
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol I [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60(4): 703–752. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0020
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Modality [The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1], William Frawley (ed.), 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Pieter & Diepeveen, Janneke. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42(1): 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.012
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: OUP.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Pinter.
Schmid, Hans Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition [Topics in English Linguistics 34]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs [Topics in English Linguistics 56]. Berlin: Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198928
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
Van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
Van linden, An. 2012. Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony [Topics in English Linguistics 75]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252941
Van linden, An. 2020. The diachrony of stance constructions with ‘no’ chance and ‘no’ wonder. Language Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101288
Van linden, An & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.031
Van linden, An, Davidse, Kristin & Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Verbo-nominal expressions with need: the interaction between negation and modality. Presentation Twentieth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 20), Osaka, 26 July 2011. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3982.8809
Van linden, An, Davidse, Kristin & Matthijs, Lennart. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: From lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 99–100: 385–409. https://doi.org/10.2143/LB.100.0.3159667
Van linden, An & Brems, Lieselotte. 2017. Talmy’s “greater modal system”: fitting in verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s). Presented at the Seventh International Conference of the French Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCo 7), University of Liège, 31 May–3 June 2017.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideationalfunctionsintheEnglishmodalauxiliarysystem.JournalofPragmatics33:1505–1528.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7
von Wright, Georg H. 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Willemse, Peter. 2007. Indefinite possessive NPs and the distinction between determining and non-determining genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 537–568. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002389
