Options
Re-thinking English Modal Constructions: From feature-based paradigms to usage-based probabilistic representations
Titre du projet
Re-thinking English Modal Constructions: From feature-based paradigms to usage-based probabilistic representations
Description
This project relates the grammatical category of modality to human cognition and the mental representation of language: How are modal expressions mentally represented? We are interested in the linguistic knowledge that speakers of English have that allows them to choose between expressions such as “You should go home now”, “You have to go home now”, or “You ought to go home now”. These examples express non-factual ideas that are very similar, but subtly different. An idea that is still relatively widely held in the literature on modality is that the meanings of modal expressions can be distinguished on the basis of binary features such as the distinction between obligation and permission, “weak” and “strong” modality, and deontic and epistemic modality. While we do not dispute the usefulness of categorical semantic distinctions between different expressions of modality, we question whether these distinctions exhaustively capture speakers’ linguistic knowledge of modal expressions and whether matrices of cross-cutting categorical features adequately represent that knowledge. This project advances an alternative view that aligns itself with two recent theoretical developments in linguistics, namely the frameworks of Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006) and usage-based linguistics (Bybee & Hopper 2001, Bybee 2010). We hypothesize that knowledge of modal expressions is exemplar-based and probabilistic. In other words, speakers’ knowledge of modal expressions is not to be modeled as a paradigm of forms that can be fully described through a set of cross-cutting categorical features, but rather as a network of form-meaning pairs (Hilpert 2014, Hilpert & Diessel 2016) in which the forms of modal expressions are connected to a range of meanings through associative links. Differences in association strength account for the fact that speakers choose a certain modal expression in a certain speech situation. We thus view speakers’ knowledge of modal expression not as a discrete one-to-one mapping between a form and a list of semantic features, but rather as knowledge of the probability that a given form will convey a certain meaning in a certain context.
Chercheur principal
Statut
Completed
Date de début
1 Mars 2017
Date de fin
1 Mars 2020
Organisations
Identifiant interne
34444
identifiant
4 Résultats
Voici les éléments 1 - 4 sur 4
- PublicationAccès libreDisentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics(2021-3-25)This paper investigates the collocational behavior of English modal auxiliaries such as may and might with the aim of finding corpus-based measures that distinguish between different modal expressions and that allow insights into why speakers may choose one over another in a given context. The analysis uses token-based semantic vector space modeling (Heylen et al. 2015, Hilpert and Correia Saavedra 2017) in order to determine whether different modal auxiliaries can be distinguished in terms of their collocational profiles. The analysis further examines whether different senses of the same auxiliary exhibit divergent collocational preferences. The results indicate that near-synonymous pairs of modal expressions, such as may and might or must and have to, differ in their distributional characteristics. Also different senses of the same modal expression, such as deontic and epistemic uses of may, can be distinguished on the basis of distributional information. We discuss these results against the background of previous empirical findings (Hilpert 2016, Flach in press) and theoretical issues such as degrees of grammaticalization (Correia Saavedra 2019) and the avoidance of synonymy (Bolinger 1968).
- PublicationAccès libreTen Lectures On Diachronic Construction GrammarIn this book, Martin Hilpert lays out how Construction Grammar can be applied to the study of language change. In a series of ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar, the book presents the theoretical foundations, open questions, and methodological approaches that inform the constructional analysis of diachronic processes in language. The lectures address issues such as constructional networks, competition between constructions, shifts in collocational preferences, and differentiation and attraction in constructional change. The book features analyses that utilize modern corpus-linguistic methodologies and that draw on current theoretical discussions in usage-based linguistics. It is relevant for researchers and students in cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, and historical linguistics.
- PublicationAccès libreA case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passiveThis paper discusses a case of what Pijpops and Van de Velde (2016) call constructional contamination. Specifically, we investigate the influence of English modified noun phrases on variation in adverb placement in the passive. On the basis of data from the COCA, we argue that highly frequent nominal expressions such as sexually transmitted disease influence adverb placement in the passive, which offers speakers a choice between adverb-initial order (The disease was sexually transmitted) and adverb-final order (The disease was transmitted sexually). Our results thus corroborate findings from Dutch corpora (Pijpops and Van de Velde 2016) and suggest that constructional contamination is a phenomenon that can be observed across different languages. We further discuss the role of constructional contamination for analogy and contrast.
- PublicationAccès libreDisentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics(2020)
; Susanne FlachAbstract This article investigates the collocational behavior of English modal auxiliaries such as may and might with the aim of finding corpus-based measures that distinguish between different modal expressions and that allow insights into why speakers may choose one over another in a given context. The analysis uses token-based semantic vector space modeling (Heylen et al., 2015, Monitoring polysemy. Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 157: 153–72; Hilpert and Correia Saavedra, 2017, Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses: From practical applications to tests of theoretical claims. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory) in order to determine whether different modal auxiliaries can be distinguished in terms of their collocational profiles. The analysis further examines whether different senses of the same auxiliary exhibit divergent collocational preferences. The results indicate that near-synonymous pairs of modal expressions, such as may and might or must and have to, differ in their distributional characteristics. Also, different senses of the same modal expression, such as deontic and epistemic uses of may, can be distinguished on the basis of distributional information. We discuss these results against the background of previous empirical findings (Hilpert, 2016, Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, Flach, in press, Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: a corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in modal-adverb collocations. English Language and Linguistics) and theoretical issues such as degrees of grammaticalization (Correia Saavedra, 2019, Measurements of Grammaticalization: Developing a Quantitative Index for the Study of Grammatical Change. PhD Dissertation, Université de Neuchâtel) and the avoidance of synonymy (Bolinger, 1968, Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2(2): 119–27).