Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 口語語料庫中弱情態動詞構式的語意及功能
The Meanings and Functions of Weak-Modal Constructions in a British Spoken Corpus
Authors: 蔡慈娟
Tsai, Tsi-Chuen
Contributors: 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei-Ling
Tsai, Tsi-Chuen
Keywords: 情態動詞構式
Modal constructions
Weak modality
Usage-based model
Spoken corpus
Conversation analysis
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-09-02 15:25:49 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本文探討The Spoken BNC2014口語語料庫中弱情態動詞構式的語意及功能,我們採取構式語法的角度來分析can, could, may, might構式主要成員的結構及語意。傳統中對情態動詞的語意分析習慣沿用特定的類別稱呼像是epistemic或是deontic,這些類別常被認為太抽象或太籠統,無法反映出情態詞彙真實的使用狀況。再者,這些類別的意思界線模糊,採用這些類別來區隔弱情態動詞can, could, may, might很困難也很不實際。本研究採用構式語法的角度來看待這個議題,我們研究的對象是情態動詞構式,每個情態動詞構式被當成是形意合一的單位,這個單位具備個別的語音、語法並搭配自有的語意、話語及語用的特徵。
我們採取使用基礎模型(usage-based model)的觀點,將弱情態動詞構式的表現及組成視為是語言使用的結果,我們透過觀察弱情態動詞及其重要搭配詞的關係來了解弱情態動詞構式的組成及網路。我們的搭配詞分析顯示can, could, may, might不但各自擁有許多種類的搭配詞,他們也共享許多相同的搭配詞。然而,Log Ratio統計也顯示這些弱情態動詞構式對不同搭配詞有各自的偏好,這包括對於緊接著弱情態動詞之後的謂詞的偏好以及銜接弱情態動詞的主詞選擇。結果顯示弱情態動詞構式與詞彙是互依的關係而非任意的搭配。
我們選擇八個重要的弱情態動詞構式來進行後續的質性會話分析(conversation analysis)。我們針對語境內容像是模糊限制語(hedge),語用標記(discourse marker),連接詞,參與會話的人數以及話題接續性來了解弱情態動詞構式的語意及功能。結果顯示這八個弱情態動詞構式具備多樣及獨特的語意,包括主要的出現頻率較高的語意以及較邊陲出現頻率較低的語意。我們發現[we can do this]最常出現於艱困的情境,用來提振對話者的士氣,[we can do it]表達說話者對於完成任務的信心,[we could have had+*]描述回憶中的或想像中的未發生的事件,[we could have done+*]敘述對話者或大眾所認知的但未發生的理想事件,[there might be some+*]引導對話者去注意某物體或事件,[there might be something+*]幫助對話者指認某物體的位置或澄清某想法,[he/she may have PP+*]提出對於特定人物狀況的預測或八卦的假設,[they may have PP+*]則是依據背景知識提供對於熟人近況的了解及推測。
This study investigates the meanings and functions of weak-modal constructions in the Spoken British National Corpus 2014 (The Spoken BNC2014). A constructionist perspective is taken to examine the organization and meanings of central can, could, may and might constructions. In the traditional approach, modal semantics was interpreted in terms of a set of prescribed notions such as epistemic or deontic sense, which were often criticized as too abstract or too coarse to capture the meanings of modal expressions in real use. Moreover, because the boundary between these notions often becomes blurred, it is impractical and difficult to use them for the distinction of a group of modals that all express weak modality: can, could, may, and might. By taking a constructionist approach, we identified modal constructions as form-function pairings. Each modal construction is represented by its phonology or morphosyntax and is equipped with its own semantic and discourse-pragmatic characteristics.
By subscribing to the usage-based model of language, which sees constructions as the result of language use, we identified weak-modal constructions and their networks by examining the associative relations between weak modals and their important collocates. Our collocational analysis showed that can, could, might, and may were associated with a variety of collocates and they shared many common collocates. Nevertheless, Log Ratio statistics suggested that weak-modal constructions were also distinct in terms of their preferred types of items that may fill the slots of the constructions, which included not just elements or predicates on the modal’s right but also the grammatical subject that was linked to the construction. The findings showed that modal constructions and lexical items are mutually selected and that the makeup of modal constructions is not in free variation.
Eight central weak-modal constructions were selected and subject to the qualitative conversation analysis, which enabled us to interpret weak-modal constructions in terms of discoursal characteristics such as hedges, discourse markers, and clausal connectives, or interactional features like the number of interlocutors or topic continuity. We found that these constructions displayed unique and dynamic meanings ranging from core and more frequent ones to peripheral and rare meanings. The result showed that [we can do this] is often used in time of uncertainty to boost morale, and [we can do it] is used to set an upbeat mood for the completion of tasks. Meanwhile, [we could have had+*] describes unreal events that could only be afforded by circumstantial factors in retrospect or by imagination while [we could have done+*] depicts a past unrealized cause or idea presumably shared by most members in the conversation or the public. On the other hand, [there might be some+*] directs the interlocutor’s attention to the expectation of certain objects or affairs, and [there might be something+*] orients the interlocutor’s attention to the location or identification of an unspecified object or intention. Finally, [he/she may have PP+*] conveys a range of possibility senses from prediction to gossip, and [they may have PP+*] supplies information regarding the condition of acquaintances or certain groups of people.
The results confirmed the usefulness of the constructionist perspective on modality, which has provided more detailed information for a more precise and accurate description of weak-modal constructions. Moreover, it captures the dynamic relationship among related weak-modal constructions. The combination of a corpus-based approach and a qualitative conversation analysis bears important implications for lexicography and language pedagogy, which rely heavily on attested data to present a more complete picture of our language.
Reference: Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (2004). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, pedagogy. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 1-11). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 55-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anthonissen, L., & Mortelmans, T. (2016). German modals in second language acquisition: A constructionist approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 4(1), 9-30.
Archer, D., Wilson, A., & Rayson, P. (2002, October). Re: Introduction to the USAS category system [Electronic project report]. Retrieved from
Barcelona, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2011). An overview of cognitive linguistics. In M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 17-44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640-651.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233-254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1989). Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on MAY and CAN+1. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 1-23.
Boogaart, R. (2009). Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 213-241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 2(4), 711-733.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49-69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. L., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323-355.
Bybee, J. L., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cappelle, B., & De Sutter, G. (2010). Should vs. ought to. In B. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, offered to Renaat Declerck (pp. 92-126). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (2016a). Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 7-39.
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (2016b). Response to Hilpert. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 86-97.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, T. H. (2003). An analysis of the use of modal verbs in senior high school students’ English compositions (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Coates, J. (1980). On the non-equivalence of may and can. Lingua, 50, 209-220.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Collins, P. (2007). Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: a corpus‐based account. World Englishes, 26(4), 474-491.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257-1280.
De Haan, F. (2012). The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of Must. English Studies, 93(6), 700-728.
Depraetere, I. (2017). On the pragmatics of modal verbs. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 22, 14-26.
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2006). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 269-290). MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Deshors, S. C. (2012). A multifactorial study of the uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage (Doctoral thesis, University of Sussex). Retrieved from
Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th. (2014). A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 179-204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295-321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1981). Pragmatic forces associated with can- and may-sentences. Folia Linguistica, 13, 145-215.
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A university course in English grammar. London: Prentice Hall.
Duffley, P., Clarke, S., & Hirtle, W. (1981). May, can, and the expression of permission. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 26, 161-202.
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111-139.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fischer, K. (2001). Pragmatic methods for construction grammar. In S. Holmer & A. Viberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 153-162). Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund.
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185-207.
Fischer, K. (2015). Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 563-588.
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299-318.
Fried, M. (2009). Repersenting contextual factors in language change. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63-94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752-1778.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93-127.
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289-316.
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2008). Cognitive construction grammar works. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 345-360.
Goossens, L. (1992). Cunnan, Connen(n), Can: The development of a radial category. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language, history and cognition (pp. 377-394). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Gries, S.T. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 3-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must and should: A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 53-79.
Groom, N. (2019). Construction grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses: The case of the WAY IN WHICH construction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 291-323.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. NY: Oxford University Press.
Hardie, A. (2014, April 28). Re: Log Ratio – an informal introduction [Web message]. Retrieved from
Hilpert, M. (2013a). Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phanomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 42, 67-82.
Hilpert, M. (2013b). Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 458-475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66-85.
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent (pp. 22-44). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity.
Kennedy, G. (2002). Variation in distribution of modal verbs in the British National Corpus. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 73-90). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 315-357.
Kovács, E. (2011). Polysemy in traditional vs. cognitive linguistics. Eger Journal of English Studies XI, 3-19.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639-650). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kuczaj, S. A., & Daly, M. J. (1979). The development of hypothetical reference in the speech of young children. Journal of Child Language, 6(3), 563-579.
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. I). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1-63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 97-110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Springer International Publishing.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319-344.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McArthur, T. G. (1981). Longman lexicon of contemporary English. London: Longman Publishing Group.
Mindt, D. (1995). An empirical grammar of the English verb: Modal verbs. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Mitkovska, L., Bužarovska, E., & Kusevska, M. (2014). Corpus evidence for the acquisition of modal verbs of obligation by Macedonian Learners of English. Continual Professional Development-Opportunities and Challenges, 1(1), 55-63.
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357-374.
Naigles, L. (1995). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via bootstrapping. Cognition, 58, 221-251.
Naigles, L., Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1993). Children acquire word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In E. Dromi (Ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective (pp. 104-140). Norwood: Ablex.
Neff, J., Martinez, F., & Rica, J. P. (2001, February). A contrastive study of qualification devices in native and non-Native arguementative texts in English. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO.
Nikiforidou, K. (2009). Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard, J.-O. O¨stman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp. 16-32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 1-26). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals. New York: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2003). Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive, and typological Issues. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Papafragou, A. (1998a). Inference and word meaning: The case of modal auxiliaries. Lingua, 105(1-2), 1-47.
Papafragou, A. (1998b). The Acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind & Language,13(3), 370-399.
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S., & Mcenery, T. (2004, January). The UCREL semantic analysis system. Paper presented at the Workshop: Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labeling for NLP Tasks in LREC’04, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved from
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 697-735.
Sandra, D. (1998). What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 361-378.
Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On integrity in inquiry of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies,7(4-5), 455-480.
Shepherd, S. C. (1981). From deontic to epistemic: An analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition. In A. Ahlqvist (Ed.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 316-323). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49-100.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31-55.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2016). Response to Wärnsby. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 54-65.
Tsai, T. C. (2018, February). We must have to study; they should have to pay: Distinguishing must and should in native vs non-native corpora. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy, Austin, TX. Paper retrieved from
Tsai, T. C., & Lai, H. L. (2018). The functions of must constructions in spoken corpus: A constructionist perspective. Proceedings of the 32nd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation, 682-690.
Tsai, T. C., & Lai, H. L. (2019). May and can constructions in spoken corpus: A constructionist approach. Proceedings of the 33rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 244-252.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.
Verschueren, J. (2008). Context and structure in a theory of pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics, 10, 13-23.
Wärnsby, A. (2006). (De) coding modality: The case of must, may, måste and kan (Doctoral thesis, Lund University). Retrieved from
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Context and Constructions (pp. 111-142). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wide, C. (2014). Constructions as resources in interaction: Syntactically unintegrated att ‘that’-clauses in spoken Swedish. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 353-380). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Wulff, S. (2013). Words and idioms. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 274-289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Description: 博士
Source URI:
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
150501.pdf2890KbAdobe PDF8View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing