Skip to main content Accessibility help

Taming English modals: How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs

  • Sergio Torres–Martínez


In the present paper, I pursue a Construction Grammar (CxG) characterization of English modal auxiliaries (e.g., can-could, must, have (got) to, should, ought to, need to, will-would) that seeks to add to established lexical approaches. It is argued that Construction Grammar (e.g., Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Tomasello, 2003) can successfully account for underlying modality patterns, the understanding of which can lead to distinct gains for both linguistics and second language acquisition research. To that end, some of the tenets of CxG are invoked.



Hide All
Alonso–Ovalle, L. & Menéndez–Benito, P. 2015. ‘Epistemic indefinites: An overview.’ In Alonso–Ovalle, L. & Menéndez–Benito, P. (eds.), Epistemic Indefinites: Exploring Modality Beyond the Verbal Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.127.
Bergs, A. 2010. ‘Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective.’ English Language and Linguistics, 14(2), 217–38.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Borer, H. 2012. ‘In the event of a nominal.’ In Everaert, M., Marelj, M. & Siloni, T. (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–50.
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense: Volume III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cappelle, B. & Depraetere, I. 2016. ‘Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons.’ Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 739.
Depraetere, I. & Reed, S. 2011. ‘Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility.’ English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 129.
Egan, A. & Weatherson, B. (eds.). 2011. ‘Introduction: Epistemic modals and epistemic modality.’ In Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elugardo, R. 2013. ‘Sub-sentential speech acts, reflexive content, and pragmatic enrichment.’ In Goldstein, L. (ed.), Brevity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91106.
Enfield, N. J. 2017. ‘Elements of agency.’ In Enfield, N. J. & Kockelman, P. (eds.), Distributed Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 48.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kockelman, P. 2012. Agent, Person, Subject, Self: A Theory of Ontology, Interaction, and Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2013. ‘Modals: Striving for control.’ In Marín–Arrese, J. I., Carretero, M., Hita, J. A. & van der Auwera, J. (eds.), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter Mouton, pp. 356.
Mani, I. & Pustejovsky, J. 2012. ‘Introduction.’ In Mani, I. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds.), Interpreting Motion: Grounded Representations for Spatial Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. 1988. ‘Force dynamics in language and cognition.’ Cognitive Science, 12, 49100.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Torres–Martínez, S. 2014. ‘Introducing conversational grammar in EFL: A case for hedging strings: Bringing insights from corpus linguistics and construction grammar into the English language classroom.’ English Today, 30(2), 2432.
Torres–Martínez, S. 2015. ‘A constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs.’ English Today, 31(3), 4658.
Torres–Martínez, S. 2016. ‘Working out multiword verbs within an Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar framework.’ European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 132.
Torres–Martínez, S. 2017. ‘Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A usage-based approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs (and other constructions).’ European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 138.
Torres–Martínez, S. 2018. ‘Constructions as triads of form, function, and agency: An Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar study of English modals.’ Cognitive Semantics, 4(1), 138.
Tyler, A. 2012. Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Yu, C. & Ballard, D. 2010. ‘The role of the body in infant language learning.’ In Mix, K. S., Smith, L. B. & Gasser, M. (eds.), The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–34.

Taming English modals: How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs

  • Sergio Torres–Martínez


Altmetric attention score

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