The semantics of the modal auxiliaries

Abstract

1. Introduction 1.1. The Data 1.2. A Corpus-Based Approach 1.3. Assessment of Research Goals and Techniques 1.4. The Modal Auxiliaries 1.5 Notation 2. Theoretical Considerations 2.1. Monosemy versus Polysemy 2.2. A Model for Modal Meaning 2.3. Indeterminacy 2.4. Epistemic and Non-epistemic Modality 2.5. Corpus Analysis 3. General Findings and Semantic Clusters 3.1. The Modals: General Findings 3.2. Semantic Clusters 4. The Modals of Obligation and Necessity: MUST, NEED, SHOULD and OUGHT 4.1. MUST 4.2. NEED 4.3. HAVE GOT TO and HAVE TO 4.4. SHOULD 4.5. OUGHT 4.6. SHOULD and OUGHT: Further Issues 5. The Modals of Ability and Possibility: CAN and COULD 5.1. CAN 5.2. COULD 5.3. BE ABLE TO 6. The Modals of Epistemic Possibility: MAY and MIGHT 6.1. MAY 6.2. MIGHT 6.3. Epistemic COULD 6.4. Summary of MIGHT and COULD 7. The Modals of Volition and Prediction: WILL and SHALL 7.1. WILL (including 'll and won't) 7.2. SHALL 7.3. BE GOING TO 8. The Hypothetical Modals: WOULD and SHOULD 8.1. WOULD 8.2. SHOULD and Hypothetical Meaning 8.3. The Modals in Real Conditions 8.4. The Modals in Unreal Conditions 9. Conclusions 9.1. Reappraisal of Certain Issues 9.2. Patterns Revealed by the Data 9.3. Summary of Main Findings 9.4. Conclusion

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 951 citations exist upstream.