Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T19:02:20.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Multifunctionality of ‘Possible’ Modal Adverbs: A Comparative Look

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Daisuke Suzuki  and
Takashi Fujiwara
Daisuke Suzuki*
Affiliation:
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Setsunan University, and Kyoto University
Takashi Fujiwara*
Affiliation:
Doshisha University
*
[suzuki0213@gmail.com], [elf3201@gmail.com]
[suzuki0213@gmail.com], [elf3201@gmail.com]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The principal concern in this study is to provide a detailed discussion of the pragmatic properties of ‘possible’ modal adverbs, mainly by comparing conceivably with perhaps. First, we identify two factors regarding the occurrence patterns of these modal adverbs: their cooccurrence with modal verbs and their position in the clause, both of which are pragmatic-related characteristics. Two techniques were employed: analysis of manually coded corpus data from the British National Corpus (BNC) and analysis of questionnaire data (from a completion test). The combined results demonstrate that the two adverbs display opposite functional characteristics, and that the factors influencing the use of these adverbs are strongly associated with the contexts of modality and discourse.

Keywords

modal adverbsfunctional analysiscorpus and experimental datamodalitydiscoursepragmaticspragmaticalization

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 827 - 841
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think—An English modal particle. Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, ed. by Swan, Toril and West- vik, Olaf J., 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arnovick, Leslie K. 1999. Diachronic pragmatics: Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Detges, Ulrich (eds.) 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (2). 337–51. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177988.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan; and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey; and Conrad, Susan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2007. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. Methods in historical pragmatics, ed. by Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma, 37–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197822.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Doherty, Monika. 1987. Perhaps. Folia Linguistica 21 (1). 45–65. DOI: 10.1515/flin.1987.21.1.45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1337–59. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 497–544. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-009-9069-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5 (1). 1–26. DOI: 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate; and Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (4). 635–76. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6. 322–61. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25000463.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday s introduction to functional grammar. 4th edn. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. by Eikmeyer, Hans-Jurgen and Rieser, Hannes, 38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. Semantik/Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 639–50. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1972. The pragmatics of modality. Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 229–46.Google Scholar
Larkin, Don. 1976. Some notes on English modals. Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 387–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and logical form: A linguistically realistic theory. Language 58 (1). 144–84. DOI: 10.2307/413534.10.2307/413534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1968. Co-existing negative preterite forms of dare. Essays on the English language: Medieval and modern, ed. by Quirk, Randolph, 114–19. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rogets 21st century thesaurus. 3rd edn. 2009. Online: http://www.thesaurus.com.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Daisuke. 2018. Variation between modal adverbs in British English: The cases of maybe and perhaps. Functions of Language, to appear.10.1075/fol.16009.suzCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English usage. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence adverbiais in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, ed. by Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction (Special issue: Intersections of intersubjectivity, ed. by Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde) 5 (1). 7–28. DOI: 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau.10.1075/etc.5.1.02trauCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Gordon H. 2001. Possibly alternative modality. Functions of Language 8 (2). 183215. DOI: 10.1075/fol.8.2.03tuc.10.1075/fol.8.2.03tucCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1984. An analysis of epistemic possibility and probability. English Studies 65 (2). 129–40. DOI: 10.1080/00138388408598312.10.1080/00138388408598312CrossRefGoogle Scholar