The Functions of Must-constructions in Spoken Corpus: A Constructionist Perspective

The Functions of Must-constructions in Spoken Corpus: A Constructionist Perspective Tsi-Chuen Tsai Huei-Ling Lai National Chengchi University National Chengchi University No. 64, Sec. 2, Zhi Nan Rd., No. 64, Sec. 2, Zhi Nan Rd., Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan 102551505@nccu.edu.tw hllai@nccu.edu.tw Abstract This study investigates must constructions in the Spoken British National Corpus 2014 (Spoken BNC2014). A constructionist perspective is taken to examine the structure and distribution of must constructions in the spoken corpus. Moreover, a conversational analysis is conducted to identify the functions of must constructions as they are used in communication. Adopting corpus analytical procedures, we identified two major must constructions, [must+be] and [must+‟ve/have], whose central member [there+must+be+some] conducts the topic extending function while [she+must+‟ve/have+been] is related to the speaker‟s evaluation of the condition of an individual identified as she. On the other hand, although [must+Verb] does not have a very high type frequency, its central member [I+must+admit+I] performs an important interpersonal function in minimizing possible negative impact brought about by the speaker‟s comment. The findings suggest that the central members of must constructions exhibit dynamic and interactive functions in daily conversations. 1. Introduction For decades, it has been a challenge for linguists to come up with clear classification or delineation of modality. The literature is inundated with different terminology or criteria to refer to similar phenomena (Nuyts, 2006). Broadly speaking though, most linguists recognize three kinds of modality. Dynamic modality describes the capacity or needs of the controlling-participant or similar potentials determined by the local circumstances as in (a) I must find a solution for this problem soon now or (b) To open that door you must turn the key (Nuyts, 2006, p. 3-4). Deontic modality presents a degree of moral desirability through permission, obligation, and volition as in (c) We must leave immediately. Finally, epistemic modality expresses the degree of probability including the logical possibility, hypothetical meaning, and predictability such as (d) You must be John’s wife (Papafragou, 1998, p. 2-3). In many studies, however, the meanings of modal verbs often become ambiguous because a majority of them may express various meanings simultaneously. Take (a) for example. Must may express a deontic sense when the speaker is responsible for the consequence. Likewise, it is possible for must in example (d) to carry a deontic reading if it is presented under the condition that the marital certificate has been signed and the vow has been exchanged. Due to its complexity, modality has been notoriously employed as a test-bed to provide explanation for both linguistic representation and use (Papafragou, 1998). On the other hand, the indeterminacy of modal meanings has also had some linguists, such as Bybee, et al. (1994) confess, “it may be impossible to come up with a succinct characterization of the notional domain of modality” (p. 176). Recently, the issue has been approached from a constructionist perspective, which examines modality in terms of a network of constructions rather than sense relationship (Boogaart, 2009). The insights provided by the …

Content truncated to 500 words