Scope and the development of epistemic modality: Evidence from ought to

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 295-317

  Nordlinger, Rachel ^a   Traugott, Elizabeth Closs ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30144439511     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s1360674300000551     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Akatsuka, N. (1992). Japanese modals are conditionals. In Brentari, D., G. N. Larson & L. A. MacLeod (eds.), The joy of grammar, Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-10.
2. Benveniste, E. (1966 [1958]). De la subjectivité dans le langage. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. 258-85
3. (trans. M. E. Meek as Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press 1971, 224-46).
4. Benveniste, E. (1968). Mutations of linguistic categories. In Lehmann, W. P. & Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press. 85-94.
5. Bybee, J. (1988). Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 247-64.
6. Bybee, J. & S. Fleischman (eds.) (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
7. Bybee, J. & W. Pagliuca (1985). Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics. Historical word formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 59-83.
8. Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Cameron, A., A. C. Amos, S. Butler & A. di Paolo Healey (1980). The dictionary of Old English corpus in electronic form. University of Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.
10. Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
11. Coates, J. (1995). The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Bybee and Fleischman (eds.), 55-66.
12. Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax. New York: Longman.
13. Fischer, O. (1994). The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78: 137-64.
14. Fleischman, S. (1982). The future in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Gamon, D. (1994). On the development of epistemicity in the German modal verbs mögen and müssen. Folia Linguistica Historica 14: 125-76.
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994[1985]). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
17. Healey, A. di Paolo, et al. (1994). Dictionary of Old English, fascicle A. Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, Microfiche.
18. Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Heine, B. (1995). Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: some observations on German modals. In Bybee and Fleischman (eds.), 17-53.
20. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Horn, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
22. Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121-74.
23. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
24. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5-38.
25. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. & W. Klein (eds.) Speech, place, and action: studies in deixis and related topics. New York: Wiley. 101-24.
27. Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2 vols.
28. Myhill, J. (1995). Change and continuity in the function of American English modals. Linguistics 33: 157-211.
29. Myhill, J. (1997). Should and ought: the rise of individually-oriented modality in American English. English Language and Linguistics 1: 3-23.
30. Myhill, J. and L. A. Smith (1995). The discourse and interactive functions of obligation expressions. In Bybee and Fleischman (eds.), 239-92.
31. Nordlinger, R. (1995). Ought to: a study in the development of epistemic meanings. MS. Stanford University.
32. Nordlinger, R. (1996). Scope and modal classification: diachronic evidence from ought to. Paper given at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego. January 1996.
33. Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Palmer, F. R. (1990[1979]). Modality and the English modals. New York: Longman.
35. Rissanen, M., M. Kytö & M. Palander-Collin (eds.) (1993). Early English in the computer age: explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36. Sanders, J. and W. Spooren (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: a study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 241-64.
37. Shepherd, S. (1981). Modals in Antiguan Creole, language acquisition and history. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
38. Steele, S. (1975). Is it possible? Stanford Working Papers in Language Universals 18: 35-58.
39. Stein, D. & S. Wright (eds.) (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55.
42. Traugott, E. C. (1995a). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein & Wright (eds.), 31-54.
43. Traugott, E. C. (1995b). The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995.
44. Traugott, E. C. and E. König (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E. C. & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189-218.
45. Visser, F. Th. (1969). An historical syntax of the English language, part III, first half. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
46. Warner, A. (1990). Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Adamson, S., V. Law, N. Vincent & S. Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 537-58.
47. Warner, A. R. (1993). English auxiliaries: structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.