A corpus-based study of congruent and metaphorical patterns of modality in English

References

• Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Copeck, Terry, Ken Barker, Sylvain Delisle, Stan Szpakowicz & Jean-Francois Delannoy. 1997. What is technical text? Language Sciences 19(4), 391–424.
   Google Scholar
• Desagulier, Guillaume. 2017. Corpus linguistics and statistics with R: Introduction to quantitative methods in linguistics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 443–486. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll. analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). London: Hodder Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge.
   Google 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, 322–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar (1st edition). London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1998. Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In James R. Martin & R. Veel (eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, 185–235. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• He, Qingshun & Bingjun Yang. 2018. A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua 203, 51–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Qingshun. 2020. A corpus-based study of interpersonal metaphors of modality in English. Studia Neophilologica 92, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Herriman, Jennifer. 2000. The functions of extraposition in English texts. Functions of Language 7(2), 203–230.
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, Francis & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 1999. Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Internal Report. Center “Leo Apostel”, Free University of Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 391–404. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2), 119–159.
   Google Scholar
• Liardét, Cassi L. 2014. A corpus-assisted study of Chinese EFL learners’ development of academic literacy. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Liardét, Cassi L. 2018. “As we all know”: Examining Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 50, 64–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–243.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniers, Miriam. 2003. Grammatical metaphor in SFL: A historiography of the introduction and initial study of the term. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Mariam Taverniers & Louise J. Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics, 5–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniers, Miriam. 2008. Interpersonal grammatical metaphor as double scoping and double grounding. Word 59(1), 83–109.
   Google Scholar
• Taverniers, Miriam. 2018. Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization: The case of metaphors of modality. Functions of Language 25(1), 164–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van linden, An. 2012. Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Bingjun. 2019. Interpersonal metaphor revisited: Identification, categorization, and syndrome. Social Semiotics 29(2), 186–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Yanning. 2013. A corpus-based study of interpersonal grammatical metaphor in spoken Chinese. Language Sciences 38, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Yanning. 2015. Grammatical metaphor in Chinese. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Zhenbang. 2017. A new English grammar coursebook (6th edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Jiangping. 2021. A corpus-based study of explicit objective modal expressions in English. Studia Neophilologica (ahead–of–print). https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2021.1980737
   Google Scholar