Title English Root Modals Must and Have to : A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis Author(s) Sanada, Keisuke Citation 北海道大学. 博士(文学) 甲第9224号 Issue Date 2009-09-25 DOI 10.14943/doctoral.k9224 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/43055 Type theses (doctoral) File Information Ph.D.Thesis(Sanada).pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP English Root Modals Must and Have to: A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis （英語の根源的法助動詞 must と have to：認知言語学的分析） A Dissertation Presented to The Graduate School of Letters Hokkaido University In Partial Satisfaction Of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Linguistics by Keisuke SANADA 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables vii Acknowledgements viii Vita, Publications, and Fields of Study xi Abstract of the Present Thesis xiv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aims of This Thesis 1 1.1.1 Root Must and Root Have to as Force Dynamic Conceptualization 2 1.1.2 Prototype View on Root Must and Root Have to 4 1.1.3 Quantitative Research of Root Must and Root Have to 6 1.2 Organization of This Thesis 8 Notes to Chapter 1 9 2 Previous Studies on Modality 10 2.1 The Definition of Modality 11 2.1.1 Subjectivity 11 2.1.2 Irreality 15 2.1.3 Non-Assertion 17 2.2 Semantic Classification of Modality 18 2.3 Polysemy vs. Monosemy Views 23 2.4 Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to English Modals 26 ii 2.4.1 Force Dynamic Conceptualization in the Semantics of English Modals 27 2.4.2 Metaphorical Extension from Root to Epistemic Sense 29 2.4.3 Subjectification and Grounding in English Modals 33 2.5 Summary 43 Notes to Chapter 2 44 3 Cognitive vs. Non-Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Must and Have to 48 3.1 Distinguishability of Root Must and Root Have to 48 3.1.1 Non-Cognitive Linguistic Approaches 49 3.1.1.1 Westney (1995) 49 3.1.1.2 Papafragou (1998; 2000): Relevance Theoretic Approaches 54 3.1.2 Cognitive Linguistic Approaches 64 3.1.2.1 The Aspects of Force in Root Must and Root Have to 65 3.1.2.2 Advantages of Cognitive Linguistic Approaches 71 3.2 The Context of Interrogatives Including Epistemic Must, Root Must and Epistemic Have to 75 3.2.1 Papafragou (2000): Relevance Theoretic Approach 77 3.2.2 Cognitive Linguistic Approaches 81 3.2.2.1 The Context of Interrogatives with Epistemic Must 81 3.2.2.2 Further Application: Epistemic Have to and Root Must in Interrogatives 85 3.3 Summary and Remaining Problems 88 iii Notes to Chapter 3 92 4 An ICM-Based Account of Root Must and Root Have to: With Special Reference to Directive Speech Acts 95 4.1 Categorization and Prototype 98 4.1.1 Cognitive Grammar Analysis of Categorization 99 4.1.2 Prototype Analysis: Feature-Based vs. ICM-Based Analysis 100 4.2 Previous Feature-Based Approaches 107 4.2.1 Coates (1983): the Semantics of Root Must 107 4.2.2 Searle (1969, 1979): Speech Act Theory 111 4.3 The ICM of Directive Speech Acts: With Special Reference to Obligation 116 4.3.1 The Schematic Meaning of DSAs 116 4.3.2 The ICM of DSAs 118 4.4 An ICM-Based Account to Root Must 129 4.4.1 Prototypical Cases 129 4.4.2 Non-Prototypical Cases 134 4.4.2.1 Invitation Must 134 4.4.2.2 Objective Must 137 4.4.3 The Classification of Root Must 140 4.4.4 Coates’ Features Reconsidered 143 4.5 An ICM-Based Account of Root Have to 146 4.5.1 Prototypical Cases 146 4.5.2 Non-Prototypical Cases 154 4.5.3 The Classification of Root Have to 157 iv 4.6 Another Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Root Must and Root Have to: Higuchi (2008) 159 4.7 Summary 162 Notes to Chapter 4 163 5 A Quantitative Analysis of Root Must and Root Have to 168 5.1 Data 169 5.1.1 Data Sources 169 5.1.2 Objects of the Data 170 5.2 The Significance of Quantitative Research 171 5.3 A Quantitative Corroboration of the ICM-Based Account: Root Must and Root Have to in PDE 176 5.3.1 Root Must in PDE 178 5.3.2 Root Have to in PDE 181 5.3.3 Summary and Discussion 184 5.4 Diachronic Quantitative Research of Root Must 186 5.4.1 In EModE 188 5.4.2 In LModE 192 5.4.3 Summary and Discussion 196 5.5 Quantitative Research in Terms of an Imposee 199 5.5.1 Root Must in PDE 202 5.5.2 Root Must in EModE 205 5.5.3 Root Must in LModE 208 5.5.4 Root Have to in PDE 211 5.5.5 Summary and Discussion 215 v 5.6 Summary 219 Notes to Chapter 5 220 6 Conclusions and Prospects 223 References 228 Sources for Examples 240 vi LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Subjectification (Langacker 1999:298, Figure 10.1) 35 2.2 (= Langacker 1990:334, Figure 9a) 38 2.3 (= Langacker 1990:334, Figure 9b) 39 2.4 (= Langacker 1990:334, Figure 9c) 40 4.1 The Mechanism of Categorization 99 4.2 The classification of root must 141 4.3 Higuchi’s basic image model of the epistemic regions (2008:231) 160 LIST OF TABLES 4.1 ICMs of four subclasses of DSAs 128 5.1 Frequency of use of three types of root must in PDE 184 5.2 Frequency of use of two types of root have to in PDE 185 5.3 Frequency of use of three types of root must in EModE, LModE, and PDE 197 5.4 The distribution of an imposee in terms of whether it is encoded as a subject referent 216 5.5 The distribution of an imposee in terms of its person 217 5.6 The distribution of an imposee in terms of its agentivity 219 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It goes without saying that many people fully provided academic, physical, and mental help with the completion of the present thesis. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Masuhiro Nomura, my advisor in doctoral course. His undoubtedly wide and deep insight on (especially cognitive and functional) linguistics and its related areas (such as philosophy and logic) always stimulated me. He also put in a really large amount of time and energy on reading and critiquing earlier versions of the present thesis, and always encouraged me to make public my research by giving presentations at academic conferences. I cannot imagine having completed the present thesis without his generous advice, encouragement, and patience. Next, I must remember to thank Hidemitsu Takahashi, my prior advisor in bachelor and master courses. He interested me in functional and cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, and also taught me how to write a logical and interesting academic thesis. Thanks to his constant help and encouragement, I managed to complete my master’s thesis, on which the present thesis is based. I am also grateful to Shigehiro Kato for his insightful comments on this thesis. His undoubtedly broad insight on linguistics (and especially on pragmatics) gave me a lot of incentive to improve this research in the future. I was also blessed with the opportunities to attend special lectures of prominent linguists: Ronald W. Langacker (on cognitive grammar), viii Keisuke Onoe and Yoshio Nitta (on modality), and Kunihiko Imai (on relevance theory). All of them kindly answered my questions after their lectures, and helped me understand their research areas and phenomena. My thanks also go to Mariko Goto Higuchi for recommending me to read her insightful doctoral dissertation, sharing the interest in modality, and encouraging me to go ahead with the present study. Portions of this thesis are based on my published papers and oral presentations done in academic conferences. Chapters 3 through 5 include data and (sometimes largely) revised discussions from papers I presented at The English Literary Society of Japan, Hokkaido Branch, Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, English Linguistics Society of Japan, and International Cognitive Linguistics Association. For their valuable comments, criticisms, and questions, I thank Tomoko Endo, Hideto Hamada, Hideo Ishida, Nobuyuki Ishii, Kazuki Iwahashi, Katsunobu Izutsu, Hiroyuki Kageyama, Seizo Kasai, Takehiko Kurihara, Mariko Kurotaki, Mitsuru Maeda, Masanobu Masuda, Yusuke Minami, Kunie Miyaura, Masakatsu Mizuno, Hiroyuki Morikawa, Tetsuharu Moriya, Yuichi Mori, Shunichiro Nagatomo, Akiko Naito, Heizo Nakajima, Hirozo Nakano, Mitsuko Yamashita Nieda, Yoshihiro Nishimitsu, Kimihiro Ohno, Satoshi Oku, Haruhiko Ono, Masaki Sano, Yukito Seta, Ken-ichi Seto, Makoto Shimizu, Hiroaki Tanaka, Seiji Ueno, Hisao Tokizaki, Hirotaka Tomozawa, and Yoshihiro Yamada. I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the staffs and fellow students in Hokkaido University: Michiko Ezoe, Susumu Hidaka, Mitsuko Narita Izutsu, Ken-ichi Kasai, Hidenori Kitahara, Yayoi ix Miyashita, Yuko Mizuno, Lisa Mizushima, Erina Munetomo, Yumiko Okada, Midori Okamura, Masatsugu Ono, Nina Petrishcheva, Mizuho Sakamoto, Megumi Seto, Takashi Sugahara, Haruna Suzuki, Nohara Takeuchi, Shogo Terasaki, Nozomi Torimoto Yasuhiro Tsushima, and Emi Yokomura. They gave me valuable comments for portions of this thesis. In addition, the talk with them, whether on linguistic or non-linguistic issues, always relaxed and encouraged me. I would also like to thank Shugo Yamazoe, at Sapporo Gakuin University, for his warm and constant encouragement while I was working as a part-time lecturer with him and writing this thesis. I would like to thank Randy L. Evans, Tim Grose, Mark Holst, Mark Irwin, and Raquel Romine for their judgments and valuable comments on my examples.