AUTOR(I): Tiana M. Tošić Lojanica
E-ADRESA: tiana.tosic@filum.kg.ac.rs
DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2148.105TL
SAŽETAK:
The paper investigates two constructions commonly thought to be semantically equivalent, S can V and S be able to V. Both modal can and semi-modal be able to are used to express ability that could be described as either mental or acquired accomplishment, pertaining to past or present. The difference between them is typically denoted as general ability or that someone managed to do something on a particular occasion. If not limited by the main verb (e.g. there is a constraint against can after another modal verb), can and be able to are mostly interchangeable. Starting from the premise that every construction carries meaning which is dependent on the meaning of lexical elements occurring in that construction, the aim is to shed light on the usage of the two verb constructions and the degree of their interchangeability by examining their complements. To compare and contrast the two constructions, we rely on a corpus-based and quantitative method of collostructional analysis (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004), or specifically on distinctive collexeme analysis which allows us to determine if the V slot in the construction is preferred by or restricted to particular lexemes. As S can V and S be able to V are highly attested in the corpus, the research is restricted only to their meaning of the present ability
KLJUČNE REČI:
Construction, can, be able to, present ability, collostructional analysis, collexeme analysis, corpus analysis
LITERATURA:
Celce-Murcia, Larsen-Freeman 1999: M. Celce-Murcia, D. Larsen-Freeman, Thegrammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course, Boston, MA: Heinleand Heinle. Downing, Locke 2006: A. Downing, P. Locke, English Grammar: A University Course, 2nd ed, Abingdon and New York: Routledge
Flach 2017: S. Flach, Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods, R package version 0.1.0, www.bit.ly/sflach
Goldberg 1995: A. E. Goldberg, Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press
Goldberg 2006: A. E. Goldberg, Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gries, Stefanowitsch 2004: S. T. Gries, A. Stefanowitsch, Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.”, International Jour- nal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.
Gries et al. 2005: S. T. Gries, B. Hampe, D. Schönefeld, Converging evidence: Bring- ing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions, Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–76.
Gries 2012: S. T. Gries, Collostructions, in: Peter Robinson (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of second language acquisition, New York & London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 92–95.
Hilpert 2014: M. Hilpert, Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements, in: D. Glynn and J. A. Robinson (eds.), CorpusMethods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 391–404.
Michaelis 2004: L. A. Michaelis, Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Inte- grated Approach to Aspectual Coercion, Cognitive Linguistics, 15: 1–67.
Quirk et al. 1985: R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman
Schmid, Küchenhoff 2013: H. Schmid, H. Küchenhoff, Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings, Cognitive Linguistics 24, 531–577.
Stefanowitsch, Gries 2003: A. Stefanowitsch, S.T. Gries, Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
Source:
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/, retrieved in August 2020.