Talmy’s “greater modal system”: fitting in verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s)

Talmy’s “greater modal system”: fitting in verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s)

Within a force-dynamic approach, Talmy (2000: 443ff) argued for a “greater modal system”, including causative verbs such as make, let and have, in addition to core modal auxiliaries such as can and must. Both sets of verbs take bare infinitival complements and can semantically be analyzed in force-dynamic terms. However, causative verbs, like other open-class verbs with force-dynamic semantics, such as forbid, map modal roles onto argument structure roles differently, allowing the subject to code the Antagonist (I made him study vs. He must study).
In this corpus-based study we first want to present a typology of verbo-nominal constructions with chance(s) (henceforth VNCs) in order to investigate the role of VNCs in the “greater modal system”. We will argue that they enrich it in three ways. Firstly, they expand the inventory of epistemic (2), dynamic (3), volitional (4) and deontic (5) modal expressions, as they appear to be functionally equivalent to modal auxiliaries. Secondly, they also go beyond the functional reach of core modal auxiliaries by still allowing lexical uses, as shown in (1), which is no longer possible for the core modals. Thirdly, they can express ‘caused modality’ in augmented event structures that add a (positive/negative) causative operator to the basic modal meaning, as in (6).
Based on synchronic data extracted from the British spoken and written subcorpora of WordBanksOnline, this study will provide detailed lexicogrammatical descriptions of the constructions featuring NPs with chance, taking into account such decategorialization reflexes as determiner drop, reduction in adjectives, loss of singular-plural contrast, etc. This case study gives further support for Talmy’s “greater modal system”, as the VNCs studied evidence the conceptual connection between basic and caused modal meanings that is at the basis of this greater system.

Examples
(1) Many also devote inside pages to the policies and characters of the three contenders, and assess their chances of winning (brspoken)
[lexical use]

(2) I mean fair enough if you're really interested in the course then chances are you'll go out and buy the books (brspoken)
[epistemic probability: ‘it is likely you go out and buy the books’]

(3) It's such a fab feeling having a make-over with everyone fussing over you. I love everything about this outfit but what makes it more special is that I'd never get the chance to wear something like this back home on a night out. (brwritten)
[participant-imposed impossibility: I would never be able to wear ...]

(4) But chief executive Rick Parry is backing boss Rafael Benitez to lead a drive for honours that will convince local boy Gerrard to stay with the club he has supported since he was a boy. Parry said: “There is no chance of Stevie going in January. That just won’t happen. Our intention is that we will never let him go. (brspoken)
[volition: Stevie shall not go; we won’t let Stevie go]

(5) What about erm do you think while you were at school there was anything that you weren’t allowed to do because you were a girl? -- Mm . <tc text="pause"/> E as well we had the chance to play football (brspoken)
[permission: we were allowed to play football at school]

(6) While executing their children's killers would not bring back their loved ones, it would at least act as a catharsis, giving all concerned a better chance to move on with their lives (brwritten) [enable: ‘make it possible for them’]
Corpus
WordbanksOnline Corpus https://wordbanks.harpercollins.co.uk/

References
Boye, K., & P. Harder. 2012. Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44.
Brems, L. & K. Davidse. 2010. Complex subordinators derived from noun complement clauses. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42 (2): 101-116.
Davidse, Kristin, Simon De Wolf & An Van linden. 2015. The development of (there/it is / I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 25-58.
Narrog, Heiko, 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27, 165–192.
Nuyts, Jan, 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In: Klinge, A., Müller, H. H. (eds.), Modality: Studies in Form and Function. Equinox, London, pp. 5–38.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1979. Leibniz: an introduction to his philosophy (APQ library of philosophy). Oxford: Blackwell.
Saad, K., W. Parmentier, L. Brems, K. Davidse & A. Van linden. The development of modal, polar and mirative no way-constructions. ICAME 33, Leuven, 30 May-3 June 2012.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I. Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge:, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press.
Van linden, A., K. Davidse & L. Brems. Have/be no need: the interaction between negation and modality in verbonominal pathways of change. ICHL 20, Osaka, 25-30 July 2011.
Van linden, An & Freek Van de Velde. 2014. (Semi-)autonomous subordination in Dutch: Structures and semantic-pragmatic values. Journal of Pragmatics 60: 226–250.
Van linden, An, Kristin Davidse & Lennart Matthijs. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: From lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen - Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 99-100: 385-409.