Patterns and Variation in English Language Discourse. 9th Brno Conference on Linguistics Studies in English
KapitolaPossibility modals in English tourism discourse: Variation across three web registers
Rok vydání: 2022https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P280-0212-2022-7
Abstrakt
The present study explores central modals CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT, and the semi-auxiliary verb BE ABLE TO in tourism discourse with a focus on register variation. A small-scale analysis conducted on the tailor-made corpus (c. 131,000 words) of three text types/registers (promotional texts,
e-newsletters, and managerial responses to guests’ reviews) revealed an important variation across registers in the distribution of possibility modals, the degree to which their polysemantic nature is displayed and in their capacity to serve specific metadiscoursal functions. The findings clearly indicate that the causes of the observed variation lie in the influence stemming from the differing situational characteristics, especially communicative purposes, interactiveness, topic domains, and personal involvement.
Klíčová slova
possibility modals, tourism discourse, register, epistemic possibility, root possibility, metadiscourse
Reference
Anthony, L. (2018) AntConc (Version 3.5.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Online software. 5 March 2019 <https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software>.
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2019) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136
Biber, D. and Egbert, J. (2018) Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228
Biber, D. and Kurijan, J. (2007) ‘Towards a taxonomy of web registers and text types: a multidimensional analysis.’ In: Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N. and Biewer, C. (eds) Corpus
Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 109-131.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Calvi, M. V. (2010) ‘Los géneros discursivos en la lengua del turismo: una propuesta de clasificación.’ Ibérica 19, 9-32.
Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Coates, J. (1995) ‘The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English.’ In: Bybee, J. L. and Fleischman, S. (eds) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.04coa
Collins, P. C. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029095
Depraetere, I. (2016) ‘Modality.’ In: Riemer, N. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London and New York: Routledge. 370-386.
Fraser, B. (2010) ‘Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging.’ In: Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S. (eds) New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald. 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003
Holmes, J. (1982) ‘Expressing doubt and certainty in English.’ RELC journal, 13(2), 9-28. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Huschová, P. (2014) ‘Possibility readings of can and may and their potential interchangeability.’ Brno Studies in English 40(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2014-1-5
Huschová, P. (2015) ‘Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse.’ Discourse and Interaction 8(2), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2015-2-35
Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.
Incelli, E. A. (2017) ‘A cross-cultural contrastive analysis of interpersonal markers in promotional discourse in travel agency websites.’ In: Palumbo, G. (ed.) Testi, Corpora, Confronti Interlinguistici: Approcci Qualitativi e Quantitativi. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. 65-86. Online document. 15 February 2021 <https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstream/10077/18481/4/Incelli_Testi_corpora.pdf>.
Kjellmer, G. (2003) ‘A modal shock absorber, empathiser/emphasiser and qualifier.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 145-186. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.01kje
Leech, G. (2004) Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.
Maci, S. M. (2007) ‘Virtual touring: The web-language of tourism.’ Linguistica e Filologia 25, 41-65.
Maci, S. M. (2018) ‘An introduction to English tourism discourse.’ Sociolinguistica 32(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2018-0004
Manca, E. (2016) Persuasion in Tourism Discourse. Methodologies and Models. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Palmer, F. R. (1990) Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (2001) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Radovanović, A. (2020) ‘The modal expression of necessity in English for tourism.’ ESP Today 8(2), 275-296. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2020.8.2.5
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2012) ‘Páginas web institucionales de promoción turística: el uso metadiscursivo interpersonal en inglés y español.’ In: Sanmartín Sáez, J. (ed.) Discurso Turístico e Internet. Madrid: Lingüística Iberoamericana Vervuert. 125-154. https://doi.org/10.31819/9783865278791-005
Suau-Jiménez, F. (2019) ‘Engagement of readers/customers in the discourse of e-tourism promotional genres.’ In: Sancho Guinda, C. (ed.) Engagement in Professional Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.301.18sua