Cover not available
Part of
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 13–52

Contractions, constructions and constructional change

Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective

| Kiel University
In this paper, I argue that construction grammarians may have to consider integrating modal contractions into the English modal system as distinct constructions rather than variants of their uncontracted forms. Based on data from COHA, it can be shown that the contractions investigated here have emancipated themselves from the full forms both in terms of relative usage frequency as well as function over the past two centuries, thus yielding a series of constructional changes. From a usage-based, constructionist perspective, these results contribute to modelling the modal network as possibly represented in the minds of speakers, but they also support the understanding that this network appears to be much more heterogeneous than perhaps desired (by some linguists).
Keywords: modal contractions, Construction Grammar, constructional change, COHA
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.English modal verb contractions across textbooks, grammars and corpus-based studies
  • 3.The constructionhood of modal contractions: Three case studies
    • 3.1Formal properties of contracted modal cxns
      • 3.1.1The negative contractions can’t and won’t
      • 3.1.2The enclitic ’d
    • 3.2Corpus selection and outline for data exploration
    • 3.3Relative frequency distribution across time
    • 3.4Changes in the collostructional behavior of the alternations
    • 3.5Modelling speakers’ choice between a contracted modal cxn and its full form
  • 4.From contractions to constructions
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora, software, packages and scripts
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.02dau
References (88)
Corpora, software, packages and scripts
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Scheipl, F., Grothendieck, G., Green, P. & Fox, J. (2019). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1–21. [URL]
Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S. & Matsuo, A. (2018). quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at [URL]
Flach, S. (2017). collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. R package version 0.1.0. [URL]
Gries, S. T. & Hilpert, M. (2012). vnc.individual.RData. R workspace. [URL]
Harrell, F. E. (2019). rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 5.1–3. [URL]
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Schweinberger, M. (2014). Function for mixed-effects customized binomial logistic regression results. R script (unpublished). Hamburg University.Google Scholar
(2018). The amplifier system of Australian English. R script (unpublished). The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
References
Axelsson, M. W. (1998). Contraction in British newspapers in the late 20th century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Y. (2005). Expressions of future in present-day English: A corpus-based approach. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. (2008). Shall and shan’t in contemporary English: A case of functional condensation. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 113–143). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 390–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2004). Modal use across register and time. In A. Curzan & K. Emmons (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language 2 (pp. 189–216). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–491). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugs, R. (2017). On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In T. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and explorations. Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL]
De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4), 329–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I. & Reed, S. (2011). Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faraway, J. J. (2016). Extending the linear model with R: Generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models, 2nd edn. Boka Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Foley, M. & Hall, D. (2012). MyGrammarLab: Advanced C1/C2. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 42(169), 67–82.Google Scholar
(2013a). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 458–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we recognize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1980). Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In S. Greenbaum, J. Svartvik, R. Quirk & G. Leech (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk (pp. 65–78). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannsen, B. & Flach, S. (2015). Systematicity beyond obligatoriness in the history of the English progressive. Paper presented at ICAME 36, 27–31 May, Trier.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (1997). On contraction in modern English. Studia Neophilologica, 69(2), 155–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45(4), 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., Ash, S. & Boberg, C. (2006). The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1992). Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991 (pp. 105–22). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 223–240). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
(2013). Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In J. I. Marín-Arerese, M. Carretero, J. Arús Hita & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 95–115). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. (2019). Towards a theory of communicative Efficiency in human languages. Leipzig: Leipzig University post-doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013a). Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
(2013b). From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In H. Hasselgård, J. Ebeling & S. O. Ebeling (Eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis (pp. 133–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013c). On-going change in English modality: Emancipation through frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 43(1), 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millar, N. (2009). Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 191–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2010). The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse? English Language and Linguistics, 14(2), 163–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll. In M. Hundt (Ed.), Late Modern English syntax (pp. 77–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[OED] Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Available online at [URL]
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmidtke, K. (2009). Going-to-V and gonna-V in child language: A quantitative approach to constructional development. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 509–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweinberger, M. (2019). A sociolinguistic analysis of emotives. Corpus Pragmatics, 3(4), 327–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. (2005). A corpus-based investigation of recent change in the use of the progressive in British English. Lancaster: Lancaster University dissertation.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. & Luís, A. R. (2012). Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 257–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Flach, S. (2017). The Corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we recognize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 101–127). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2003). Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31(4), 295–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2016). Response to Wärnsby. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 54–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wärnsby, A. (2002). Modal constructions? The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 59(3), 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Daugs, Robert & David Lorenz
2024. A radically usage-based, collostructional approach to assessing the differences between negative modal contractions and their parent forms. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2024. The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might . Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Ulrike
2023.  I couldn’t help but wonder: do modals and negation attract?. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Levshina, Natalia & David Lorenz
2022. Communicative efficiency and the Principle of No Synonymy: predictability effects and the variation ofwant toandwanna. Language and Cognition 14:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2020. Chapter 2. Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2022. English modal enclitic constructions: a diachronic, usage-based study of’dand’ll. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Lorenz, David
2020. Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020. Chapter 4. Not just frequency, not just modality. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.