Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.130–161

The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might

ORCID logo | University of Paris 8
The decline of certain core modals in English, including may and might, is a well-documented phenomenon (cf. Daugs 2017). It is less clear, however, whether this tendency will lead to the loss of these modals or whether other changes are also underway. I aim to address this issue by looking at the use of may and might in concessive clauses. I will first present the results of a corpus study (COHA) aimed at understanding the diachronic development of concessive may and might. The analysis reveals a significant increase of may and might in concessive contexts since the 1960s, especially in factual concessives with but. This new finding is important as it shows that, though decreasing in frequency, the two modals are developing new patterns of use. This raises the question whether the status of may and might as modal verbs is also changing. I argue that the two verbs are going through a process of post-modal (secondary) grammaticalisation and constructionalisation, and that the concessive meaning is linked to the more complex ‘subj {may/might} VP, but-clause’ construction. I also claim that, within the paradigm of concessive constructions, those with may and might are best viewed as hedged concessives that serve politeness purposes.
Keywords: may , might , concessive, post-modal grammaticalisation, hedging, politeness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Quantitative overview
  • 4. May and might: Concessive?
  • 5.A constructional analysis of ‘concessive’ may and might
  • 6.From modals to ‘hedged concessives’
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
References (77)
References
Aarts, B., Bowie, J., & Wallis, S. (2015). Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence (pp. 48–76). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S. (2007). Definitely maybe: Modality clusters and politeness in spoken discourse. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 257–274). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auwera, J. van der, & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2 1, 79–124.Google Scholar
Baranzini, L., & Mari, A. (2019). From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal of Pragmatics, 142 1, 116–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, J. L. (1997). Epistemic modality and discourse connectivity. Pragmalingüística, 3–41, 223–240.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. (2nd Edn.) John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouscaren, J., & Chuquet, J. (1987). Grammaire et textes anglais. Guide pour l’analyse linguistique. Ophrys.Google Scholar
Breban, T., & Kranich, S. (2015). What happens after grammaticalization? Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. (Special issue) Language Sciences, 47 (Part B), 129–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1995). The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleishman (Eds.), Modality and grammar in discourse (pp. 503–517). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I., & Lesuisse, M. (2019). The necessity modals have to, must, need to and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11 (2), 220–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2021). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language, 36 (1), 108–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Arnon, I. (2017). More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9 1, 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi. 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. VARIENG. Available at: [URL]
(2020). Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals: A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity of modal development. In P. Hohaus & R. Schulze (Eds.), Re-assessing modalising expressions: Categories, co-text, and context (pp. 17–46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Contractions, constructions and constructional change. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 12–52). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). English modal enclitic constructions: A diachronic, usage-based study of ’d and ’ll . Cognitive Linguistics, 33 (1), 221–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online at [URL]
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
(2011). The definition of modality. In A. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp. 21–44). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I. & B. Cappelle. (2023). English modals: An outline of their forms, meanings and uses. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp. 14–59). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I., B. Cappelle, M. Hilpert, L. De Cuypere, M. Dehouck, P. Denis, S. Flach, N. Grabar, C. Grandin, T. Hamon, C. Hufeld, B. Leclercq & H.-J. Schmid. (2023). Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G. (2019). Hedged performatives and (inter)subjectivity. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) – Workshop: Pragmatic markers and clause peripheries (Organized by J. Šinkūnienė and D. Van Olmen) . Leipzig, Germany, August 2019.
Depraetere, I., & Langford, C. (2020). Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. (2nd Edn.) Continuum.Google 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
(2021). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts, A. McMahon & L. Hinrichs (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (2nd Ed.) (pp. 207–227). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (pp. 187–210). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A. (2011). Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 92–105). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gresset, S. (2012). De l’in/attendu dans les énoncés concessifs avec MAY. Illustration à partir d’un discours de Barack Obama. Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre, 66–67 1, 51–67.Google Scholar
Gresset, S., & Mélis, G. (2020). Concession, intensité assertive et argumentation–étude comparée de deux constructions concessives en anglais. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 29 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F. (2012). The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of must . English Studies, 93 (6), 700–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B. (2017). What happens after grammaticalization? Post-grammaticalization processes in the area of modality. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp. 257–280). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction grammar and its application to English. (2nd ed.) Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. (2nd Edn.) Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K., et al. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1994). Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English. English Studies, 72 (2), 166–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13 1, 59–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawabata, T. (2010). On the rise of but-concessive constructions: From the viewpoint of grammaticalization. In M. Kytö, J. Scahill & H. Tanabe (Eds.), Language change and variation from old English to late modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (pp. 303–325). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kranich, S. (2021). Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English. In S. Kranich & T. Brenan (Eds.), Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions (pp. 261–289). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapaire, J.-M., & Rotgé, W. (1991). Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.Google Scholar
Larreya, P., & Rivière, C. (2010). Grammaire explicative de l’anglais. (4th Edn.) Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2022). From modals to modal constructions: An n-gram analysis of can, could and be able to . Constructions and Frames, 14 (2), 226–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Modality revisited: Combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp. 60–92). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Linguistic knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb. (3rd Edn.). Longman.Google Scholar
Love, R., & Curry, N. (2021). Recent change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language and Linguistics, 25 (3), 537–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. (2021). Recent advances in the corpus-based study of ongoing grammatical change in English. Text & Talk, 41 (5–6), 763–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 47 1, 148–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp. 19–46). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. (2nd Edn.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2000). On speech-act modality. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 1, 519–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8 1, 305–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing. Vianna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rossari, C., Montrichard, C., Ricci, C., & Sanvido, L. (2022). Pouvoir et peut-être: approche textométrique de leur valeur post-modale de concession. Paper presented at La postmodalité et les cycles de vie des expressions modales. Université de Caen, 2–3 June 2022.
Scheurweghs, G. (1959). Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns. Longman.Google Scholar
Souesme, J.-C. (2009). MAY in concessive contexts. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English. Theory and description (pp. 159–176). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, K. (2003). On factual may . English Linguistics, 20 (2), 441–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). Modality. In E. Sweetser (Ed.), From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics (pp. 49–75). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003a). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Politt, Katja
2024. Co(n)texts in Grammatical Paradigms. CogniTextes Volume 25 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.