Chapter published in:
English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning. Papers from the XXth ICEHL
Edited by Bettelou Los, Claire Cowie, Patrick Honeybone and Graeme Trousdale
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 358] 2022
► pp. 225–242

Chapter 9
Should with non-past reference

A corpus-based diachronic study

| RWTH Aachen University
This chapter combines a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the use of should with non-past reference in the historical periods Old English, Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). It is based on data from the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts and the Middle English Dictionary. The quantitative analysis detects a few late ME examples, but establishes EModE as the period when should with non-past reference became firmly established, and from the qualitative analysis the conclusion is derived that should as a competitor of the present subjunctive in mandative constructions developed as a result of its meaning extension from obligation to other shades of non-fact modality.
Keywords: quantitative analysis, qualitative interpretation, mandative construction, Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), Early Modern English (EModE), meaning extension, main clause, relative clause, noun clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Setting the scene
  • 2.Structure of the paper and research method
  • 3.Uses of should in the historical periods of English
  • 4.Quantitative analysis
    • 4.1Old English
    • 4.2Middle English
    • 4.3Early Modern English
  • 5.Interpretation of the quantitative results
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 February 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.09moe
References
Anderson, John
1991 Should. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 11–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bramley, H. R.
1874 S. Gregorii Magni regulæ patoralis liber. S. Gregory on the pastoral charge: The Benedictine text, with an English Translation. Oxford: James Parker and Co.Google Scholar
BT: Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller
1898 An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992 Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume 2. 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson & Henry Kucera
1979 Brown Corpus manual: Manual of information to accompany a standard corpus of Present-Day edited American English for use with digital computers. http://​icame​.uib​.no​/brown​/bcm​.html
Goossens, Louis
1987 The auxiliarization of the English modals: A functional grammar view. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 111–143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorrell, Joseph Hendren
1895 Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
HC: The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts
1991 Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne
1998 It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English. In Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin & Maria Estling (eds.), The major varieties of English. Papers from Maven 97, Växjö 20–22 November 1997 (Acta Wexionensia Humaniora 1), 159–175. Växjö University.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko
2017 Recent changes in the use of the verb ‘forbid’. Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Kyoto University 56. 195–218.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, Geoffrey Leech & Helen Goodluck
1978 Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Mendez Naya
1996 On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests. Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97. 411–421.Google Scholar
2006 Complement selection in Early English dependent desires: A look at commands and requests. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 14. 33–53.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou
2005 The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo
1992 Relative constructions and functional amalgamation in Early Modern English. In Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 336–351. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary
https://​www​.oed​.com/
Ogawa, Hiroshi
1989 Old English modal verbs: A syntactical study. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1999 Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume 3. 1066–1476, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry
1872 King Alfred’s West-Saxon version of Gregory’s pastoral care (EETS 45/50). London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1972 A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1992 Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume 1. The Beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th
1963–1973 An historical syntax of the English language. Three Volumes. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony
1993 English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar