Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning
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: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.09moe
References (25)
References
Anderson, John. 1991. Should. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 11–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorrell, Joseph Hendren. 1895. Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MED: Middle English Dictionary. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar