Article published In:
DiachronicaVol. 32:1 (2015) ► pp.34–68
Competing modals
Beyond (inter)subjectification
This paper presents the results of a corpus-based diachronic investigation into the semantic evolution of the Dutch modals kunnen “can”, mogen “may” and moeten “must”, revealing an interaction between processes of (inter)subjectification and of semantic competition (‘no synonymy’). Mogen and kunnen do, but moeten does not, show an evolution in terms of (inter)subjectification. But developments in mogen and kunnen also show an effect of the fact that historically they have been competing for the same semantic ground. There is no comparable competition for semantic ground in moeten. This strongly suggests an interaction between the ‘no synonymy’ principle and (inter)subjectification, whereby the former may actually trigger the latter.
References (54)
Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell. 
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 21. 119–127.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Byloo, Pieter. 2009. Modality and negation. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.
Byloo, Pieter & Jan Nuyts. 2011. The diachrony of Dutch mogen
. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 1131. 1–192.
. 2014. Meaning change in the Dutch core modals: (Inter)subjectification in a grammatical paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 461. 85–116.
. Forthcoming. The diachrony of Dutch moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.
CD-ROM Middelnederlands. 1998. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1964. Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 21. 139–186.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Diepeveen, Janneke, Ronny Boogaart, Jenneke Brantjes, Pieter Byloo, Theo Janssen & Jan Nuyts. 2006. Modale uitdrukkingen in Belgisch-Nederlands en Nederlands-Nederlands. Münster, Germany: Nodus.
Dik, Simon. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, vol. 11. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Duinhoven, A.M. 1997. Middelnederlandse syntaxis, vol. 2, De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foley, William & Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde van Aken, Vicky van den Heede & Dirk Speelman. 2000. Het ConDiv-corpus geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 51. 356–363.
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 561. 515–540.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 251. 127–157.
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2003. Analogical change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 441–460. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroesch, Samuel. 1926. Analogy as a factor in semantic change. Language 21. 35–45.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 5–38.
. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter.
. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptual archetypes. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification, 17–40. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1985. The influence of semantic fields on semantic change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics — Historical word formation, 283–296. Berlin: De Gruyter.
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques. Bern: Francke.
Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nederlandse Taalunie. 2004. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.
Nuyts, Jan. 2001a. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 383–400.
. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Alex Klinge & Henrik H. Müller (eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function, 5–38. London: Equinox.
. 2006. Modality. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton.
. 2007.
Kunnen diachroon. Taal en Tongval 591. 118–148.
. 2008. Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61. 185–207.
. 2009a. The ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 471. 141–171.
. 2009b. The Dutch modals and (de)grammaticalization. In Stef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers & Mieke van Herreweghe (eds.), From will to well, 347–355. Ghent: Academia Press.
. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 51. 53–76.
. 2013. De-auxiliarization without de-modalization in the Dutch core modals: A case of collective degrammaticalization? Language Sciences 361. 124–133.
. Forthcoming. Analyses of the modal meanings. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Oxford handbook of mood and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo & Janneke Diepeveen. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten
. Journal of Pragmatics 421. 16–34.
Oertel, Hanns. 1901. Lectures on the study of language. New York: Scribner’s.
Ostaeyen, Gert Van & Jan Nuyts. 2004. De diachronie van kunnen
. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 1091. 1–186.
Pijnenburg, W.J.J., K.H. van Dalen-Oskam, K.A.C. Depuydt & T.H. Schoonheim (eds.). 2001. Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek. Leiden: Gopher Publishers.
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning, with special reference to the English language. Gothenburg: Elander.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. Language 651. 31–55.
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein & Suzanne Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Traugott, Elizabeth & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trier, Jost. 1931. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
Valin, Robert Van & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Cai, Yingying & Hendrik De Smet
2024. Are categories’ cores more isomorphic than their peripheries?. Frontiers in Communication 9 
Nuyts, Jan
2024. On the link between grammaticalization and subjectification. Studies in Language 48:3 ► pp. 608 ff.
Almela-Sánchez, Moisés
2023. Daniela Pettersson-Traba, The development of the concept of SMELL in American English: A usage-based view of near-synonymy (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 51). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2022. Pp. xviii + 270. ISBN 9783110792201.. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff.
Coussé, Evie & Gerlof Bouma
2022. Semantic scope restrictions in complex verb constructions in Dutch. Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 123 ff.
Inglese, Guglielmo
2022. How do middle voice markers and valency reducing constructions interact? Typological tendencies and diachronic considerations. Folia Linguistica 56:2 ► pp. 239 ff.
Kolyaseva, Alena
2022. The Russian prepositional TIPA and VRODE in online student discourse: evidence of attraction?. Linguistics 60:5 ► pp. 1451 ff.
Nesset, Tore
2022. Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics,
Pettersson-Traba, Daniela
2022. Chapter 7. Distributional changes in synonym sets. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 359], ► pp. 120 ff.
Koohkan, Sepideh & Jan Nuyts
2021. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification in an Iranian modal verb: A paradox resolved by Dutch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41:4 ► pp. 389 ff.
Tantucci, Vittorio
2021. Language and Social Minds,
Abraham, Werner
2020. Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics,
Gregersen, Sune
2020. Language death, modality, and functional explanations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52:1 ► pp. 117 ff.
Thegel, Miriam & Josefin Lindgren
2020. Subjective and intersubjective modality: a quantitative approach to Spanish modal verbs. Studia Neophilologica 92:1 ► pp. 124 ff.
Caers, Wim & Sune Gregersen
2019. Wat mutt, dat mutt*.
Nederlandse Taalkunde
24:3 ► pp. 399 ff.
Fonteyn, Lauren & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2018. Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalization of English gerunds. Diachronica 35:4 ► pp. 487 ff.
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova
Nuyts, Jan, Henri-Joseph Goelen & Wim Caers
2018. Hoeven diachroon. Taal en Tongval 70:1 ► pp. 17 ff.
Smet, Hendrik De, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 197 ff.
FONTEYN, LAUREN
2017. The aggregate and the individual: thoughts on what non-alternating authors reveal about linguistic alternations – a response to Petré. English Language and Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 251 ff.
Harmes, Ingeborg
2017. A synchronic and diachronic study of the Dutch Auxiliary “Zou(den)”. In Evidentiality Revisited [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 271], ► pp. 149 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 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.