Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 25:3 (2018) ► pp.392–412

Variation between modal adverbs in British English

The cases of maybe and perhaps

| Japan Society for the Promotion of Science | Setsunan University | Kyoto University
This study investigates the use and distribution of the synonymous adverbs maybe and perhaps in order to determine their functional similarities and differences. After extracting usage data from the British National Corpus (BNC), this study explores the following factors by analyzing the target adverbs in a larger context: (i) the kind of register, (ii) the kind of NP chosen as the subject in maybe/perhaps clauses, (iii) the kind of modal verb used in the same clause, and (iv) the position occupied by the target adverbs in a clause. The corpus analysis demonstrates that maybe is more prone to subjective use while perhaps is a more strongly grammaticalized item, and that the factors related to a highly subjective context contribute much to the variation between the adverbs. In addition, I suggest that both maybe and perhaps (in combination with modal verbs or in final position) can be used in an intersubjective context.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous descriptions of maybe and perhaps
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Distribution in speech and writing
    • 4.2Modal collocations
    • 4.3Subject form
    • 4.4Position
    • 4.5Grammaticality and (inter)subjectivity
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
References (66)
References
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2). 337–351.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 111. 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1). 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech & Susan Conrad. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 21. 119–127.Google Scholar
. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 821. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2004. Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause. Lingua 1141. 755–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 271. 497–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adverbs and light verbs. In Lauren E. Clemens & Chi-Ming L. Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18) 2, 178–195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.). 2003. Modality in contemporary English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Henry W. 2004. Fowler’s modern English usage, 3rd edn. Revised by Robert W. Burchfield. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 61. 322–361.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Irén Hegedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 153–175. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication 32(3). 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, Leo. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hoye, Leo & Mihai Zdrenghea. 1995. Modals and adverbs in English with reference to Romanian. Rask 21. 25–50.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 337–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1972. The pragmatics of modality. CLS 81. 229–246.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larkin, Don. 1976. Some notes on English modals. In James D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 387–398. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Longman Language Activator, 2nd edn. 2002. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). 2013. English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford Thesaurus of English, 3rd edn. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 1161. 1688–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–249. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11. 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, Michael. 2005. Practical English usage, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence adverbials in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 2007. A multi-model modal theory of I-semantics: Part I: Modals. Tokyo: University of Tokyo manuscript.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2002. An introduction to American English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651. 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1984. An analysis of epistemic possibility and probability. English Studies 65(2). 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Zhou, Jiangping & Yanhua Xia
2024. Register-based distribution of expressions of modality in COCA. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Molencki, Rafał
2021. The Grammaticalization of the Epistemic Adverb Perhaps in Late Middle and Early Modern English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56:s1 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Jiangping
2021. A corpus-based study of successive patterns of Chinese modals. Asian Languages and Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 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.