Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 22:2 (2015) ► pp.192–231

Comparative modals

(Dis)similar diachronic tendencies

| University of Leuven & FWO — Research Foundation Flanders

This article examines modal expressions with the comparative adverbs better, rather and sooner in American English, and assesses to what extent they have grammaticalized. The corpus data offer evidence that the three comparative modal groups exhibit considerable phonetic reduction in the 1810–2009 period studied. Analysis of several aspects of the constructions, such as subject types, temporal reference and comparative meaning, reveals which conditions promoted this erosion. However, the data also indicate that the three groups are semantically and constructionally quite heterogeneous. In fact, this article proposes a grammaticalization scenario for the rather and sooner structures that is different from the one posited for the better structures.

Published online: 10 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.2.02lin
References (51)
Bybee, Joan & William Pagliuca
1987 The evolution of future meaning. In Anna Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, & Giuliano Beraini (eds.), Papers from the 7th International conference on historical linguistics, 109–122. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1995 The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 503–517. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1983 The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter
2009 Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coorevits, Laura
2012 “I would sooner die than do it”: A corpus-based analysis of (would/had/’d) sooner/rather in Late Modern and Present-Day English. Leuven: University of Leuven BA thesis.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2010– The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991 A comprehensive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Denison, David
1993 English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1998 Syntax. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4, 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Denison, David & Alison Cort
2010  Better as a verb. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 349–383. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elmer, Willy
1981 Diachronic grammar: The history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions (Linguistische Arbeiten 97). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Frank Palmer & Manfred Krug
(eds.) 2003 Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Anette Rosenbach
2000 Introduction. In Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English, 1–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franz, Wilhelm
1900 Shakespeare-Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis
1985 The auxiliarization of the English modals. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for general linguistics.Google Scholar
Hall, Fitzedward
1881 On the origin of ‘had rather go’ and analogous or apparently analogous locutions. American Journal of Philology 2(7). 281–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York, NY: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1988 English grammar. An outline. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt
1980 On the syntax and semantics of the modal auxiliary had better . Studia Neophilologica 521. 47–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1894 Progress in language, with special reference to English. London: Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Klinge, Alex
1993 The English modal auxiliaries. From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29(2). 315–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klippenstein, Rachel
2012 The Behavior-before-Coding Principle in morphosyntactic change: Evidence from verbal rather . Extended abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. URL [URL].
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor
2000 Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. 2nd edn. [URL].
Krug, Manfred
2000 Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2003 Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, & Manfred Krug (eds.), 225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith
2009 Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995 [1982] Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 2nd rev. edn. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía
2010 Verbonominal constructions of necessity with þearf n. and need n.: Competition and grammaticalization from OE to eModE. English Language and Linguistics 141. 373–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Middle English Dictionary
[URL].
Mitchell, Keith
2003  Had better and might as well: On the margins of modality. In Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, & Manfred Krug (eds.), 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
[URL].
Palmer, Frank R
1974 The English verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1979 Modality and the English modals, 1st edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1990 Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R
1983 Modal expressions in English. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1984 The modals story retold. Studies in Language 81. 305–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stoffel, C
1887 On had rather and analogous phrases. Taalstudie 81.Google Scholar
Storm, Johan
1892–1896 Englische Philologie, 2nd edn., 2 Vols1. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths
2003 The York-Toronto-Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English Prose. University of York. [URL].
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Astrid De Wit
2010 The English comparative modals. A pilot study. In Bert Cappelle & Naoaki Wada (eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, offered to Renaat Declerck, 127–147. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, Dirk Noël & An Van linden
2013  Had better, ’d better and better: Diachronic and transatlantic variation. In Juana I. Marin-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, 119–154 (TiEL 75). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Gaaf, Willem
1904 Transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heibelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1912 The origin of would rather and some of its analogues. Englische Studien 451. 381–396.Google Scholar
Van linden, An
2012 Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in diachrony and synchrony (TiEL 75). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Th
1969–1973 An historical syntax of the English language. 3 Vols1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Westney, Paul
1995 Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim
2013 Parasitic participles in the syntax of verbal rather . Lingua 1371. 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by 5 other publications

Wood, Jim
2024. Microvariation in verbal rather . Linguistic Variation DOI logo
Rohdenburg, Günter
2021. Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen and Willem B. Hollmann (eds.). 2019.Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax.Studies in English Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, xix + 403 pp., 38 figures, 45 tables, £ 95.00.. Anglia 139:2 ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
WANG, JIAWEI
2021.  Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda Van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann (eds.), Categories, constructions, and change in English syntax (Studies in English Language 63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2019. Pp. xx + 404.. Journal of Linguistics 57:4 ► pp. 915 ff. DOI logo
Fanego, Teresa
2020. Review of Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Emma Moore, Linda Van Bergen and Willem B. Hollmann eds. 2019. Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1-108-41956-7. htps:// doi.org/10.1017/9781108303576. Research in Corpus Linguistics 8:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019. Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax, 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.