The rise of contrastive modality in English
A neoparametric account
This paper proposes an account of the morphosyntactic and semantic changes involved in the historical development of the English modals as a distinct category. Adopting a neoparametric approach, in which a language’s inventory of grammatical features may change over time, we show that a cluster of related surface changes can be accounted for by positing that the feature modality was added to English tense/mood system. While the most immediate manifestation of this change was the grammaticalization of the modals themselves, this in turn altered the system of contrasts in the language: in clauses without modal verbs, the absence of the modal became contrastive, narrowing the range of possible interpretations.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction and theoretical background
- 2.The phenomenon
- 2.1The starting point
- 2.2Developments in Middle English
- 2.2.1Decline of nonfinite use of modals
- 2.2.2Emergence of epistemic uses of modals
- 2.2.3Loss of the inflected subjunctive
- 2.2.4Decline of the futurate use of the present indicative
- 2.3Developments in the 16th century
- 2.3.1Loss of infinitival marker -en
- 2.3.2Loss of verb movement
- 3.Structures, before and after
- 4.The path of change
- 4.1Step 1: The decline of the subjunctive
- 4.2Step 2: The changing status of modals
- 4.3Step 3: The narrowing of the futurate present
- 4.4The endgame
- 4.4.1Infinitival marking
- 4.4.2Loss of overt verb movement
- 5.The second act: Modals in the 20th and 21st centuries
- 6.Conclusions: The neoparametric perspective and the role of contrast
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (87)
References
Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Underspecification in phonology. Phonology 5(2). 183–207.
Avery, J. Peter & Keren Rice. 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6(2). 179–200. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barbiers, Sjef. 2006. The syntax of modal auxiliaries. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 51, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2013. Size matters: On diachronic stability and parameter size. Presented at GLOW 36, Lund, April 2013.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Elizabeth Cowper. 2013. Inflectional shells and the syntax of causative have
. In Shan Luo (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at [URL].
Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Elizabeth Cowper. 2016. Possession and necessity: From individuals to worlds. Lingua 1821. 30–48.
.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1). 37–71. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. CISCL Working Papers 21. 43–58.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Closs, Elizabeth. 1965. Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41(3). 402–415. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coon, Jessica & Alan Bale. 2014. The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd 41(1). 85–101. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1999. Feature geometry and verbal inflection. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 171. 79–96.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. The geometry of interpretable features. Language 81(1). 10–46. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2016. Finiteness and pseudofiniteness. In Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), Finite-ness matters: On finiteness related phenomena in natural languages Linguistik Aktuell, 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2003. The role of register in the syntax – morphology interface. In Sophie Burelle & Stanca Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 40–49. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l’UQAM.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2007. The morphosyntactic manifestations of modality. In Milica Radišić (ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at [URL].
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2013. Syntactic change and the cartography of syntactic structures. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), NELS 42: Proceedings of the forty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 11, 129–140. Amherst, MA: GLSA.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2014. Reductiō ad discrīmen: Where features come from. Nordlyd 41(2). 145–164.
.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth, Daniel Currie Hall, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee. 2015. Investigating the past of the futurate present. Paper presented at DiGS 17, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Cutrer, L. Michelle. 1994. Time and tense in narrative and in everyday language. University of California, San Diego dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dresher, B. Elan. 2014. The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd 41(2). 165–181. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume II1: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Olga. 2003. The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes. In David Hart (ed.), English modality in context, 17–32. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giorgi, Allessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2001. The featural semantics of English modal verbs. Ms., University of Toronto.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory: University of Toronto dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1). 1–54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harbour, Daniel & Christian Elsholtz. 2012. Feature geometry: Self-destructed. Ms., Queen Mary University of London and Technische Universität Graz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 211. 289–320.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 551–577.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Lingustic Inquiry 31(2). 231–392. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Kemenade, Ans. 1992. Structural factors in the history of English modals. In Matti Rissa-nen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 287–309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kyriakaki, Maria. 2006. The geometry of tense, mood and aspect in Greek. University of Toronto MA thesis.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, 329–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mackenzie, Sara. 2009. Contrast and similarity in consonant harmony processes: University of Toronto dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Manuel, Sharon Y. 1990. The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(3). 1286–1298. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(4). 673–713.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morris, Richard (ed.). [1868] 1969. Old English homilies and homiletic treatises of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. New York: Greenwood Press. Originally published in 1868 for the Early English Text Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–442.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46(B). 152–174. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ritter, Elizabeth. 2014. Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41(1). 103–124. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of INFL: Tense, location, and person. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 153–202. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2014. The composition of INFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 321. 1331–1386. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(1). 21–58.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian. 2012. Phases, head movement and second-position effects. In Ángel J. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ščur, G. S. 1968. On the non-finite forms of the verb can in Scottish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11(2). 211–218. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On the (non-) universality of functional categories. In Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework (Linguistik Aktuell 12), 253–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vetter, David C. 1973. Someone solves this problem tomorrow. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1). 104–108.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Warner, Anthony. 1990. Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds.),
Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics
(Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65), 537–557. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Warner, Anthony. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wischer, Ilse. 2008.
Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 291. 125–143.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Castillo, Concha
2022.
The Status of English Modals Prior to Their Recategorization as T and the Trigger for Their Recategorization.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies :31/2
► pp. 49 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall
2022.
Morphosemantic features in Universal Grammar: What we can learn from Marshallese pronouns and demonstratives.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 67:3
► pp. 242 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Cowper, Elizabeth, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Daniel Currie Hall, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee
2019.
Illusions of transitive expletives in Middle English.
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:3
► pp. 211 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.