Cover not available
Part of
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 17–46

Chapter 2
Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals

A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity of modal development

| Kiel University,
English modal verbs are claimed to be declining in their use in English (Leech 2011, 2013; inter alia), an assertion that is essentially based on aggregate frequencies of modals across register and time (Biber 2004). Since modals may be viewed as a prime example of paradigmatic organization (e.g. Diewald 2009; Diewald & Smirnova 2012), it seems only plausible to seek a generalization regarding their overall development. This approach, however, comes with a drawback, namely that it neglects the modal system’s underlying heterogeneity. By utilizing both historical and contemporary language data from COHA (Davies 2010) and COCA (Davies 2008), I will argue that the obvious variability in the English modal system represents an important caveat against making generalizations across an entire category in terms of frequency shifts.
Keywords: modal constructions, contractions, diachronic Construction Grammar, COHA, COCA
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The diachrony of modals: Where we are at so far
  • 3.Modals and CxG: What are modal constructions?
  • 4.A response to Leech’s (2011) response to Millar (2009)
  • 5.What to split and what to lump?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.02dau
References (60)
References
Bergs, Alexander. 2008. Shall and shan’t in contemporary English: A case of functional condensation. In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds), 113–143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Modal use across register and time. In Studies in the History of the English Language 2, Anne Curzan & Kimberly Emmons (eds), 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2004. You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction? In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 479–491. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2009. Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In Contexts and Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 9], Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 213–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Budts, Sara & Petré, Peter. 2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic construction grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 318–351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse. 2016a. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Response to Hilpert. Construction and Frames 8(1): 86–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations, Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
. To appear. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar, Martin Hilpert & Bert Cappelle (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, Mark. 2007. TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990­-2017. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Dekalo, Volodymyr & Hampe, Beate. 2018. Networks of meanings: Complementing collostructional analysis by cluster and network analyses. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 5(1): 151–184.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011. Review article of 'Language, usage and cognition' by Joan Bybee. Language 87(4): 830–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2009. Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37: 445–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena. 2012. Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kristen Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 111–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2017. Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. R package version 0.1.0. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics 7(5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42(169): 67–82.Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1980. Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Jan Svartvik, Randolph Quirk & Geoffrey Leech (eds), 65–78. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds), 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory. In Advances in Corpus Linguistics, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 61–81. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Juana I. Marín-Arerese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 95–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change and constancy in linguistic change: How grammatical usage in written English evolved in the period 1931–1991. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 173–200. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko & Östman, Jan-Ola. 2005. Constructions and variability. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds), 191–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013a. Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
. 2013b. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57], Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: to-contraction in American English. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 243–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2015. Cross-variety diachronic drifts and ephemeral regional contrasts: An analysis of modality in the extended Brown family of corpora and what it can tell us about the New Englishes. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, Peter Collins (ed.), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2014. From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll . In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 77–89. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Schmidtke, Karsten. 2009. Going-to-V and gonna-V in child language: A quantitative approach to constructional development. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 509–538.Google Scholar
Seggewiß, Frederike. 2012. Current Changes in English Modals: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Present-Day Spoken English. PhD dissertation University of Freiburg.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Flach, Susanne. 2016. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 101–127. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2016. Response to Wärnsby. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 54–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna. 2002. Modal constructions? The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
. 2016. On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 40–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Daugs, Robert & David Lorenz
2024. A radically usage-based, collostructional approach to assessing the differences between negative modal contractions and their parent forms. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2024. The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might . Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.