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

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