Chapter 2
Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English
modals
A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity of modal
development
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.
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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction
Morphology. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language,
Usage and
Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse. 2016b. Response
to Hilpert. Construction and
Frames 8(1): 86–96. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The
Semantics of the Modal
Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical
Construction
Grammar. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive
Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Daugs, Robert. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davies, Mark. 2008. The
Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words,
1990-2017. <[URL]> (2 June
2020).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davies, Mark. 2010. The
Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words,
1810–2009. <[URL]> (2 June
2020).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan. 2011. Towards
a more explicit taxonomy of root
possibility. English Language and
Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diessel, Holger. 2011. Review
article of 'Language, usage and cognition' by Joan
Bybee. Language 87(4): 830–844. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diewald, Gabriele. 2009. Konstruktionen
und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische
Linguistik 37: 445–468. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions
at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
English. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele. 2013. Constructionist
approaches. In The
Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP. ![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Die
englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von
Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für
Literaturwissenschaft und
Linguistik 42(169): 67–82.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional
Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and
Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction
Grammar and its Application to
English. Edinburgh: EUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The
Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language. Cambridge: CUP. ![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)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Recent
grammatical change in English: Data, description,
theory. In Advances in
Corpus Linguistics, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 61–81. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change
in Contemporary
English. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lorenz, David. 2013a. Contractions
of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of
Frequency. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lorenz, David. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
R Core
Team. 2017. R: A
Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (2 June
2020).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality’s
semantic map. Linguistic
Typology 2: 79–124. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wärnsby, Anna. 2002. Modal
constructions? The Department of English in Lund:
Working Papers in
Linguistics 2.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.