1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The decline of certain core modals in English, including and , is a well-documented phenomenon (cf. Daugs 2017). It is less clear, however, whether this tendency will lead to the loss of these modals or whether other changes are also underway. I aim to address this issue by looking at the use of and in concessive clauses. I will first present the results of a corpus study (COHA) aimed at understanding the diachronic development of concessive and . The analysis reveals a significant increase of and in concessive contexts since the 1960s, especially in factual concessives with . This new finding is important as it shows that, though decreasing in frequency, the two modals are developing new patterns of use. This raises the question whether the status of and as modal verbs is also changing. I argue that the two verbs are going through a process of post-modal (secondary) grammaticalisation and constructionalisation, and that the concessive meaning is linked to the more complex ‘ {/} VP, -’ construction. I also claim that, within the paradigm of concessive constructions, those with and are best viewed as hedged concessives that serve politeness purposes.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
2024-02-29
2024-12-01

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, B., Bowie, J., & Wallis, S.
    (2015) Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. InI. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence (pp.48–76). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adolphs, S.
    (2007) Definitely maybe: Modality clusters and politeness in spoken discourse. InP. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp.257–274). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197860.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197860.257 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auwera, J. van der, & Plungian, V. A.
    (1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 21, 79–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baranzini, L., & Mari, A.
    (2019) From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal of Pragmatics, 1421, 116–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berbeira Gardón, J. L.
    (1997) Epistemic modality and discourse connectivity. Pragmalingüística, 3–41, 223–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (2021) Grammar of spoken and written English. (2nd Edn.) John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bouscaren, J., & Chuquet, J.
    (1987) Grammaire et textes anglais. Guide pour l’analyse linguistique. Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Breban, T., & Kranich, S.
    (2015) What happens after grammaticalization? Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. (Special issue) Language Sciences, 47(Part B), 129–228. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J. L.
    (1995) The semantic development of past tense modals in English. InJ. L. Bybee & S. Fleishman (Eds.), Modality and grammar in discourse (pp.503–517). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.22byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.22byb [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappelle, B., Depraetere, I., & Lesuisse, M.
    (2019) The necessity modals have to, must, need to and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 220–243. 10.1075/cf.00029.cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00029.cap [Google Scholar]
  13. Carston, R.
    (2021) Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language, 36(1), 108–133. 10.1111/mila.12329
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12329 [Google Scholar]
  14. Christiansen, M., & Arnon, I.
    (2017) More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 91, 1–10. 10.1111/tops.12274
     https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12274 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coates, J.
    (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Collins, P.
    (2009) Modals and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042029095
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029095 [Google Scholar]
  17. Daugs, R.
    (2017) On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. InT. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and explorations. VARIENG. Available at: https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/19/daugs/
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2020) Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals: A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity of modal development. InP. Hohaus & R. Schulze (Eds.), Re-assessing modalising expressions: Categories, co-text, and context (pp.17–46). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.216.02dau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.02dau [Google Scholar]
  19. (2021) Contractions, constructions and constructional change. InM. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.12–52). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.32.02dau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.02dau [Google Scholar]
  20. (2022) English modal enclitic constructions: A diachronic, usage-based study of ’d and ’ll. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 221–250. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0023 [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coha/
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Declerck, R.
    (1991) A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011) The definition of modality. InA. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp.21–44). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.29.05dec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.29.05dec [Google Scholar]
  25. Depraetere, I. & B. Cappelle
    (2023) English modals: An outline of their forms, meanings and uses. InI. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp.14–59). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110734157‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110734157-002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Depraetere, I., B. Cappelle, M. Hilpert, L. De Cuypere, M. Dehouck, P. Denis, S. Flach, N. Grabar, C. Grandin, T. Hamon, C. Hufeld, B. Leclercq & H.-J. Schmid
    (2023) Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G.
    (2019) Hedged performatives and (inter)subjectivity. Paper presented at the52nd Annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) – Workshop: Pragmatic markers and clause peripheries (Organized by J. Šinkūnienė and D. Van Olmen). Leipzig, Germany, August 2019.
  28. Depraetere, I., & Langford, C.
    (2020) Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. (2nd Edn.) Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Depraetere, I., & Reed, S.
    (2011) Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. 10.1017/S1360674310000262
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000262 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2021) Mood and modality in English. InB. Aarts, A. McMahon & L. Hinrichs (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (2nd Ed.) (pp.207–227). Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Divjak, D.
    (2019) Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fraser, B.
    (1975) Hedged performatives. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (pp.187–210). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_008 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2010) Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. InG. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp.15–34). Emerald.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gisborne, N., & Patten, A.
    (2011) Construction grammar and grammaticalization. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The handbook of grammaticalization (pp.92–105). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0008 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gresset, S.
    (2012) De l’in/attendu dans les énoncés concessifs avec MAY. Illustration à partir d’un discours de Barack Obama. Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre, 66–671, 51–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gresset, S., & Mélis, G.
    (2020) Concession, intensité assertive et argumentation–étude comparée de deux constructions concessives en anglais. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 291. 10.4000/anglophonia.3071
     https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.3071 [Google Scholar]
  39. de Haan, F.
    (2012) The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of must. English Studies, 93(6), 700–728. 10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2012.700587 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hansen, B.
    (2017) What happens after grammaticalization? Post-grammaticalization processes in the area of modality. InD. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp.257–280). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. (2nd ed.) Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474433624
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474433624 [Google Scholar]
  42. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?InW. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp.21–42). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoffmann, T.
    (2022) Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. (2nd Edn.) Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.,
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jacobsson, B.
    (1994) Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English. English Studies, 72(2), 166–182. 10.1080/00138389408598908
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389408598908 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kay, P.
    (1990) Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 131, 59–111. 10.1007/BF00630517
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630517 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kawabata, T.
    (2010) On the rise of but-concessive constructions: From the viewpoint of grammaticalization. InM. Kytö, J. Scahill & H. Tanabe (Eds.), Language change and variation from old English to late modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (pp.303–325). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kranich, S.
    (2021) Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English. InS. Kranich & T. Brenan (Eds.), Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions (pp.261–289). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.218.09kra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.09kra [Google Scholar]
  52. Lapaire, J.-M., & Rotgé, W.
    (1991) Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Larreya, P., & Rivière, C.
    (2010) Grammaire explicative de l’anglais. (4th Edn.) Pearson Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Leclercq, B.
    (2022) From modals to modal constructions: An n-gram analysis of can, could and be able to. Constructions and Frames, 14(2), 226–261. 10.1075/cf.21001.lec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21001.lec [Google Scholar]
  55. (2023) Modality revisited: Combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. InI. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp.60–92). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110734157‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110734157-003 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2024) Linguistic knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Leech, G.
    (2004) Meaning and the English verb. (3rd Edn.). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Love, R., & Curry, N.
    (2021) Recent change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language and Linguistics, 25(3), 537–562. 10.1017/S1360674321000265
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000265 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mair, C.
    (2021) Recent advances in the corpus-based study of ongoing grammatical change in English. Text & Talk, 41(5–6), 763–785. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  60. Narrog, H.
    (2012) Beyond intersubjectification: Textual usages of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech orientation. English Text Construction, 5(1), 29–52. 10.1075/etc.5.1.03nar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.03nar [Google Scholar]
  61. (2015) (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 471, 148–160. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2017) Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. InD. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp.19–46). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Palmer, F. R.
    (2001) Mood and modality. (2nd Edn.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  64. Papafragou, A.
    (2000) On speech-act modality. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 519–538. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00062‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00062-4 [Google Scholar]
  65. Plank, F.
    (1984) The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 81, 305–366. 10.1075/sl.8.3.02pla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.3.02pla [Google Scholar]
  66. Portner, P.
    (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  67. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing. Vianna, Austria. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Rossari, C., Montrichard, C., Ricci, C., & Sanvido, L.
    (2022) Pouvoir et peut-être: approche textométrique de leur valeur post-modale de concession. Paper presented atLa postmodalité et les cycles de vie des expressions modales. Université de Caen, 2–3 June 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Scheurweghs, G.
    (1959) Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Souesme, J.-C.
    (2009) MAY in concessive contexts. InR. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English. Theory and description (pp.159–176). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213331.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213331.159 [Google Scholar]
  72. Sugiyama, K.
    (2003) On factual may. English Linguistics, 20(2), 441–466. 10.9793/elsj1984.20.441
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.20.441 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) Modality. InE. Sweetser (Ed.), From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics (pp.49–75). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904.004 [Google Scholar]
  74. Traugott, E. C.
    (2003a) Constructions in grammaticalization. InB. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.624–647). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2003b) From subjectification to intersubjectification. InR. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp.124–139). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  76. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2001) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486500
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500 [Google Scholar]
  77. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
Loading
The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might
Constructions and Frames 16, 130 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concessive; hedging; may; might; politeness; post-modal grammaticalisation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error