Article published In:
Constructions and FramesVol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.130–161
The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might
The decline of certain core modals in English, including may and might, 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 may and might in concessive clauses. I will first present the results of a corpus
study (COHA) aimed at understanding the diachronic development of concessive may and might. The
analysis reveals a significant increase of may and might in concessive contexts since the 1960s,
especially in factual concessives with but. 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 may
and might 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
‘subj {may/might} VP, but-clause’ construction. I also
claim that, within the paradigm of concessive constructions, those with may and might are best
viewed as hedged concessives that serve politeness purposes.
Keywords:
may
,
might
, concessive, post-modal grammaticalisation, hedging, politeness
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methodology
- 3.Quantitative overview
- 4. May and might: Concessive?
- 5.A constructional analysis of ‘concessive’ may and might
- 6.From modals to ‘hedged concessives’
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (77)
Aarts, B., Bowie, J., & Wallis, S. (2015). Profiling
the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments
in English: Expanding electronic
evidence (pp. 48–76). Cambridge University Press.
Adolphs, S. (2007). Definitely
maybe: Modality clusters and politeness in spoken discourse. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology
and culture in
English (pp. 257–274). Mouton de Gruyter. 
Auwera, J. van der, & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s
semantic map. Linguistic
Typology,
2
1, 79–124.
Baranzini, L., & Mari, A. (2019). From
epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal
of
Pragmatics,
142
1, 116–138.
Berbeira Gardón, J. L. (1997). Epistemic
modality and discourse
connectivity. Pragmalingüística, 3–41, 223–240.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2021). Grammar
of spoken and written English. (2nd Edn.) John Benjamins.
Bouscaren, J., & Chuquet, J. (1987). Grammaire
et textes anglais. Guide pour l’analyse
linguistique. Ophrys.
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.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness:
Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bybee, J. L. (1995). The
semantic development of past tense modals in English. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleishman (Eds.), Modality
and grammar in
discourse (pp. 503–517). John Benjamins.
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.
Carston, R. (2021). Polysemy:
Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind &
Language,
36
(1), 108–133.
Christiansen, M., & Arnon, I. (2017). More
than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive
Science,
9
1, 1–10.
Coates, J. (1983). The
semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals
and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi.
Daugs, R. (2017). On
the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th
centuries. In T. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.), Big
and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and
explorations. VARIENG. Available at: [URL]
(2020). Revisiting
global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals: A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity
of modal development. In P. Hohaus & R. Schulze (Eds.), Re-assessing
modalising expressions: Categories, co-text, and
context (pp. 17–46). John Benjamins.
(2021). Contractions,
constructions and constructional change. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality
and Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 12–52). John Benjamins.
(2022). English
modal enclitic constructions: A diachronic, usage-based study of ’d and
’ll
. Cognitive
Linguistics,
33
(1), 221–250.
Davies, M. (2008–). The
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
(2010). The
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online at [URL]
Declerck, R. (1991). A
comprehensive descriptive grammar of
English. Kaitakusha.
(2011). The
definition of modality. In A. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic
modality (pp. 21–44). John Benjamins.
Depraetere, I. & B. Cappelle. (2023). English
modals: An outline of their forms, meanings and uses. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models
of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine
learning (pp. 14–59). Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G. (2019). Hedged
performatives and (inter)subjectivity. Paper presented at
the
52nd 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.
Depraetere, I., & Langford, C. (2020). Advanced
English grammar: A linguistic approach. (2nd
Edn.) Continuum.
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2011). Towards
a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and
Linguistics,
15
(1), 1–29.
(2021). Mood
and modality in English. In B. Aarts, A. McMahon & L. Hinrichs (Eds.), The
handbook of English linguistics (2nd
Ed.) (pp. 207–227). Blackwell.
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency
in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged
performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics
3 (pp. 187–210). Academic Press.
(2010). Pragmatic
competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New
approaches to
hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald.
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A. (2011). Construction
grammar and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The
handbook of
grammaticalization (pp. 92–105). Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions
at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
(2019). Explain
me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
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,
66–67
1, 51–67.
Gresset, S., & Mélis, G. (2020). Concession,
intensité assertive et argumentation–étude comparée de deux constructions concessives en
anglais. Anglophonia. French Journal of English
Linguistics,
29
1.
de Haan, F. (2012). The
relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of
must
. English
Studies,
93
(6), 700–728.
Hansen, B. (2017). What
happens after grammaticalization? Post-grammaticalization processes in the area of
modality. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects
of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and
directionality (pp. 257–280). Mouton de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction
grammar and its application to English. (2nd ed.) Edinburgh University Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization
and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What
makes Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its
components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction
Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. (2nd
Edn.) Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K., et al. (2002). The
Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The
architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.
(2002). Foundations
of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.
Jacobsson, B. (1994). Recessive
and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English. English
Studies,
72
(2), 166–182.
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics
and
Philosophy,
13
1, 59–111.
Kawabata, T. (2010). On
the rise of but-concessive constructions: From the viewpoint of
grammaticalization. In M. 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.
Kranich, S. (2021). Decline
and loss in the modal domain in recent English. In S. Kranich & T. Brenan (Eds.), Lost
in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and
constructions (pp. 261–289). John Benjamins.
Lapaire, J.-M., & Rotgé, W. (1991). Linguistique
et grammaire de l’anglais. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Larreya, P., & Rivière, C. (2010). Grammaire
explicative de l’anglais. (4th Edn.) Pearson Longman.
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.
(2023). Modality
revisited: Combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance
Theory. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models
of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine
learning (pp. 60–92). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2024). Linguistic
knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning
and the English verb. (3rd
Edn.). Longman.
Love, R., & Curry, N. (2021). Recent
change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language and
Linguistics,
25
(3), 537–562.
Mair, C. (2021). Recent
advances in the corpus-based study of ongoing grammatical change in English. Text &
Talk,
41
(5–6), 763–785.
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.
(2015). (Inter)subjectification
and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language
Sciences,
47
1, 148–160.
(2017). Three
types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a
synthesis. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects
of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and
directionality (pp. 19–46). Mouton de Gruyter.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood
and modality. (2nd Edn.). Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, A. (2000). On
speech-act modality. Journal of
Pragmatics,
32
1, 519–538.
Plank, F. (1984). The
modals story retold. Studies in
Language,
8
1, 305–366.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. Longman.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and
environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing. Vianna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rossari, C., Montrichard, C., Ricci, C., & Sanvido, L. (2022).
Pouvoir
et peut-être: approche textométrique de leur valeur post-modale de
concession. Paper presented at
La postmodalité et les
cycles de vie des expressions modales. Université de Caen, 2–3 June
2022.
Scheurweghs, G. (1959). Present-day
English syntax: A survey of sentence
patterns. Longman.
Souesme, J.-C. (2009). MAY
in concessive contexts. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality
in English. Theory and
description (pp. 159–176). Mouton de Gruyter.
Sugiyama, K. (2003). On
factual may
. English
Linguistics,
20
(2), 441–466.
Sweetser, E. (1990). Modality. In E. Sweetser (Ed.), From
etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of
semantics (pp. 49–75). Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2003a). Constructions
in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The
handbook of historical
linguistics (pp. 624–647). Blackwell.
(2003b). From
subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives
for language
change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity
in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.