Article published In:
Modal Meaning in Construction GrammarEdited by Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructions and Frames 8:1] 2016
► pp. 66–85
Edited by Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructions and Frames 8:1] 2016
► pp. 66–85
Change in modal meanings
Another look at the shifting collocates of may
This paper discusses how modal auxiliaries fit into a constructional view of language and how this view allows us to think in new ways about diachronic meaning change in modal auxiliaries. These issues will be illustrated on the basis of a diachronic corpus-based study of the modal auxiliary may, specifically focusing on changes in its collocational preferences during the past 200 years. The main point of this paper is the claim that a constructional view needs to take account of the mutual associations between modal auxiliaries and the lexical elements with which they occur. Changes in these mutual associations are usefully understood as change in a complex network of constructions.
References (39)
Arppe, A., & Järvikivi, J. (2007). Every method counts - Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 131–159. 
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(2), 1–27.
Bergs, A. (2010). Expression of futurity in contemporary English: A construction grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics, 14(2), 217–238.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boogaart, R. (2009). Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 213–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J., & Pagliuca, W. (1987). The development of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba, & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R.D. (1991). Back to the future. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II1 (pp. 17–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Church, K., & Hanks, P. (1989). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the
27th Annual Conference of the Association of Computational Linguistics
, Vancouver, British Columbia (pp. 76–83).
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words. Available online at [URL].
. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810-2009. Available online at [URL].
Diessel, H. (2011). Review article of ‘Language, usage and cognition’ by Joan Bybee. Language, 87(4), 830–844.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–38.
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Godlberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A.E., & van der Auwera, J. (2012). This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, 46(1), 109–132.
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.
. (2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford: CSLI.
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2011). Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 435–461.
. (2013a). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (2013b). Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 421, 67–82.
. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Millar, N. (2009). Modal verbs in TIME. Frequency changes 1923-2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 191–220.
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8(3), 305–364.
Sagi, E., Kaufmann, S., & Clark, B. (2011). Tracing semantic change with latent semantic analysis. In J. Robynson & K. Allan (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 161–183). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–43.
Taylor, J.R. (2012). The Mental corpus. How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57(1), 33–65.
Turney, P.D., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 371, 141–188.
Visser, F. Th. (1969). An historical syntax of the English language. Part 3. First half. Syntactical units with two verbs. Leiden: Brill.
Wheeler, E.S. (2005). Multidimensional scaling for linguistics. In R. Koehler, G. Altmann, & R.G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 548–553). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cited by (28)
Cited by 28 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 
Römer-Barron, Ute
2024. How do constructions with modal verbs develop in second language learners of English?. Journal of Second Language Studies
DESAGULIER, GUILLAUME & PHILIPPE MONNERET
2023. Cognitive Linguistics and a Usage‐Based Approach to the Study of Semantics and Pragmatics. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 31 ff.
Law, James
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches,
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2023. Chapter 12. On the role of verb-particle constructions in Old Spanish. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 309 ff.
Xiao, Huangyang, Qiao Zhou & Ruyi Sun
2023. Martin Hilpert: Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar
. Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 261 ff.
Xiao, Huangyang, Qiao Zhou & Ruyi Sun
2023. Martin Hilpert: Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar
. Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 261 ff.
Budts, Sara
2022. A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 337 ff.
Desagulier, Guillaume
2022. Changesin the midst ofa construction network: a diachronic construction grammar approach to complex prepositions denoting internal location. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 339 ff.
Leclercq, Benoît
FLACH, SUSANNE
2021. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: a corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity inmod+advcollocations. English Language and Linguistics 25:4 ► pp. 743 ff.
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021. Modality in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff.
Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach
2021. Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:2 ► pp. 307 ff.
Kranich, Svenja
2021. Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English*. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 261 ff.
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff.
Daugs, Robert
2020. Chapter 2. Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff.
Daugs, Robert
2021. Contractions, constructions and constructional change. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 12 ff.
Daugs, Robert
2022. English modal enclitic constructions: a diachronic, usage-based study of’dand’ll. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 221 ff.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 145 ff.
Schulze, Rainer & Pascal Hohaus
2020. Chapter 1. Modalising expressions and modality. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 1 ff.
Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse
2019. The necessity modalshave to,must,need to, andshould. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 220 ff.
Hilpert, Martin
2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff.
Hilpert, Martin
2020. The great temptation. In Corpora and the Changing Society [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 96], ► pp. 3 ff.
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2018. Constructions as Triads of Form, Function, and Agency: An Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar Study of English Modals. Cognitive Semantics 4:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Caudal, Patrick
2017.
Mari Alda , Modalités et temps: Des modèles aux données. (Sciences pour la communication, 109.) Bern: Peter Lang, 2015, xii + 249 pp. 978 3 0343 1383 4 (broché), 978 3 0351 9866 9 (EPUB), 978 3 0352 0280 9 (PDF). Journal of French Language Studies 27:3 ► pp. 466 ff.
[no author supplied]
2021. Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English 1. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218],
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 september 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.