Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 5:2 (2015) ► pp.177–234

The history of the quasi-auxiliary use(d) to

A usage-based account

| Leipzig University
This article is a corpus-based study on the grammaticalization of the quasi-auxiliary use(d) to. It describes and seeks to explain the historical process whereby use(d) to, starting from the Middle English source construction use ‘be in the habit of’ + to + verb, grammaticalized into a habitual aspect marker with idiosyncratic morphosyntactic properties. A detailed corpus study is presented, based on four historical English corpora, which together cover a time period from 1410 to 2009. The results of the corpus analysis are interpreted within the theoretical framework of usage-based grammar, with the aim of uncovering the mechanisms that propelled the gradual grammaticalization of use(d) to on the semantic, morphological, syntactic and phonological dimensions. Among the underlying mechanisms and processes identified are semantic generalization via host-class expansion and habituation, pragmatic enrichment, analogy, chunking, loss of analyzability and internal structure, as well as phonological reduction through neuromotor automation. Supported by the quantitative empirical evidence from the corpus analysis and drawing on findings from usage-based research on language change, the present study depicts the grammaticalization of use(d) to as a self-feeding process driven by frequency effects, i.e. by the effects that the increasingly high discourse frequency of the use(d) to construction had on its cognitive representation.
Keywords: grammaticalization, usage-based, frequency effects, auxiliation, English
Published online: 11 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.5.2.01nee
References (105)
Alexander, Luis G. 1988. Longman English Grammar. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bache, Carl & Niels David-Nielsen. 1997. Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-Native and Native Speakers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper. Language Learning 59:Suppl.1.1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 2005. The Markers of Habitual Aspect in English. Journal of English Linguistics 33:4.339–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Used to and Habitual Aspect in English. Style 40:1–2.33–45.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The Grammaticalization of Small Size Nouns: Reconsidering Frequency and Analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35:4.293–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003a. Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization. The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 21 ed. by Michael Tomasello, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2003b. Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, eds., 602–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language 82:4.711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Usage-Based Theory and Grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., 69–78.Google Scholar
. 2013. Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar ed. by Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three Frequency Effects in Syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 231.378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. The Role of Prefabs in Grammaticization: How the Particular and the General Interact in Language Change. Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change ed. by Robert Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatly, 187–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide; Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cirillo, Robert. 2015. People Didn’t Used to Speak Like That: On the Reanalysis of Used to in English. English Today 31:2.11–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö. 1994. The Construction Be Going to + Infinitive in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English ed. by Dieter Kastovsky, 59–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004–. BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus. Available at [URL]. Last accessed 21 March 2011.
. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 410+ Million Words, 1990–Present. Available at [URL]. Last accessed 21 March 2011.
. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available at [URL]. Last accessed 29 October 2012.
. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 Billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries. Available at [URL]. Last accessed 13 Jan. 2014.
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, comp. 2006. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version). Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven. Available at [URL].
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition, Language Use, and Diachronic Change. New Ideas in Psychology 251.108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological Memory, Chunking and Points of Order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 181.91–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1994. On the Progression of the Progressive in Early Modern English. ICAME Journal 181.5–25.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The Development of Quasi-Auxiliaries in English and Changes in Word Order. Neophilologus 781.137–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the Development of Language. Perspectives on Grammaticalization ed. by William Pagliuca, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hantson, André. 2005. The English Perfect and the Anti-Perfect Used to Viewed from a Comparative Perspective. English Studies 86:3.245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible? Linguistics 37:6.1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A Usage-Based Approach. Constructions 2/20041.1–49.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal? What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components ed. by Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Are Low-Frequency Complex Prepositions Grammaticalized? On the Limits of Corpus Data—and the Importance of Intuition. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair, eds., 171–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131.139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. On Some Principles of Grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine, eds., 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2001. What Corpora Tell Us about the Grammaticalisation of Voice in Get-Constructions. Studies in Language 25:1.49–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Erik. 1988. Used To (+ Infinitive). English Studies 69:4.348–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 1998. Gotta—The Tenth Central Modal in English? Social, Stylistic and Regional Variation in the British National Corpus as Evidence of Ongoing Grammaticalization. The Major Varieties of English ed. by Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin & Maria Estling, 177–191. Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Frequency, Iconicity, Categorization: Evidence from Emerging Modals. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure ed. by Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper, 309–335. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Frequency as a Determinant in Grammatical Variation and Change. Determinants in Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 7–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans, Robert E. Lewis & Sherman M. Kuhn, eds. 1952–2001. Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Available at [URL].Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Jonathan Culpeper, comps. 2006. A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. A Dynamic Usage-Based Model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer, eds., 1–63.Google Scholar
. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where Have All the Modals Gone? An Essay on the Declining Frequency of Core Modal Auxiliaries in Recent Standard English. English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality ed. by Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera, 95–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, Vol. 11. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1974. The Diachronic Analysis of the English Modals. Historical Linguistics I: Proceedings of the First International Congress on Historical Linguistics ed. by John M. Anderson & Charles Jones, 219–249. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans & Christian Mair, eds. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory: Statistics, Frequencies, and Beyond. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair, eds., 121–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization and Corpus Linguistics. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., 239–250.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Keith. 2003. Had Better and Might as Well: On the Margins of Modality? Modality in Contemporary English ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank R. Palmer, 129–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagy C., Katalin. 2010. The Pragmatics of Grammaticalisation: The Role of Implicatures in Semantic Change. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11:1.67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neels, Jakob. 2011. The Quasi-Auxiliary Used to in British and American English: A Corpus-Based Case Study. Unpublished Manuscript. Leipzig University, Institute of British Studies.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin, comps. 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Text Version, with Additional Annotation by Ann Taylor. Helsinki: University of Helsinki and York: University of York. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Newell, Allen. 1990. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory. Functions of Language 14:2.177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Rui. 2012. Critical Frequency as an Independent Variable in Grammaticalization. Studies in Language 36:2.345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984. The Modal Story Retold. Studies in Language 81.305–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 3, 1476–1776 ed. by Robert Lass, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does Frequency in Text Instantiate Entrenchment in the Cognitive System? Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics ed. by Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer, 101–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2014. Lexico-Grammatical Patterns, Pragmatic Associations and Discourse Frequency. Constructions Collocations Patterns ed. by Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber, 239–293. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schulz, Monika Edith. 2012. Morphosyntactic Variation in British English Dialects: Evidence from Possession, Obligation and Past Habituality. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 1998. WordSmith Tools Version 3.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John, ed. 1990. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. Changes in the Modals and Semi-Modals of Strong Obligation and Epistemic Necessity in Recent British English. Modality in Contemporary English ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred G. Krug & Frank R. Palmer, 241–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2004. Have to, Gotta, Must: Grammaticalisation, Variation and Specialization in English Deontic Modality. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair, eds., 33–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Helen Lawrence. 2000. I Used to Dance, but I Don’t Dance Now: The Habitual Past in English. Journal of English Linguistics 28:4.324–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James Walker. 2011. Collocations in Grammaticalization and Variation. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., 225–238.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, eds., 624–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grammaticalization. Historical Pragmatics ed. by Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen, 97–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularities in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heiene, eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Ekkehard König. 1991. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine, eds., 189–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions. Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
“use, v.” OED Online. June 2014. Oxford University Press. 14 August 2014. Available at [URL].
Van Kemenade, Ans. 1992. The History of the English Modals: A Reanalysis. Folia Linguistica Historica 13:1–2.143–166.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1969. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. 3: Syntactical Units with Two Verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1990. Reworking the History of English Auxiliaries. Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics ed. by Sylvia Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright, 537–559. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Reanalysis in the History of Do: A View from Construction Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 15:4.529–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

la Roi, Ezra
2023. Down the paths to the past habitual: its historical connections with counterfactual pasts, future in the pasts, iteratives and lexical sources in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 57:s44-s1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Dekalo, Volodymyr
2021. Exploring relative degrees of auxiliarization empirically in German modal constructions with wissen and verstehen. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020. Chapter 4. Not just frequency, not just modality. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Neels, Jakob
2020. Lifespan change in grammaticalisation as frequency-sensitive automation: William Faulkner and thelet aloneconstruction. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.