Cover not available
Article published In:
Syntactic Variation and Change
Edited by David Håkansson, Ida Larsson and Erik Magnusson Petzell
[Linguistic Variation 17:1] 2017
► pp. 68–97

The rise of contrastive modality in English

A neoparametric account

| University of Toronto
| Saint Mary's University
This paper proposes an account of the morphosyntactic and semantic changes involved in the historical development of the English modals as a distinct category. Adopting a neoparametric approach, in which a language’s inventory of grammatical features may change over time, we show that a cluster of related surface changes can be accounted for by positing that the feature modality was added to English tense/mood system. While the most immediate manifestation of this change was the grammaticalization of the modals themselves, this in turn altered the system of contrasts in the language: in clauses without modal verbs, the absence of the modal became contrastive, narrowing the range of possible interpretations.
Keywords: modals, syntactic change, features, parameters, English, functional categories, tense, modality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and theoretical background
  • 2.The phenomenon
    • 2.1The starting point
    • 2.2Developments in Middle English
      • 2.2.1Decline of nonfinite use of modals
      • 2.2.2Emergence of epistemic uses of modals
      • 2.2.3Loss of the inflected subjunctive
      • 2.2.4Decline of the futurate use of the present indicative
    • 2.3Developments in the 16th century
      • 2.3.1Loss of infinitival marker -en
      • 2.3.2Loss of verb movement
  • 3.Structures, before and after
  • 4.The path of change
    • 4.1Step 1: The decline of the subjunctive
    • 4.2Step 2: The changing status of modals
    • 4.3Step 3: The narrowing of the futurate present
    • 4.4The endgame
      • 4.4.1Infinitival marking
      • 4.4.2Loss of overt verb movement
  • 5.The second act: Modals in the 20th and 21st centuries
  • 6.Conclusions: The neoparametric perspective and the role of contrast
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17.1.04cow
References (87)
References
Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Underspecification in phonology. Phonology 5(2). 183–207.
Avery, J. Peter & Keren Rice. 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6(2). 179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 2006. The syntax of modal auxiliaries. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 51, 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2013. Size matters: On diachronic stability and parameter size. Presented at GLOW 36, Lund, April 2013.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Elizabeth Cowper. 2013. Inflectional shells and the syntax of causative have . In Shan Luo (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at [URL].
. 2016. Possession and necessity: From individuals to worlds. Lingua 1821. 30–48. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1(1). 37–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle 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
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. CISCL Working Papers 21. 43–58.Google Scholar
Closs, Elizabeth. 1965. Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Language 41(3). 402–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Alan Bale. 2014. The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq. Nordlyd 41(1). 85–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1999. Feature geometry and verbal inflection. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 171. 79–96.Google Scholar
. 2005. The geometry of interpretable features. Language 81(1). 10–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Finiteness and pseudofiniteness. In Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), Finite-ness matters: On finiteness related phenomena in natural languages Linguistik Aktuell, 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2003. The role of register in the syntax – morphology interface. In Sophie Burelle & Stanca Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 40–49. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l’UQAM.Google Scholar
. 2007. The morphosyntactic manifestations of modality. In Milica Radišić (ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association. Published online at [URL].
. 2013. Syntactic change and the cartography of syntactic structures. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), NELS 42: Proceedings of the forty-second annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 11, 129–140. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2014. Reductiō ad discrīmen: Where features come from. Nordlyd 41(2). 145–164. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, Daniel Currie Hall, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee. 2015. Investigating the past of the futurate present. Paper presented at DiGS 17, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Cutrer, L. Michelle. 1994. Time and tense in narrative and in everyday language. University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd 41(2). 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume II1: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes. In David Hart (ed.), English modality in context, 17–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 1993. The rise of functional categories (Linguistik Aktuell 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy (Linguistik Aktuell 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Allessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2001. The featural semantics of English modal verbs. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1). 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel & Christian Elsholtz. 2012. Feature geometry: Self-destructed. Ms., Queen Mary University of London and Technische Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 211. 289–320.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Christer Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 551–577.Google Scholar
. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Lingustic Inquiry 31(2). 231–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1992. Structural factors in the history of English modals. In Matti Rissa-nen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 287–309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyriakaki, Maria. 2006. The geometry of tense, mood and aspect in Greek. University of Toronto MA thesis.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, 329–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara. 2009. Contrast and similarity in consonant harmony processes: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y. 1990. The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(3). 1286–1298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(4). 673–713.Google Scholar
Morris, Richard (ed.). [1868] 1969. Old English homilies and homiletic treatises of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. New York: Greenwood Press. Originally published in 1868 for the Early English Text Society.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–442.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2008. Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistik Aktuell 132), 219–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46(B). 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 2014. Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41(1). 103–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of INFL: Tense, location, and person. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography, 153–202. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The composition of INFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 321. 1331–1386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(1). 21–58.Google Scholar
. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Phases, head movement and second-position effects. In Ángel J. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework, 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Ščur, G. S. 1968. On the non-finite forms of the verb can in Scottish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 11(2). 211–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On the (non-) universality of functional categories. In Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework (Linguistik Aktuell 12), 253–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8.Google Scholar
Vetter, David C. 1973. Someone solves this problem tomorrow. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1). 104–108.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1990. Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65), 537–557. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380–393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. What’s in a determiner and how did it get there? In Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul & Martina Wiltschko (eds.), Determiners: Universals and variation (Linguistik Aktuell 147), 35–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2008. Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 291. 125–143.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Castillo, Concha
2022. The Status of English Modals Prior to Their Recategorization as T and the Trigger for Their Recategorization. Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies :31/2 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall
2022. Morphosemantic features in Universal Grammar: What we can learn from Marshallese pronouns and demonstratives. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 67:3 ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Cowper, Elizabeth, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Daniel Currie Hall, Rebecca Tollan & Neil Banerjee
2019. Illusions of transitive expletives in Middle English. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:3 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.