Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions
Edited by Svenja Kranich and Tine Breban
[Studies in Language Companion Series 218] 2021
► pp. 261–290

Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English

Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English

Editor
| University of Bonn
Numerous corpus studies have firmly established that in recent English, most core modals (e.g. must) have been declining in frequency, while the semi-modals (e.g. have to) have been on the rise (cf. e.g. Krug 2000; Mair & Leech 2006; Leech & Smith 2006). The present paper follows the constructional approach to modal meaning taken by Cappelle and Depraetere (2016), who show that modals tend to occur in certain contexts with particular meaning. An investigation of a sample of may and must in COHA (1960s & 2000s) shows that the decline of the modals (and the foreshadowed loss of some) may be witnessed particularly in the demise of certain constructions. A close-up investigation shows the construction we + may + verb of speaking/reasoning is on its way to be lost. Relevant factors (genre, function, culture) are discussed and suggestions about the general implications of the loss of this particular construction will be presented.
Keywords: English modals, recent change, constructions, hedging, democratization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic concepts and previous research
    • 2.1The functions of modal expressions
    • 2.2Frequency changes in the modal domain in recent English
      • 2.2.1General development and frequency changes
      • 2.2.2Frequency changes in the different semantic domains
      • 2.2.3Importance of genre
  • 3.Losses in the modal domain in recent English
    • 3.1 Decline and loss in COHA (with a focus on may and must)
      • 3.1.1General background
      • 3.1.2Data and methods
      • 3.1.3Quantitative findings and their implications
      • 3.1.4The role of individual modal constructions
    • 3.2The demise of the ‘we may say’-construction
      • 3.2.1General definition
      • 3.2.2Data and methods
      • 3.2.3Quantitative findings and their implications
  • 4.General discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.09kra
References (54)
References
Aarts, Bas, Wallis, Sean & Bowie, Jill. 2015. Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In Developments in English. Expanding Electronic Evidence, Irma Taavitsainen, Merja Kytö, Claudia Claridge & Jeremy Smith (eds), 48–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Modal use across register and time. In Studies in the History of the English Language II, Anne Curzan & Kimberly Emmons (eds), 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowie, Jill, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas. 2013. Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: Mapping the impact of ‘genre’. In English Modality. Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 57–94. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caliendo, Giuditta. 2004. Modality and communicative interaction in EU law. In Intercultural Discourse in Domain-specific English, Christopher Candlin & Maurizio Gotti (eds), 241–259. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. In Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere (eds). Special issue of Constructions and Frames 8 (1): 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009a. Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. World Englishes 28 (3): 281–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics. Methods and Explorations [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 19], Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. <[URL]> (19 February 2020).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2007. TIME Magazine Corpus (100 million words, 1920s-2000s). <[URL]> (10 November 2015).
. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (400 million words,1810–2009). <[URL]> (10 November 2019).
. 2012. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7 (2): 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2009. ‘Not-yet-factual at time t’: A neglected modal concept. In Modality in English. Theory and Description, Raphael Salkie, Pierre Busuttil & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 31–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Verhulst, An. 2008. Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döhler, Per N.. 1984. Semantik und Pragmatik der Modalität im Englischen. MA thesis, <[URL]> (10 November 2019).
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Introduction. In Critical Language Awareness, Norman Fairclough (ed.), 1–29. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Michael & Seoane, Elena. 2012. Democratization. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), 392–401. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. In Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere (eds), Special issue of Constructions and Frames 8 (1): 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging, and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18 (3): 349–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 2013. Modals and semi-modals of obligation in American English: Some aspects of developments from 1990 until the present day. In The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating Recent Language Change with Recent Corpora, Bas Aarts, Joanna Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds), 372–380. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. Evidentielle Ausdrücke als Übersetzungen epistemischer Ausdrücke: Eine Korpusanalyse populärwissenschaftlicher Übersetzungen aus dem Englischen. Talk presented at the workshop Modalität und Evidentialität, University of Hannover, Germany, 31 May-2 June.Google Scholar
. 2016. Contrastive Pragmatics and Translation. Evaluation, Epistemic Modality and Communicative Styles in English and German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 261]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Kranich, Svenja & Gast, Volker. 2015. Explicitness of epistemic modal marking: Recent changes in British and American English. In Thinking Modally. English and Contrastive Studies on Modality, Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla, Carmen Maíz, Elena Domínguez & M. Victoria Martín de la Rosa (eds), 3–22. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Neuhäuser, Wera. 2017. Some effects of democraticization on the performance of face-threatening acts in expert-layman communication. Talk presented at the 15th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Ulster University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 16–21July. <[URL]> (19 February 2020).Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Scholz, Anna-Katharina. 2020. ‘What we may conclude without fear of contradiction’ - The demise of a hedging construction in 20th century English. Unpublished working paper, LETS, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, Bruns, Hanna & Hampel, Elisabeth. 2021. Requests across varieties and cultures: Norms are changing (but not everywhere in the same way). Anglistik, 32(1 Special Issue Focus on English Linguistics: Varieties Meet Histories (Daniela Kolbe-Hannah & Ilse Wischer, eds): 91–114.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, Hampel, Elisabeth & Bruns, Hanna. 2020. Changes in the modal domain in different varieties of English as potential effects of democratization. Language Sciences 79: 1–15. DOI logo
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging Modals. A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larreya, Paul & Rivière, Claude. 2014. Grammaire Expliciative de l’Anglais, 4th edn. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The modals ARE declining: Reply to Neil Millar's “Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14:2 (2009), 191–220. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16 (4): 547–564.Google Scholar
. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality. Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 95–115. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logo
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. In The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 186–204. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Cross-variety diachronic drifts and ephemeral regional contrasts: An analysis of modality in the extended Brown family of corpora and what it can tell us about the New Englishes. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67], Peter Collins (ed.), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current change in English syntax. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markkanen, Raija & Schröder, Hartmut. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schröder (eds), 3–18. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds), 3–39. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (2): 191–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja. 2010. Falsche Freunde: Warum sich die Modalverben must, müssen und moeten nicht entsprechen. In Modalität / Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, Andrzej Kątny & Anna Socka (eds), 133–148. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33 (2): 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2005. The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Modality. Studies in Form and Function, Alex Klinger & Henrik Høeg Müller (eds), 5–38. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 241–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Thetela, Puleng. 1995. The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15: 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds), 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Schalley, Ewa & Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Epistemic possibility in a Slavonic parallel corpus: A pilot study. In Modality in Slavonic Languages. New perspectives, Petr Karlík & Björn Hansen (eds), 201–217. München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna. 2009. On controllability as a contextual variable. In Studies on English Modality. In Honour of Frank Palmer, Anastasios Tsangalidis & Roberta Facchinetti (eds), 69–97. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2016. On the adequacy of constructionist approach to modality. In Modal Meaning in Construction Grammar, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere (eds), Special issue of Constructions and Frames 8 (1): 40–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Leclercq, Benoît
2024. The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might . Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.