Chapter 5
Could be, might be, maybe
Mechanisms of grammaticalization in synchronic use and
perception
In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and
formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified
diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and
cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in
synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of
grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it)
could/might be (that) in English are potential
candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The
question is whether shorter forms (here,
it-omission) are preferred in potentially
grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause
((it) could be this is correct). I first
summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of
it-omission are found in critical context
across items (could be, might be) and register
(spoken, informal writing). A ‘continuous shadowing’ experiment
partly confirms this finding but also shows that speakers/hearers
are both more flexible and more conservative with
could/might be than with maybe / it may
be that. The findings suggest that grammaticalizing
contexts have an immediate effect on formal reduction even in the
absence of change, and that language users have an active intuition
for emerging variational patterns.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Epistemic phrases and adverbials
- 3.Epistemic phrases/adverbials in an experimental study
- 3.1Design and participants
- 3.2Results
- 3.2.2Comparing shadowed responses with input forms
- 3.2.3Durations of shadowed items
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (64)
References
Barth, Danielle. 2019. Effects
of average and specific context probability on reduction of
function words BE and
HAVE. Linguistics
Vanguard 5(1): article
nr. 20180055. 

Beijering, Karin. 2010. The
grammaticalization of Mainland Scandinavian
MAYBE. Bergen Language and
Linguistics
Studies 1: 1–21. 

Beijering, Karin. 2016. Semi-insubordinate
at-constructions in Norwegian: Formal,
semantic and functional
properties. Norsk Lingvistisk
Tidsskrift 34: 161–182.
BNC
Consortium. 2007. The
British National Corpus. Distributed
by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2017. Praat:
Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer
program]. Version
6.0.36. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Bořil, Tomáš & Skarnitzl, Radek. 2016. Tools
rPraat and
mPraat. In Text,
Speech, and Dialogue, Petr Sojka, Aleš Horák, Ivan Kopeček & Karel Pala (eds), 367–374. Cham: Springer. 

Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A
usage-based theory of grammatical status and
grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. 

Breban, Tine. 2014. What
is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for
the trees in a confusion of
interpretations. Folia
Linguistica 48(2): 469–502. 

Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization
and Language
Change. Cambridge: CUP. 

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive
processes in
grammaticalization. In The
New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional
Approaches to Language
Structure, Vol.
2, Michael Tomasello (ed.) 145–167. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The
Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the
Languages of the
World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Caines, Andrew. 2012. You
talking to me? Corpus and experimental data on the zero
auxiliary interrogative in British
English. In Frequency
Effects in Language Learning and
Processing, Stefan T. Gries & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 177–205. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Christensen, Marie Herget, Kristensen, Line Burholt, Vinther, Nicoline Munck & Boye, Kasper. 2021. Grammar
is background in sentence
processing. Language and
Cognition 13(1): 128–153. 

Collins, Peter. 2007. Can/could
and may/might in British, American and
Australian English: A corpus-based
account. World
Englishes 26(4): 474–491. 

Croft, William. 2010. The
origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of
experience. Linguistics 48(1): 1–48. 

Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus
of Global Web-based English
(GloWbE). <[URL]>(15 January 2021).
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How
gradual change progresses: The interaction between
convention and
innovation. Language
Variation and
Change 28: 83–102. 

De Smet, Hendrik. 2018. Entrenchment
effects in language
change. In Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize
and Adapt Linguistic
Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.) 75–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization
vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional
change in
grammar. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. 

Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Context
types in grammaticalization as
constructions. In Constructions, Special Vol.
1, Doris Schönefeld (ed.). 

Finger, Holger, Goeke, Caspar, Diekamp, Dorena, Standvoß, Kai & König, Peter. 2017. LabVanced:
A unified JavaScript framework for online
studies. International
Conference on Computational Social
Science (Cologne).
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic
Change. Functional and Formal
Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
Gaeta, Livio. 2004. Exploring
grammaticalization from
below. In What
makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its
Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentens, Caroline, Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An & Brems, Lot. 2016. Mirativity
and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of
disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’
wonder. In Outside
the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal
Constituents [Studies in Language
Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Corpora
and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art
review. Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic
Theory 5(1): 1–26. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why
is grammaticalization
irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. 

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Creating
economical morphosyntactic patterns in language
change. In Linguistic
Universals and Language
Change, Jeff Good (ed.) 185–214. Oxford: OUP. 

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries:
Cognitive Forces and
Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In The
Handbook of Historical
Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Malden MA: Blackwell. 

Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David. 2018. The
unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization:
An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming
hypothesis. English Language
and
Linguistics 22(3): 357–380. 

Hopper, Paul. 1991. On
some principles of
grammaticization. In Approaches
to Grammaticalization, Vol.
1: Theoretical and Methodological
Issues [Typological Studies in
Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd
edn. Cambridge: CUP. 

Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette. 2008. Priming
and unidirectional language
change. Theoretical
Linguistics 34(2): 85–113. 

Kaatari, Henrik & Larsson, Tove. 2019. Using
the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic
development of I think and I’m
sure. English
Studies 100(6): 710–727. 

Konvička, Martin. 2019. Paradigms,
host classes, and
ancillariness. In Grammar –
Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation
and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 277–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory
and method in
grammaticalization. Zeitschrift
für Germanistische
Linguistik 32(2): 152–187. 

Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1982]. Thoughts
on Grammaticalization, 3rd
edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 2017. Grammaticalization
and
automation. JournaLIPP 5: 33–48.
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2016. From
clause to adverb: On the history of
maybe. In Outside
the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal
Constituents [Studies in Language
Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.) 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Lorenz, David. 2012. The
perception of gonna and
gotta – A study of emancipation in
progress. In Proceedings
of the 5th ISEL conference ExLing
2012, 27–29 August
2012, Athens,
Greece, Antonis Botinis (ed.) 77–80. Athens: ISEL Editions.
Lorenz, David. Forthcoming. Could be it’s grammaticalization: Usage patterns of the epistemic phrases (it) could/might be. To appear in Journal of English Linguistics.
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 2017. The
Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of
everyday
conversations. International
Journal of Corpus
Linguistics 22(3): 319–344.
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current
changes in English
syntax. In The
Handbook of English
Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh, Alan. 1978. Processing
interactions and lexical access during word recognition in
continuous speech. Cognitive
Psychology 10(1): 29–63. 

Mélac, Eric. 2022. The
grammaticalization of evidentiality in
English. English Language
&
Linguistics 26(2): 331–359. 

Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
Norde, Muriel, Rawoens, Gudrun & Beijering, Karin. 2014. Från
matrissats till satsadverb? En diakron studie av adverbet
kanske. <[URL]>(28 December 2022).
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The
real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in
grammaticalization. Language 94(4): 867–901. 

R Core
Team. 2019. R:
A language and environment for statistical
computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. |<[URL]>(28 December 2022).
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide. 1998. Sentence
adverbs in the languages of
Europe. In Adverbial
Constructions in the Languages of
Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds), 187–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2002. From
etymology to historical
pragmatics. In Studies
in the History of the English Language: A Millennial
Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions
in
grammaticalization. In The
Handbook of Historical
Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.) 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I
think and other complement-taking mental
predicates: A case of and for constructional
grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2). 295–332. 

Wiemer, Björn. 2014. Quo
vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language
change is like words. Folia
Linguistica 48(2): 425–467. 
