Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:01:04.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘You’ve got to sort of eh hoy the Geordie out’: modals of obligation and necessity in fifty years of Tyneside English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

CAROL FEHRINGER  and
KAREN CORRIGAN
CAROL FEHRINGER
Affiliation:
School of Modern Languages, Old Library Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UKcarol.fehringer@ncl.ac.uk
KAREN CORRIGAN
Affiliation:
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, Percy Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UKk.p.corrigan@ncl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the use of the semi-modals have to, have got to and need to in the Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English (DECTE), a corpus of spoken Northeastern English dating from the late 1960s to the present day. It will be shown that the semi-modals have, in many contexts, replaced the historically older must as markers of obligation and necessity in this variety. Moreover, the two most frequent variants in the corpus, have to and have got to, will be examined in the light of current theories of grammaticalisation. Internal and external constraints, which have been shown in the literature on root modality to have played an important role in the distribution of variants in other regional varieties of British and North American English, will be tested in DECTE. The article will also examine the rise of need to in this northeastern variety, as the most recent addition to the group of variants marking obligation and necessity.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 2: Sense of place in the history of English , July 2015 , pp. 355 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We are grateful to the Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences at Newcastle University for an award to assist with the completion of this project from their SDF Fund for Research Collaboration and Infrastructure. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of the first draft of this paper for their very helpful feedback.

References

Allen, Will, Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P., Maguire, Warren & Moisl, Hermann L.. 2007. The Newcastle Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. In Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P. & Moisl, Hermann L. (eds.), Creating and digitising language corpora, vol. 2: Diachronic databases, 16–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2004. English dialects in the north of England: morphology and syntax. In Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend, Schneider, Edgar W. & Upton, Clive (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English, 114–41. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Burbano-Elizondo, Lourdes & Llamas, Carmen. 2012. Dialects of English. Urban North-Eastern English: Tyneside to Teesside. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P., Mearns, Adam & Moisl, Hermann L.. 2014. The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English: Annotation and dissemination practices. In Durand, Jacques, Gut, Ulrike & Kristoffersen, Gjert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of corpus phonology, 517–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Corrigan, Karen P.. To appear. ‘That's bad grammar again isn't it?’: Morpho-syntactic features of Northern English. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Researching Northern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Close, Joanne & Aarts, Bas. 2010. Current change in the modal system of English: A case study of must, have to and have got to. In Lenker, Ursula, Huber, Judith & Mailhammer, Robert (eds.), The history of English verbal and nominal constructions. Vol. 1 of English historical linguistics 2008. Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008, 165–81.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P. 2000. ‘What bees to be maun be’: Aspects of deontic and epistemic modality in a northern dialect of Irish-English. English World-Wide 21 (1), 25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P., Buchstaller, Isabelle, Mearns, Adam J. & Moisl, Hermann L. 2012. The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte/ (30 July 2013).Google Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P., Mearns, Adam & Moisl, Hermann L.. 2014. Feature-based versus aggregate analyses of the DECTE corpus: Phonological and morphological variability in Tyneside English. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology and feature analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech, 113–49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia & Bailey, Guy. 2013. Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edn, 239–62. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. IV: 1776 to the present day, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-dialect formation in Canada: Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.). 2003. Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehringer, Carol & Corrigan, Karen P.. In press. ‘The Geordie accent has a bit of a bad reputation’: Internal and external constraints on stative possession in the Tyneside English of the 21st century. English Today.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78, 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticisation. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalisation, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget. 2004. A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23, 85–114.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1), 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalisation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2001 [1994]. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Krug & Palmer (eds.), 223–40.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current changes in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 318–42. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Christine. 1981. Variation in the use of the modal verbs with special reference to Tyneside English. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Mearns, Adam. In press. Newcastle. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Researching Northern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33, 175–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nokkonen, Soli. 2006. The semantic variation of need to in four recent British English corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11 (1), 29–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nokkonen, Soli. 2010. ‘How many taxis there needs to be?’ The sociolinguistic variation of need to in spoken British English. Corpora 5 (1), 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988. Problems of representativeness. In Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert & Mattheier, Klaus J. (eds.), An international handbook of language and society, 899–903. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Facchinetti, Krug & Palmer (eds.), 241–66.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. A. 2004. ‘Have to, gotta, must’: Grammaticalisation, variation and specialisation in English deontic modality. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalisation in English, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. A. 2013. Roots of English. Exploring the history of dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28 (1), 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer. 2006. Layering, change and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23, 341–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., D’Arcy, Alexandra & Jankowski, Bridget. 2010. Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change 22, 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2003. Simplification and redistribution: An account of modal verb usage in Tyneside English. English World Wide 24, 271–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1969. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. 3. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar