Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:50:04.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Modal verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Peter Siemund
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access

Summary

Standard English has a closed class of central modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.) with highly specific properties. These modal verbs trigger the use of the bare infinitive, shun the otherwise obligatory third person -s suffix, possess no past tense forms, never occur together, do not trigger do-periphrasis – to mention just a few salient properties. In addition to the class of central modals, there are various so-called ‘semi-modals’ (dare, need, ought to, used to, have to, be able to, etc.) that have properties of both modal verbs and main verbs.

In this chapter, we will first of all familiarise ourselves with the special grammatical properties of the standard English modal verb system before considering their form, function, and distribution in non-standard varieties. In our cross-linguistic section, we will explore a broader array of strategies to encode modal meanings and also follow up the developmental paths of modal verbs, as the grammatical processes forming them are of wider significance.

Overview

In the standard varieties, the modal verbs can, could, will, would, may, might, must, shall, and should form a so-called ‘closed class’, as this group developed in the history of English – in the period known as ‘Early Modern English’ – and has remained largely unaltered since.

Modal verbs represent a subgroup of the wider category of auxiliary verbs with which they share many properties. Prototypical auxiliaries in English are be, have, and do, though these verbs may also be used as main verbs. ‘Auxiliary’ is the established term for a verb that assumes a function similar to that of verbal inflection (i.e. tense, mood, aspect, voice, etc.) and that does not form a predication of its own.

Type
Chapter
Information
Varieties of English
A Typological Approach
, pp. 155 - 173
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

References

Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming. 2010. Must in Singapore English. Lingua 120. 1727–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Keith. 1991. Double modals in Hawick Scots. In Peter Trudgill and Jack K. Chambers (eds.), Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation, 73–103. Longman: London.Google Scholar
Coleman, William L. 1975. Multiple Modals in Southern States English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker. 2012. Understanding English–German Contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. (Topics in English Linguistics 32.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1993. The grammar of Scottish English. In Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, 99–139. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja, Boye, Kasper, and van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. Modals in the Germanic languages. In Hansen, Björn and de Haan, Ferdinand (eds.), Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work, 11–69. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, David R. 1972. Anglo-Welsh dialects in South-East Wales. In Wakelin, Martyn F. (ed.), Patterns in the Folk Speech of the British Isles, 140–63. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars.) London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and Ammann, Andreas. 2011a. Situational possibility. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 74. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and Ammann, Andreas. 2011b. Epistemic possibility. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 75. Available online at . Accessed 22 December 2011.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1995. The syntax of double modal constructions. Linguistica Atlantica 17. 19–44.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Cynthia. 2003. Grammatical features of southern speech: yall, might could, and fixin to. In Nagle, Stephen and Sanders, Sara (eds.), English in the Southern United States, 106–18. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boertien, Harmon S. 1979. The double modal construction in Texas. In Smith, Carlota and Schmerling, Susan F. (eds.), Texas Linguistic Forum 13, 14–33. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Boertien, Harmon S. 1986. Constituent structure of double modals. In Montgomery, Michael and Bailey, Guy (eds.), Language Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White, 294–318. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Boertien, Harmon S. and Said, Sally. 1980. Syntactic variation in double modal dialects. Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 3. 210–22.Google Scholar
de la Cruz, Juan. 1995. The geography and history of double modals in English: A new proposal. Folia Linguistica Historica 18(2). 75–96.Google Scholar
de la Cruz, Juan. 1997. The history of double modals in the history of English revisited. In Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanisauw (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modeling: Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, volume I, 87–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna. 1989. Double modals as single lexical items. American Speech 64(3). 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-Dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, Barbara A. 1993. Evidence for British sources of double modal constructions in Southern American English. American Speech 68(4). 430–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, Barbara A. and Butters, Ronald R.. Historical and contemporary distribution of double modals. In Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.), Focus on the USA, 265–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mashburn, Carolyn. 1989. Multiple modals in an American English dialect. CUNY Forum 14. 130–3.Google Scholar
Mishoe, Margaret and Montgomery, Michael. 1994. The pragmatics of multiple modals in North and South Carolina. American Speech 60(1). 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael and Nagle, Stephen J.. 1994. Double modals in Scotland and the Southern United States: Trans-Atlantic inheritance or independent development? Folia Linguistica Historica 14. 91–107.Google Scholar
Nagle, Stephen J. 1994. The English double modal conspiracy. Diachronica 11. 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, Stephen J. 1995. English double modals: Internal or external change? In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions, 207–15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8(3). 305–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. The modals of obligation and necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Modal verbs
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Modal verbs
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Modal verbs
  • Peter Siemund, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Varieties of English
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028240.009
Available formats
×