{"title":"I couldn’t help but wonder: do modals and negation attract?","authors":"Ulrike Schneider","doi":"10.1515/cllt-2023-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present paper focusses on the historical development of the relationship between the English core modals <jats:italic>can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>must</jats:italic> and the negator <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. It explores whether semantic and morphosyntactic factors, particularly the emergence of <jats:sc>do</jats:sc>-support in Early Modern English, the increase in the popularity of contracted forms such as <jats:italic>won’t</jats:italic> in the nineteenth century and the loss of core modals in the twentieth century, had an influence on negation rates. Large-scale empirical analyses of modal use in historical corpora of British prose fiction published between ca. 1500 and 1990 reveal that many modals—particularly high-frequency <jats:italic>will, would, can</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>could</jats:italic>—indeed attract <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>. The establishment of the contractions <jats:italic>n’t, ’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> had the strongest effect on the modal-negation system after 1500. The availability of the contracted modals <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> led to a functional split whereby <jats:italic>will</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>would</jats:italic> became much more strongly associated with negation while contracted <jats:italic>’ll</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>’d</jats:italic> repel <jats:italic>not</jats:italic>-negation.","PeriodicalId":45605,"journal":{"name":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","volume":"88 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present paper focusses on the historical development of the relationship between the English core modals can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might and must and the negator not. It explores whether semantic and morphosyntactic factors, particularly the emergence of do-support in Early Modern English, the increase in the popularity of contracted forms such as won’t in the nineteenth century and the loss of core modals in the twentieth century, had an influence on negation rates. Large-scale empirical analyses of modal use in historical corpora of British prose fiction published between ca. 1500 and 1990 reveal that many modals—particularly high-frequency will, would, can and could—indeed attract not. The establishment of the contractions n’t, ’ll and ’d had the strongest effect on the modal-negation system after 1500. The availability of the contracted modals ’ll and ’d led to a functional split whereby will and would became much more strongly associated with negation while contracted ’ll and ’d repel not-negation.
期刊介绍:
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (CLLT) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality original corpus-based research focusing on theoretically relevant issues in all core areas of linguistic research, or other recognized topic areas. It provides a forum for researchers from different theoretical backgrounds and different areas of interest that share a commitment to the systematic and exhaustive analysis of naturally occurring language. Contributions from all theoretical frameworks are welcome but they should be addressed at a general audience and thus be explicit about their assumptions and discovery procedures and provide sufficient theoretical background to be accessible to researchers from different frameworks. Topics Corpus Linguistics Quantitative Linguistics Phonology Morphology Semantics Syntax Pragmatics.