The question about the grammaticalization process of the modal auxiliary verbs from Old English to Modern English is a highly discussed topic among linguistics and scholars today. It is undisputed that, in the English that is spoken today, words like 'should', 'could' etc. form a separate category, or rather a subcategory, 'modal' that does not only syntactically differ from the usual English verbs, but also morphologically. That is, of course with the exception of a few regional variations such as for example Scots, but since the main focus of this paper is on the standard British and American English dialects, those regional non-standard dialects will not be taken into consideration here.
For every native and average non-native speaker, it is natural that modals like 'will' for example don't take the obligatory inflectional ending -s in third person singular present. Or that 'should', 'would' or 'could' do not have past tense meaning, although the forms itself are actually a past form. And it is also natural that just those verbs, which we subcategorize as modals, will neither appear as infinitives with 'to' (*'I have to will'), nor do they require 'to' in combination with regular verbs (*'I should to go').
Today we instinctively know that those usual grammatical rules that regular verbs require to be followed in order to correctly be embedded in a sentence, don't apply to the modals. How did we get to this point, though?
In the following paper I want to take a closer look at how the modals developed from regularly inflectional verbs, that they still were in Old English, to this new category 'modal' which is no longer a full verb that can stand alone in a sentence, but more of a grammatical function that signals either epistemic or deontic meaning.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A general outline of the history and function of the modals in the English language
2.1 The grammaticalization – catastrophic or long-term change?
2.2 The Pre-Modals in OE – Full verbs?
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the historical development of English modal auxiliary verbs, specifically investigating whether their transition from full verbs in Old English to their current grammatical role was a sudden, catastrophic shift or a gradual, long-term process.
- Evolution of modal verbs from Old English "preterite-presents"
- Comparative analysis of theories by David Lightfoot and Frans Plank
- Role of grammaticalization and semantic shifts in modal development
- Status of pre-modals as full verbs in Old English grammar
Excerpt from the Book
2. A general outline of the history and function of the modals in the English language
Those words which, today we categorize as modals or modal auxiliaries, were still full verbs in Old English, and also occasionally used likewise in Middle and New English. The modals „will/would‟ and „shall/should‟ for example derive from the OE verbs „willan‟ and „scullan‟. But how and why did they suddenly turn into this whole new grammatical category and lost almost all of their former semantic meanings?
The Old English verb was still able to distinguish three moods: indicative, imperative and subjunctive. The latter one does no longer exist in today‟s English, yet the modal constructions today come close to where the subjunctive verb forms were originally used. Therefore the explanation of why a whole bunch of full OE verbs turned into a grammatical feature should start with why the subjunctive got lost over centuries, creating a gap in the system which had to be filled again.
As a result of the so-called Great Vowel Shift, that turned all short, unstressed vowels into / /, many of the old inflectional endings that marked the subjunctive, got lost. That led to a similarity between the regular indicative and the subjunctive forms, a gap which was eventually filled by inventing a new set of words, the modals, as markers for the subjunctive mood.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research topic regarding the transition of modals from Old English to Modern English and defines the scope of the study.
2. A general outline of the history and function of the modals in the English language: Provides a historical overview of the modal development and introduces the conflicting theories of Lightfoot and Plank.
2.1 The grammaticalization – catastrophic or long-term change?: Analyzes the debate between Lightfoot's "catastrophic" restructuring theory and Plank's evidence for a gradual evolution.
2.2 The Pre-Modals in OE – Full verbs?: Investigates the grammatical behavior of pre-modals in Old English to determine if they truly functioned as full verbs.
3. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments provided and concludes that Plank's perspective on the gradual nature of the change is more supported by the evidence.
Keywords
Grammaticalization, English Modals, Old English, Preterite-Presents, Diachronic Linguistics, David Lightfoot, Frans Plank, Syntax, Subjunctive, Modal Auxiliaries, Language Change, Great Vowel Shift, To-Infinitive, Epistemic, Deontic
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the historical transition of English modal verbs from their origins as full verbs in Old English to their current status as a distinct grammatical category.
What are the primary fields of study involved?
The study primarily focuses on historical linguistics, diachronic syntax, and the grammaticalization process of the English language.
What is the central research question?
The central question is whether the development of the English modals was a sudden, catastrophic restructuring of grammar, as argued by David Lightfoot, or a gradual, long-term process, as argued by Frans Plank.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative literature review, analyzing and critiquing the opposing theories of linguists David Lightfoot and Frans Plank, supported by historical examples.
What is discussed in the main body of the paper?
The body analyzes the history of the modals, the evidence for early grammatical changes, the loss of inflectional endings, the role of preterite-presents, and the validity of arguments concerning "quasi-modals."
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Grammaticalization, English Modals, Preterite-Presents, Diachronic Linguistics, and the theories of Lightfoot and Plank.
How does the author evaluate the "catastrophic change" theory?
The author expresses skepticism toward Lightfoot's "catastrophic" theory, finding it less convincing than Plank's argument for a more nuanced, gradual development.
Why does the author discuss the German language?
The German language is used to provide a comparative perspective on how similar verbs (like "sollen") behave in passive constructions, illustrating the author's critique of specific linguistic evidence presented by Plank.
- Quote paper
- Katharina Reese (Author), 2007, The Development of the English Modals, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/163254
