Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.130–161

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The post-modal grammaticalisation of concessive may and might

ORCiD logo with link | University of Paris 8
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 29 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22021.lec
Abstract
The decline of certain core modals in English, including may and might, is a well-documented phenomenon (cf. Daugs, R. (2017). On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In T. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and explorations. VARIENG. Available at: [URL]). It is less clear, however, whether this tendency will lead to the loss of these modals or whether other changes are also underway. I aim to address this issue by looking at the use of may and might in concessive clauses. I will first present the results of a corpus study (COHA) aimed at understanding the diachronic development of concessive may and might. The analysis reveals a significant increase of may and might in concessive contexts since the 1960s, especially in factual concessives with but. This new finding is important as it shows that, though decreasing in frequency, the two modals are developing new patterns of use. This raises the question whether the status of may and might as modal verbs is also changing. I argue that the two verbs are going through a process of post-modal (secondary) grammaticalisation and constructionalisation, and that the concessive meaning is linked to the more complex ‘subj {may/might} VP, but-clause’ construction. I also claim that, within the paradigm of concessive constructions, those with may and might are best viewed as hedged concessives that serve politeness purposes.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Quantitative overview
  • 4.May and might: Concessive?
  • 5.A constructional analysis of ‘concessive’ may and might
  • 6.From modals to ‘hedged concessives’
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (77)
References
Aarts, B., Bowie, J., & Wallis, S. (2015). Profiling the English verb phrase over time: Modal patterns. In I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge & J. Smith (Eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence (pp. 48–76). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adolphs, S. (2007). Definitely maybe: Modality clusters and politeness in spoken discourse. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 257–274). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auwera, J. van der, & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 21, 79–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baranzini, L., & Mari, A. (2019). From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal of Pragmatics, 1421, 116–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, J. L. (1997). Epistemic modality and discourse connectivity. Pragmalingüística, 3–41, 223–240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. (2nd Edn.) John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouscaren, J., & Chuquet, J. (1987). Grammaire et textes anglais. Guide pour l’analyse linguistique. Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, T., & Kranich, S. (2015). What happens after grammaticalization? Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. (Special issue) Language Sciences, 47(Part B), 129–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1995). The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleishman (Eds.), Modality and grammar in discourse (pp. 503–517). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2021). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language, 36(1), 108–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Arnon, I. (2017). More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 91, 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daugs, R. (2017). On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In T. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and explorations. VARIENG. Available at: [URL]
(2020). Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals: A usage-based, constructionist view on the heterogeneity of modal development. In P. Hohaus & R. Schulze (Eds.), Re-assessing modalising expressions: Categories, co-text, and context (pp. 17–46). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Contractions, constructions and constructional change. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 12–52). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). English modal enclitic constructions: A diachronic, usage-based study of ’d and ’ll. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 221–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available online at [URL]
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online at [URL]
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The definition of modality. In A. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp. 21–44). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. & B. Cappelle. (2023). English modals: An outline of their forms, meanings and uses. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp. 14–59). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., B. Cappelle, M. Hilpert, L. De Cuypere, M. Dehouck, P. Denis, S. Flach, N. Grabar, C. Grandin, T. Hamon, C. Hufeld, B. Leclercq & H.-J. Schmid. (2023). Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Kaltenböck, G. (2019). Hedged performatives and (inter)subjectivity. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) – Workshop: Pragmatic markers and clause peripheries (Organized by J. Šinkūnienė and D. Van Olmen). Leipzig, Germany, August 2019.
Depraetere, I., & Langford, C. (2020). Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. (2nd Edn.) Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Reed, S. (2011). Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Mood and modality in English. In B. Aarts, A. McMahon & L. Hinrichs (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (2nd Ed.) (pp. 207–227). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (pp. 187–210). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A. (2011). Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 92–105). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gresset, S. (2012). De l’in/attendu dans les énoncés concessifs avec MAY. Illustration à partir d’un discours de Barack Obama. Linx. Revue des linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre, 66–671, 51–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gresset, S., & Mélis, G. (2020). Concession, intensité assertive et argumentation–étude comparée de deux constructions concessives en anglais. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, F. (2012). The relevance of constructions for the interpretation of modal meaning: The case of must. English Studies, 93(6), 700–728. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, B. (2017). What happens after grammaticalization? Post-grammaticalization processes in the area of modality. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp. 257–280). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction grammar and its application to English. (2nd ed.) Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. (2nd Edn.) Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K., et al. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1994). Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English. English Studies, 72(2), 166–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 131, 59–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kawabata, T. (2010). On the rise of but-concessive constructions: From the viewpoint of grammaticalization. In M. Kytö, J. Scahill & H. Tanabe (Eds.), Language change and variation from old English to late modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (pp. 303–325). Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranich, S. (2021). Decline and loss in the modal domain in recent English. In S. Kranich & T. Brenan (Eds.), Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions (pp. 261–289). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapaire, J.-M., & Rotgé, W. (1991). Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais. Presses Universitaires du Mirail.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larreya, P., & Rivière, C. (2010). Grammaire explicative de l’anglais. (4th Edn.) Pearson Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Modality revisited: Combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. In I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle & M. Hilpert et al. (Eds.), Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning (pp. 60–92). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Linguistic knowledge and language use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb. (3rd Edn.). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Love, R., & Curry, N. (2021). Recent change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language and Linguistics, 25(3), 537–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, C. (2021). Recent advances in the corpus-based study of ongoing grammatical change in English. Text & Talk, 41(5–6), 763–785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 471, 148–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens & L. Ghesquière (Eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectification and directionality (pp. 19–46). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. (2nd Edn.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. (2000). On speech-act modality. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 519–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 81, 305–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing. Vianna, Austria. URL [URL]
Rossari, C., Montrichard, C., Ricci, C., & Sanvido, L. (2022). Pouvoir et peut-être: approche textométrique de leur valeur post-modale de concession. Paper presented at La postmodalité et les cycles de vie des expressions modales. Université de Caen, 2–3 June 2022.
Scheurweghs, G. (1959). Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Souesme, J.-C. (2009). MAY in concessive contexts. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English. Theory and description (pp. 159–176). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sugiyama, K. (2003). On factual may. English Linguistics, 20(2), 441–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). Modality. In E. Sweetser (Ed.), From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics (pp. 49–75). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003a). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Leclercq, Benoît & Cameron Morin
2025. The Meaning of Constructions, DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît & Graeme Trousdale
2025. Investigating diachronic shifts within a domain of English modality: a study of collocates with well. English Language and Linguistics 29:3 ► pp. 505 ff. DOI logo
Poláková, Lucie, Jana Šindlerová & Barbora Štěpánková
2025. No doubt, but... on Connective Functions of Epistemic Markers. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 76:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Politt, Katja
2024. Co(n)texts in Grammatical Paradigms. CogniTextes Volume 25 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue