Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 25:3 (2018) ► pp.392–412
Variation between modal adverbs in British English
The cases of maybe and perhaps
Daisuke Suzuki | Japan Society for the Promotion of Science | Setsunan University | Kyoto University
Published online: 2 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16009.suz
Abstract
This study investigates the use and distribution of the synonymous adverbs maybe and perhaps in
order to determine their functional similarities and differences. After extracting usage data from the British National Corpus
(BNC), this study explores the following factors by analyzing the target adverbs in a larger context: (i) the kind of register,
(ii) the kind of NP chosen as the subject in maybe/perhaps clauses, (iii) the kind of modal verb used in the same
clause, and (iv) the position occupied by the target adverbs in a clause. The corpus analysis demonstrates that
maybe is more prone to subjective use while perhaps is a more strongly grammaticalized item,
and that the factors related to a highly subjective context contribute much to the variation between the adverbs. In addition, I
suggest that both maybe and perhaps (in combination with modal verbs or in final position) can
be used in an intersubjective context.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous descriptions of maybe and perhaps
- 3.Methodology
- 4.Results and discussion
- 4.1Distribution in speech and writing
- 4.2Modal collocations
- 4.3Subject form
- 4.4Position
- 4.5Grammaticality and (inter)subjectivity
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (66)
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language
change. Leiden: Brill.
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2). 337–351.
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 111. 1–34.
. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1). 93–124.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: CUP.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech & Susan Conrad. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: CUP.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 2004. Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause. Lingua 1141. 755–777.
. 2010. Adverbs and light verbs. In Lauren E. Clemens & Chi-Ming L. Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th International Conference
on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18) 2, 178–195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds.). 2003. Modality in contemporary English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fowler, Henry W. 2004. Fowler’s modern English usage, 3rd edn. Revised by Robert W. Burchfield. Oxford: OUP.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 61. 322–361.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge.
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken
English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623.
. 2012a. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Irén Hegedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical
Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 153–175. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2012b. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in
English. Language and Communication 32(3). 182–204.
. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 375–424.
Hoye, Leo & Mihai Zdrenghea. 1995. Modals and adverbs in English with reference to Romanian. Rask 21. 25–50.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 337–355.
Larkin, Don. 1976. Some notes on English modals. In James D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 387–398. New York: Academic Press.
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin: Mouton.
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds.). 2013. English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton.
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76.
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause
linkers in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–249. Berlin: Mouton.
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Mouton.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11. 1–43.
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence adverbials in English: A synchronic and diachronic investigation. Oslo: Novus.
Tancredi, Christopher. 2007. A multi-model modal theory of I-semantics: Part I: Modals. Tokyo: University of Tokyo manuscript.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 651. 31–55.
2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.
2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton.
2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Davis, Boyd H. & Meredith Troutman-Jordan
Zhou, Jiangping & Yanhua Xia
Molencki, Rafał
Zhou, Jiangping
2021. A corpus-based study of successive patterns of Chinese modals. Asian Languages and Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 292 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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.
