Cover not available

In:Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 124–146

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

Chapter 5
Could be, might be, maybe

Mechanisms of grammaticalization in synchronic use and perception

 | Universität Rostock | Lunds Universitet
Published online: 13 July 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.05lor
In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it) could/might be (that) in English are potential candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The question is whether shorter forms (here, it-omission) are preferred in potentially grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause ((it) could be this is correct). I first summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of it-omission are found in critical context across items (could be, might be) and register (spoken, informal writing). A ‘continuous shadowing’ experiment partly confirms this finding but also shows that speakers/hearers are both more flexible and more conservative with could/might be than with maybe / it may be that. The findings suggest that grammaticalizing contexts have an immediate effect on formal reduction even in the absence of change, and that language users have an active intuition for emerging variational patterns.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Epistemic phrases and adverbials
  • 3.Epistemic phrases/adverbials in an experimental study
    • 3.1Design and participants
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.2Comparing shadowed responses with input forms
      • 3.2.3Durations of shadowed items
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (64)
References
Barth, Danielle. 2019. Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1): article nr. 20180055. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin. 2010. The grammaticalization of Mainland Scandinavian MAYBE. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies 1: 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Semi-insubordinate at-constructions in Norwegian: Formal, semantic and functional properties. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 34: 161–182.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
BNC Consortium. 2007. The British National Corpus. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2017. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.36. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bořil, Tomáš & Skarnitzl, Radek. 2016. Tools rPraat and mPraat. In Text, Speech, and Dialogue, Petr Sojka, Aleš Horák, Ivan Kopeček & Karel Pala (eds), 367–374. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2014. What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 469–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.) 145–167. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caines, Andrew. 2012. You talking to me? Corpus and experimental data on the zero auxiliary interrogative in British English. In Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, Stefan T. Gries & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 177–205. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christensen, Marie Herget, Kristensen, Line Burholt, Vinther, Nicoline Munck & Boye, Kasper. 2021. Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition 13(1): 128–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2007. Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: A corpus-based account. World Englishes 26(4): 474–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2010. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48(1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE). <[URL]>(15 January 2021).
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Entrenchment effects in language change. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.) 75–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In Constructions, Special Vol. 1, Doris Schönefeld (ed.). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finger, Holger, Goeke, Caspar, Diekamp, Dorena, Standvoß, Kai & König, Peter. 2017. LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies. International Conference on Computational Social Science (Cologne).
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope. In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2004. Exploring grammaticalization from below. In What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An & Brems, Lot. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.) 185–214. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Malden MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David. 2018. The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 357–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2): 85–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaatari, Henrik & Larsson, Tove. 2019. Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic development of I think and I’m sure. English Studies 100(6): 710–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konvička, Martin. 2019. Paradigms, host classes, and ancillariness. In Grammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 277–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32(2): 152–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015[1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Grammaticalization and automation. JournaLIPP 5: 33–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2014. From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like-parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1): 66–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2016. From clause to adverb: On the history of maybe. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.) 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2012. The perception of gonna and gotta – A study of emancipation in progress. In Proceedings of the 5th ISEL conference ExLing 2012, 27–29 August 2012, Athens, Greece, Antonis Botinis (ed.) 77–80. Athens: ISEL Editions.
. Forthcoming. Could be it’s grammaticalization: Usage patterns of the epistemic phrases (it) could/might be. To appear in Journal of English Linguistics.
Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David. 2020. Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions. Categories, Co-text, and Context [Studies in Language Companion Series 216], Pascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds), 79–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–344.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current changes in English syntax. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh, Alan. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10(1): 29–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2022. The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics 26(2): 331–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel, Rawoens, Gudrun & Beijering, Karin. 2014. Från matrissats till satsadverb? En diakron studie av adverbet kanske. <[URL]>(28 December 2022).
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94(4): 867–901. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. |<[URL]>(28 December 2022).
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds), 187–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.) 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelia & Šolienė, Audrone. 2012. Choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuanian: A corpus-based study. In Corpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics 43], Stefania Marzo, Kris Heylen & Gert De Sutter (eds.) 141–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2). 295–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2014. Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 425–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lorenz, David
2024. Potential grammaticalization of epistemic phrases. Functions of Language 31:3 ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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