The article looks at instances of specialisation for specific linguistic contexts in ‘command’ and ‘inference’ uses of will and must. It tests the feasibility of different motivations for this specialisation, such as statistical and construal pre-emption. It also proposes a new motivation for specialisation, polysemous pre-emption, i.e. whether a strongly entrenched polyseme of a given expression might pre-empt the use of an expression with a less strongly entrenched polyseme. The investigation uses corpus analysis and distinctive collexeme analysis to test the three motivations (statistical, construal, and polysemous pre-emption). The results show that all instances of specialisation with will and must could be explained through construal pre-emption and/or polysemous pre-emption, thus making recourse to statistical pre-emption unnecessary.

Modal concord refers to the phenomenon where the co-occurrence of two modal elements with the same flavor and force (e.g. may possibly, must certainly) gives rise to the interpretation of single modality. Given their (arguably) equivalent semantics, constructions with modal concord and single modal (e.g. may, must) can function as alternative choices in different contexts of use – how do speakers choose between them, and how is the choice perceived? In this article, we take a ‘Register’ approach and report an experimental study of MC in US English, addressing their linguistic and social meanings with versus without situational context. The results show that (i) modal concord constructions differ from single modal ones in linguistic meanings, which casts doubt on the concord assumption, and (ii) modal concord has distinct social meanings from those of single modal constructions. Our findings suggest a correlation between the meaning strength of a linguistic expression and the social perception about the speaker. Context, manipulated via the single situational parameter of interlocutor relation (close vs. distant), did not interact with the linguistic or social meaning of modal concord constructions, the implications of which are discussed in relation to the multidimensional nature of conversational situations and the method applied.

The English modals have been used as case studies in many domains of linguistic enquiry. Their diachronic development and patterns of synchronic variation in historical and contemporary corpora have been used to develop theories of linguistic representation, to further understanding of correlations between structure and use, and to investigate relationships between form and meaning. However, much of this research explores only the modals themselves: relatively little attention has been given to the study of modal collocations. In this article, we explore variation and change in collocational patterns of two modals (may and might) when they appear directly adjacent to the adverb well. Our analysis is corpus based, using quantitative data to explore macro-level trends in recent American English, and qualitative analysis to explore micro-level variation, particularly with regard to the development of concessive uses of may and might, and post-modal meanings more generally. We foreground the idea that modals show subtly different diachronic trends in specific collocations compared to perceived trends when looked at as an isolated class of auxiliary verbs.

This article examines the diachronic development of hedged performatives (HP) in spoken American English. HPs (e.g. I have to say, I must admit) combine a (semi-)modal verb and a performative verb, and were first analyzed by Fraser (1975). While subsequent research has investigated their discursive functions and established them as ‘constructions’, their diachronic development has not been analyzed within a Construction Grammar perspective. This article addresses this gap using three corpora: the TV Corpus, Movie Corpus and spoken COCA. We investigate fifteen HPs formed with three modals (have to, must, can), first sketching a constructional network with a macro-level ([I + MODAL + Vperf]), modal-specific meso-level (e.g. [I must Vperf]) and micro-level (e.g. [I must say]). Results show different diachronic trends at the meso-level: [I must Vperf] declines, [I have to Vperf] increases, and [I can Vperf] remains stable. These trends diverge from those of the base modals, confirming their constructional status. For must and have to HPs, change operates primarily at the meso-level, driven by evolving discourse norms. At the micro-level, must/have to HPs follow the meso-level trend, while can HPs show more variation. Finally, HPs are overrepresented in scripted speech, although diachronic trends remain consistent across registers.

While literature on English modality has usually focused on traditional modal and semi-modal verbs, to our knowledge, no attention has ever been given to the emerging be having to (BHT) construction. Through corpus analysis conducted on GloWbE, ICE, BNC and CLMET, this article investigates the semantic differences between have to and BHT that make them distinct in the English constructicon. We demonstrate that BHT conveys meanings of contingency, reluctance and inchoativity, and propose that its recent emergence may stem from a specific functional gap within the English modal system. While have to appears to be gradually grammaticalizing with future-oriented functions, BHT seems to be renewing the original (and less grammaticalized) dynamic functions of have to. Finally, we explore the productivity of the construction across different English varieties and the reasons for its lower frequency in postcolonial varieties. The hypothesis of negative retentionism proposes that a feature that was absent in the lexifier language at the time of contact may indeed be found to be less frequently used in the contact variety at a later stage due to colonial lag.

This article explores the variation surrounding the semi-modals be going to and gonna. While gonna is frequently mentioned alongside be going to, it remains under-described in traditional grammars and academic literature. However, recent studies within Construction Grammar suggest that gonna may represent an independent construction, prompting a reconsideration of other variants within the be going to / gonna paradigm such as gon and imma, which appear to derive directly from gonna and no longer from be going to. In light of recent work, what have traditionally been regarded as mere ‘phonetic realizations’ or ‘orthographic variants’ may in fact play a more significant role in the formation and definition of constructions, raising questions about the structure of constructional networks. This article analyzes the immediate syntactic environment of the variants to account for both the variation of forms and the status of such forms. The study is conducted using two corpora that are particularly prone to showing linguistic innovations and language change: a spontaneous spoken corpus and a web corpus. Findings indicate that shorter variants often involve elision of be and that gonna is more grammaticalized than going to, based on the types of verbs they precede.

The present article provides a diachronic analysis of the negation and contraction patterns of will and would in British and American English. It contrasts nineteenth- and twentieth-century data from British and American fiction, comparing the collocational preferences of negated versus non-negated and contracted versus non-contracted modals. Utilising Configural Frequency Analysis, we explore frequency differences as well as variety-specific association patterns. Results reveal predominantly commonalities. The spread of the modal contractions ’ll and ’d as well as the spread of the contracted negator n’t proceeded at similar speeds in both varieties. The analysis at the level of cotextual configurations shows the emergence of several emancipated subschemas that are each differentially entrenched and conventionalised.

Recent studies in Construction Grammar have suggested that contracted modals constitute different constructions from their full forms. In this article, we present a corpus-based analysis of the relationship between the modal forms going to and gonna in British English used on the blogging platform LiveJournal. We report a Collostructional Analysis and a Behavioural Profile Analysis based on a logistic regression model of blind annotations, assessing factors of semantic, pragmatic and social meaning on the choice of the variant, in addition to processing factors. The results show that register formality is the only significant meaning predictor for the alternation between going to or gonna in the corpus. We discuss these results in light of recent theoretical debates on isomorphism and synonymy avoidance in Construction Grammar: specifically, our study provides evidence that social meaning drives the distinction between going to and gonna, validating the recently formulated Principle of No Equivalence, and providing further evidence for the constructionhood of contracted modals.