Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:36:24.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Modal Auxiliaries have to and must in the Corpus of Early Ontario English: Gradient Change and Colonial Lag

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Stefan Dollinger
Stefan Dollinger*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion ‘drift’ plays an important role in the development of the modals have to and must in early Canadian English in relation to British and American English during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Have to is first found in texts that reflect informal usage, and for the period in question (1750–1849), have to is only attested with deontic readings; the data suggest that its rise was not exclusively conditioned by the defective paradigm of must. Must maintains its epistemic function in relation to its Late Modern English competitors. In early Canadian English, changes progress gradually, with individual variables following different directions. Canadian English epistemic must lags behind, while deontic have to has spread more quickly in North America, with Canadian English more progressive than British English varieties, but less so than American English. Within a more general drift towards have to, Canadian English shows independent development in successive periods.

Résumé

Résumé

La notion de dérive (‘drift’) joue un rôle important dans le développement des modaux have to et must dans la période initiale de l’anglais canadien par rapport aux anglais britannique et américain au cours de la fin du XVIIIe et le début du XIXe siècle. Dans un premier temps, have to se trouve dans des textes qui se prêtent à l’usage informel, et pour la période en question (1750–1849), have to est attesté seulement avec une interprétation déontique; les données suggèrent que sa montée n’était pas exclusivement conditionnée par le paradigme défectif de must. Must retient sa fonction épistémique par rapport à ses concurrents de la période postérieure de l’anglais moderne contemporain. Dans la période initiale de l’anglais canadien les changements progressent de façon graduelle, et les variables suivent diverses directions. Alors que le must épistémique de l’anglais canadien est en décalage, le have to déontique s’est répandu plus rapidement en Amérique du Nord, et l’anglais canadien se trouve à la fois plus avancé que les variétés de l’anglais britannique, mais moins que l’anglais américain. À l’intérieur d’une dérive plus générale vers have to, l’anglais canadien fait preuve d’un développement indépendant dans des périodes successives.

Type
Language Change
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 51 , Issue 2-3: Canadian English in a Global Context , November 2006 , pp. 287 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avis, Walter S. 1978. Canadian English in its North American context. In Walter S. Avis: Essays and articles, ed. Vincent, Thomas, Parker, George, and Bonnycastle, Stephen, 35–49. Kingston, ON: Royal Military College.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal HAVE TO in English. Ms., University of British Columbia, http://www.english.ubc.ca/~lbrinton/haveto.pdf, (accessed May 27, 2005).Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. ed. 1975. Canadian English: Origins and structures. Toronto: Methuen.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 1998. English: Canadian varieties. In Language in Canada, ed. Edwards, John, 252–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 2004. ‘Canadian dainty’: The rise and decline of Briticisms in Canada. In Legacies of colonial English: Studies in transported dialects, ed. Hickey, Raymond, 224–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. IV 1776-1997, ed. Romaine, Suzanne, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2006. Oh Canada! Towards the Corpus of Early Ontario English. In The changing face of corpus linguistics, ed. Renouf, A. and Kehoe, A., 7–25. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78:137–164.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2003. The development of the modals in English. In English modality in context: Diachronie perspectives, ed. Hart, David, 17–32. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Gaaf, van der W. 1931. Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive. English Studies 13:176–188.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronie morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society 7:394–415. Cited in Hopper 1991:18.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine. 2004. Teachers, texts and Early Canadian English 1791-1841. In Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, ed. Burelle, Sophie and Somesfalean, Stanca, 85–96. Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1987. Colonial lag? The alleged conservative character of American English and other ‘colonial’ varieties. English World-Wide 8:41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Joseph. 1989. Catch-22. New York: Simon and Schuster. [1955.]Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I, ed. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 18–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt. 1994. Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English. English Studies 2:166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget. 2004. A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23(2):85–113.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 1998. Gotta-the tenth central modal in English? Social, stylistic and regional variation in the British National Corpus as evidence of ongoing grammaticalization. In The major varieties of English. Papers from MAVEN 97, ed. Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus, and Estling, Maria, 177–191. Växjö: Acta Wexionensia.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study on grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2004. The emergence of American English: Evidence from seventeenth-century records in New England. In Legacies of colonial English: Studies in transported dialects, ed. Hickey, Raymond, 121–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2003. Compiling an electronic corpus of the early 19th century pauper letters. In ICAME 2003 Abstracts, ed. Davis, Ceri, 70. English Unit, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Landon, Fred. 1967. Western Ontario and the American frontier. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. [1941.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lower, J.A. 1970. A nation developing: A brief history of Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Marckwardt, Albert H. 1958. American English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mencken, H.L. 1936. The American language. 4th ed. New York: Knopf. Cited in Visser 1969-1973:1478.Google Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molencki, Rafal. 2003. What must needs be explained about must needs . In English modality in context: Diachronic perspectives, ed. Hart, David, 71–87. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 1996. The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13:83–134.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of American English modals. Linguistics 33:157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, Stephen J. 1989. Quasi-modals, marginal modals, and the diachrony of the English modal auxiliaries. Folia Linguistica Historka 9(2):93–104.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. 2nd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8:305–364.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, eds. 1992. History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. 1985. A geographical view of the province of Upper Canada, and promiscuous remarks on the government. Hartford: Hale and Hosner, CIHM 49860. [1813.]Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on grammaticalization (Berkeley Linguistics Society 14), ed. Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen, 389–405. Berkeley: University of California. Cited in Hopper and Traugott 1993:80.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2004. Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. In Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, ed. Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian, 33–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taiman, J.J. and Taiman, R.. 1977. The Canadas 1763-1812. In Literary history of Canada: Canadian literature in English. Vol. 1. ed. Klinck, C.F, 97–105. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65:31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. Why must is not moot. Paper read at the 14th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New-dialect formation: The inevitability of colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. This volume.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1969-1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Vol. 3(1-2). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WordSmith. 1998. Version 3.00.00, programmed by Mike Scott.Google Scholar