Competing modals

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a corpus-based diachronic investigation into the semantic evolution of the Dutch modalskunnen“can”,mogen“may” andmoeten“must”, revealing an interaction between processes of (inter)subjectification and of semantic competition (‘no synonymy’).Mogenandkunnendo, butmoetendoes not, show an evolution in terms of (inter)subjectification. But developments inmogenandkunnenalso show an effect of the fact that historically they have been competing for the same semantic ground. There is no comparable competition for semantic ground inmoeten. This strongly suggests an interaction between the ‘no synonymy’ principle and (inter)subjectification, whereby the former may actually trigger the latter.

The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation

“…Our proposal here is to put this observation in a diachronic perspective of competition between two markers with similar semantics, which could lead eventually to the demise of one of the markers. (Degand and Fagard 2012: 154, emphasis added) (4) [Nuyts and Byloo (2015) investigate semantic change in three Dutch modal verbs, mogen 'may', kunnen 'can' and moeten 'must'. They propose that there is an interaction between semantic changespecifically, (inter)subjectificationand competition, driven by a 'no synonymy' principle.…”

“…(Nuyts and Byloo 2015: 34, emphases added) Although this is often left implicit, the idea that functional similarity is likely to eventually result in a reduction of functional overlap is rooted in structuralist and functionalist thinking. Languages are believed to strive towards isomorphism (Bolinger 1977;Haiman 1980;Wierzbicka 1988)the 'no synonymy' rule invoked by Nuyts and Byloo (2015) in (4) above is a variant on this principle. Isomorphism means that, ideally, a single function should be expressed by a single form.…”

Directionals and re-autonomization in Dutch modals

“…Even if it were plausible, this would not change the fact that the process involves degrammaticalization. As argued before (Nuyts, 2013;Byloo and Nuyts, 2014;Nuyts and Byloo, 2015;Nuyts et al, 2018), analogy does play a central role in the evolution of the modals, not only structurally but also semantically, even if in other ways than in the directionals hypothesis. Yet analogy and (de)grammaticalization are not mutually exclusive.…”

Language death, modality, and functional explanations

“…The fact that some of these terms have also been used with other meanings only adds to the confusion. For instance, 'root' modality is used by Gamon (1993) and Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994, 178, 191-194) in a much more specific sense, which excludes both participant-internal and deontic meanings, and 'situational' modality for Nuyts and Byloo (2015) refers to a specific subtype of participant-external modality. Other questions discussed are whether the Table 1.…”

“…Gamon (1993) calls it "root", Goossens (2000) "general objective", and Depraetere and Reed (2011) "general situation" modality. 9 I will follow Nuyts and Byloo (2015) and Nuyts (2016) and use the term 'situational' for such instances. Two examples from the relevant literature are given here, (12) from modern and (13) from earlier English:…”