Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:36:05.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic change and grammaticalization: The development of modal and postmodal meanings in Mainland Scandinavian må, måtte and måste

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Karin Beijering
Karin Beijering*
Affiliation:
Scandinavian languages and cultures, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands. k.beijering@rug.nl
Get access

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative synchronic corpus investigation of Mainland Scandinavian må, måtte and måste ‘must, may’. These modals developed a wide range of different meanings and uses within the realm of necessity, possibility and beyond, i.e., ability, capacity, need, desirability, permission, wish, obligation, uncertainty, probability and concession. The rise of modal and postmodal meanings is a well-known instance of semantic change that follows predictable grammaticalization paths. Furthermore, the development of modals is a prototypical instance of grammaticalization as they are forms on their way from lexical to grammatical status. Because of this, modals have properties of both main verbs and auxiliaries to various extents. This paper will outline the etymology, grammaticalization paths, semantic distributions and formal properties of må, måtte and måste and show that these modals represent different stages of grammaticalization in the Mainland Scandinavian languages.

Keywords

auxiliationgrammaticalizationMainland Scandinavian languagesmodal meaningspostmodal meanings
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: The Nordic Languages and Typology , October 2011 , pp. 105 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2011

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

REFERENCES

Andersson, Peter. 2007. Modalitet och förändring. En studie av må och kunna i fornsvenska [Modality and change: A study of må and kunna in Old Swedish]. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas. 1987. Präteritopräsentia: morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen [Preterite-presents: Morphological developments of a special class in the Old Germanic languages]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Björkstam, Harald. 1919. De modala hjälpverben i svenskan. Tör, lär, mon, må, måtte och vill [The modal auxiliaries in Swedish: Tör, lär, mon, må, måtte and vill]. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Crevels, Emily I. 2000. Concession: A Typological Study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand & Hansen, Björn. 2009. Introduction. In Hansen & de Haan (eds.), 1–10.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk [Reference grammar of Norwegian]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Falk, Hjalmar & Torp, Alf. 1903–1906. Etymologisk ordbog over det norske og det danske sprog [Etymological dictionary of Norwegian and Danish]. Kristiana. Online version (A. Torps etymologiske ordbok): http://www.edd.uio.no/perl/search/search.cgi?appid=208&tabid=2320 (26 January 2011).Google Scholar
Field, Andy. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn & de Haan, Ferdinand (eds.). 2009. Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Closs Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Mortelmans, Tanja, Boye, Kasper & van derAuwera, Johan. 2009. Modals in the Germanic languages. In Hansen, & de Haan, (eds.), 11–70.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Pieter & Diepeveen, Janneke. 2010. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Debrabandere, Frans, Quack, Arend, Schoonheim, Tanneke & van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2003. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands [Etymological dictionary of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1981. Modalitätsausdruck zwischen Autonomie und Auxiliarität [Expressions of modality between autonomy and auxiliariness]. In Rosengren, Inger (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik: Lunder Symposium 1980, 57–71. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan, Andersson, Erik & Christensen, Lisa (eds.). 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik [Grammar of the Swedish Academy]. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien/Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, Kehayov, Petar & Vittrant, Alice. 2009. Acquisitive modals. In Hogeweg, Lotte, de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 79–124.Google Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna. 2006. (De)coding Modality – the Case of must, may, måste and kan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1965. Svensk språkhistoria I. Ljudlära och ordböjningslära [History of the Swedish language, I: Phonetics and morphology]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar