This reduction of my MA will be published in two parts. Part one introduces the reader to the subject matter, pointing out the research question and hypothesis and the methodology. Part two discusses the results and findings to then conclude critically. The bibliography will become available in the second post.
Part one is accompanied by some great music produced by my younger brother, Kristof.
Intense Meditative Trip Sessions Vol.1 by The Mixing Chef
1. The seeds
My first MA dissertation was a corpus study, concerned with finding out the grammatical status of certainly in collocation with modal verbs. The seeds for the dissertation were sown by Hoye in his book Adverbs and Modality in English (1997). His book investigates the possible collocations and their meanings and uses of modal verbs and modal auxiliaries, also called modal synergy by Hoye – a research area which has only recently regained its fervour (e.g. Geurts 2006, Huitink and Geurts 2008, Zeijlstra 2007, Anand- Brasoveanu 2010) since Halliday (1970), Lyons (1977) and Hoye himself (1997). The following is an example of such a combination:
(1) Could I possibly borrow your history book?
Hoye’s book further offers pragmatic reasons for using modal synergy and orientates it in Speech Act Theory. A few of his claims (pp. 208-212), seemingly impulsive, attracted my attention and left me in deep pondering. Page 208 introduces a question which I wanted to answer in my dissertation: ‘Modal adverbs or modal particles?’. Hoye suggests that certain modal adverbs have become ‘grammaticalised’, ‘delexicalised’, ‘lexically redundant’ in the environment of modal verbs and argues for the name ‘modal particle’ for a subset of what he calls reinforcing modal adverbs. He only very briefly sums up a few reasons (viz. syntax and semantics) but he does not engage in offering definitions and further explanations as to the status of these modal adverbs as modal particles. Certainly is one of those adverbs, and in my dissertation it was my aim to investigate whether Hoye’s intuitions about it were true. Due to word constraints, I was only able to look at certainly in collocation with will, would, may, might and must. Before I go into the details of my findings, I will first say a few words about certainly.
Certainly in Modal Synergy
Certainly is a modal adverb related to the adjective certain and the noun certainty. In adverbial use, it thus expresses high certainty, but it also has concessive-contrastive meanings. Certainly has strong modal strength (it expresses high likelihood) and as such it always reinforces what it modifies. In sentence-initial position, certainly is a high probability adverb which expresses ‘the speaker’s strength of conviction in the truth of the adjoining proposition’ (Hoye 1997, p. 190); it reinforces the speaker’s belief. The default cases of modal synergy are called modal harmony, whereby the modal adverb and the modal verb are of the same modal strength. When certainly functions concessively (very often followed by a but-clause) (Swan 2005), the collocational restrictions of modal harmony do not always hold and certainly will appear with modal verbs which express a lower degree of likelihood. Cp.
(2) Certainly he must attend classes.
(3) Certainly he could be aggressive, but I have never seem him act it.
That being said, certainly actually readily collocates with all modal auxiliaries. Also Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer 2007 (pp.89-90) confirm this and add that it most frequently co-occurs with would and will. These uses, they further say, are epistemic (predictive) or dynamic (volitional). When combined with epistemic modals of possibility, certainly is said to express concession; but other than that it would convey ‘straightforward affirmation of truth’ (Hoye 1997, p. 162).
Now I will briefly introduce how in a theory of grammaticalisation, I went about conducting the study.
2. The core concepts
Grammaticalisation
Grammaticalisation is to be situated in theories of language change. It is a type of change which in itself comprises several processes of change. As the name lets on, the change with its inherent processes has to do with language items become part of the grammar. However, next to a syntactic change, grammaticalisation is also a ‘global change affecting … the morphology, phonology and semantics’ (McMahon 1994, p. 160).
Also Hoye has attempted at pinpointing what seems to him a grammaticalised adverb: viz. certainly. In what follows, I provided an introduction into grammaticalisation. The aim was to offer a comprehensive overview of grammaticalisation in order to (dis)confirm later on Hoye’s intuitions about certainly, which he left remarkably undefined or backed up with proof from the used corpus.
Definition
The traditionally quoted definition from Hopper and Traugott (2003, p. 18; my emphasis) goes: Grammaticalisation is the ‘change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalised, continue to develop new grammatical functions’. This change is to be understood as a gradual continuum, a slippery slope of unidirectionality, which can consist of several terminals, i.e. a construction need not follow the cline to the ‘end’, but can halt its development at any point on the continuum. Triggers for grammaticalisation are multifaceted but far beyond the scope of this study; to name a few: sociolinguistic pressures, principle of economy, expressivity enhancement etc. (Croft 2000, de Haan 2005, Hopper and Traugott 2003).
For the purposes of the current study, I would like to highlight the following quote from Hopper and Traugott (2003, p. 2; my emphasis, square brackets from p. 18): ‘Grammaticalization … is part of the wider linguistic phenomenon of structuration, through which combinations of forms may in time come to be fixed in certain [grammatical] functions [in certain linguistic contexts]’. This process is said to be marked by phonological reduction, semantic bleaching, (a/) pragmatic shift(s), decategorisation , and syntagmatic and paradigmatic restrictions. For example, the verb have has over time come to be used as a temporal (‘possessive perfect’) and a causative auxiliary next to its original lexical main verb use of ‘possession’. The above quote goes back to the idea that one cannot study the change of items by themselves but that the context is important for the semantics and the syntagmatic properties of that item (cf. Firth; Bybee 2003; Bybee and Cacoullos 2009; Noël 2007). In an attempt to marry grammaticalisation theory to construction grammar, Dirk Noël (2007) explains that the context of a linguistic item is a vital prerequisite for eligibility for grammaticalisation (see also Diewald 2006) and that the elements in this context should be highly productive, i.e. have a high frequency (cf. Bybee 2003).
An important feature of grammaticalisation or grammaticalised constructions is LAYERING (Hopper and Traugott 2003, pp. 124-126). This means that several older and newer lexical and grammatical meanings of one form can co-exist: The grammatically reanalysed construction has come to serve functions independent of the previous – less grammatical – construction. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the former analysis of co-occurring elements is lost or that the items of the co-occurrence cannot exist in other constructions with their original – lexical – meanings. Indeed, an older meaning can be said to persist. This co-existence of several meanings is called layering – a phenomenon of context-dependent polysemy. Layering can allow for what is called divergence, where some meanings diverge into a certain direction with higher frequency and the others lagging behind. I recall an example of layering from the opening paragraph: to have.
(4) I have food. possessive, lexical ‘have’
(5) I have eaten. possessive, perfective ‘have’
(6) I had him do it. causative ‘have’
In summary :
WORKING DEFINITION FROM TORRES CACOULLOS AND WALKER (forthc., p. 1):
Grammaticalization is the set of gradual processes, both semantic and structural, by which constructions [(collocations) next to single items] involving particular lexical items are used with increasing frequency and become new grammatical constructions, following cross-linguistic evolutionary paths.
Lastly, to link in with another important aspect of language change: in the diachronic take characteristic of her work, Traugott (1995b) suggests that, integral to grammaticalisation, the items in the process of language change undergo a semantic change along the following cline:
objective > subjective > intersubjective
This process can be called (inter)subjectification, ‘a gradient phenomenon, whereby forms and constructions at first express primarily concrete, lexical, and objective meanings come through repeated use in local syntactic contexts to serve increasingly abstract, pragmatic, interpersonal, and speaker-based functions’ (Traugott 1995b, p. 32; emphasis mine). The modal verbs, for instance, have been noted as instances which have become grammaticalised from lexical to deontic to epistemic auxiliaries on the one hand and from objective to subjective on the other. Especially with respect to deontic modals, a cline from ‘objective’ universal obligation to subjective, individual obligation is observed (Traugott and Dasher 2005, p. 114). Some modal verbs are also intersubjective. Indeed, Palmer (1986, p. 16) puts it ever so poignantly: ‘Modality could … be defined as the grammaticalization of speaker’s (subjective) attitudes and opinions’. This is an interesting choice of words; especially seeing that Traugott discerns a semantic process ((inter)subjectification) within the grammatical one (grammaticalisation).
What does it mean for an item/construction to be ‘grammaticalised’?
As with any theory, the boundaries of what is defined need to be delineated. For grammaticalisation, Christian Lehmann designed six parameters to map the grammaticalised status of a linguistic item. The following is based on Szczepaniak (2009), Diewald (1997) and Lehmann (1982[2002]). Lehmann considers the autonomy of a linguistic item as the key criterion to distinguish grammaticalised or grammaticalising constructions from lexical items. The more autonomous a form is, the less grammaticalised it is. He divides this concept of autonomy up into three aspects which indicate the degree of grammaticalisation: Weight, Cohesion and Variability. In order for an item to be autonomous, Lehmann argues, it has to have considerable semantic and formal weight. With respect to the second aspect, cohesion, Lehmann proposes that the autonomy of an item decreases up to the extent where it systematically combines with other items. Cohesion is thus the systematic combination of items and increases in grammaticalisation. The third aspect, variability, is an indicator for how an item can be moved around whilst being in a syntactic relation with other items. High variability is characteristic of open-class items which can be easily replaced by other semantically related items and correlates with high autonomy; e.g. nouns are highly variable. Highly variable items consequently have more semantic and phonological weight and they are less -or not at all- grammaticalised. The other end of the spectrum is obligatory use of an item; e.g. will or going to to express future tense. Lehmann divides these three aspects up once more according to a syntagmatic and a paradigmatic axis, which represent horizontal and vertical choices respectively available to the language user. Visualised, these axes look like this (Szczepaniak 2007):
paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes sczcepaniak
Figure 7: Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Axes
The below table lists these six parameters along the three criteria – weight, cohesion, variability – and the two axes – syntagmatic and paradigmatic. The arrows show the respective in- or decrease of the traits in grammaticalisation.
6parameters
Table 2: Parameters for Grammaticalisation: Lehmann 1982 [2002]
I will not go into further detail about the traits of grammaticalisation.
3. Research Question and Hypothesis
Research Question: Is certainly in collocation with a modal verb (will, would, may, might, must) a grammaticalised modal particle from a synchronic point of view?
My hypothesis is that the adverb is not fully grammaticalised even though it might show signatures of grammaticalisation. As could be expected, modal particles can be the result of grammaticalisation and as such, they exhibit the properties inherent to grammaticalisation in terms of syntax, phonology and semantics.
Following Noël (2007), Bybee (2003) and Hopper and Traugott (2003) grammaticalisation affects a construction primarily and a single word secondarily; I suggest that, for modal synergy, a structural unit is formed of a modal verb and an adjacent modal adverb in mid-position, e.g. would certainly, must certainly etc. Mid-position is the ‘natural habitat’ of the modal particle and if there is grammaticalisation of certainly into a modal particle, this is consequently where we would expect to find it. Moreover, if this were a grammatical unit/construction consisting of two grammatical constituents, the grammaticality would lie in the bondedness (syntagmatic restriction) of the two elements, and the semantic and paradigmatic restrictions which are said to be part of grammaticalisation (cf. Lehmann’s parameters): we would expect an abstract meaning and perhaps reduced phonological properties (which I cannot test), paradigmaticity, low paradigmatic variability and high cohesion with modal verbs in general. Scope is a contested parameter and it seems that in this case too, we will deal with increased scope. Lastly, as Bybee (2003) indicated, frequency plays a staple role in the propagation of an item to becoming grammaticalised (see also Croft 2000).
Additionally, if there is such a thing as subjectification, and we assume that Hoye’s claim about the grammaticalised status of certainly is correct, then certainly has to have a more abstract, subjective meaning. This has to be the case, seeing that processes of grammaticalisation entail subjectification (Traugott and Dasher 2005).
4. Methodology
I used the Collins Harper Online Wordbanks Corpus (553 171 489 tokens) to investigate written and spoken UK English instances of modal synergy with certainly. The texts from which I found these instances range from 1990 until 2005, a representative set of contemporary trends in present-day English. This study thus adopts techniques from corpus linguistics, but moreover draws on a theory of language change: grammaticalisation.
Hoye (1997, p. 185) refers to possibly, probably and certainly as the central modal adverbs. A study dedicated to one of them, viz. certainly, seems justified from the point of view that being a central modal adverb, a higher frequency and thus statistically more feasible result will be found. The main aim of this study is to comprehensively render an account of the (grammatical) status of the modal adverb certainly in collocation with modal verbs according to Lehmann’s parameters discussed in the literature review. Issues of lexical weight, bondedness, paradigmatic variability, structural scope and functional syntagmatic variability of the items in modal synergy will thus be discussed in succession. The paradigmatic, phonological weight will be outside the realm of the study because I have not had access to recorded data and so stress and intonational patterns were not noted. Paradigmatic, semantic weight will be tested along positions in the sentence. For example, the difference between these sentences will be discussed:
(7) He certainly will come.
(8) He will certainly come.
Bondedness is largely determined by frequency and phonological reduction, the latter, again, was not available for analysis to me. I determined the paradigmatic variability by comparing the frequencies of the modal adverbs which collocate with all modal verbs. Highly frequent occurrences are more likely to be integrated into a paradigm, low frequency reflects bigger autonomy and more choice for the language user.
The discussion about the semantics of the adverb will be linked to (inter)subjectivity. More statistically then, frequency is a first indicator of, and simultaneously an enabling factor for, grammaticalisation. Increased frequency of a construction can make it open for grammaticalisation and a grammaticalised construction appears more frequently. I call this ‘mutual reinforcement’. Frequency distributions will be useful to offer an insight in synchronic trends and they will introduce us to raw patterns in the data.
Due to time and word constraints, I was only able to discuss certainly in collocation with five modal verbs: will, would, may, might, must. Certainly is said to combine with will and would most frequently (Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer 2007, pp.89-90) and thus an analysis of these varied instances will offer a better understanding of the general behaviour of the adverb. The other modals, however, operate on the other end of the spectrum and infrequently – so do not combine not at all – combine with certainly. Mirroring the highly frequent combinations to the infrequent ones will shed light on whether there are any meaning differences. If there are, then certainly serves different functions in different collocational combinations; if there are none, I can conclude that the meaning of the adverb is largely consistent and this could give me reason to postulate that certainly is persisting in other categories as well.
The combination of certainly and these modal verbs were studied in two syntagmatic positions only; the reason for which is that I noticed a considerable difference in meaning between them which led me to think perhaps there was something special going on. I distinguished mid-position of the adverb, e.g. He would certainly come, and pre-mid-position of the adverb, e.g. He certainly would come. Additionally, I am only analysing adjacent constructions, so phrases like ‘it would very certainly be the case’ are disregarded. The reason for that is that adjacent constructions are more easily subjected to a successful analysis, are more frequent and thus initially more open for grammaticalisation (the innovative stage).
(Complete) grammaticalisation of a construction implies that the construction involved as a whole expresses a specific grammatical meaning. This goes hand in hand with a certain semantic-pragmatic meaning or implication. If in my data I find a high frequency of particular syntagmatic structures with one and only one grammatical meaning (and a corresponding pragmatic-semantic implication), this would be indicative of a grammatical(ising) construction. It would be even more so, if the same elements involved in a different syntagmatic or paradigmatic constellation render another meaning. In order to find out whether the sentence meaning changes according to the constellation of the modal synergy, I will discuss syntagmatic and paradigmatic patterns of co-occurrence and their meanings (cf. Lehmann’s parameters). For this synchronic study, it is important to keep in mind ‘layering’ (i.e. one word/construction in the process of language change can have several meanings simultaneously). Thus, a quantitative (frequency) embracing a qualitative (semantic-pragmatic) analysis will offer the clearest representation of ongoing tendencies.
Limitations
A few important remarks with respect to my study need to be mentioned. Firstly, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to exactly determine where the scope of a (modal) adverb lies (Hoye 1997, Sweet 1892). And even if the scope is claimed to be identified, hard and fast proof for these identifications is mostly absent or flawed. However, what seems to be agreed on is that modal adverbs either modify an entire clause (sentence adverbs), in which case they are lexically more autonomous, or a part of the clause. In any case, and as Sweet (cf. supra) has indicated, the verbal phrase can always be subject to modification by modal adverbs. The modal verb is thus always within the scope of the modal adverb.
Furthermore, limited within the confines of an online database which was –unfortunately – occasionally subject to errors and crashes, my observations are suggestive of trends, but by no means are they exclusive or exhaustive. One of those limitations was the inability of the corpus to display contracted forms at times, so that I never really ended up with the complete set of contracted forms such as ‘d or ‘ll certainly. This left me unable to distinguish between contracted had and would on a micro-level, but on a macro-level it disabled me to finely tune my analysis to more subtle differences of language use. With contracted form followed by certainly, we would for example expect that – because of the phonologically reduced nature of the auxiliary – the stress patterns are more geared towards certainly, thereby putting more emphasis on the adverb. Further research with more comprehensive data and tools is needed to confirm and expand my findings.
Next to constraints resulting in a limited data-set and analysis, there are further limitations to this study. I will not be able to take into account modal prosodic features such as the fall-rise (Perkins 1980). Although these are not grammatical in any way – English is not a tone language – there are patterns of prosody which most frequently correlate with epistemic modality. Other than that, other pragmatic or emphatic stress patterns could not be identified, hampering a better understanding of the sentence meaning and the context.
Lastly, because of time and word constraints, this is a synchronic investigation yearning for diachronic succession. However, as Traugott (2006) very rightly pointed out, any diachronic study can only be successful in succession of a detailed synchronic investigation. This justifies my synchronic study at least in the respect that it facilitates future research.