MODALITY - a brief bibliography, with special attention to diachronic studies

checked so far

BibLing: 94-83

YWES: 90-1

RD = photocopies in file compiled by Richard Dury

Adamson, Sylvia et al. (eds.) (1990). Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [5th ICHEL, Cambridge 1987]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. UB: A.3.761 and INGL.3.1898

Aertsen, Henk & Robert J. Jeffers (eds.) (1993). Historical Linguistics 1989. [9th ICHL, Rutgers University 1989]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.UB: INGL.3.3454

Aijmer, Karinj (1985). ‘The semantic development of will’. Fisiak (1985): 11-21.UB: INGL.3.4135

Anderson, J. (1971). 'Some proposals concerning the modal verbs in English'. Aitken, A., A. McIntosh & H. Palsson (eds.) (1971). Edinburgh Studies in English and Scots. London: Longman. Pp. 19-120[the shifting meanings of the m.v. over time]UB: no

Anderson, J.M. & C. Jones (eds.) (1974). Historical Linguistics I: syntax, morphology, internal and comparative reconstruction [1st ICHL, Edinburgh 1973]. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: North-Holland/American-Elsevier.UB: IST.INGL.1345

Anderson, John (1990a). ‘A Helping of Verbs’. Dutch Working papers in the English Language and Linguistics (DWPELL) 24: 1-16[examines the status of Eng auxiliaries from the p-o-v of Universal Grammar: OE lacked syntactically-defined auxiliaries but can be seen to have had semantically-defined auxiliaries] UB: no

Anderson, John (1990b). ‘Periphrases and Paradigms’. Pp. **** in Odenstedt, B. & G. Persson 81989). Instead of Flowers: papers in honour of Mats Rydén. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell[semantic auxiliaries are called ‘periphrases’, typically evacuated of lexical content]UB: ?

Anderson, John (1990c). ‘On the Status of Auxiliaries in Notional Grammar’. Journal of Linguistics 26: 341-362.[‘modals in English are uniquely specified lexically; the other auxiliaries are defined by overlap’ (p. 350)]UB: PER.LING.18

Anderson, J.M. (1991). ‘Should’. Kastovsky (1991): 11-30.[The (sub)category ‘auxiliary’ was, by definition, non-existent until a subgroup of ModE verbs, including should, developed so-called NICE-syntax. OE desemanticization, morphological defectiveness etc. pave

the way for this syntactic innovation but cannot have more than a ‘pre-grammaticalization’ function.] UB: INGL.3.3814

Andrews, Kenneth R: (1993). ‘The Semantic Development of can and could from Old English to the Present’. Aertsen et al. (1993): 37-46. UB: INGL.3.3454

Arnovivk, Leslie K. (1986). The modality of medieval English futurity. PhD thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley, 1986. Diss. Abstr. 48/5 (1987): 188-A.[on the semantic and grammatical status of future constructions using "shall", "will", "sholde" and "wolde" in Late Middle English/Early Mod. English]. UB: no

Arnovivk, Leslie K. (1990). The Development of the Future Construction in English. The Pragmatics of Modal and Temporal ‘Will’ and ‘Shall’ in Middle English. NY/Bern: Lang.UB: INGL.3.3328

Bailey, Ch.-J. N. (1981). ‘English Verb Modalities’. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 2: 161-188.UB: no

Bally, C. (1942). ‘Syntaxe de la modalité explicite’. Cahiers Saussure II: 3-13.UB: no

Biletzki, Anat (1991). ‘Richard Johnson: A Case of 18th-century Pragmatics’. Historiografica linguistica 18: 281-299. [Johnson’s unease about accepting the Latinate system of moods in his 1706 Grammatical Commentaries; well aware of the role of context in language use, J. made some steps towards a pragmatic interpretation of mood]PER.LING.13

Blake N.F. and Charles Jones (eds.) (1984). English Historical Linguistics: studies in development. Sheffield: The centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield. (CECTAL conference papers series, no. 3)UB: IST.INGL.1301 and INGL.2.2408

Boyd, J. & J.P. Thorne (1969). ‘The Semantics of Modal Verbs’. Journal of Linguistics 5: 57-74.UB: no

Butler, Christopher S. (1982). The directive function of the English modals. Nottingham: ***UB: IST. INGL. 1221

Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modalituy in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: U Chicago P.

Bybee, Joan & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bybee, Joan & Suzanne Fleischman (1995). 'An Introductory Essay'. Bybee, Joan & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) (1995): 1-14

Calbert, J.P. (1975). ‘Towards the Semantics of Modality’. Calbert & Vater (1975): ***.[Calbert 'Towards the Semantics of Modality' pp. 1-70; a case-grammar study of the basic semantic field of modality, applied mainly to German, with examples from English, Dutch and French]IST. INGL. 1024

Calbert, J.P. & H. Vater (eds.). Aspekte der Modalität. Tübingen: Narr.IST. INGL. 1024

Chapin, P.G. (1973). ‘Quasi-Modals’. Journal of Linguistics 9: 1-9.UB: no

Coates, Jennifer. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom HelmUB: IST.INGL.819

Coates, Jennifer. (1987). ‘Epistemic Modality and Spoken Discourse’. Transactions of the Philological Society 1987: 110-131. Oxford: Blackwell.UB: no

Coates, Jennifer. (1995). 'The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English'. Aarts, Bas & C.F. Meyer (eds.) The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. pp. 145-156.UB: A.3.141

Conradie, C.J. (1987). ‘Semantic Change in Modal Auxiliaries as a result of Speech Act Embedding’. Harris & Ramat (1987): 171-189.UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

De La Cruz, Juan Manuel (1994). ‘The Modals again in the light of historical and cross-linguistic evidence’. Pp. 145-156 in Fernandez et al. (eds.) (1994).[Calls into question the thesis of Warner (1990) and Lightfoot (1974, 1979 and 1991) that modals underwent a major re-analysis in 16th century, being recategorized not as lexical verbs but as ‘instances of INFL’ (= AUX). ‘I shall may’ and ‘I have would’ are absent from ModE and also, says De La Cruz, from OE - their tentative introduction in ME was short-lived (appear only in 13C, are rare) and may have been based on French (which has both types of construction). In eMODE this incipient change died out and modals remained as carriers of NEG and QU, providing a model for do-periphrasis - which separated other verbs off from the modals.]UB: INGL.3.3455

Demske-Neumann, Ulrike (1994). Modales Passiv und tough movement: zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. UB: A. 3. 1381

Denison, David (1990a). ‘The Old English Impersonal Revisited’. Adamson et al. (1990): 111-140.UB: A.3.761 and INGL.3.1898

Denison, David (1990b). ‘Auxiliary + Impersonal in Old English’. Folia Linguistica Historica *** (1990): 139-166. [(mainly) modals in collocation with impersonal verbs; modals with transparency with regard to argument structure, cf. Anderson 1990]PER.LING.28

Denison, David (1993). English Historical Syntax. Verbal Constructions. London: Longmans.UB: INGL.3.3365 and A.3.1352

Dirven, R. (1976). ‘Modality in English and Dutch: A Contrastive Analysis of the Modal items Must and Will’. Pp. 525-544 in Kern, R., von (ed.) (1979). Löwen und Sprachtiger. Louvain: Peeters.UB: no

Ehrman, M.E: (1966). The meaning of the modals in present-day American English. The Hague: ***[based o the Brown Corpus]UB: no

Facchinett, Roberta (1992). La modalità verbale nell’argomentazione di Keynes. Milano: Guerini.[contains an overview of modality in the first chapter] UB: INGL. 2. 2308

Facchinett, Roberta (1993). ‘Can vs may in Early Modern English’, pp. 209-221 in Gotti, Maurizio (a cura di). English Diachronic Syntax [5th CNSLI, Bergamo 1992]. Milano: Guerini. UB: INGL.2.2468

Facchinetti, Roberta (1997). ‘Modal combinations in Modern English: A socio-historical interpretation’. Textus *** [Barisone, E. and J. Hughes (eds.). Linguistic Change in English: A Socio-Cultural Overview. Genova: Tilgher]: 397-414.UB: ?

Facchinetti, Roberta (in press). ‘The modal verb shall in the 19th century between grammar and usage’. Kastovsky, D. and A. Mettinger (eds.). The History of English in a Social Context (Tulln, 11-14 September 1997).

Facchinetti, Roberta. ‘Modal-adverb collocations in Early Modern English’. Paper presented at the ‘Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics’ (10 ICEHL), University of Manchester, Manchester, 21-26 August 1998.

Facchinetti, Roberta - other works on modals with a synchronic approach that may also be of interest for diachronic studies in Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica e Letterature Comparate [Univ. Bergamo] 5 (1989): 133-146 [will]; 6 (1990): 123-134 [may not]; 9 (1993): 109-144 [dynamic modality]; Linguistica e Filologia [Univ. Bergamo] 1 (1995): 35-49 [will in if-clauses]; 4 (1997): 105-121 [may + modal]; 7 (1998): 59-76 [must and have to in Carib. Eng.]

Fagan, Sarah B. (19**). ‘The Epistemic Use of German and English Modals’. Pp. 15-34 in Lippi-Green, R.L. & J.C. Salmons (eds.). (19**). Germanic Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.[correlation of stative predicates and epistemic meaning; staticity is not associated with deonticity (‘I must have a temperature’ is epistemic)]UB: INGL.3.4558

Fernandez Francisco, Miguel Fuster, Juan José Calvo (eds.) (1994). English Historical Linguistics 1992 [7th ICEHL, Valencia 1992]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.UB: INGL.3.3455

Fisher, Olga (1991). ‘The Rise of the Passive Infinitive in English’. In Kastovsky 1991.[‘only after (pre)modals do OE and ModE both use the passive infinitive’]UB: INGL.3.3814

Fisher, Olga (1994). ‘The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes of word-order’. Neophilologus 78: 137-164. UB: PER.INGL.156

Fisiak, Jacek (1985). Historical Semantics and Historical Word Formation. Berlin etc.: Mouton.UB: INGL.3.4135

Gburek, Hubert (1986). ‘Changes in the English verb system: evidence from Scots’. Pp. 115-123 in Strass, Dietrich & Horst W. Drescher (eds.) (1988). Scottish Language and Literature [4th International Conference, 1984]. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang.UB: no

Goossens, L. (1982). ‘On the Development of the Modals and of the Epistemic Function in English’. Ahlqvist, Ander (ed.) (1982). Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Galway 1981]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 74-84.UB: IST.INGL.1125

Goossens, L. (1984). ‘The Interplay of Syntax and Semantics in the Development of the English Modals’. Blake et al. (1984): 149-159. UB: IST.INGL.1301 and INGL.2.2408

Goossens, L. (1987a). ‘The Auxiliarization of the English Modals: a Functional Grammar View’. 11-43. Harris & Ramat (1987): 11-43UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

Goossens, L. (1987b). ‘Modal tracks: the case of magan and motan’. Pp. 216-236 in Simon-Vanderbergen, A.M. (1987). Studies in Honour of René Derolez. Gent: RVG.UB: no

Gotti, Maurizio (1990). ‘Aspects of the use of Modal Verbs in the Argumentative Function’. DeStasio, Clotilde et al. (eds.) (1990). La rappresentazione verbale e iconica: valori estetici e funzionali. Milano: Guerini.UB: ***

Haan, Ferdinand de (1997). The interaction of modality and negation. NY/London: Garland.UB: A.3.2111

Hanson, Kristin (1987). ‘On subjectivity and the history of epistemic expressions in English’. Pp. 133-147 in Need, B. et al. (eds.) (1987). Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Symposium, 23 (CLS 23). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Association.UB: no

Harris, Martin (1986). ‘English ought (to)’. Kastovksy et al. (1986): 347-358.UB: A.3.543 and IST.INGL.1203

Harris, Martin (1987). ‘Syntactics and semantic change within the modal systems of English and Afrikaans: observations on the papers of Louis Goosens, Merja Kytö and C.J. Conradie’. Harris & Ramat (1987): 181-198. [The papers commented on are all in Harris & Ramat (1987)]UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

Harris, Martin & Paolo Ramat (1987). Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin [etc.]: de Gruyter. UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

Hart, David (1990). ‘Some aspects of shall and will, yesterday and today’. Aitchinson, Jean, Thomas Frank and Nicola Pantaleo (eds.). English Past and Present [1st CNSLI, Bari/Naples 1988]. Fasano: Schena.UB: IST.INGL.1139 and INGL.2.1947

Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries, cognitive forces and grammaticalization. OUP.UB: A.3.1396[basic event schemas - overlap model of conceptual shift - mainly concerned with tense auxiliaries]

Hermerén, Lars (1978). On modality in English: a study of the semantics of the modals. Lund: Gleerup. [based on the Brown corpus]UB: IST. INGL. 0820

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). UB: A.3.1205 and INGL.3.3520

Hoye, Leo(1997). Adverbs and modality in English. London/New York: Longman.[contains a historical section]UB: INGL. 3. 4248

Inchaurralde Besga, Carlos (1998). 'Modals and Modality in English'. Miscelánea 19. [electronic journal at http://fyl.unizar.es/MISCELANEA/MISCELANEA.html]

Jacobsson, Bengl (1994). ‘Recessive and emergent uses of modal auxiliaries in English’. English Studies 72ii: 166-182. [Investigation of recent trends in the uses of modal auxiliaries; opposes the ideas of Lightfoot and Bolinger of rapid changes in the system. 1. 'Independent' past tense might, must and would; 2. may for might in counterfactuals; 3 May for might in (free) indirect speech; 4. Epistemic may vs can; 5. Epistemic must vs have (got) to; 6. Epistemic can't vs must not]UB: PER.INGL.8

Jespersen, Otto (1943). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London. Allen. UB: no

Kahlas-Tarkka (1987). Neophilologie Fennica: Société Néopilologique 100 ans. Helsinki: Soc. Néophil. UB: IST.LING. 1231

Kakietek, Piotr (1972). Modal Verbs in Shakespeare’s English. , Poznan: Universytet Im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznaniu Wydzial Filologiczny [Seria Filologia Angielska Nr 3].

Kärkkäinen, Elise (1987). ‘Towards a Pragmatic Description of Modality’. Pp. 149-161 in Lindblad, Ishrat & Magnus Ljung (eds.) (1987). Proceedings from the Third Nordic Conference for English Studies. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell. INGL.3.3186/1-2

Kastovsky, Dieter & Aleksander Szwedek (eds.) (1986). Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: in honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday. Berlin [etc.]: de Gruyter. Vol. 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics; Vol. 2: Descriptive, contrastive and applied linguistics. UB: A.3.543 and IST.INGL.1203

Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) (1991). Historical English Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Topics in English Linguistics, 2). Pp. UB: INGL.3.3814

Kemenade, Ans van (1992). ‘Structural Factors in the History of English Modals’. Rissanen et al. (1992): 287-309UB: INGL.3.3416

Kennedy, Graeme (in press?). '"Where there's a will": the distribution of modals in complex verb phrase structures'. [paper given at ICAME 20, Freibug 1999][modal+inf., mod+be+past part. etc.; a BNC study; might be used as a basis for tracing the evolution of complex modal VP stuctures]

Kiefer, Ferenc. (1987). ‘On Defining Modality’. Folia Linguistica 21i: 67-94. UB: no

Kiefer, Ferenc. (1994). ‘Modality’. Asher, R.E. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford/New York: Pergamon. UB: CIS.83 (Ist. Ling.) RD

Kiefer, Ferenc (1997), ‘Modality and Pragmatics’. Folia Linguistica 31iii-iv: 241-253.UB: no

Kratzer, A. (1981). ‘The Notional Category of Modality’. In Eikmeyer, H-J. & H. Reiser (eds.). Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.UB: no

Kytö, Merja (1986). ‘On the use of modal auxiliaries can and may in early American English’. Sankoff (1986): 123-138. UB: INGL.3.4048

Kytö, Merja (1987a). ‘Shall or will?: choice of the variant form in early Modern English, British and American. Pp. 275-288 in Andersen, Henning & Konrad Koerner (eds.) (1987). Historical Linguistics 1987. [8th ICHL, Lille 1987]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.[Examines both linguistic and extralinguistic factors] IST.LING.16

Kytö, Merja, Leena (1987b). ‘Can (could) vs. may (might) in Old and Middle English: testing a diachronic corpus’. Kahlas-Tarkka (1987): 205-240 UB: IST.LING. 1231

Kytö, Merja, Leena (1987c). ‘On the use of modal auxiliaries indicating "possibility" in early American English’. Harris & Ramat (1987): 145-170.UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

Kytö, Merja (1989). ‘Can or may? choice of the variant form in early modern English’. Pp. 163-178 in Walsh, Thomas J. (ed.). Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Variation and change. The Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown UP.UB: A.3.809

Kytö, Merja (1991). Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus: studies on can/may and shall/will. Frankfurt am Main: Lang (Bamberger Beiträge zur englischen Sprachwissenschaft, Bd. 28) [reviews: English World Wide 13i; Neuphil. Mit. 93iii-iv, both by Viereck]UB: INGL.2.2751

Kytö, Merja (1992a?). ‘The use of shall and will from ME to eModE’. Pp. 71-85 in Caie, G. et al (eds.) (1992?). The Nordic Conference for English Studies, 4.UB: no

Kytö, Merja (1992b). ‘Shall (should) vs Will (would) in early British and American English: a variational study of change’. North-Western European Language Evolution [Odense] 19: 3-73.UB: no

La Cruz, Juan Manuel de (1994). ‘The Modals Again in the Light of Historical and Cross-Linguistic Evidence’. Fernandez (1994): 145-156.UB: INGL.3.3455

Leech, G.N. (1971; 2nd ed. 1987). Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.UB: A.3.506

Lehmann, Charles and Y. Malkiel (eds.) (1982). Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. UB: ING.3.3161

Lehmann, Charles (1985). ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change’. Lingua e stile 20: 303-318. UB: PER.LING.1

Lester, Leland Andrew (1987). The Modal Verbs of Old English. PhD thesis, Univ. Texas at Austin, 1987. Diss. Abstr. 48/5 (1987): 1192-A.UB: ordered

Lightfoot, David W. (1974). ‘The Diachronic Analysis of English Modals’. Anderson & Jones (1974): 219-249.[the typical meaning-shifts of modals]UB: IST.INGL.1345

Lightfoot, David W. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[100-112: flood of syntactic changes in 16C; old pre-modals acquire ‘basic level category’ status in eModE; as pre-modals become modals, a new set of quasi-modals arise 'as if to fill a vacuum'; explained in generative terms, but Smith (1996: 152) explains the process briefly in traditional terms. His Transparency (similar to 'economy of effort') principle has been challenged by Warner 1983, Plane 1984 and Goosens 1987] UB: A.3.392 and IST.INGL.1034

Lightfoot, David W. (1991). How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. MIT Press. [ch. 6: the disappearance of impersonal constructions and the reanalysis of modals; based on ‘the parameter-setting model of Universal Grammar’]UB: ?

Lima, Maria. (1993). ‘Must in Shakespeare’s Sonnets’. Caliumi, G. (a cura di). Shakespeare e la sua eredità.Atti del XV Convegno dell’Associazione Italiana di Anglistica [Parma, 22-24 Ottobre 1992]. Parma: Zara. Pp. 323 - 336.

Lima, Maria. (1993). ‘Notes on the history of the English modals of necessity’. Gotti, M. (a cura di). English Diachronic Syntax. Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on theHistory of the English Language [Bergamo, 7-8 Maggio 1992]. Milano: Guerini. Pp. 77-87.UB: INGL.2.2468

Lima, Maria. (1993). ‘The "Peaceful Coexistence" of to need and need: some Syntactic and Semantic Considerations of the English Modals of Necessity’. V. de Scarpis et al. (a cura di). Intrecci eContaminazioni. Atti del XIV Congresso Nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Anglistica [Venezia, 17-19 Ottobre 1991]. Venezia: Supernova. Pp. 455-465

Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.UB: IST.ING.74/1-2

Matthews, Richard (1991). Words and worlds: on the linguistic analysis of modality. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. UB: IST. INGL. 1264

Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia (1987). ‘Obviously and Certainly: two different functions in argumentative discourse’. Folia Linguistica 21i: 3-24.UB: no

Meurman-Solin, Anneli (1997). ‘Towards reconstructing a grammar of point of view: Textual roles of adjectives and open-class adverbs in Early Modern English’. Pp.267-343 in Rissanen, Matti, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.) (1997). English in Transition. Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic variation and Genre Styles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter[includes a statistical study of frequencies of modal adverbs and adjectives by text-type and formality; ‘modality is not central to histories, travelogues, diaries, biographies and fiction’, it becomes more prominent over time in science; interactive texts are marked by frequency of -modal adverbs]INGL. 3. 4511

Mindt, Dieter (1998). An empirical grammar of the English verb: modal verbs. Berlin: Cornelson.

[a corpus-based study of PrE with a didactic bias, but the bottom-up approach may be of interest for historical corpus studies; uses a multi-modality rather than an epistemic vs root approach]UB: INGL.3.4818

Mitchell, Bruce (1985). Old English Syntax. Vol. 1: Concord, the Parts of Speech, the Sentence. Vol. 2: Subordination, Independent Elements and Element Order. Oxford: Clarendon.[magan already used as auxiliary to translate Latin subjunctive in Northumbrian Gospels (p. 423)]UB: INGL.3.2216/1-2 and IST.INGL.1307/1-2

Moessner, Lilo (1989). Early Middle English Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistiche Arbeiten, 207).UB: INGL.3.2741

Mochizuki, Hiroshi (1987). ‘A diachronic approach to English modals and modality’. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics [Bulletin of the ICU Summer Institute of Linguistics,Mitaka, Japan] 20: 117-126.UB: no

Moody, Patricia A. (1974). ‘Shall and Will: the Grammatical Tradition and Dialectology’. American Speech 49i-ii: 67-78.UB: no

Morris, Richard (1990). ‘Is the Germanic future a tense or a modality?’. North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 16: 73-90[Gmc future is a cognitive category, a peripheral member of the category tense, but manifests itself through a variety of modal forms signalling volition etc. (themselves subcategories of the conceptual category future)]UB: no

Myhill, John (1997). ‘Should and ought: the rise of individually oriented modality in American English’. English Language and Linguistics 1i: 3-23.[based on a db of 20 American plays 1889-1987; clear distinction in use between should (for personal opinions) and ought to (emphasizing a common opinion); should has increased in frequency (like got to/gonna), ought to has declined in frequency (like other group-oriented modals must and will)]UB: PER.INGL.167

Nagle, Stephen J. (1989). Inferential change and syntactic modality in English. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. [based on a PhD thesis, Univ. S. California, 1986]UB: A.2.419

Nagle, Stephen J. (1990). ‘Modes of inference and the gradual/rapid issue: suggestions from the English modal’. Kytö (1987a): 353-362. IST.LING.16

Nagle, Stephen J. (1993). ‘Double Modals in Early English’. Aertsen et all (1993): 363-370.UB: INGL.3.3454

Nagle, Stephen J. (1994). ‘The English Double Modals Conspiracy’. Diachronica 11ii: 199-212.UB: PER.INGL.25

Need, Barbara (1992). ‘What was, and what happened to the subjunctive in English’. Chicago Linguistics Society 26i (ed. Ziolkowski, M. et al): 323-332.UB: no

Need, Barbara (1993). ‘A unified diachronic explanation of the development of Modern English Modals’. CLS 29i: 297-310. [Beals, Katherine et al. (eds.) (1993). papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Ling. Soc.]UB: no

Nehls, Dietrich (1986). Semantik und Syntax des englischen Verbs. Teil 2: Die Modalverben: eine kontrastive Analyse der Modal verben im Englischen und Deutschen. Teil 2: Die Modalverben : eine kontrastive Analyse der Modal verben im Englischen und Deutschen. Heidelberg: Groos. UB: IST. INGL. 0952

Nordlinger, Rachel and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (1997). ‘Scope and the development of epistemic modality: evidence from ought to’. English Language and Linguistics 1ii: 295-317. [(1) ought to (deontic) with narrow scope (obligation referred to subject) (2) o.t. (deontic) with propositional scope (makes an assertion about a proposition, like an epistemic modal) (3) o.t. (epistemic); (2) is found 400 years before (3)]UB: PER.INGL.167

Ogawa, Hiroshi (1990). Old English Modal Verbs: A Syntactic Study. ***: R*** & B****.[modals are not mere periphrases of the subjunctive (the ‘substitution theory’), they do not simply increase in number as the subjunctive becomes inflectionally less distinct. Rather, ‘there is an increasing tendency in OE to use modals in order to give explicit expression to certain semantic nuances in particular contexts that simple verbs could not give expression to’, YWES] UB: no

Ogawa, Hiroshi (1990). ‘Ælfric’s use of *sculan in dependent desires’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91ii: 181-193. UB: no

Ogawa, Hiroshi (1991). ‘The use of modal verbs in complex sentences: some developments in the Old English period’. Anglo-Saxon England 20: 81-98.UB: CONS.TED.35

Ogawa, Hiroshi (1994). ‘Old English Modal Verbs: some further considerations’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 95iv: 403-413. UB: PER.INGL.156

Palmer, Frank R. (1987). The English Verb. London: LongmanUB: yes

Palmer, Frank R. (1988). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. UB: no

Palmer, Frank R. (1979, 2nd ed. 1990). Modality and the English Modals. London/New York: Longman.

[based on the Survey of English Usage]UB: IST.INGL.1154

Perkins, M.R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Pinter.[identifies abstract 'core meanings' for modals; epistemic modality refers to the truth of a proposition by combining evidence with rational laws; deontic modality refers to the occurence of an event by combining a deontic source with social laws; dynamic modality also refers to the occurence of an event by combining empirical circumstances with natural laws]UB: INGL. 3. 2859

Peters, Pam (1998). 'The survival of the subjunctive: evidence of its use in Australia and elsewhere'. English World-Wide 19i: 87-103.

Plank, F. (1984). ‘The Modals Story Retold’. Studies in Language 8: 305-64.UB: no

Ramat, Paolo (1987). ‘Introductory Paper’. Harris & Ramat (1987): 3-19.UB: A.3.386 and IST.INGL.1118

Reed, John O. (1988). ‘Englishmen and their moods: Renaissance grammar and the English verb’. Pp. 112-130 in Nixon Graham and John Honey (eds) (1988). An Historic Tongue: studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London/New York: Routledge.UB: IST.INGL.1309

Rissanen et al. (eds.) (1992). History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics [6th ICEHL, Helsinki 1991]. Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter (Topics in English Linguistics, 10).UB: INGL.3.3416

Roberts, Ian (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax:. A Comparative History of English and French. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic. [3.3 ‘Modals’ pp. 309-326; generative approach: NE-style modals are connected with the fact that NE, unlike MSc and othe Gmc and Rom langs, ‘lacks T-1’] UB: A.3.1471 RD: (3.3)

Ross, J.R. (1979). ‘Auxiliaries as Main Verbs’. Studies in Philosophical Linguistics 2. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.UB: no

Ruthrof, Horst (1991). ‘Language and the Dominance of Modality’. Language and Style 21: 315-326.[‘takes the first steps towards a comprehensive theory of covert or inferential modality, where modality is understood in a wide sense as ‘the structurable field of the manners of speaking underlying all utterances’]UB: no

Sankoff, David (ed.) (1986). Diversity and Diachrony. Amsterdam: Benjamins.UB: INGL.3.4048

Simpson, Paul. (1993). Language Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.UB: INGL.3.3883[section on modality]

Smith, Jeremy (1996). An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London/New York: Routledge.[‘Innovative success I: MAY and MIGHT’ (151-3). OE subjunctive dies out with the obscuration of unstressed syllables: replaced by verbs that semantically overlapped with the subjunctive. The full development of the modal category occurs suddenly in the lME/eModE period] INGL.3.4129

Standop E. (1957). Syntax und Semanticder modalen Hilfsverbenim Altenglischen Magan, motan, sculan, willan. Bocum: Poppinghams UB: no

Stubbs, Michael. (1986). ‘A Matter of prolonged field work: notes towards a modal grammar of English’. Applied Linguistics 7i: 1-25.UB: PER.INGL.99

Stubbs, Michael. (1998). Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwells.[Ch. 8: Towards a Modal Grammar of English]

Swan, Toril & Olaf Westvik (eds.) (1997). Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.UB: ING.3.4757

Sweetser, Eve (1982). ‘Root and epistemic modals: causality in two worlds’. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 484-507.[the derivation of epistemic modality from ‘root’ modality, diachronically and in language-acquisition]

Sweetser, Eve (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. [cognitive approach to the semantic evolution of the modals: root modality (subject-oriented, sociophysical domain) is metaphorically extended to epistemic modality (speaker-oriented, domain of induction/deduction); the semantics of modality are seen in terms of Talmy’s Force-dynamics theory of forces and barriers] UB: IST.INGL.1234 & INGL.3.3222

Tanaka, Toshiya (1990). ‘Semantic changes of CAN and MAY: differentiation and implication’. Linguistics 28i: 89-123.[comparison with corresponding changes in other Germanic languages and in the Romance languages] UB: PER.INGL.20

Taubitz, Ronald (1975). ‘A Study of Shall and Will by Various Grammarians’. PhD dissertation, Arizona State University.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1982). ‘From propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization’. Lehmann & Malkiel (1982): 245-271. UB: INGL.3.3161

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1989). ‘On the Rise of Epistemic meanings in English: An Example of Subjectivization in Semantic Change’. Language 65: 31-55.UB: PER.INGL.25 [in Ist. Ling.]

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1990). ‘From Less to More Situated in Language: The Unidirectionality of Semantic Change’. Adamson et al. (1990): 497-515.UB: A.3.761 and INGL.3.1898

Turner, Kathleen (1985). Categorization, meaning, and change in the English modal system. PhD thesis, Univ. Alabama, 1985. Diss. Abstr. 46/7 (1987): 1926-A.UB: ordered

Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid (1997). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/New York: Longman. [might contain relevant material]UB: A.3.1845

Van der Auwera & Vladimir A. Plungian (1998). ‘Modality’s semantic map’. Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124.

Vanparys, Johan (1987). 'Towards a pragmatic Approach to Modality. the case of permissive Can and may'. Verschueren, Jef & Marcella Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelpia: Benjamins.UB: IST. INGL. 1184

Visser, F.Th. (1984). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill. [Part 3; decine e decine di pagine per ognisingolo modale, con ottima discussione e numerosi esempi]INGL.4.0143

Walton, Alan (1991). ‘Modality and the Modals in Traditional Grammars of English’. In Leitner, Gerhard (1991). English Traditional Grammars. An International Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [deals with the various interpretations of modal verbs (though not in great detail) in the grammars by Henry Sweet, Etsko Cruisinga and George Curme]INGL3.3451

Warner, A. (1983). [review of Lightfoot 1979]. Journal of Linguistics 19: 187-209.UB: PER.LING.18 [? in Ist. Ling.?]

Warner, A. (1990). ‘Rewriting the History of English Auxiliaries’. Adamson et al. (1990): 537-558.[Modals evolve syntactically as they evolve as a cognitive category. A subclass of verbs in OE, they join the ‘basic level category’ auxiliary which evolved by eModE. The increasingly coherent grouping of modals is due to the acquisition of BLC status (BLCs are clearly distinct from each other and have high internal coherence), a move triggered by pressure for cognitive efficiency (rather than chance, cf. Lightfoot 1979)] UB: A.3.761 and INGL.3.1898

Warner, Anthony R. (1993). English Auxiliaries. Structure and History. Cambridge University Press (Camb. Studies in Linguistics, 66).[Warner 1995 (?mistake for 1993?) claims that mod. vbs are now lexical items, a word-class of their own, not a sub-set of verbs. A symptom of this is the way that might have > might of. So English has a distinctive word-class that realizes mood lexically i.e. mod. vbs.]UB: INGL.3.2226 and A.3.1142

Warner, Anthony R. (1997). ‘Extending the Paradigm: An Interpretation of the Historical Development of Auxiliary Sequences in English’. English Studies 75ii: 162-

189.UB: PER.INGL.8

Westney, Paul (1995). Modals and periphrastics in English: an investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer.UB: INGL.3.4042

Willett, T. (1988). ‘A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality’. Studies in Language 12i: 51-97.UB: no