This research considers the importance of pragmatic motivation in the diffusion of grammaticalized forms, focusing upon the changes in meaning of the construction be+supposed to and the ambiguity that emerges when multiple interpretations become available. The passive form of the main verb to suppose develops into a grammaticalized semimodal construction with deontic and epistemic senses. This work examines the ways that the ambiguity that develops when the pregrammaticalized and the grammaticalized forms coexist can itself propel the change: assisting in the initial spread of the grammaticalized usage and then suppressing the older pregrammaticalized form. Using the British National Corpus, the Chadwyck-Healey Database of Nineteenth-Century Fiction, and the ARCHER corpus, I find that the influences of genre and frequency can create pragmatic conditions which encourage the diffusion of grammaticalized forms between text types.
Berkenfield, Catie.2006. Pragmatic Motivations for the Development of Evidential and Modal Meaning in the Construction “be supposed to X.” Journal of HistoricalPragmatics7: 39-71 .
2.
Biber, Douglas , Susan Conrad , and Randi Reppen.1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
3.
Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan.1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex , UK: Pearson .
4.
Bybee, Joan , and Suzanne Fleischman.1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse: An Introductory Essay . In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman , 1-14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
5.
Bybee, Joan , Revere Perkins , and William Pagliuca.1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
6.
Coates, Jennifer.1995. The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English . In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman , 55-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
7.
Empson, William.1947. Seven Types of Ambiguity. 2nd. ed. London: Chatto and Windus .
8.
Harris, Alice C. , and Lyle Campbell.1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
9.
Hundt, Marianne , and Christian Mair.1999. “ Agile” and “Uptight” Genres: The Corpus-Based Approach to Language Change in Progress. International Journal of CorpusLinguistics4: 221-242 .
10.
Jakobson, Roman.1971. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. In Selected Writings, 130-147. The Hague: Mouton .
11.
Kytö, Merja , and Erik Smitterberg .2006. 19th-Century English: An Age of Stability or a Period of Change? In Corpus-Based Studies of Diachronic English, edited by Roberta Faccinetti and Matti Rissanen , 199-230. Bern : Peter Lang .
12.
Leech, Geoffrey , and Jennifer Coates.1979. Semantic Indeterminacy and the Modals. In Studies in English Linguistics, edited by Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartik , 79-90. London: Longman .
13.
Mair, Christian.2004. Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory: Statistics, Frequencies and Beyond. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, edited by Hans Lindquist and Christian Mair , 121-150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
14.
Meillet, Antoine. [1912] 1958. L'Evolution des Formes Grammaticales . In Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale, edited by Antoine Meillet , 130-148. Paris : Champion .
15.
Moore, Colette.2006. The Use of Videlicet in Early Modern Slander Depositions: A Case of Genre-Specific Grammaticalization. Journal of HistoricalPragmatics7: 245-263 .
16.
Noël, Dirk.2002. Believe-Type Matrix Verbs and Their Complements: Corpus-Based Investigations of Their Functions in Discourse. Ph.D. diss., Ghent University .
17.
Palmer, Frank R.1990. Modality and the English Modals. 2nd ed. London: Longman .
18.
———. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
19.
Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman .
20.
Sweetser, Eve.1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
21.
Thompson, Sandra A. , and Anthony Mulac.1991. A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization , vol. 2, edited by Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine , 313-329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
22.
Tottie, Gunnel.1991. Lexical Diffusion in Syntactic Change: Frequency as a Determinant in the Development of Negation in English. In Historical English Syntax, edited by Dieter Kastovsky , 439-467. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .
23.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change . Language65 (1): 31-55 .
24.
Visconti, Jacqueline.2004. Conditional and Subjectification: Implications for a Theory of Semantic Change. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, edited by Olga Fisher, Muriel Norde , and Harry Perridon , 171-190. Amsterdam : John Benjamins .
25.
Westney, Paul.1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English. Tübingen, Germany : Niemeyer .
26.
Ziegeler, Debra.2003. On the Generic Origins of Modality in English. In English Modality in Context, edited by DavidHart , 33-70. Bern: Peter Lang .
