This article seeks to extend beyond the almost exclusive concentration in studies of grammatical change over the Late Modern English period on British and American English. It traces the fortunes in Australian English of four quasi-modals that have been grammaticalizing rapidly over this period (have to and have got to representing the domain of necessity/obligation, and want to and be going to representing volition/prediction), comparing them with semantically related modals (must, should, ought to, will, and shall). Data are derived from two recently compiled corpora, COOEE and AusCorp, which together cover the period of approximately two centuries from the foundation of the first British colony in Australia in 1788 to the present day. Comparisons drawn with British and American English for the same period using data from the ARCHER corpus show Australian English evolving in the same general direction as the two longer-established varieties, but its endonormative independence being asserted in its users’ more extreme dispreference for the modals and their reluctance to embrace the quasi-modals as enthusiastically as users of American English.
BennettBruceGoodwinKenLawsonAlan. 1990. The Macmillan anthology of Australian literature. Sydney: Macmillan.
2.
BerglundYlva. 2005. Expressions of future in Present-Day English: A corpus-based approach. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
3.
BernardJohn. 1969. On the uniformity of Australian English. Orbis18(1). 62-73.
4.
BiberDouglasJohanssonStigLeechGeoffreyConradSusanFineganEdward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
5.
CoatesJennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
6.
CollinsPeter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
7.
DanchevAndreiKytöMerja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In KastovskyDieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 59-77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
DeclerckRenaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in English. London: Routledge.
9.
DennisLeah. 1940. The progressive tense: Frequency of its use in English. PMLA55(3). 855-865.
10.
DollingerStefan. 2008. New-dialect formation in Canada: Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11.
FaircloughNorman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
12.
FischerOlga. 1992. Syntax. In BlakeNorman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2, 1066-1476, 207-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FriesCharles C.1925. The periphrastic future with will and shall in Modern English. PMLA40(4). 963-1024.
14.
FritzClemens. 2004. From Plato to Aristotle: Investigating early Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics24(1). 57-97.
15.
FritzClemens. 2007. From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788-1900. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
16.
GottiMaurizio. 2003. Shall and will in contemporary English: A comparison with past uses. In FacchinettiRobertaKrugManfredPalmerFrank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 267-300. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17.
HarrisMartin. 1986. Ought (to). In KastovskyDieterSwedekAleksander (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries, vol. 1, 347-358. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
18.
HeineBerndKutevaTania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HuddlestonRodney D.PullumGeoffrey K.2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HundtMarianne. 1997. Has BrE been catching up with AmE over the past thirty years? In LjungMagnus (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 135-151. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
21.
HundtMarianne. 1998a. It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English. In LindquistHansKlintborgStaffanLevinMagnusEstlingMaria (eds.), The major varieties of English (Papers from MAVEN 97), 159-175. Växjö: Acta Wexionensia.
22.
HundtMarianne. 1998b. New Zealand English grammar—fact or fiction? A corpus-based study in morphosyntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
JohanssonStigOksefjellSigne. 1996. Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of get. In ThomasJennyShortMichael (eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in honour of Geoffrey Leech, 57-75. London: Longman.
24.
JoseNicholas. 2009. The Macquarie PEN anthology of Australian literature. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
25.
KrugManfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
26.
LarreyaPaul. 2000. Modal verbs and the expression of futurity in English, French and Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics14. 115-129.
27.
LeechGeoffreyHundtMarianneMairChristianSmithNicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LeitnerGerhard. 2004. Beyond Mitchell’s views on the history of Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics24(1). 99-126.
29.
MooreBruce (ed.). 2001. “Who’s centric now?” The present state of post-colonial Englishes. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
30.
MyhillJohn. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics33(2). 157-211.
31.
NesselhaufNadja. 2010. The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse?English Language and Linguistics14(2). 163-186.
32.
Núñez PertejoPaloma. 1999. Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica71(2). 135-142.
33.
PalmerFrank. 1990. Modality and the English modals. 2nd edn.London: Longman.
34.
QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSidneyLeechGeoffreySvartvikJan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
35.
RamsonWilliam S.1966. Australian English: An historical study of the vocabulary, 1788-1898. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
36.
SchneiderEdgar. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
TaylorBrian. 2003. Englishes in Sydney around 1850. Australian Journal of Linguistics23(2). 161-183.
38.
Torres CacoullosRenaWalkerJames. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language85(2). 321-354.
39.
VerplaetseHeidi. 2003. What you and I want: A functional approach to verb complementation of modal WANT TO. In FacchinettiRobertaKrugManfredPalmerFrank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 151-189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
WestneyPaul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
41.
YallopColin. 2001. A.G. Mitchell and the development of Australian pronunciation. In BlairDavidCollinsPeter (eds.), English in Australia, 287-302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
YallopColin. 2003. The story of Australian English: Users and environment. Australian Journal of Linguistics23(1). 111-128.
