This paper offers a principled framework for the analysis of sources associated with modal verbs that express root necessity. First, the notion of “source” (who or what lies at the origin of the necessity) is described and illustrated, and a comprehensive taxonomy of sources is put forward that can be used for empirical analysis. Special attention is paid to “subject-oriented” sources, which have mainly been discussed in the realm of modal possibility (ability) but which are relevant to modal necessity as well. The framework is then applied to a sample of sentences with Needto extracted from the British National Corpus (BNC). The quantitative study shows that Needto is closely connected with discourse-internal sources, conditional sources, and circumstantial sources. It is not closely associated with a subject-oriented source as it has been defined in the taxonomy and in the context of “rules and regulations.” There are significant differences between the spoken and the written modes in the context of conditional sources and discourse-internal sources.
DaviesMark. 2004. British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/.
2.
GreenbaumSidneyNelsonGerald. 1996. The International Corpus of English, British English Component (ICE-GB).
3.
AuweraJohan van der PlungianVladimir. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology2(1). 79-124.
4.
AuweraJohan van derTaeymansMartine. 2009. The need modals and their polarity. In BowenRhonwenMobärgMatsOhlanderSölve (eds.), Corpora and discourse – and stuff. Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer, 317-326. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University.
5.
AuweraJohan van derNoëlDirkDe WitAstrid. 2012. The diverging need (to)’s of Asian Englishes. In HundtMarianneGutUlrike (eds.), Mapping unity and diversity of New Englishes World-Wide, 55-76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6.
CappelleBertDe SutterGert. 2010. Should vs. ought to. In CappelleBertWadaNaoki (eds.), Distinctions in English grammar. Offered to Renaat Declerck, 92-126. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
7.
CoatesJennifer. 1983. The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
8.
CollinsPeter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
9.
CruseAlan. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics9(1). 11-23.
10.
DeclerckRenaat. 1991. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Tokyo: Kaitakusho.
11.
DekeyserXavierDevriendtBettyTopsGuy A. J.GeukensSteven. 1999. Foundations of English grammar. 5th edn.Leuven & Amersfoort: Acco.
12.
DepraetereIlseCappelleBertGrandinCyrilLeclercqBenoît. 2021. Necessity modals and the role of source as a predictive factor. Paper presented at ISLE 6, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu.
13.
DepraetereIlseReedSusan. 2011. Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility in English. English Language and Linguistics15(1). 1-29.
14.
DepraetereIlseReedSusan. 2021. Mood and modality in English. In AartsBasHinrichsLarsMcMahonApril (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 207-229. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
DepraetereIlseVerhulstAn. 2008. Source of the modality: A reassessment. English Language and Linguistics12(1). 1-25.
16.
De SmetHendrikVerstraeteJean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics17(3). 365-392.
17.
FurmaniakGrégory. 2020. On the (con)textual properties of must, have to and shall: An integrative account. In PascalHohausSchulzeRainer (ed.), Re-assessing modalising modal expressions: Categories, co-text and context, 281-310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18.
HuddlestonRodneyPullumGeoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KastroneInga. 2008. Need to and the modality of obligation: A corpus-based analysis. Oslo: University of Oslo Master’s thesis.
20.
KratzerAngelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In EikmeyerHans-JürgenRieserHannes (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38-74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
21.
KratzerAngelika. 2010. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
LarreyaPaul. 1982. Quelques remarques sur have to et must. In LavédrineJean (éd.) Travaux XXXV, 103-121.Saint-Etienne: CIEREC.
23.
LarreyaPaulRivièreClaude. 2019. Grammaire explicative de l’anglais. 5th edn.Paris: Longman Pearson.
24.
LeechGeoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. In FacchinettiRobertaKrugManfredPalmerFrank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 223-240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25.
LeechGeoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In Marín-ArreseJuana I.CarreteroMartaArús HitaJorgevan der AuweraJohan (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, 95-116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
26.
LeechGeoffreyHundtMarianneMairChrisSmithNicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LyonsJohn, 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MairChristian. 2015. Cross-variety diachronic drifts and ephemeral regional contrasts: An analysis of modality in the extended Brown family of corpora and what it can tell us about the New Englishes. In CollinsPeter (ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide, 119-146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
MairChristianLeechGeoffrey. 2021. Current changes in English syntax. In AartsBasHinrichsLarsMcMahonApril (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 249-276. 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.
30.
MeyerDavidZeileisAchimKurtHornik. 2003. Visualizing independence using extended association plots. In KurtHornikLeischFriedrichZeileisAchim (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/conferences/DSC-2003/Proceedings/
31.
MüllerFriederike. 2008. From degrammaticalisation to regrammaticalisation? Current changes in the use of need. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik33(1). 71-94.
32.
MyhillJohn. 1997. Should and ought: The rise of individually oriented modality in American English. English Language and Linguistics1(1). 3-23.
33.
NokkonenSoili. 2006. The semantic variation of need to in four recent British English corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11(1). 29-71.
34.
NokkonenSoili. 2010. How many taxis there needs to be? The sociolinguistic variation of need to in spoken British English. Corpora5(1). 45-74.
35.
NuytsJan. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction5(1). 53-76.
36.
PalmerFrank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. 2nd edn.New York: Longman.
37.
QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSidneyLeechGeoffreyJanSvartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
38.
SchützlerOleHerzkyJenny. 2021. Modal verbs of strong obligation in Scottish Standard English. English Language and Linguistics26(1). 1-27.
39.
SmithNicolas. 2003. Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In FacchinettiRobertaKrugManfredPalmerFrank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 241-266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40.
SweetserEve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
TaeymansMartine. 2004. An investigation into the marginal modals dare and need in British Present-day English: A corpus-based approach. In FischerOlgaNordeMurielPerridonHarry (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 97-114. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
42.
TagliamonteSali A.2004. Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalization, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. In LindquistHansMairChristian (eds.), Corpus research on grammaticalization in English, 37-55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
TagliamonteSaliSmithJennifer. 2006. Layering, competition and a twist of fate: The deontic modality system in English dialects. Diachronica23(2). 341-380.
44.
VerhulstAnDepraetereIlseHeyvaertLiesbet. 2013. Source and strength of modality: An empirical study of root should, ought to and be supposed to in Present-day British English. Journal of Pragmatics55. 210-225.
45.
VerstraeteJean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics33(10). 1505-1528.
46.
WestneyPaul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
47.
ZuffereySandrine. 2020. Introduction to corpus linguistics. Hoboken: Wiley.
