조동사 NEED의 쇠퇴에 대한 코퍼스 연구
A Corpus Study of the Decline of the Auxiliary Verb NEED
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is a corpus-based study in the modal auxiliary need, the main verb need to and their blends. The examination of the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) covering from 1810 to 2009 shows the continuous fall of the frequency of the modal need: The frequency of [need not (needn’t)+bare infinitive] has dropped by 85.3% from its peak period (the 1880s) to the 2000s, and that of the inverted [need+nominative+bare infinitive] has dropped by 92.6% from the 1810s to the 2000s. By contrast, the frequency of the main verb need to shows the continuous rise from the 1810s to the 2000s: The 2000s shows about 100 times increase compared with the 1810s. The main verb use exceeded the modal use around 1910/20 and rapidly increased (showing a steep "s" curve) since the 1970s. The blending constructions have also been found throughout these years, such as [needs (not)+bare infinitive], [needed (not)+bare infinitive], [aux+need+bare infinitive], [need+nominative+to-infinitive], though they were unproductive. This paper attempts to explain why the modal use is declining while its counterpart is increasing. In the long span of history, NEED underwent grammaticalization, like the central modals WILL, SHALL, CAN, etc. However, NEED began to develop its grammatical function (i.e. modal verb) much later (around the end of the fifteenth century) than these central modals, and while the new function was not fully established and the layering of the old and new ones still existed, the reduction of the overall modals began to occur in recent English.
Abstract
This paper is a corpus-based study in the modal auxiliary need, the main verb need to and their blends. The examination of the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) covering from 1810 to 2009 shows the continuous fall of the frequency of the modal need: The frequency of [need not (needn’t)+bare infinitive] has dropped by 85.3% from its peak period (the 1880s) to the 2000s, and that of the inverted [need+nominative+bare infinitive] has dropped by 92.6% from the 1810s to the 2000s. By contrast, the frequency of the main verb need to shows the continuous rise from the 1810s to the 2000s: The 2000s shows about 100 times increase compared with the 1810s. The main verb use exceeded the modal use around 1910/20 and rapidly increased (showing a steep "s" curve) since the 1970s. The blending constructions have also been found throughout these years, such as [needs (not)+bare infinitive], [needed (not)+bare infinitive], [aux+need+bare infinitive], [need+nominative+to-infinitive], though they were unproductive. This paper attempts to explain why the modal use is declining while its counterpart is increasing. In the long span of history, NEED underwent grammaticalization, like the central modals WILL, SHALL, CAN, etc. However, NEED began to develop its grammatical function (i.e. modal verb) much later (around the end of the fifteenth century) than these central modals, and while the new function was not fully established and the layering of the old and new ones still existed, the reduction of the overall modals began to occur in recent English.
참고문헌 (21)
- 김혜리, "영어 중심서법조동사의 최근 변화", 현대문법연구, (66), pp.21~46 (2011), 현대문법학회
- Biber, D., "The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English" (1999), Longman
- Bosworth, J., "An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 2 vols", Oxford University Press
- "The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ Million Words, 1810-2009"[URL]
- Denison, D, "English Historical Syntax" (1993), Longman
- Fischer, O, "On Negative Raising in the History of English, in Negation in the History of English", pp.55~100 (1999), Mouton de Gruyter
- Gajewski, J. R., "Neg-Raising and Polarity", Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, pp.289~328 (2007)
- Hopper, P. J., "On Some Principles of Grammaticization, in Approaches to Grammaticalization", pp.17~35 (1991), John Benjamins
- Hopper, P. J., "Grammaticalization" (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Horn, L. R., "Remarks on Neg-Raising, in Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics", pp.129~220 (1978), Academic Press
- Iyeiri, Y., "The Development of Non-assertive Any in Later ME and the Decline of Multiple Negation, in And Gladly Wolde He Lerne and Gladly Tech: Essays on Medieval English Presented to Professor Matsuji Tajima on His Sixtieth Birthday", pp.127~143, Kaibunsha
- Jespersen, O., "A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles" (1909), Allen & Unwin
- Kim, H., "The Synchrony and Diachrony of English Impersonal Verbs: A Study of Syntactic and Lexical Change", 박사, pp.1996
- Krug, M, "Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization" (2000), Mouton de Gruyter
- Leech, G., "Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Mair, C., "Current Changes in English Syntax, in The Handbook of English Linguistics", pp.318~342 (2006), Blackwell
- Palmer, F. R., "A Linguistic Study of the English Verb" (1965), Longman
- Quirk, R., "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (1985), Longman
- van der Wouden, T, "Three Modal Verbs", Paper Presented at "The Germanic Verbs" (1996)
- van der Wouden, T, "Negative Polarity Auxiliaries", Paper Presented at the PIONEER Conference "Perspectives on Negation" (1996)
- Wahlén, N. J., "The Old English Impersonalia, Part I, Impersonal Expressions Containing Verbs of Material Import in the Active Voice" (1925), Elanders Boktryckeri