The paper studies the degree of grammaticalization of the structures gotta, gonna, wanna and better. The study presumes that the semantics of these structures – more precisely their modal polyfunctionality (i.e. the ability to express deontic and epistemic meaning at the same time) – has an impact on their morphosyntactic properties. Using corpora (predominantly the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English) and web forums, the paper studies in detail the level of independence of gotta, gonna, wanna and better from their respective auxiliaries (have and be) and the development of the operator properties of these structures typical for central modals (i.e. inversion in questions, compatibility with clausal negation and occurrence in elliptical contexts). It demonstrates that gonna and gotta are partially grammaticalized, especially with respect to the independence of their auxiliaries, but they do not syntactically behave as modals. The verb wanna behaves as a modal morphologically but not syntactically. On the other hand, better is grammaticalized to a high degree, and it does demonstrate both the morphology and syntax of central modal verbs.
COLLINS, P., 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
DENISON, D. and CORT, A., 2010. Better as a verb. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte and H. Cuyckens, eds. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 349-384.
HAEGEMAN, L., 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
HEINE, B., 1995. Agent-Oriented vs. Epistemic Modality: Some Observations on German Modals. In: J. Bybee and S. Fleischman, eds. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17-54.
HUDDLESTON, R. and PULLUM, G. K., 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KRUG, M., 2000. Emerging English modals. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
LEECH, G., et. al., 2009. Changes in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACHOVÁ, D., 2014. An alternative analysis of marginal modals. Language Use and Linguistic Structure: Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium, vol. 3, pp. 87-98.
MITCHELL, K., 2003. Had better and might as well: On the margins of modality? In: R. Facchinetti, M. Krug and F. Palmer, eds. Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, oo. 129-149.
ROBERTS, I. and ROUSSOU, A., 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TRAUGOTT, E.C. and DASHER, R., 2003. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VAN DER AUWERA, J., AMMANN, A. and KINDT, S., 2005. Modal polyfunctionality and Standard Average European. In: A. Klinge and H.H. Müller, eds. Modality. Studies in Form and Function. London: Equinox, pp. 247-272.
VAN DER AUWERA, J. and AMMANN, A., 2013. Overlap between Situational and Epistemic Modal Marking. In: M.S. Dryer and M. Haspelmath, eds. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [Accessed 15 March 2015]. Available at: http://wals.info/chapter/76
WESTNEY, P., 1995. Modals and Periphrastics in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
DAVIES, M. (2004–) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.
DAVIES, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
DAVIES, M. (2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.