The original idea for this paper stemmed from a desire to discover more about the nature of diachronic syntax. After a cursory investigation, I found the field to be, quite frankly, a mess. Deciding therefore to restrict my study to one well-documented instance of syntactic change in order to get a firmer grasp on aspects of the field, I found a microcosmic representation of my original mess. The following chapters document my effort at sorting through this.
In Chapter 1 I try to paint a picture of the English modals, using data culled from various sources. I am aware of the potential bias that exists in the gathering of data to support a specific theory, so I tried to include examples from all the works I discuss in Chapter 3, as well as from some external sources such as Visser. I have attempted to identify and deal with any inconsistencies in the data, but being mortal I cannot guarantee that I found them all. For this I apologize. I have also attempted to eliminate repetition among and within chapters (particularly Chapter 3), but fully admit that this task may have proven beyond my capabilities.
The decision to include Chapter 2 came almost as an afterthought, but ultimately seemed to be the most convenient way to present the ideas discussed without having to launch into such asides in the middle of discussions about the modals.
Chapter 3 is fairly self-explanatory; however, I feel I should point out a convention I have adopted in order to avoid any confusion. Areas within this paper are generally referred to by section or chapter number, while other works are referred to by page number.
Chapter 4 takes a general look at syntactic change, integrating information from the present study. I have tried to enrich understanding of the explanations in Chapter 3 by nesting them in this broader framework.