We might should be thinking this way

Individual Sensitivity to the Frequency of Socially Meaningful Linguistic Cues Affects Language Attitudes

“…However, standard and nonstandard features not only encode standardness; they may also—alternatively or simultaneously—index other social meanings in particular contexts (Campbell-Kibler, 2011; Eckert, 2008). For example, Hasty (2012) carried out a version of the matched guise technique (Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillenbaum, 1960) to investigate listeners’ perceptions of a nonstandard Southern U.S. feature: the double modal (e.g., might could, may can ). He found that listeners who heard a doctor produce sentences such as We may can just hold it for a while and let you get over this stuff judged his “bedside manner” to be politer than did listeners who heard the identical excerpt in a digitally manipulated single modal guise ( We may just hold it for a while .…”

“…To model the process of frequency-sensitive impression formation, Labov et al (2011) invoke a “sociolinguistic monitor” as an abstract cognitive mechanism that tracks incoming cues, which also—crucially—evaluates them against the listeners’ stored social meanings for those cues (Campbell-Kibler, 2011; Eckert, 2008). For example, in the study of double modals in physician speech described above (Hasty, 2012), double modals might serve as cues indexing Southernness, friendliness, and relatability, and so on. These meanings may be accessed simultaneously or independently depending on the context of the mindset of the speaker and other situational variables.…”

The semantics, sociolinguistics, and origins of double modals in American English: New insights from social media

“…Although they are commonly labelled ‘double modals’, there is a long-standing debate on the exact grammatical nature of these features, which have often been analysed as adverb-modal sequences or single modal lexical items [ 4 ]. Theoretical research on DMs has focused on their syntactic status [ 5 – 7 ], semantic constraints on their formation [ 8 – 11 ], their regional and social distribution [ 12 , 13 ], and their historical origins [ 14 – 16 ].…”

“…As for the broader pragmatic meaning of DMs, Mishoe and Montgomery [ 9 ] and DiPaolo [ 19 ] argue that DMs are used for one-on-one negotiation, face saving, and hedging, while Hasty [ 10 , 11 ] describes how DMs can be used by doctors for mitigation in their interaction with patients. There is also general agreement that DMs with may and especially might in first position are most acceptable and that these two modals rarely occur in second position [ 7 , 24 , 27 ]. More specifically, Hasty [ 20 ] claims there is a general DM acceptability hierarchy, with might oughta being most acceptable, followed by might could, might should and might would , where a speaker who finds one form acceptable will find all DMs higher in the hierarchy acceptable as well.…”

“…The two traditional dialect surveys that covered this region, the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States (LAMSAS) [ 40 ] and the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States (LAGS) [ 18 ], observed DMs across the South, from Texas to Pennsylvania [ 12 ]. Numerous studies have also examined DMs in parts of the South, including Alabama [ 21 ], the Carolinas [ 9 , 23 , 25 ], Tennessee [ 7 , 17 , 20 , 41 ], Texas [ 19 , 24 , 29 , 42 , 43 ], and West Virginia and Appalachia [ 22 , 44 ]. In addition, DiPaolo [ 24 ] observed DM use in Utah, and, more recently, Collins and Singler [ 45 ] observed the use of the otherwise unattested DM would might by a young white man without a southern accent in New York City.…”