코퍼스로 분석한 미 군사영어 서법조동사 사용 양상

A corpus-based study on the use of English modal auxiliary verbs in the US military

This study examines modal auxiliary use in American military English through a corpus-based comparison with civilian English across written and spoken registers. Drawing on an independently constructed corpus encompassing materials from all U.S. military branches, the study contrasts military English with reference corpora such as COCA, BNC, and SBCSAE. In the written register, must and may are markedly overused, while would/could/might are suppressed; must functions exclusively as deontic obligation/command, and may encodes both epistemic possibility and institutional permission aligned with hierarchical authorization. In the spoken register, may and will dominate, serving uncertainty management and projecting collective commitment to future actions. Together, these patterns show that the military modal system prioritizes clarity, discipline, and hierarchical control, distinguishing it from civilian English not only in frequency but in pragmatic load. Framed within ESP, the study demonstrates the distinct value of military English as an institutionally grounded domain that merits corpus-informed description.