English modal enclitics are typically conceived of as colloquial pronunciation variants that are semantically identical to their respective full forms. Although this conception has already been challenged by Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2014. From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll. In Marianne Hundt, Late modern English syntax, 77–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Daugs, Robert. 2021. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. In Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere, Modality (...) and diachronic construction grammar, 12–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, who argue for the constructional status of both enclitics, the present study proposes a refinement according to which the differences between enclitics and full forms can be pinpointed to specific co-occurrence patterns. Rather than rashly postulating a general ’d-construction or an ’ll-construction, the data indicate that lower-level instances, like I’d V, we’ll V, or it would V, are very much capable of capturing the meaning differences between enclitics and full forms without recourse to higher, more abstract level. This is achieved by assessing the changes in the associative links these patterns entertain in a data-driven, bottom-up fashion. By utilizing the COHA and a variety of quantitative methods, it can be shown that, although enclitic patterns become more frequent and more varied, they remain overall still more restricted than the full forms, which promotes the emergence of ‘new’ symbolic associations. The results are integrated into current research in Diachronic Construction Grammar and dynamic, network-oriented models of language. (shrink)