Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:12:55.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The history of very: the directionality of functional shift and (inter)subjectification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2016

TINE BREBAN  and
KRISTIN DAVIDSE
TINE BREBAN
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PLUnited [email protected]
KRISTIN DAVIDSE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21, 3000 [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of extensive corpus analysis, we reconstruct the history of very and the paths of change along which it acquired new meanings. We propose an analytical model that, firstly, assigns general semantic functions to the (sub)modifier relations in the English noun phrase and, secondly, identifies subsenses of these functions on the basis of collocational, semantic and pragmatic distinctions observed in different contexts. Thus, we arrive at a comprehensive description of the various (sub)modifier relations in which very has functioned in its history. Having been borrowed into English as part of fixed collocations such as very Ihus (‘the true Jesus’) and croice verra (‘the true cross’), very successively acquired the functions of descriptive modifier, noun-intensifier, focus marker, adjective-intensifier, classifier, postdeterminer-intensifier, quantifier-intensifier and postdeterminer. This description allows us to interpret the history of very as a paradigm case of progressive grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification involving leftward movement in the English NP (Adamson 2000). Our analytical model allows us to capture finer mechanisms of change such as collocational extension, pragmatically driven host class expansion, invited inferences and analogy.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 221 - 249
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We sincerely thank the two anonymous referees for their very generous and helpful comments, which helped us re-define ‘our problem space’. We also thank Wim van der Wurff, who started us off on the revision, and Laurel Brinton, who helped us complete the revision cycle. Tine Breban worked on this paper at the Freie Universität Berlin, while she was funded as a post-doctoral fellow by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. She thanks Ferdinand von Mengden and all colleagues at the FU Berlin for their hospitality. Kristin Davidse was able to work on this paper thanks to the sabbatical leave grant K8.017.12N from the Research Fund Flanders FWO. This joint research was further supported by the GOA-project 12/007, ‘The multiple functional load of grammatical signs’, awarded by the Research Council of the University of Leuven.

References

Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Annette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 39–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bache, Carl & Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels. 1997. Mastering English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010a. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010b. Reconstructing paths of secondary grammaticalization of same from emphasizing to phoricity and single-referent-marking postdeterminer uses. Transactions of the Philological Society 108, 68–87.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010c. Is there a postdeterminer in the English noun phrase? Transactions of the Philological Society 108, 248–64.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Claudia. 1984. The very idea: A case study in polysemy and cross-lexical generalization. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 20: Papers from the parasession on lexical semantics, 21–38.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In Vogel, Petra M. & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes, 65–102. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2004. The interaction of identification and quantification in English determiners. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 507–33. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2016. Content-purport, content-substance and structure: Focusing mere and merely. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1, 33–52.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2012. The many careers of polarity sensitive items. In Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte & Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 299–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76, 546–92.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1963. Class in relation to the axes of chain and choice in language. Linguistics 2, 5–15.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruquayia. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81, 345–81.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focusing particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard, Frank (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 1–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunther. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swiþe . English Studies 84, 372–91.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27, 141–69.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. BUT, ONLY, JUST. Focussing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk. 2006. Subjectification in gradable adjectives. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas & Cornillie, Bert (eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity, 279–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalisation. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard M. & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus linguistics: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 233–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness, Cognitive Linguistics 12, 47–65.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teyssier, Jacques. 1968. Notes on the syntax of the adjective in Modern English. Lingua 20, 225–49.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradualness, gradience, and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vandewinkel, Sigi & Davidse, Kristin. 2008. The interlocking paths of development towards emphasizer adjective pure . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9, 255–87.Google Scholar