Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:33:52.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

LIESELOTTE BREMS
LIESELOTTE BREMS*
Affiliation:
Dept Linguïstiek, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, B-3000 Leuven, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Basing myself on synchronic and diachronic data analysis, I argue in this article that size nouns (SNs) such as bunch/load(s)/heap(s) of within binominal NPs display synchronic variation which can be hypothesized to be the result of grammaticalization processes. Synchronically, I propose that SNs have two major non-head uses, a quantifier use, e.g. a bunch of people walked in, and a valuing(-quantifying) use, in which the referent is evaluated rather than quantified. The latter is restricted mainly to bunch/load of, e.g. What a bunch of gobbledygook. The semantic and syntactic reanalysis of SNs as quantifiers has recently been acknowledged (e.g. Traugott forthcoming), but the valuing use of SNs remains largely unrecognized (see Brems 2007). On a theoretical level, it will be argued that head, quantifier and valuing(-quantifier) SN-uses synchronically have to be studied as collocationally constrained constructions in that the semantico-syntactic parsing of each SN-use links up with specific collocational patterns (Sinclair 1991). Head uses are restricted to sets of (un)count concrete nouns, whereas quantifier uses team up with all sorts of (un)count concrete as well as abstract nouns. Valuing uses show restrictions to concrete animate and abstract nouns, which they typically evaluate negatively, and have negative semantic prosody patterns, in which the SNs themselves come to predict negative collocates (see Louw 1993; Stubbs 1995; Bublitz 1996). The grammaticalization of SNs will be hypothesized to involve not only processes of semantic generalization and collocational extension, but also collocational reclusterings characterized by particular semantic prosody constraints. The latter are not traditionally associated with processes of grammaticalization and hence offer new insights into the semantic changes that may accompany grammaticalization.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 83 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Aarts, Bas. 1998. Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 117–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karen. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, Carl. 2000. Essentials of mastering English: A concise grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, Carl & Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels. 1997. Mastering English: An advanced grammar for non-native and native speakers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2006. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2001. From head to quantifier: Grammaticalization and delexicalization in measure noun constructions. MA thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The synchronic layering of size noun and type noun constructions in English. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1996. Semantic prosody and cohesive company: ‘Somewhat predictable’. Leuvense Bijdragen 85, 1–32.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 2003. Emotive prosody: How attitudinal frames help construct context. In Mengel, Ewald, Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Steppat, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth, 381–91. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23, 113–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, Kenneth & Hanks, Patrick. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16 (1), 22–9.Google Scholar
Church, Kenneth, Gale, William, Hanks, Patrick & Hindle, Donald. 1991. Using statistics in lexical analysis. In Zernik, Uri (ed.), Lexical acquisition, 115–64. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clear, Jeremy. 1993. From Firth principles: Computational tools for the study of collocation. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill & Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 271–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1991. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Brems, Lieselotte & De Smedt, Liesbeth. 2008. Type noun uses in the English NP: A case of right to left layering. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13 (2), 139–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. Corpus of American English: 360 million words, 1990–present. Available online at www.americancorpus.org.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, University of Helsinki, 7 September 2002. [Online draft version available at www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david-denison/papers/thefile,100126,en.pdf.]Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 279–304. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smedt, Liesbeth, Brems, Lieselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2007. NP-internal functions and extended uses of the ‘type’ nouns kind, sort, and type: Towards a comprehensive, corpus-based description. In Facchinetti, Roberta (ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on, 225–55. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10, 76–92.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76, 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 149–69. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Yuasa, Etsuyo. 2008. A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44 (1), 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehweiler, Elke. 2008. Mere speculation? Criteria for the ‘grammaticalizedness’ of attributive adjectives. Paper presented at NRG 4 (New Reflections on Grammaticalization 4). University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 1043–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2007. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to grammaticalization. PhD thesis, Rice University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–36. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2007. Why I don't believe in grammaticalization (as it is usually portrayed) or: Why I only kinda/kind of believe in it. Plenary lecture at the LOT Summer School, Leuven, 10 June 2007.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 109–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. Forthcoming a. A lot of quantifiers.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. Forthcoming b. A constructional approach to grammaticization.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32 (2), 157–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1986. English classifier constructions. Lingua 66, 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabrielle (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143–61. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill & Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 157–76. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louw, B. 2000. Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In Heffer, Chris & Saunston, Helen (eds.), Words in context. Discourse Analysis Monograph 18 [CD ROM]. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MED (Middle English Dictionary) online: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med.Google Scholar
OED (Oxford English Dictionary) online: www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and meanings. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991 [1992]. Corpus, concordance, collocation [2nd edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2 (1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaiser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, 389–405. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 406–16. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester 1995.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. From ideational to interpersonal: a reassessment. Paper presented at FITIGRA (From Ideational to Interpersonal: perspectives from grammaticalization), University of Leuven, 10–12 February 2005.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Eckardt, Regine, Jäger, Gerhard & Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Variation, selection, development – probing the evolutionary model of language change. Trends in Linguistics 197. 219–50. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Forthcoming. From ideational to interpersonal: A reassessment. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, Diane, Votre, Sebastião & LaForest, Marty. 1993. Grammaticalisation et postgrammaticalisation. Langages et Linguistique 19, 71–103.Google Scholar
Whitsitt, Sam. 2005. A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10 (3), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemse, Peter. 2007. Indefinite possessive NPs and the distinction between determining and non-determining genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 11 (3), 537–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization – ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 355–70. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar