Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T14:23:45.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of heaps as quantifier and intensifier in New Zealand English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2017

ANDREEA CALUDE
ANDREEA CALUDE*
Affiliation:
Department of General and Applied Linguistics, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article documents novel uses of the noun heaps in New Zealand English, namely as quantifier and intensifier, by means of quantitative and qualitative analyses of corpus data. Closely following in the footsteps of lots, heaps is the second most frequent size noun in New Zealand English. On the basis of exhaustive coding of four corpora of New Zealand English (spoken and written), the article describes and exemplifies the various uses of heaps in this English variety. Results show heaps is preferred in speech compared to writing, and that its most common use is as a quantifier, followed by an extension to an intensifying use, which has received comparatively less attention in the literature (and never specifically in the context of New Zealand English). An examination of early New Zealand English in the ONZE Corpus testifies to this incoming change, with heaps grammaticalizing into an adverb and bearing the semantic role of intensifier. Multivariate statistical tests show that innovative uses of heaps are largely driven by younger speakers.

Keywords

size nounsNew Zealand Englishcollocationgrammaticalizationsyntactic variation
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 531 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

I thank Sally Harper for help in coding the examples containing heaps in the two Wellington corpora, Paul James for pointing out the unusual ways in which New Zealand English uses heaps, Liam Walsh for his guidance in accessing the Quake Corpus and the ONZE Miner corpora, Steven Miller for advice on the GLM model, and the NZ Linguistics Society 2016 conference audience members for valuable comments and feedback. Finally, I am grateful to the two anonymous referees and the journal editor, Laurel Brinton, for insightful and meticulous suggestions. Any remaining errors are my own.

References

Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (version 3.4.3) [computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from www.laurenceanthony.netGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, Federica. 2008. Patterns of age‐based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12, 58–88.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1993. Manual of information to accompany the Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English. Wellington: Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14, 83–109.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2012. The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic case study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (2), 202–31.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, McEnery, Tony & Wattam, Stephen. 2015. Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20, 139–73.Google Scholar
Calude, Andreea. Forthcoming. Sociolinguistic variation at the grammatical/discourse level: Demonstrative clefts in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9, 479–508.Google Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard & Brems, Lieselotte. 2016. Size nouns matter: A closer look at mass(es) and extended uses of SNs. Language Sciences 53, 160–76.Google Scholar
Deverson, Tony & Kennedy, Graham. 2005. The New Zealand Oxford dictionary – The ultimate guide to New Zealand English. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1957. Modes of meaning. Reprinted in Papers in Linguistics 1934–51, 190–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine & Yuasa, Etsuyo. 2008. A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44, 45–86.Google Scholar
Fromont, Robert & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. ONZE Miner: The development of a browser-based research tool. Corpora 3, 173–93.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next. . . International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18, 137–66.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Maclagan, Margaret & Hay, Jennifer. 2007. The ONZE corpus. In Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen & Moisl, Hermann (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, 82–104. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea & Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New Zealand English: Its origins and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret & Gordon, Elizabeth. 2008. Dialects of English: New Zealand English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
‘heap’, n. OED online. Oxford University Press, December 2016 (accessed 21 February 2017).Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmman, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1982. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3, 40–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet, Vine, Bernadette & Johnson, Gary. 1998. Guide to the Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2010. A lot of quantifiers. In Rice, Sally & Newman, John (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 41–52. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 1997. Standards and variation in urban speech: Examples from Lowland Scots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1992. ‘We've all got to go one day, eh?’ Powerlessness and solidarity in the functions of a New Zealand tag. In Hall, Kira, Bucholtz, Mary & Moonwomon, Birch (eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the second annual Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 409–19. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1994. ‘Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?’ A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English. Language in Society 23, 367–88.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2013. Syntactic variation and change: The variationist framework and language contact. In Léglise, Isabelle & Chamoreau, Claudine (eds.), The interplay of variation and change in contact settings, 23–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2000. Variation in NZE syntax and morphology. In Bell, Allan & Kuiper, Koenraad (eds.), New Zealand English, 173–97. Wellington: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Dirven, René. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2009. Non-numerical quantifiers. In Peters, Pam & Smith, Adam Michael (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 159–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, 219–47. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Walsh, Liam, Hay, Jennifer, Bent, Derek, Grant, Liz, King, Jeanette, Millar, Paul, Papp, Viktoria & Watson, Kevin. 2013. The UC QuakeBox Project: Creation of a community-focused research archive. New Zealand English Journal 27, 20–32.Google Scholar