On the Gradience of English Size Nouns: frequency, productivity, and expansion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.12.2022.03Keywords:
size nouns, vague quantifiers, grammaticalization, synchrony, type-token ratio, hapax-token ratio, corpus-based studyAbstract
The synchronic degrees of grammaticalization of size nouns are traditionally measured based on proportionate frequencies of their quantificational attestations in corpus samples. However, grammaticalization, in general, is associated not only with an increased frequency of grammaticalized uses but also with a rise in productivity and distributional expansion. Thus, drawing on corpus data encompassing selected English size nouns which originally individuate concrete inanimate nominals, this paper investigates the relationship between the three aforementioned parameters. Productivity is operationalized as the arithmetic mean of two measures, namely type-token ratio (TTR) and hapax-token ratio (HTR), i.e. the number of, respectively, types of quantified collocates and hapax legomena N2s divided by the number of all quantifier tokens of each expression, while host-class expansion is construed as the proportion of animate and abstract collocates among the respective items’ quantifier uses. Contrary to expectations, the results reveal only a weak positive correlation between the elements’ frequency values and their levels of productivity, and the same holds for the relation between frequency and distributional extension. Also surprising is the moderate negative correlation observed between productivity and expansion, which can nevertheless be elucidated in terms of a high type frequency of semantically general animate and abstract N2-collocates of the most distributionally extended expressions.
References
Brems, L. (2003) Measure noun constructions: an instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2): 283–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05bre
Brems, L. (2007) The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics, 35: 235–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207307597
Brems, L. (2011) The Layering of Size Noun and Type Noun Constructions in English. Boston, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252927
Brems, L. (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): 202–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.2.02bre
Brinton, L. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962
De Clerck, B. and Brems, L. (2016) Size nouns matter: a closer look at mass(es) of and extended uses of SNs. Language Sciences, 53: 160–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.007
Delbecque, N. and Verveckken, K. D. (2014) Conceptually-driven analogy in the grammaticalization of Spanish binominal quantifiers. Linguistics, 52 (3): 637–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0002
Doetjes, J. (1997) Quantifiers and Selection: on the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden: University of Leiden.
Fischer, O. (2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog and B. Heine (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0003
Giacalone Ramat, A. (2019) Degrees of grammaticalization and measure constructions in Italian. Revue Romane, 54 (2): 257–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.16015.gia
Haspelmath, M. (2001). Word classes and parts of speech. In P. B. Baltes and N. J. Smelser (eds.). International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 16538–16545). Amsterdam: Pergamon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02959-4
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, and B. Wiemer (eds.). What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and Its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
Hopper, P. J. (1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume 1 (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2003) Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Jackson, H. (2013) Grammar and Meaning: a semantic approach to English grammar. London, New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846538
Keizer, E. (2007) The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627699
Klein, E. (1966) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. Amsterdam, London, New York: Elsevier.
Langacker, R. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2: descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lehmann, C. (1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, 20: 303–318.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, New York: Longman.
Traugott, E. C. (2008a) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger and T. Veenstra (eds.) Variation, Selection, Development – Probing the Evolutionary Model Language Change (pp. 219–250). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205398.3.219
Traugott, E. C. (2008b). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In A. Bergs and G. Diewald (eds.) Constructions and Language Change (pp. 23–45). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757.23
Verveckken, K. D. (2015) Binominal Quantifiers in Spanish: conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Boston, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110406733
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 University of Latvia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
