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

On the basis of extensive corpus analysis, we reconstruct the history ofveryand 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 whichveryhas functioned in its history. Having been borrowed into English as part of fixed collocations such asvery Ihus(‘the true Jesus’) andcroice verra(‘the true cross’),verysuccessively 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 ofveryas 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.</jats:p

Semiotic and Possessive Models in Relational Clauses: Thinking with Grammar about Grammar

In this article, I will investigate the semantic models construed by relational clauses, more specifically by intensive and possessive clauses. The approach followed will be the one pioneered by Halliday, viz. the coupling of form and meaning. On the formal side, the main methods used will involve lexical and grammatical selection restrictions and controlled reformulation. On the semantic side, there will be input from semiotics and grammatics. The case will be argued that intensive clauses construe the semiotic models of instantiation and realization, while possessive clauses construe models such as constituency and dependency

Revisiting the typology of English copular clauses:Ascription and specification in categorizing and identifying clauses

In work on the typology of English copular clauses two main distinctions have been made: specificational versus ascriptive clauses and identifying versus predicative (which we call ”categorizing”) clauses. In this article we argue that these two oppositions cannot be conflated. We propose to cross-classify copular clauses into four basic subtypes, namely specificational-identifying, specificational-categorizing, ascriptive-identifying and ascriptive-categorizing clauses. We show that the proposed typology provides an internally coherent characterization of the four basic subtypes of copular clauses, in particular of the neglected subtype of specificational clauses with an indefinite variable (i.e. specificational-categorizing clauses). Zooming in on categorizing clauses, we propose that their semantics are best captured in terms of a correspondence relation between instance and schema.status: publishe

Managing information flow through prosody in it-clefts

This article addresses the question of how speakers manage information flow in specificational it-clefts by balancing grammatical and prosodic choices in real time. We examine this in a qualitative and quantitative corpus study of both full and reduced it-clefts extracted from the first London–Lund Corpus (LLC–1), whose prosody we studied combining auditory and instrumental analysis. Our empirical analysis resulted in the following findings about cleft usage in speech. Speakers have considerable freedom to choose what information to make prominent irrespective of the actual discourse-givenness of the constituents. Clefts allow speakers to highlight elements by means of two strategies, syntactic and prosodic, which may reinforce each other or create their own different types of prominence in sequence. It-clefts always have a high first pitch accent, which signals some form of reset of the expectations generated by preceding utterances. The choice of whether or not to produce a cleft relative clause is not purely informationally motivated. Rather, reduced clefts achieve specific unique rhetorical effects. All of this makes clefts a particularly useful device for speakers responding moment by moment to informational needs and shifting communicative goals

Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: the development of polar, modal and mirative no way-constructions

This paper investigates the paths of grammaticalization and semantic change that led from structures with lexical uses of way to grammatical operators containing ‘no’ way that convey polar, modal and mirative meanings. Preliminary analysis of data from the OED, the Penn Corpora of Historical English, the Corpus of Late Modern English (CLMET), Wordbanks (WB) and the Corpus of American Soap Operas suggests the following main lines of development, which will be further detailed on the basis of extensive qualitative and quantitative data-analyses. The earliest grammaticalization path yielded emphatic adverbial negators of the forms noneways (13th C) and no way (14th C), via bridging contexts allowing both a lexical ‘in no manner’ and grammatical ‘not at all’ meaning, as in (1). (1) How miʒte þei mon of synne make clene? Certis, no wey, as hit is sene. (c1325 Cursor Mundi) In Late Modern English, a new grammaticalization cycle recruited in no way which numerically took over as negator in the same structural contexts as no way, e.g. (2) these things need not be specially forced upon him. In no way should he be led to emphasize them (CLMET) A different and more recent grammaticalization path has, via bridging contexts such as (3), where a reading of situation- or participant-inherent impossibility can be inferred, led to verbo-nominal expressions (Loureiro-Porto 2010) of modality, which in Present-day English express mainly dynamic (cf. 3), but also epistemic (4) and deontic meanings (Saad et al. 2012). (3) he … thanked her rather shortly, but said there was no way of managing it. (CLMET) (4) There's no way it was a domestic murder. (WB) In a final semantic shift, which can be related to the two main grammaticalization paths, no way acquires mirative value, i.e. the conveying of surprise, roughly paraphrasable as ‘I can’t believe …’, which may either be blended with negation or modality, or form the sole meaning (5). Mirative no way relates both to the proposition and the interaction between the speech participants. (5) … a figure appeared by the side of the road. ‘A hitchhiker!’ said Ellie excitedly. ‘Yeah, no way,’ said Julia. (WB) This paper seeks to explain the semantic shifts in light of the conceptual relations (Lesage 2013) between the negation of propositions, whose “function … is … to emphasize that a fact is contrary to expectation” on the part of the hearer (Wason 1965: 7, cf. Werth 1999), modality, the speaker’s evaluation of the likelihood or desirability of a state-of-affairs, and mirativity, surprise regarding a fact that thwarts the speaker’s expectations (Peterson 2013). We will verify Lesage’s (2013) hypothesis that the development of no way involves a gradual increase in subjectivity (Narrog 2012) and discourse-orientation. Keywords grammaticalization, subjectification, negation, modality, mirativity References Lesage, Jakob. 2013. Surprise and modality, negation and subjectification: Mirative functions of no way. Unpublished term paper. Linguistics department, KU Leuven. Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2010. “Verbo-nominal Constructions of Necessity with þearf n. and need n.: Competition and Grammaticalization from OE to eModE.” English Language and Linguistics 14 (3): 373–397. Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peterson, Tyler. 2013. “Rethinking Mirativity: The Expression and Implication of Surprise”. University of Toronto. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/2FkYTg4O/Rethinking_Mirativity.pdf. Saad, Khalida, Wouter Parmentier, Lot Brems, Kristin Davidse, and An Van Linden. 2012. “The Development of Modal, Polar and Mirative No Way-constructions”. Paper presented at ICAME 33, 31 May-5 June, University of Leuven. Wason, Peter Cathcart. 1965. “The Contexts of Plausible Denial.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4 (1): 7–11. Werth, Paul. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Textual Explorations. London: Longman

The clausal complementation of deontic-evaluative adjectives in extraposition constructions: a synchronic-diachronic approach

This article develops a functional synchronic-diachronic description of the clausal complementation of deontic-evaluative adjectives in extraposition constructions (ECs). It does so on the basis of qualitative and quantitative corpus-based analyses of the importance adjectives important, essential, crucial and the appropriateness adjectives appropriate, proper, and fitting. All six adjectives can currently take either mandative complements expressing desired action (coded by to-infinitives or that-clauses) or propositional complements describing arguable claims (typically coded by that-clauses). In reference grammars these have tended to receive incomplete coverage without elucidation of the constructional polysemies involved. We argue that a better understanding of the present system can be arrived at by investigating the diachronic developments by which it was fashioned. The ECs with these adjectives started off as mandative constructions and this continues to be their current unmarked use. They also developed patterns with propositional complements, but in this area the importance and appropriateness adjectives followed different diachronic paths, leading to distinct pragmatico-semantic readings of the pattern with single proposition in Present-day English