Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:56:01.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural persistence: a case based on the grammaticalization of English adjectives of difference1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

TINE BREBAN
TINE BREBAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, K.U.Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21 PO box 3308, 3000 Leuven, Belgium E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, it is proposed that processes of grammaticalization are determined and constrained not only by the source semantics of the grammaticalizing item, i.e. lexical persistence in the sense of Hopper (1991), but also by the original structure the item occurs in. This previously unrecognized feature of grammaticalization is referred to as structural persistence. The need to distinguish a structural equivalent to lexical persistence is argued on the basis of a particularly exemplary case, viz. the grammaticalization processes found with one lexically specific set of grammaticalizing elements in English, adjectives of difference such as other, different, various, etc. Before their grammaticalization, these adjectives occur in two different structural configurations, viz. (1) external comparison, in which the adjective describes a relation of difference between the referent of the noun phrase and a second, separately coded, entity, and (2) internal comparison, in which the entities that are said to be different are all denoted by the noun phrase containing the adjective. Even though they undergo the same general semantic process of grammaticalization and delexicalization in both structures, the adjectives acquire a different grammatical function in each of them. The different outcomes of the grammaticalization process can only be explained by relating them to the specific properties of the two source structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 77 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 39–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierner, Gann. 2001. Alternative phrases: Theoretical analysis and practical applications. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2006a. The grammaticalization of the English adjectives of comparison: A diachronic case study. In Facchinetti, Roberta & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Corpus linguistic studies in diachronic English, 253–88. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2006b. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2008a. The grammaticalization and subjectification of English adjectives expressing difference into plurality/distributivity markers and quantifiers. Folia Linguistica 42 (2), 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2008b. A comprehensive overview of the textually intersubjective meanings of the complex deictic unit ‘the + postdeterminer adjective’. Presented at NRG4 (New Reflections on Grammaticalization 4), KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine & Davidse, Kristin. 2008. The complex deictic semantics of the indefinite determiner + postdeterminer unit in English. Presented at ISLE 1 (First Triennial Conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English), Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.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, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, & Janda, (eds.), 602–23.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 531–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins COBUILD English Grammar, 1990. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2001. Postdeterminers: Their secondary identifying and quantifying functions. Preprint no. 177, Department of Linguistics KU Leuven.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, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
De Mulder, Walter. 1998. Anaphora. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan & Bulcaen, Chris (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 1998, 1–28. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 103–20.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
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In Flood, James (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structure of prose, 181–219. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar. 2003. The postnominal ‘and adjective’ construction in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 7 (1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, & Janda, (eds.), 575–601.Google 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
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 171–210. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwells.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda & Tasmowski, Liliane. 2001. Distributivité et interprétations dépendantes des expressions d'identité. In Kleiber, Georges, Laca, Brenda & Tasmowski, Liliane (eds.), Typologie des groupes nominaux, 143–66. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11 (1), 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1), 107–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In Gerritsen, Marinel & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 395–416. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1993. Theoretical implications of grammaticalization phenomena. In Foley, William A. (ed.), The role of theory in language description, 315–40. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32 (2) (Thematic issue Grammatikalisierung, ed. Diewald, Gabriele), 152–87.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary, 2002. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. When grammaticalization is superfluous. In Heine, Bernd & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Types of grammatical markers, 158–84. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Modjeska, Natalia N. 2003. Resolving other-anaphora. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. on CD-ROM Version 3.1.1. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon-Alt, Susanne. 2001. Référence et dialogue finalisé: De la linguistique à un modèle opérationnel. PhD dissertation, Université Henri Poincaré Nancy 1.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics, 243–73. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1986. Classifiers, verb classifiers and verbal categories. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, VanClay, Mary, Niepokuj, Mary & Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 497–514. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tovena, Lucia M. & van Peteghem, Marleen. 2006. La place de différents dans le syntagme nominal et les déterminants. In Corblin, Francis, Ferrando, Sylvie & Kupferman, Lucien (eds.), Indéfini et prédication, 449–60. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. 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, 406–16. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, & Janda, (eds.), 624–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (2) (Special issue on subjectivity, intersubjectivity and historical changes in Japanese, ed. Onodera, Noriko O. & Suzuki, Ryoko), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. forthcoming. From ideational to interpersonal: A reassessment. To appear in Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar