1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Absolute quantifiers (e.g. ) have adjectival uses, but when initial they function as grounding elements: like demonstratives, articles, and relative quantifiers (e.g. ), they indicate the epistemic status of the nominal referent. This ambivalence is due to their being intermediate, having semantic affinities with both categories but being marginal with respect to each. The dual role of absolute quantifiers is readily described in Cognitive Grammar, given its dynamic view of meaning as consisting in semantic functions (interactive tasks to be fulfilled). These functions belong to the symbolic assemblies constituting language structure; they are fundamental, the role of lexicon and grammar being to effect their implementation. More schematic functions –such as grounding –are independent of any particular implementation. In the absence of a dedicated grounding element, absolute quantifiers assume that function through a conventional pattern of implicit functional augmentation (a common type of construction).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
2017-10-06
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Coates, Richard
    2006 Properhood. Language82: 356–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0084
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0084 [Google Scholar]
  2. Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff
    2012 Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language88: 305–340. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0031
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0031 [Google Scholar]
  3. Davidse, Kristin
    2004 The interaction of quantification and identification in English determiners. InLanguage, Culture and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 507–533.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dixon, R. M. W
    1977 Where have all the adjectives gone?Studies in Language1: 19–80. doi: 10.1075/sl.1.1.04dix
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.1.1.04dix [Google Scholar]
  5. Harder, Peter
    2010Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110216059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216059 [Google Scholar]
  6. Kirsner, Robert S.
    1993 From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. InConceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language (Cognitive Linguistics Research 3), Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–114. doi: 10.1515/9783110857108.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857108.81 [Google Scholar]
  7. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics8: 1–32. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2004 Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language11: 77–113. doi: 10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005 Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. InGrounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking, Diane Pecher & Rolf A. Zwaan (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164–197. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012 Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics23: 555–599. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 The indefinite article in complex quantifiers. InLanguage and the Creative Mind, Mike Borkent , Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 65–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016a Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies3: 1–31. doi: 10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  16. 2016b Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics27: 405–439. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0126
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0126 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2016cNominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar: The Lublin Lectures. Lublin: Marie Curie-Skłodowska University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Nunberg, Geoffrey , Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
    1994 Idioms. Language70: 491–538. doi: 10.1353/lan.1994.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Gross
    2012 Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics23: 165–216. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0006 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): epistemic control , identification , quantification , reference and universality
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error