Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Prescriptive grammarians advise against the use of the quantifier in informal positive sentences, unless it is modified by , , or . However, because these grammarians may not have conducted a thorough corpus-based analysis, such advice may be unsound. This is why this article attempts to identify the actual constraints on the use of , by searching corpora for data for and its competitor , with plural count nouns in positive sentences. Conducted within the conceptual framework of cognitive linguistics, the analysis suggests that quantities denoted by are construed as heterogeneous and discrete, hence the relative affinity of for nouns of place and time, as part of adverbial phrases. This core meaning may also account for ’s relative affinity for personal nouns in subject position. Unlike , seems to associate awkwardly with homogeneous substances, which may be why it is rarely found in object noun phrases.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alexander, L.G
    (1995) Essential American English Grammar. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Busuttil, P. , & Roques-Frampton, V
    (1997) Exercices de Grammaire Anglaise: Avec Corrigés Systématiques. Paris, France: Nathan.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Carter, R. , & McCarthy, M
    (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, W
    (2003) Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Crosbie, D
    (2009, August25). Re: On many [Web log message]. Retrieved fromdavid-crystal.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-many.html (last accessedFebruary 2015).
  7. Davies, M
    (2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2008+). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
  8. (2011a) BYU-BNC: British National Corpus. Retrieved fromcorpus.byu.edu/bnc (last accessedFebruary 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2011b) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 Million Words, 1990-2011. Retrieved fromcorpus.byu.edu/coca (last accessedFebruary 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, R.M.W
    (2005) New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eastwood, J
    (1994) Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, C. , Manning, E. , Murphy, M. , Urbom, R. , Cleveland-Marwick, K. , & O’Shea, S
    (Eds.) (2003) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Google
    (2011) Google UK. Retrieved fromwww.google.co.uk (last accessedFebruary 2014).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Greenbaum, S
    (1996) The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hands, P
    (Ed.) (2011) Collins Cobuild English Grammar (3rd ed.). Glasgow, UK: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanks, P
    (2013) The corpus revolution in lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 25(4), 398–436. doi: 10.1093/ijl/ecs026
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecs026 [Google Scholar]
  17. HarperCollins
    (2012) Mycobuild.com. Retrieved frommycobuild.com/homepage.aspx (last accessedJuly 2013).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hewings, M
    (2013) Advanced Grammar in Use (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Huart, R
    (2010) Nouvelle Grammaire de l’Anglais Oral. Paris, France: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Huddleston, R.D. , & Pullum, G.K
    (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunston, S. , & Francis, G
    (2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Israel, M
    (2011) The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975288
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975288 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackendoff, R
    (1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  24. Lallement, B. , Brion, C. , & Pierret, N
    (2006) La Grammaire de l’Anglais. Paris, France: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, R.W
    (2004) Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11(1), 77–113. doi: 10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.11.1.05lan [Google Scholar]
  26. Larreya, P. , & Rivière, C
    (2010) Grammaire Explicative de l’Anglais (4th ed.). Paris, France: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Leech, G.N. , Cruickshank, B. , & Ivanic, R
    (2001) An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage (2nd ed.). London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindquist, H
    (2009) Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edimburgh, UK: Edimburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mair, C
    (2007) Change and variation in present-day English: Integrating the analysis of closed copora and web-based monitoring. In M. Hundt , N. Nesselhauf , & C. Biever (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp.233–247). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. doi: 10.1163/9789401203791_014
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791_014 [Google Scholar]
  30. MM
    (2009, August24). Re: On many [Web log comment]. Retrieved fromdavid-crystal.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-many.html (last accessedFebruary 2015).
  31. Murphy, R
    (2012) English Grammar in Use (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Neuman, R
    (1975) Much confusion, a lot of problems, lots of questions, many (?) answers. (Unpublished assignment). University of California, Los Angeles, Unites States of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Parrott, M
    (2010) Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Partee, B.H
    (1989) Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics . Papers presented at The Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Delaware, Newark, 6-8 October (pp. 383–402). Columbus, OH: OSU.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R
    (2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Silverstein, M
    (1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (pp.112–171). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sinclair, J
    (1984) Naturalness in language. In J.M.G. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. Retrieved fromhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/9035/8371 (last accessedFebruary 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (Ed.) (1992) BBC English Dictionary. London, UK: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9(1), 75–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Swan, M
    (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wallen, N
    (2012, February6). The world is full of summer in Australia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and many other places [Web log message]. Retrieved fromwww.flickr.com/photos/nyome_wallen/8614203703/ (last accessedFebruary 2014).
  43. Wood, F.T
    (1981) Current English Usage (2nd ed.). London, UK: MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): boundedness; collocation; discreteness; quantifier; register
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