1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature
  4. Volume 54, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 54, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0035-3906
  • E-ISSN: 1600-0811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Against the background of recent debate on Grammaticalization Theory, this study will provide an overview of some Italian quantifying expressions whose original head is a measure noun. The binominal expressions analysed indicate a quantity, either large or small; as such, they can be substituted by canonical quantifiers such as “much” or “a little”. I claim that their functioning as quantifier is the result of a process of grammaticalization, through which the original head noun of the complex construction has been reanalysed as quantifier. At a closer look, however, the degrees of grammaticalization appear different for specific items, as well as the sources providing the recruitment of new quantifiers. The specific collocational patterns that trigger the pragmatic inferences prior to their semanticization and reanalysis have not as yet received sufficient attention. Adopting a diachronic Construction Grammar approach, the paper discusses various case studies and provides a number of descriptive and theoretical insights concerning the rise of distinct grammaticalization patterns.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rro.16015.gia
2018-02-05
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rro.16015.gia
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, B.
    (1998): Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96, pp.117–158. doi:  10.1111/1467‑968X.00025
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00025 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea
    (2015): Diachronic Construction Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brems, L.
    (2007): The grammaticalization of small size nouns. Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics. 34 (4), pp.293–324. doi:  10.1177/0075424207307597
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207307597 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010): Size nouns constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics, 14.1, pp.83–109 doi:  10.1017/S1360674309990372
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674309990372 [Google Scholar]
  5. De Clerck, B. & T. Colleman
    (2013): From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in (Flemish) varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences. 36, pp.147–160. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. De Clerck, B. & L. Brems
    (2016): Size noun matter: a closer look at mass(es) of and extended uses of SNs. Language Sciences, 53, pp.160–176. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Denison, D.
    (2002): History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented atICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2005): The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of and type of in English. Paper presented atNew Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago de Compostela.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Diewald, G.
    (2002): A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization, in: Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.103–120. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  10. Giacalone Ramat, A.
    (2015): Un sacco di…. ed altre espressioni di quantità nella prospettiva della grammaticalizzazione, in: Busà, M. G. & S. Gesuato (a cura di): Lingue e Contesti. Studi in onore di Alberto M. Mioni. Padova: CLEUP, pp.583–596.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Giacalone Ramat, A., C. Mauri & P. Molinelli
    (2013): Synchrony and diachrony. A dynamic interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.133
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.133 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006): Constructions at work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Heine, B.
    (2002): On the role of context in grammaticalization, in: Wisher, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins, pp.83–101. doi:  10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  14. Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer
    (1991): Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Himmelmann, N.
    (2004): Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?in: Bisang, W., N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds): What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.19–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hopper, P. H. & E. C. Traugott
    (2003): Grammaticalization, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  17. Israel, M.
    (2004): The pragmatics of polarity, in: Horn, L. R. & G. Ward: The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.701–722.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lehmann, C.
    (1995 [1982]): Thoughts on grammaticalization: a Programmatic Sketch. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien Projektes, Nr. 48. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Reprinted: München 1995: LINCOM EUROPA
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Masini, F.
    (2016): Binominal constructions in Italian of the NP1-di-NP2 type: towards a typology of Light Noun Constructions. Language Sciences, 53, pp.99–113. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Meillet, A.
    (1912) : L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia12, no.26. Reprinted inMeillet, A. (1958): Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mihatsch, W.
    (2016): Type-noun binominals in four Romance languages. Language Sciences, 53, pp.136–159. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mirto, I. & H. Necker
    (2007): Complex Nominal Determiners, in: Ramat, P. & E. Roma (Eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.215–243. doi:  10.1075/slcs.88.11mir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.88.11mir [Google Scholar]
  23. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik
    (1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Rohlfs, G.
    (1969): Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Traugott, E. C.
    (2008): The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions, in: Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.21–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010): (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. A reassessment, in: Davidse, K., L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.): Subjectification, Intersubjectification, and grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.29–71. doi:  10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2015): Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization, in: Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea: Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.51–79. doi:  10.1075/cal.18.02tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.02tra [Google Scholar]
  28. Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher
    (2002): Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale
    (2010): Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins doi:  10.1075/tsl.90
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
  30. Trousdale, G.
    (2014): On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48/2, pp.557–77 doi:  10.1515/flin.2014.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.018 [Google Scholar]
  31. Verveckken, K.
    (2016): Binominal quantifiers in Spanish: syntagmatic and paradigmatic analogy in interaction. Language Sciences, 53, pp.114–135 doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. von Mengden, F. & H. J. Simon
    (2014): What is it then, this Grammaticalization?Folia Linguistica, 48/2, pp.347–360
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rro.16015.gia
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collocational broadening; constructional approach; degrees of grammaticalization; form-meaning pairs; mechanisms of semantic change; mechanisms of syntactic change

Most Cited

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