No abstract

In a narrow sense, the term 'Measure Noun' (MN) refers to such nouns as acre and kilo, which typically measure off a well-established and specific portion of the mass or entity specified in a following of -phrase, e.g. a kilo of apples. When used like this, the MN is generally considered to constitute the lexical head of the bi-nominal noun phrase. However, the notion of 'MN' can be extended to include such expressions as a bunch of and heaps of, which, strictly speaking, do not designate a 'measure' , but display a more nebulous potential for quantification.The structural status of MNs in this broader sense then is far from straightforward and most grammatical reference works of English are either hesitant or silent with regard to the issue. Two main analytical options seem to suggest themselves. Either the MN is interpreted as constituting the head of the NP, with the of -phrase as a qualifier to this head, or the MN is analysed as a modifier, more specifically a quantifier, to the head, which in this case is the noun in the of -phrase.Starting from the structural analyses of MN-constructions offered by such linguists as Halliday and Langacker, my paper goes on to discuss a corpus study aimed at charting and elucidating the structural ambivalence observed in MN-constructions. The framework eventually opted for is that of 'grammaticalization' , since it provides the most comprehensive account for the developments displayed by MN-constructions, in that it brings to the fore the very intricate interplay between the lexical and the grammatical status of the MN. In addition, it also does justice to the diachronic dimension implied in the mechanisms of delexicalization and grammaticalization.

Basing myself on synchronic and diachronic data analysis, I argue in this article that size nouns (SNs) such as bunch/load(s)/heap(s) of within binominal NPs display synchronic variation which can be hypothesized to be the result of grammaticalization processes. Synchronically, I propose that SNs have two major non-head uses, a quantifier use, e.g. a bunch of people walked in, and a valuing(-quantifying) use, in which the referent is evaluated rather than quantified. The latter is restricted mainly to bunch/load of, e.g. What a bunch of gobbledygook. The semantic and syntactic reanalysis of SNs as quantifiers has recently been acknowledged (e.g. Traugott forthcoming), but the valuing use of SNs remains largely unrecognized (see Brems 2007). On a theoretical level, it will be argued that head, quantifier and valuing(-quantifier) SN-uses synchronically have to be studied as COLLOCATIONALLY CONSTRAINED CONSTRUCTIONS in that the semantico-syntactic parsing of each SN-use links up with specific collocational patterns (Sinclair 1991). Head uses are restricted to sets of (un)count concrete nouns, whereas quantifier uses team up with all sorts of (un)count concrete as well as abstract nouns. Valuing uses show restrictions to concrete animate and abstract nouns, which they typically evaluate negatively, and have negative semantic prosody patterns, in which the SNs themselves come to predict negative collocates (see Louw 1993;Stubbs 1995;Bublitz 1996). The grammaticalization of SNs will be hypothesized to involve not only processes of semantic generalization and collocational extension, but also collocational reclusterings characterized by particular semantic prosody constraints. The latter are not traditionally associated with processes of grammaticalization and hence offer new insights into the semantic changes that may accompany grammaticalization.

Based on exhaustive diachronic corpus data, this paper determines the relative chronology in which the size nounsheap(s)andlot(s)have developed quantifier uses within NPofNP-syntagms, as inheaps / a lot of people. Using a constructional approach, it is claimed that size nouns occur in three distinct constructions or form–meaning pairings identified on the basis of systematic syntactic, semantico-pragmatic and collocational features. I argue that in order to establish which size noun was first to develop a quantifier use, we have to analyse diachronic data sets in terms of three constructions, viz. lexical head, partitive and quantifier constructions. In doing so, I will argue against the claim thatheapdeveloped its quantifier use first, around 1300, whilelotdeveloped one only around 1800. I will show thatheapandlot(s)appear in an early partitive construction, c1300 and c1200, respectively, in which they are head nouns and have a collective sense. The quantifier construction in whichheap(s)andlot(s)have modifier status and assess quantity similar to canonical quantifiermany/muchappears around the same time for both, viz. c1780.