Measure Noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization

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.

Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses

“…Adverbial uses such as heaps better, which are attested from 1800 onwards (see Oxford English Dictionary), will not be discussed here, since this study is concerned with the binominal source and targetconstruction. For a more detailed discussion of all SNs see Brems (2001Brems ( , 2003Brems ( , 2007 Table 2 shows that there is an overall dearth of diachronic data for SNs especially for the periods in which, according to the OED and MED, the reanalysis as quantifier takes place, i.e. a.1661 for heap, a.1547 for heaps, c.1600 for bunch.…”

On Constructing a Theory of Grammatical Change

“…Brems () is a study of noun phrases similar to the a lot of construction; what she refers to as Measure Nouns in an extended sense, such as bunch of and heaps of . The contrast of interest to Brems is that between ‘head’ – which applies to both form and function in T&T – and ‘quantifier’ – a functional notion in T&T. More generally, in her study, the distinction between form and function is not essential, or possibly eliminated.…”

“…She states: ‘In assessing the structural status of the MNs two main types of tests were used, viz. semantic and syntactic ones’ (Brems : 293, our emphasis). The semantic criterion identified relates to lexicality and collocational range: ‘[t]he main guideline here was that the more literal and lexically specific in meaning the MN is, the more likely it will constitute the head of the enclosing NP’ and ‘as the collocational range of the MN increases, the probability of quantifier status of the MN likewise increases’ (Brems : 293).…”

The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: sources, paths and mechanisms of change

“…In this use, whole no longer describes the coincidence in quantity of the NP referent and the reference mass. 'Size nouns' are nouns originally describing constellations of, or containers containing, things or stuff such as heaps, tons, classes, trains, lot (Langacker 1991: 88;Brems 2003), which are prone to shifting from head to quantifier use (Brems 2003). Whole in whole swarms in (26), for example, emphasizes the large number of Russians attending the feast.…”