Subjectivity, indefiniteness and semantic change

Abstract

In this article I discuss article usage in NPs with subjective and objective adjectival premodifiers. The main topic of the article is the tendency of semantically subjective adjectives to be used in indefinite NPs. This correlation is independent of the frequency of the adjective, and the uneven article distribution becomes even more skewed when an overt indicator of subjectivity, such as very or much, is introduced to the NP. I explain this tendency in terms of accessibility: subjective modifiers provide the speaker with a way of expressing a personal evaluation of the referent, and this evaluation is typically new information in discourse. Consequently, subjective premodifiers strongly favour indefinite NPs. By contrast, objective modifiers often encode information that is typical of the referent or else accessible from context or through world knowledge. Because the information expressed by the modifier is accessible, the accessibility of the discourse referent itself determines article choice, and the distribution of articles is more even. I also show that the connection between subjectivity and indefiniteness may provide the linguist with a useful tool in semantic disambiguation and diachronic research. Case studies of two polysemous -ing participles, moving and glowing, show that when used as a nominal premodifier, the subjective sense of the word (e.g. moving, ‘emotionally touching’) strongly favours indefinite NPs over definite NPs. We will also see that when a participle (outstanding) or a noun (key) develops a subjective sense and undergoes category change to adjective, the new sense is particularly often used in indefinite constructions, and the semantic change and gradual adjectivisation of the word is mirrored in the gradual increase in the use of indefinite NPs.

How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation

“…The development of English key from a noun into an adjective has already received ample attention in the literature (Denison, 2001, forthcoming; De Smet, 2012; Van Goethem & De Smet, 2014; Vartiainen, 2013). The beginning of the change has been situated in the second half of the 20th century (Denison, 2001; De Smet, 2012; Vartiainen, 2013:175–176). The change is illustrated by the examples in (4).…”

Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers?

“…Van Goethem & De Smet (in press: §2) show how the noun average changed its meaning before starting to show adjectival properties; cf. also Vartiainen (2013). Similarly, powerhouse changed meaning before becoming an adjective, see the section Gradual change above.…”

A Constructionist Approach to Category Change

“…When it comes to language change, the constructions in the constructional network typically change gradually in micro-steps (Traugott & Trousdale 2013). A well-studied example from the perspective of category change is the recent adjectivization of key , which gained an abstract sense of ‘decisive’ or ‘crucial’ in the early 1900s (Denison 2001, 2013; De Smet 2012; Vartiainen 2013). Originally, this sense probably developed in attribution in phrases like the key position (Denison 2013:163).…”