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

Ghesquière, Lobke; Davidse, Kristin

doi:10.1017/s1360674311000037

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This sort of polysemy has been well covered for the shift from epithet to noun intensifier, as illustrated by terrible murderterrible idiot, pure voicepure passion, e.g. Bolinger (1972), Paradis (2000), Paradis and Wilners (2006), Kennedy and McNally (2005), Vandewinkel and Davidse (2008), Ghesquière and Davidse (2011), Ghesquière (2014). However, study of the shift from epithet to secondary determiner has been more patchy, e.g.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase

Davidse

Breban

2019

Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we identify and motivate the main word order patterns of adjectives in the English NP. Theoretically, we situate ourselves within the tradition of semiotically-based, cognitive-functional construction grammars as developed by such linguists as Halliday, Langacker and McGregor. In this tradition, the lexicogrammar is assumed to exist to symbolize semantic functions. We argue that the various semantic functions of adjectives in the English NP are coded by different modification relations, which differ in terms of where and how they fit into the structural assembly of the whole NP. We hold that function motivates structure, and that order is an epiphenomenon of structure. Therefore, we first set out our model of the functions that can be fulfilled by adjectives in the English NP. This model is innovative in a number of ways. Theoretically, it extends the distinction between representational and interpersonal modifiers. Descriptively, we elucidate the traditionally recognized representational functions of classifier and epithet as well as the interpersonal functions of noun-intensifier and secondary determiner. To this set, we add the hitherto barely recognized interpersonal functions of focus marker and metadesignative. We also systematically investigate the possibility for coordination and subordination between adjectives fulfilling the same function. In a second step, we then correlate this functional-structural model with the general ordering tendencies of the functions realized by adjectives. We specify the general left-to-right ordering of the six functions, pointing out possible and impossible orders of the functions relative to each other. We interpret the distinction between representational and interpersonal modifiers with regard to their different ordering potential. Finally, we look at the main ordering options available for multiple adjectives realizing the same function.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase

Davidse

Breban

2019

Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quantity modification, as in very few and almost all, is also determined by the boundedness construal of the modified element. In other words, boundedness is crucial not only to the construal of adjectives but also quantifiers, as the distinction between bounded and unbounded adjectives is conceptually similar to the distinction between relative and absolute quantifiers generally made in the literature (Ghesquière & Davidse 2011). 5 Absolute quantifiers (e.g., many, a lot, several, three, ten) specify the size of a set/ mass by offering a "direct description of magnitude" (Langacker 1991:83).…”

Section: Figure 2 Typology Of Degree Modifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"It was such a relief." (WBsunnow, 2001) Building on Paradis' (2000Paradis' ( , 2001 work, Ghesquière and Davidse (2011) argued that gradable adjectives and nouns carry in them the possibility of being construed either as bounded or as unbounded. 2 Bounded properties are conceptualized as complementaries, i.e., properties that either apply or do not apply (e.g., dead -alive, true -false, complete -incomplete), while unbounded properties are properties inherently conceptualized as degrees (e.g., long -short, old -young).…”

Section: Degree Modification and Quantity Modificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“A Good Deal of Intensity”: On the Development of Degree and Quantity Modifier Good

Ghesquière

2021

Journal of English Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how the originally descriptive adjective good (e.g., “a good man”) developed degree modifier (e.g., “a good scolding”) and quantity modifier (e.g., “a good many people”) uses. The work is innovative in exploring the intensification potential of unbounded rather than bounded adjectives and in distinguishing between degree and quantity modification, the latter only recently gaining attention in the cognitive-functional literature. The developmental path of good will be linked to its construal in terms of scalarity, the process of subjectification, and the categorial shift from modification to submodification.

show abstract

“…In contrast, Paradis (2008:324) sees the rise of degree meaning as a case of “metonymization” of boundedness or scale at the expense of lexical content; degree becomes foregrounded and construed as the most salient component of meaning. Ghesquière and Davidse (2011) do not see the rise of degree meaning as a case of bleaching or foregrounding since the source meanings are schematic and scalar to begin with: “All that is needed for the change to happen is a shift of domain, from the size of the designated entities to the modified degree of the properties” (Ghesquière & Davidse 2011:256; bold in original).…”

Section: Origin and Development Of Degree Adverbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“He loved his father but next to adored his mother”: Nigh(ly), Near, and Next (To) as Downtoners

Brinton

2021

Journal of English Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Present-Day English, nearly functions as an approximator downtoner meaning ‘almost, all but, virtually,’ as do earlier variants based on the same root— nigh, nighly, near, next ( to)—though more rarely and in more restricted contexts. Nigh functions as an approximator downtoner in Old and Middle English. When near displaces nigh, nigh is retained as a downtoner with lexical adjectives expressing negative semantic prosody. Near is used as a downtoner in later Middle and Early Modern English. However, degree adjunct uses are not well attested, thus pointing to incomplete grammaticalization. During the eighteenth century, the new -ly form ( nearly) takes over the innovative downtoner function and the old form ( near) is retained in the original locative sense, with some remnant downtoner uses. Next ( to) grammaticalizes as a downtoner, but proceeds only to the degree modifier stage and involves a high degree of idiomaticization, thus suggesting incipient grammaticalization. As spatial adverbs, nigh/ near/ next ( to)/ nearly represent one of the well-known sources for the grammaticalization of degree adverbs. However, these forms seem to follow a pathway where the degree modifier use (adjective/participle modifier) precedes the degree adjunct use (verb modifier), contrary to the reverse pathway postulated for other degree adverbs.

show abstract

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

Cited by 23 publications

References 20 publications

A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase

A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase

“A Good Deal of Intensity”: On the Development of Degree and Quantity Modifier Good

“He loved his father but next to adored his mother”: Nigh(ly), Near, and Next (To) as Downtoners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About