Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:04:50.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjectivity, indefiniteness and semantic change1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

TURO VARTIAINEN
TURO VARTIAINEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages, PO Box 24, University of Helsinki, Finlandturo.vartiainen@helsinki.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 157 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Kilpiö for their comments on the earlier versions of this article. I am also very grateful to the two anonymous referees of English Language and Linguistics, whose constructive criticism helped me improve the article significantly. I would also like to thank David Denison for letting me take a look at his forthcoming book. Finally, I thank the Academy of Finland for financial support (project nos. 129350 and 218143).

References

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience. The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: an overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2007. A grammar in every register? The case of definite descriptions. In Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharsky, Ron (eds.), The grammar–pragmatics interface: Essays in honour of Jeanette K. Gundel, 265–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas & Cornillie, Bert (eds.). 2006. Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics, 223–30, trans. Meek, Mary Elizabeth. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010. Is there a postdeterminer in the English noun phrase? Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (3), 248–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin & Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. Types of phoric relations expressed by complex determiners in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2010. Introduction. In Davidse, Vandelanotte & Cuyckens (eds.), 1–26.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine & Van linden, An. 2008. Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 12 (3), 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2010. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Brinton, Laurel (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, August 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 119–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 279–304. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2007. Playing tag with category boundaries. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli & Nurmi, Arja (eds.), Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Available online at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/denison/Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105–28. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Denison, David. In prep. English word classes: Categories and their limits (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17–3, 365–92.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 2002a. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (4), 333–78.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 2002b. Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. In Brisard, Frank (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (Cognitive Linguistics Research 21), 41–82. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn.London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Rayson, Paul & Wilson, Andrew. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary, vols. 1–20, ed. Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). 2nd edn.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. Reinforcing adjectives. A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard M. & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies (Topics in English Linguistics 31), 233–58. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2), 317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.). 1995. Subjectivity and subjectification: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. In Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 167–85. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics–pragmatics of grammaticalisation revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalisation, vol. 1, 189–218. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Vandelanotte & Cuyckens (eds.), 29–71.Google Scholar