Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 229–250

From noun to quantifier

Pseudo-partitives and language change

Micro-variation in Germanic pseudo-partitives is investigated, focusing on the syntax and morphology of expressions where two nouns are juxtaposed without a linking preposition, attested in Middle English. A standard measure (pound), containers (gallon, ton, pipe, barrel, and sack) and a collective (pair) are examined in detail. Few similarities are found between the Middle English expressions and other Germanic languages for standard measures and containers, whereas the noun pair has syntactic, morphological and semantic similarities.
Keywords: pseudo-partitives, container nouns, measure nouns, collective nouns, Germanic, Middle English, Early Modern English, singular/plural
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Pseudo-partitives
    • 2.2N1 and characteristics of DPCs
  • 3.Data and Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Occurrences of the DPC
    • 4.2Singular/plural morphology
  • 5.A collective: Pair
    • 5.1 Pair : Morphology and syntax
    • 5.2Semantic development of pair
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.11woo
References (40)
Sources
British National Corpus (BNC) [URL]
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) [URL]
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) [URL]
Davis, N. (1971) (Ed.), Paston letters and papers of the fifteenth century. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
KorpusDK [URL]
Ordbog over det danske sprog (ODS, 28 vols., 1919–1956). Copenhagen: Gyldendal. [URL]
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) on-line [URL]
Helsinki Corpus of Middle English texts
Middle English Dictionary [URL]
References
Abney, St. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Anglo- Norman Dictionary, AND2 Online edition. <[URL]>; Accessed 25 Sep 2018
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M. (2007). Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. (2008). Genitives in early English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. (1989). Left branch extractions and DP. In Bennis, H. & van Kemenade, A. (Eds.). Linguistics in the Netherlands. (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Corver, N. & van Riemsdijk, H. (2001). Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delsing, L. (1993). The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. A comparative study. University of Lund dissertation.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary ‘do’: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Goeteborg, Sweden: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
Falk, H. & Torp, A. (1911). Etymologisk ordbog over det norske og det danske sprog [Etymological dictionary of the Norwegian and Danish languages]. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, L. (2015). Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudopartitives. Journal of Comparative Germanic linguistics. 18, 93–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2007). Boxes and piles and what’s in them: Two extended projections or one? In A. Zaenen, J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, C. Manning and J. Simpson (Eds), Architectures, rules and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan (pp. 245–252). Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Mikkelsen, L. (2008). Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudo-partitives. Journal of Linguistics. 44, 317–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbert, W. (2007). The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). The shape of English. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Los, B. (2015). An historical syntax of English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2002). What happened to English? Diachronica 19, 217–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, T. (2016). A Middle English syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Originally published 1960). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van. (1998). Categorial feature magnetism: The endrocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic linguistics. 1, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax. 9.1, 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. in Culicover, P. et al. (Eds.). Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stickney, H. (2009). The emergence of DP in the Partitive Structure. University of Massachusets dissertations. [URL]
Toyota, J. (2009). When mass was counted: English as a classifier and non-classifier language. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics [online]. 6.1. <[URL]>.
Traugott, E. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspectiveof grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18–4, 523–557.Google Scholar
(2008a). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of Degree Modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, J. Gerhard & T. Veenstra (Eds). Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change. (221–250). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b). The grammaticalization of NP of NP construction. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds), Constructions and Language Change Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968) “Empirical foundations for a Theory of language change”. In W. P. Lehmann & J. Malkiel (Eds.) Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium. Austin & London: University of Texas Press, 96–195.Google Scholar