Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:20:56.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the relation between the qualitative and quantitative uses of the determiner some1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2012

PATRICK J. DUFFLEY  and
PIERRE LARRIVÉE
PATRICK J. DUFFLEY
Affiliation:
Département de langues, linguistique et traduction, 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines, Université Laval, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, CanadaPatrick.Duffley@lli.ulaval.ca
PIERRE LARRIVÉE
Affiliation:
School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UKp.larrivee@aston.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article attempts to repair the neglect of the qualitative uses of some and to suggest an explanation which could cover the full range of usage with this determiner – both quantitative and qualitative – showing how a single underlying meaning, modulated by contextual and pragmatic factors, can give rise to the wide variety of messages expressed by some in actual usage. Both the treatment of some as an existential quantifier and the scalar model which views some as evoking a less-than-expected quantity on a pragmatic scale are shown to be incapable of handling the qualitative uses of this determiner. An original analysis of some and the interaction of its meaning with the defining features of the qualitative uses is proposed, extending the discussion as well to the role of focus and the adverbial modifier quite. The crucial semantic feature of some for the explanation of its capacity to express qualitative readings is argued to be non-identification of a referent assumed to be particular. Under the appropriate conditions, this notion can give rise to qualitative denigration (implying it is not even worth the bother to identify the referent) or qualitative appreciation (implying the referent to be so outstanding that it defies identification). The explanation put forward is also shown to cover some's use as an approximator, thereby enhancing its plausibility even further.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 131 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

References

Anderson, John M. 1973. Universal quantifiers. Lingua 31, 125–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mindreader). Language 48, 633–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Carlson, Katy. 2009. How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 3/5, 1188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Collinson, William. 1937. Indication: A study of demonstratives, articles and other indicators (Language Monographs 17). Baltimore: Language.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1999. Review of M. Haspelmath, Indefinite pronouns, 1997. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 663–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1980. Any as universal or existential? In Auwera, Johan van der (ed.), The semantics of determiners, 11–40. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Diehl, Hannele. 2004. I quite fancy this: Quite as a degree modifier of verbs in written British English. Working Papers in Linguistics. Lund: Lund University Press, 1–19.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. & Larrivée, Pierre. 2010. Anyone for non-scalarity? English Language and Linguistics 14, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. Proceedings of SALT XII, 1–25.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 1977. Emphatic intonation in generative grammar. In Séguinot, André (ed.), L'accent d'insistance, 123–36. Montreal: Didier.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. 1988. Some and any: exploring the system. Lingua 26, 443–77.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1999. Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25, 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2006. Saying less and meaning less. In Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning, 137–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. In press. The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A modern English grammar, vol. 7. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.), The structure of language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko & Erades, P. A.. 1960. An English grammar, 8th edn, vol. 1, part 2. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2010. Positive polarity, negation, activated propositions. MS, Aston University.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. In press. ‘Is there a Jespersen cycle?’. In Larrivée, Pierre & Ingham, Richard (eds.), The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Young-Suk & Horn, Laurence. 1995. Any as indefinite plus even. MS, Yale University.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1960. Review of Interrogative structures of American English by D. Bolinger. Word 16, 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, John. 1955 [1964]. On language and culture. International Journal of American Linguistics 21. Reprinted in Hymes, Dell (ed.), Language in culture and society, 182–84. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Palacios Martinez, Ignacio M. 2009. ‘Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure that it is quite the right colour’: A corpus-based study of the syntax and semantics of quite in present-day English. English Studies 90, 180–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Harold E. 1969. A grammar of spoken English. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 1994. Compromiser – a notional paradigm. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 13, 157–67.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Meulen, Alice ter & Wall, Robert E.. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. A remark on English double negatives. In Laporte, Éric, Leclère, Christian, Piot, Mireille & Silberztein, Max (eds.), Syntaxe, lexique et lexique-grammaire, volume dedicated to Maurice Gross, 497–508. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Round, Erick R. 2004. The subidentificational meanings of English some and Swedish nagon: A comparative analysis of polysemy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27, 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahlin, Elizabeth. 1979. Some and any in spoken and written English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Knud, Schibsbye. 1969. A modern English grammar, 2nd edn. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2004. Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 409–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warfel, Sam L. 1972. Some, reference and description. In Battle, J. H. & Schweitzer, John (eds.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 41–9. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Press.Google Scholar