Article published in:
Grammar, usage and discourse: Functional studies offered to Kristin Davidse
Edited by Lieven Vandelanotte, Wout Van Praet and Lieselotte Brems
[English Text Construction 10:2] 2017
► pp. 233–248

Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers

| University of California, San Diego
Absolute quantifiers (e.g. many, few, three) have adjectival uses, but when initial they function as grounding elements: like demonstratives, articles, and relative quantifiers (e.g. all, most, every), they indicate the epistemic status of the nominal referent. This ambivalence is due to their being intermediate, having semantic affinities with both categories but being marginal with respect to each. The dual role of absolute quantifiers is readily described in Cognitive Grammar, given its dynamic view of meaning as consisting in semantic functions (interactive tasks to be fulfilled). These functions belong to the symbolic assemblies constituting language structure; they are fundamental, the role of lexicon and grammar being to effect their implementation. More schematic functions –such as grounding –are independent of any particular implementation. In the absence of a dedicated grounding element, absolute quantifiers assume that function through a conventional pattern of implicit functional augmentation (a common type of construction).
Keywords: epistemic control, identification, quantification, reference, universality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two sorts of quantifiers
  • 3.Rationale for a unified treatment
  • 4.Theoretical basis: Semantic functions
  • 5.The analysis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
References
Coates, Richard
2006 Properhood. Language 821: 356–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff
2012 Same-except: A domain-general cognitive relation and how language expresses it. Language 881: 305–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin
2004 The interaction of quantification and identification in English determiners. In Language, Culture and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 507–533.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W
1977 Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 11: 19–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harder, Peter
2010 Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1993 From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. In Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language (Cognitive Linguistics Research 3), Richard A. Geiger & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 81: 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 111: 77–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking, Diane Pecher & Rolf A. Zwaan (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics 231: 555–599. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 The indefinite article in complex quantifiers. In Language and the Creative Mind, Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 65–81.Google Scholar
2016a Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 31: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics 271: 405–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016c Nominal Structure in Cognitive Grammar: The Lublin Lectures. Lublin: Marie Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
1994 Idioms. Language 701: 491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Gross
2012 Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 231: 165–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Davidse, Kristin
2022.  In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 28 ff. Crossref logo
Praet, Wout Van
2019. Aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copular clauses. English Text Construction 12:2 ► pp. 196 ff. Crossref logo
Szymańska, Monika
2021. Grammatical metonymy and construal operations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 465 ff. Crossref logo
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2017. Favourite puzzles. English Text Construction 10:2 ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.