Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2016) ► pp.80–104

A quantifier used on many occasions

Many evoking diversity in positive sentences

| The University of Otago

Prescriptive grammarians advise against the use of the quantifier many in informal positive sentences, unless it is modified by too, so, or as. However, because these grammarians may not have conducted a thorough corpus-based analysis, such advice may be unsound. This is why this article attempts to identify the actual constraints on the use of many, by searching corpora for data for many and its competitor a lot of, with plural count nouns in positive sentences. Conducted within the conceptual framework of cognitive linguistics, the analysis suggests that quantities denoted by many are construed as heterogeneous and discrete, hence the relative affinity of many for nouns of place and time, as part of adverbial phrases. This core meaning may also account for many’s relative affinity for personal nouns in subject position. Unlike a lot of, many seems to associate awkwardly with homogeneous substances, which may be why it is rarely found in object noun phrases.

Keywords: register, collocation, boundedness, quantifier, discreteness
Published online: 31 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.1.04dic
References
Alexander, L.G
(1995) Essential American English Grammar. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Busuttil, P., & Roques-Frampton, V
(1997) Exercices de Grammaire Anglaise: Avec Corrigés Systématiques. Paris, France: Nathan.Google Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M
(2006) Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(2003) Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crosbie, D
(2009, August 25). Re: On many [Web log message]. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2015).
Davies, M
(2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990-2008+). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011a) BYU-BNC: British National Corpus. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2015).Google Scholar
(2011b) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 Million Words, 1990-2011. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2015).Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W
(2005) New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eastwood, J
(1994) Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, C., Manning, E., Murphy, M., Urbom, R., Cleveland-Marwick, K., & O’Shea, S
(Eds.) (2003) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Google
(2011) Google UK. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2014).Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S
(1996) The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hands, P
(Ed.) (2011) Collins Cobuild English Grammar (3rd ed.). Glasgow, UK: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Hanks, P
(2013) The corpus revolution in lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 25(4), 398–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
HarperCollins
(2012) Mycobuild.com. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2013).Google Scholar
Hewings, M
(2013) Advanced Grammar in Use (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huart, R
(2010) Nouvelle Grammaire de l’Anglais Oral. Paris, France: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R.D., & Pullum, G.K
(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G
(2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M
(2011) The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
(1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 411, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lallement, B., Brion, C., & Pierret, N
(2006) La Grammaire de l’Anglais. Paris, France: Hachette.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(2004) Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language, 11(1), 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larreya, P., & Rivière, C
(2010) Grammaire Explicative de l’Anglais (4th ed.). Paris, France: Pearson.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N., Cruickshank, B., & Ivanic, R
(2001) An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage (2nd ed.). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H
(2009) Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edimburgh, UK: Edimburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C
(2007) Change and variation in present-day English: Integrating the analysis of closed copora and web-based monitoring. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf, & C. Biever (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp. 233–247). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MM
(2009, August 24). Re: On many [Web log comment]. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2015).
Murphy, R
(2012) English Grammar in Use (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Neuman, R
(1975) Much confusion, a lot of problems, lots of questions, many (?) answers. (Unpublished assignment). University of California, Los Angeles, Unites States of America.Google Scholar
Parrott, M
(2010) Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B.H
(1989) Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics . Papers presented at The Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Delaware, Newark, 6-8 October (pp. 383–402). Columbus, OH: OSU.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J
(1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R
(2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M
(1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (pp. 112–171). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J
(1984) Naturalness in language. In J.M.G. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2015).Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1992) BBC English Dictionary. London, UK: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
(1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9(1), 75–106.Google Scholar
Swan, M
(2005) Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallen, N
(2012, February 6). The world is full of summer in Australia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and many other places [Web log message]. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed February 2014).
Wood, F.T
(1981) Current English Usage (2nd ed.). London, UK: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ekaterina Chon & Yoon-kyoung Joh
2018. Prepositional Variation Observed in the Adjective Effective. The Journal of Studies in Language 34:1 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Raksangob Wijitsopon
2017. Collocations and local textual functions of quantifiers in learner English essays. Linguistic Research 34:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. 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.