Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation in phonology
Edited by Péter Szigetvári
[Linguistic Variation 20:1] 2020
► pp. 102–135
Regular article

Degree modification across categories in Afrikaans

| Stellenbosch University
| Utrecht University
| Leiden University
| Utrecht University
The paper presents an analysis of the Afrikaans degree modifier baie ‘very/much/many’. Baie appears to be a single lexical item with a wide distribution in terms of the categories of gradable predicate with which it can combine. However, the paper shows that two syntactically distinct instances of baie should be distinguished. These instances of baie portion out the modification of different grammatical categories between them: one, a head, exclusively modifies gradable adjectives, and the other, an adjunct, modifies the remaining categories of gradable predicate.
Keywords: degree modification, gradability, Afrikaans
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: Types of degree expressions and scalar theta positions
  • 3. Baie is not a type C modifier
  • 4.The uniqueness of adjectival degree modification
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.17004.ber
References (40)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Massachusetts: MIT PhD.Google Scholar
Bauermeester, Eunice Marietha. 2007. Die Kaapse Slawe in Kultuurhistoriese Perspektief: 1652–1838. Pretoria: University of Pretoria MA.Google Scholar
Berghoff, Robyn. 2016. Cross-categorial degree modification in Afrikaans: An analysis of the high-degree modifier ‘baie’. Utrecht: Utrecht University MA.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2002. Verb second in Afrikaans: Is this a unitary phenomenon? Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 341. 19–69.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylinina, Lisa & Yasutada Sudo. 2015. Varieties of intensification. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(3). 881–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Paul Kerswill, Sue Fox & Eivind Torgersen. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2). 151–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2013. Grammaticalisation in social context: The emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(5). 608–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch constructions: Tilburg University PhD.Google Scholar
. 1997a. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 151: 289–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1). 119–164.Google Scholar
Davids, Achmat. 1990. Words the Cape slaves made: A socio-historical-linguistic study. South African Journal of Linguistics 8(1). 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In Nicholsa Resche (ed.) The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD.Google Scholar
. 2008. Adjectives and degree modification. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adverbs and adjectives: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 18), 123–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny, Ad Neeleman & van de Koot, Hans. 1998. Degree expressions and the autonomy of syntax. Leiden University/University College London.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, Amélia P. & Janet Lloyd. 2003. Portuguese: An essential grammar (Routledge Essential Grammars). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2.) Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41(1). 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2002. Tipping the scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem. Syntax 5(3). 219–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNabb, Yaron. 2012. The syntax and semantics of degree modification. Chicago: University of Chicago PhD.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, van de Koot, Hans & Jenny Doetjes. 2004. Degree expressions. Linguistic Review 211. 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2006. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig. In TABU 351, 33–60.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel, Bernard D. Clerck & Timothy Colleman. 2014. The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers in non-standard varieties of Dutch: A constructionalization perspective. In Boogaart Ronny, Colleman Timothy & Rutten Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 207–250. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Özyıldız, Deniz. in press. Quantifiers in Turkish. [URL]. (28 February, 2017.) DOI logo
Quirk, Randolph. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Raidt, Edith Hildegard. 1982. Afrikaans en sy Europese Verlede. Cape Town: Nasou Beperk.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2008. A degree account of exclamatives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 181. 601–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2010. Much support and more. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, & K. Schulz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 446–455). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2008. The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of DP. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adverbs and adjectives: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa DeMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2001. Degree words and scalar structure in Japanese. Lingua 111(1). 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2): 143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. Linguistic Review 11: 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 1992. X’-syntax-X’-semantics. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD.Google Scholar
. 2000. External arguments. In Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane B. Grimshaw. Lexical specification and insertion. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 429–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2006a. Much ado about a lot. Retrieved from [URL]
. 2006b. Big much squib. Retrieved from [URL]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Van Olmen, Daniel
2024. Adjectival intensification in West Germanic. Studies in Language 48:2 ► pp. 436 ff. DOI logo
Berghoff, Robyn
2020. Evaluativity in the Afrikaans Equative and Excessive Constructions. Language Matters 51:2 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Niina Ning
2020. Low predicate inversion in Mandarin. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 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.