Article published in:
Revue Romane
Vol. 54:2 (2019) ► pp. 257–277

Degrees of grammaticalization and measure constructions in Italian

| University of Pavia
Against the background of recent debate on Grammaticalization Theory, this study will provide an overview of some Italian quantifying expressions whose original head is a measure noun. The binominal expressions analysed indicate a quantity, either large or small; as such, they can be substituted by canonical quantifiers such as molto “much” or un po’ “a little”. I claim that their functioning as quantifier is the result of a process of grammaticalization, through which the original head noun of the complex construction has been reanalysed as quantifier. At a closer look, however, the degrees of grammaticalization appear different for specific items, as well as the sources providing the recruitment of new quantifiers. The specific collocational patterns that trigger the pragmatic inferences prior to their semanticization and reanalysis have not as yet received sufficient attention. Adopting a diachronic Construction Grammar approach, the paper discusses various case studies and provides a number of descriptive and theoretical insights concerning the rise of distinct grammaticalization patterns.
Keywords: form-meaning pairs, constructional approach, degrees of grammaticalization, collocational broadening, mechanisms of syntactic change, mechanisms of semantic change
Published online: 05 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.16015.gia
References

References

Aarts, B.
(1998): Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96, pp. 117–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea
(2015): Diachronic Construction Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L.
(2007): The grammaticalization of small size nouns. Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics. 34 (4), pp. 293–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010): Size nouns constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics, 14.1, pp. 83–109 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B. & T. Colleman
(2013): From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in (Flemish) varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences. 36, pp. 147–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B. & L. Brems
(2016): Size noun matter: a closer look at mass(es) of and extended uses of SNs. Language Sciences, 53, pp. 160–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D.
(2002): History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at ICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki
(2005): The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago de Compostela.
Diewald, G.
(2002): A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization, in: Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A.
(2015): Un sacco di…. ed altre espressioni di quantità nella prospettiva della grammaticalizzazione, in: Busà, M. G. & S. Gesuato (a cura di): Lingue e Contesti. Studi in onore di Alberto M. Mioni. Padova: CLEUP, pp. 583–596.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A., C. Mauri & P. Molinelli
(2013): Synchrony and diachrony. A dynamic interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006): Constructions at work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
(2002): On the role of context in grammaticalization, in: Wisher, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer
(1991): Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
(2004): Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? in: Bisang, W., N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds): What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. H. & E. C. Traugott
(2003): Grammaticalization, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(2004): The pragmatics of polarity, in: Horn, L. R. & G. Ward: The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 701–722.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1995 [1982]): Thoughts on grammaticalization: a Programmatic Sketch. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien Projektes, Nr. 48. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Reprinted: München 1995: LINCOM EUROPAGoogle Scholar
Masini, F.
(2016): Binominal constructions in Italian of the NP1-di-NP2 type: towards a typology of Light Noun Constructions. Language Sciences, 53, pp. 99–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A.
(1912) : L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12, no.26. Reprinted in Meillet, A. (1958): Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, W.
(2016): Type-noun binominals in four Romance languages. Language Sciences, 53, pp. 136–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mirto, I. & H. Necker
(2007): Complex Nominal Determiners, in: Ramat, P. & E. Roma (Eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 215–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik
(1985): A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G.
(1969): Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2008): The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions, in: Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–43.Google Scholar
(2010): (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. A reassessment, in: Davidse, K., L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.): Subjectification, Intersubjectification, and grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015): Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization, in: Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea: Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 51–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher
(2002): Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale
(2010): Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2014): On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48/2, pp. 557–77 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verveckken, K.
(2016): Binominal quantifiers in Spanish: syntagmatic and paradigmatic analogy in interaction. Language Sciences, 53, pp. 114–135 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Mengden, F. & H. J. Simon
(2014): What is it then, this Grammaticalization? Folia Linguistica, 48/2, pp. 347–360Google Scholar