Cover not available
Part of
Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century
Edited by Nancy Stern, Ricardo Otheguy, Wallis Reid and Jaseleen Sackler
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 77] 2019
► pp. 33–72

Using big data to support meaning hypotheses for some and any

| Hebrew University of Jerusalem
This paper offers an original treatment of the grammatical forms some and any. Rather than seeing them as logical quantifiers, each sign constitutes an expressive device whose invariant meaning fully accounts for its distribution in English texts. A unique methodology that relies on qualitative analyses to produce large-scale quantitative predictions is laid out in detail. First, qualitative analyses of attested examples are shown to feature – alongside some or any – particular other forms that, by hypothesis, contribute to a similar element in the message as contributed by the sign under analysis. Then, quantitative predictions regarding the regularity of these co-occurrences are tested in the Corpus of Contemporary American English. This methodology has led to the discovery of numerous distributional peculiarities that are noted here – and explained – for the first time.
Keywords: Columbia School, Corpus of Contemporary American English, qualitative and quantitative analysis, logical quantifiers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Approaches to the problem
    • 2.1Logic-based approach
    • 2.2Sign-based approach
  • 3.The meaning hypotheses
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Quantitative predictions supporting the meaning of some – restricted Domain of Application
    • 5.1Using entity-s to support restricted Domain of Application
    • 5.2 Using a preceding except to support restricted Domain of Application
    • 5.3 Using but and not all to support restricted Domain of Application
    • 5.4 Using whereas to support restricted Domain of Application
    • 5.5Using which and repetition of some to support restricted Domain of Application
  • 6.Quantitative predictions supporting the meaning of any – unrestricted domain of application
    • 6.1Using ever to support unrestricted Domain of Application
    • 6.2Using a following except to support unrestricted Domain of Application
    • 6.3Using a following even to support unrestricted Domain of Application
    • 6.4Using and all to support unrestricted Domain of Application
    • 6.5Using if, could and in the world to support unrestricted Domain of Application
  • 7.A comparison with cognitive analyses of some and any
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Sources of data
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.02sab
References (22)
References
Contini-Morava, Ellen. (1995). On linguistic sign theory. In E. Contini Morava, & B. Sussman-Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.3–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crupi, Charlene. (2004). But still a yet: the quest for a constant semantic value for English yet. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph. (2002). Rethinking the place of statistics in Columbia School analysis. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.65–90). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008–). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present.Google Scholar
Diver, William. (1975/2012). The nature of linguistic meaning. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.47–63). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1987/2012). The dual. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.87–99). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1990/2012). The elements of a science of language. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: the linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.65–84). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1995/2012). Theory. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.43–114). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Revised and reprinted in (2012). A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.445–519). Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. (1950 /1984). The foundations of arithmetic. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.1660–1712). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. (1997). The categories of grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School. Word, 52, 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor, & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language (pp.246–323). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. (2017). Ten lectures on the basics of cognitive grammar. Leiden / Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Michael. (1986). The English verb: An exploration of structure and meaning. Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. (2002). Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis: A comparative theoretical perspective. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.373–403). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1982). Methods of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter and René Dirven. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. (1991). Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. (1995). Quantitative analysis in Columbia School theory. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.115–152). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Whitty, Lauren
2022. Repositioning Can: Modifications to the English “Modal” System. <i>WORD</i> 68:4 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Whitty, Lauren
2023. A Sign-Based Analysis ofMust,MayandCould. WORD 69:4 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 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.