No question: lexicalization and grammaticalization processes in the development of modal qualifier meanings

there’s no question (that)

external negation + dynamic/deontic

there’s no question of

Figure 1. Meaning options for there’s no question that/of in Late Modern English


There’s no question + finite clause realized a positive epistemic qualification of a proposition, as in (13). There’s no question of + gerund conveyed external negation of dynamic-deontic qualifications of non-actualized situations, e.g. (18), (19). The latter combination illustrates a typical systemic interdependency. It is characteristic of the dynamic-deontic notions of possibility, permission and volition that they take external negation, which cancels the modality. As we saw, the modal reading of (18) There was no question of inviting him is ‘there was no willingness to invite him’. The negation is external in that it bears on and negates the modal notion of willingness.
In the period from the end of Late Modern English to Present Day English, the grammaticalizing expressions extended to the modal types they had not previously associated with. Positive marker there’s no question that extended to deontic statements and negative marker there’s no question of to epistemic statements. As a consequence, the latter was dis-sociated from its exclusive combination with external negation. as illustrated by (3), There’s no question of Her Majesty turning up on your doorstep (‘there is (near-)certainty that Her Majesty will not turn up on your doorstep’).The negation is internal to the proposition being qualified as near-certain. Moreover, there’s no question of is now also found taking complements with negation, expressing by virtue of this double negation, emphatically positive dynamic-deontic notions, e.g. possibility in (27), or strongly positive truth claims, as in (29).

(27) when they showed me the X-ray which revealed only a small break, I knew there was no question of me not being able to play again. (WB)

(28) I am certain David will have some strong races for us. There’s no question of him not being given identical equipment to Kimi or the full backing of the team. (WB)

Likewise, there’s no question that is now no longer exclusively associated with the expression of positive modal values. It can be followed by a clause containing a negation, expressing internally negated epistemic modality (29) or externally negated dynamic modality, e.g. absence of volition (30).

(29) ... there is absolutely no question, we didn't deserve to win that match. (WB)

(30) There’s no question, no question. I’ll not mince my words. (WB)

What we witness here by way of change is “the dissociation of associated variables” and “their subsequent combination” (Halliday 1992: 30) into a richer paradigmatic resource, providing the language user with semantic possibilities that have much increased for both there’s no question that (Figure 2) and there’s no question of (Figure 3).

epistemic*

dynamic/deontic

positive*

internal negation

negative

external negation

Figure 2: Meaning options for no question that in Present-day English

dynamic/deontic*

epistemic

negative external negation*

internal negation

positive

Figure 3: Meaning options for no question of in Present-day English

The options available for the two grammaticalized there-clauses now approximate the possible combinations of semantic features codable by core modal expressions such as auxiliary will, which can express both epistemic and dynamic/deontic meanings, positive and negative polarity, and within the latter, internal and external negation. However, with there be no question that/of, a number of the features are still marked and infrequently chosen. The most common, unmarked meaning options are starred in Figures 2 and 3, revealing as default combinations epistemic + positive for there’s no question that and dynamic/deontic + external negation for there’s no question of, i.e. the grammatical meanings that first became conventionally associated with the patterns. Time will have to tell whether the probabilities of choice will eventually come to coincide with those of established modal expressions.

In any case, the changes just outlined involve what one might call increased ‘systemicness’. The grammaticalizing strings come to code more and more the abstract paradigmatic meaning potential of core grammatical expressions. In this sense, they offer a particularly clear example of progressive grammaticalization. On this view, grammaticalization is not only about an expression acquiring one particular grammatical meaning, but coming to express more and more combinations of grammatical features. Grammaticalization is then also revealed to be a process in which the acquisition of coding possibilities in one system is tied up with the acquisition of coding possibilities in other systems. If this sort of process of change can be observed, we are clearly dealing with grammaticalization, not lexicalization. Lexicalization does not have systemic effects, as noted by Brinton & Traugott (2005). We thus propose that increased systemicness is constitutive of grammaticalization.⁵