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

References

Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin Haspelmath et al (eds.) Language typology and language universals. Vol. II. 1596-1608. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Boye, Kaspar & Peter Harder. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31. 569-606.
Brinton, Laurel. 2008a. The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth Traugott 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Deyne, Simon, Yves Peirsman & Gerrit Storms. 2009. Sources of semantic similarity. In Niels Taatgen & Hedderik Van Rijn. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1834-1839. Austin, Tx: Cognitive Science Society.
De Wolf, Simon. 2010. A question of no doubt. A synchronic-dianchronic account of no doubt, no question and related expressions. Unpublished MA-thesis. University of Meuven: Linguistics Department.
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. Forthc. “Paradigmatic integration”: the fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Kristin Davidse et al (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: origins, criteria and outcomes. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Firth, John. 1951/1957. Models of meaning. Papers in linguistics 1934-1951 (1957). London: Oxford University Press.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1939]. Signe zéro. In Selected writings. Volume 2: Word and Language, 211-219. The Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, Michael. 1992. How do you mean? In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics. Recent theory and practice, 20-35. London: Pinter.
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang et al (eds.). What makes grammaticalization – a look from its components and its fringes, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton.
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, Danny Steinberg & Leon Jakobovits (eds.), 345-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kjellmer, Göran. 1998. No Question. English Studies 79. 462-468.
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton.
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 1-18. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491-538.
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Petré, Peter, Kristin Davidse & Tinne Van Rompaey. Forthc. On ways of being on the way: lexical, complex preposition, and aspect marker uses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
OED: Oxford English Dictionary. 1933. James Murray et al (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OED2: The Oxford English Dictionary. 2^nd Ed. 1989. John Simpson & Edmund Weiner (eds). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2007. No doubt and related expressions. A functional account.’ Michael Hannay & Gerard Steen (eds). Structural-functional studies in English grammar: in honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, 9-34. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2008. Grammatikalisierung, emergente Konstructionen und der Begriff der “Neuheit”. In Kerstin Fischer & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatiek II: Von der Konstruction zu Grammatik, 5-32. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Trousdale, Graeme. Forthc. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse et al (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: origins, criteria and outcomes. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robins, Robert. 1980. General linguistics. An introductory survey. London: Longman.

1 This is the definition of lexicalization proposed by Blank (2001:1603). The main alternative approach makes features of the process of change itself criterial (see Himmelmann 2004, Brinton & Traugott 2005). For Trousdale (forthc.), these are a decrease in generality, a decrease in productivity, and no change, or decrease, in the compositionality of the construction.

1 We sincerely thank the three anonymous referees for their generous suggestions and insightful comments, which suggested many extra dimensions to this study in comparison with the first version. We also thank Srikant Sarangi for his helpful handling of the editorial process. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Interuniversity Attraction Poles programme (Belgian Science Policy Office, project P6/44) Grammaticalization and (Inter-)Subjectification and by the GOA-project 12/007, The multiple functional load of grammatical signs, awarded by the Leuven Research Council.

2 All examples followed by (WB) were extracted from WordbanksOnline and are reproduced here by permission of HarperCollins.

3 Firth defined colligation as groups of words considered as members of word classes predicting a relation of syntactic structure (Robins 1980: 178).

4 A partly different approach to composite predicates is proposed by Brinton & Traugott (2005). They suggest that there are two classes of composite predicates: relatively lexical ones such as curry favor with, cast doubt on, and relatively grammatical ones, e.g. make a remark, take a walk, give a kiss, which involve aspect. This position is in keeping with Trousdale (forthc.) who views composite predicates such as have a bath as resulting (more) from grammaticalization but ones such as give a roasting, from lexicalization.

5 This proposal is comparable in spirit to, but also different from Diewald & Smirnova’s (forthc.) views on paradigmatizatic integration, which they argue is what distinguishes grammaticalization from lexicalization. Paradigmatic integration involves grammaticalizing items slotting into existing grammatical paradigms, and also falling into the systemic oppositions and the unmarked-marked contrasts between the members of the paradigm (Jakobson 1971 [1939]). By contrast, Halliday (1992) views the opposing terms in the systems as the abstract features being encoded and focuses on the interdependencies between systems.

6 Traugott (2008) refers to a set of similar substantive (partially lexically filled) constructions as a mesoconstruction.