Cover not available

Article published In: Today’s Innovations, Tomorrow’s Conventions: Usage-based approaches to incipient developments in English
Edited by David Lorenz and David Tizón-Couto
[Functions of Language 32:1] 2025
► pp. 131–161

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Some as an indefinite article in Present Day English

A case of paradigmatization and constructional competition

 | Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
 | University of Birmingham
Published online: 3 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23024.som
Abstract
This paper investigates the different functions of some in Present Day English. It especially focuses on whether and to what extent some functions as an indefinite article for non-count and plural nouns and as such competes with the bare marking strategy (I need to buy some milk/some cigarettes vs. I need to buy milk/cigarettes). It is shown that next to being a quantifier, some has grammaticalized into an article-like element. On the basis of a sample of direct object NPs extracted from the British National Corpus (XML Edition), we analyze singular, plural and non-count NPs functioning as syntactic objects which either occur bare or have some as a determiner. One question is how often and in which constructional environments some functions as a so-called ‘near-article’ and which other functions it fulfills (e.g. partitive or vagueness marker). The results of a multinomial logistic regression model are used to discuss which grammatical factors are correlated with the use of some as an existential marker of indefiniteness. We then investigate the potential factors predicting speakers’ choice between using some as an overt near-article or leaving the nominal bare in indefinite NPs (i.e. zero article), by means of binomial logistic regression. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the study of such mechanisms as paradigmatization, analogization and constructional competition within a usage-based, constructional model of language and its change.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Functions of some in Present Day English
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data annotation
      • 3.2.1Partitive quantifier
        • Synonymous substitution test
        • Contrastive paradigmatic substitution test
      • 3.2.2Non-partitive quantifier
        • Synonymous substitution test
        • Contrastive paradigmatic substitution test
      • 3.2.3Near-article/article-like function
        • Synonymous substitution test
        • Contrastive paradigmatic substitution test
      • 3.2.4Vagueness marker
        • Synonymous substitution test
        • Contrastive paradigmatic substitution test
      • 3.2.5Other cases
  • 4.Empirical analysis
    • 4.1Distribution of functions
    • 4.2Grammatical behavior of functions
    • 4.3Competition between near-article some and zero marking
  • 5.Interpretation
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, David. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buyssens, Eric. 1959. Negative contexts. English Studies 401. 163–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5). 425–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sarah Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In Matthew L. Juge & Jeri L. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 65–85. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Danqi & Christopher Manning. 2014. A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Alessandro Moschitti, Bo Pang & Walter Daelemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 740–750. Doha, Qatar: ACL. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On definiteness. A study with special reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. Articles and no articles. In Andreas Jucker (ed.), The noun phrase in English. Its structure and variability, 13–24. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croissant, Yves. 2020. Estimation of random utility models in R: The mlogit package. Journal of Statistical Software 95(11). 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 881. 601–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by use. Cambridge. CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, Angela. 2015. English grammar. A university course. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 641. 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick & Pierre Larrivee. 2012. Exploring the relation between the qualitative and quantitative uses of the determiner some. English Language and Linguistics 16(1). 131–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 2002. Varieties of indefinites. In Brendan Jackson (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 59–83. Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In Katharina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, 181–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. An introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn., revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 271. 405–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirtle, W. H. 1988. Some and any: Exploring the system. Linguistics 261. 443–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosmer, David W. & Stanley Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression. New York: Riley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2000. Some and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. In Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw & Josef Ruppenhofer (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, 169–182. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt. 2002. The indefinites some and any in linguistic theory and actual usage. Studia Neophilologica 74(1). 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington, IN: University of Texas at Austin PhD thesis.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2016. Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 3(1). 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. [LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1]. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara, Alice ter Meulen & Robert E. Wall. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1967. The uses of one in Old and Early Middle English. Helsinki: Modern Language Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sahlin, Elisabeth. 1979. Some and any in spoken and written English. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer. 2020. The nature of the node and the network: Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova. (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article emergence in Old English. A constructionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Klaus Hofmann. 2021. Constructional competition and network reconfiguration: investigating sum(e) in Old, Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 25(1). 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Train, Kenneth. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 1. Old English. From the beginnings to 10661, 168–289. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 251. 286–312.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue