In: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
Published online: 2 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.02sab
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.02sab
Abstract
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.
Resumen
La utilización de las grandes bases de datos en el estudio de las hipótesis de significado sobre some y anyEn este trabajo se ofrece un nuevo análisis de las formas gramaticales del inglés some y
any. En vez de analizarlas como cuantificadores lógicos, cada uno de estos signos
constituye una forma expresiva cuyo significado invariante da cuenta de su distribución en los textos del inglés.
Se explica, de forma detallada, una nueva metodología bajo la cual las explicaciones cualitativas conducen a
predicciones cuantitativas de amplio alcance. Empezamos por demostrar la co-ocurrencia de some y
any en los textos con otras formas que, según la hipótesis, contribuyen a elementos del
mensaje similares a los que contribuyen estos dos signos. En el siguiente paso la generalidad de estas
co-ocurrencias se pone a prueba mediante predicciones cuantitativas sobre los datos del Corpus of
Contemporary American English. Este enfoque nos ha permitido descubrir por primera vez muchos e
interesantes sesgos cuantitativos de la distribución de estas formas, así como ofrecer una explicación de los
mismos.
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
References (22)
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.
Crupi, Charlene. (2004). But still a yet: the quest for a constant semantic value for English yet. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
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.
Davies, Mark. (2008–). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present.
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.
. (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.
. (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.
. (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.
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.
Huffman, Alan. (1997).
The categories of grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klima, Edward. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor, & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language (pp.246–323). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ladusaw, William. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.
Lewis, Michael. (1986). The English verb: An exploration of structure and meaning. Language Teaching Publications.
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.
Radden, Günter and René Dirven. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (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.
Sabar, N. (2018).
Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: The case of English look, see, seem and appear. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Whitty, Lauren
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.
