A sea of choices: lexical quantifiers in English and German

A major group of the static metaphors can be schematically described as large receptacle > large quantity (which was also introduced by Rakhilina for the exploration of Russian quantifiers). The group members are the terms sea, ocean, world, arsenal and Ozean, Meer, Arsenal that have been examined in English and German respectively. The large receptacles of water (sea, ocean and their German equivalents) are some of the more universal multitude quantifiers (relative to the rest of quantifiers approached in this paper), although more so in English, than in German. In the former language, these quantifiers are applied to anything from a myriad of physical objects, to substances, animate creatures, and abstract notions, whereas in German, Ozean and Meer are more restricted to tangible inanimate multitudes and abstract notions (like information and emotional states).

Also in this group, albeit unrelated to receptacles of water is the quantifier arsenal (Arsenal), which evolved from being a term for the place of storing resources to indicating the large quantity of such entities (either of physical or abstract nature) that are stored physically or virtually (like an arsenal of skills at the disposal of a particular person) for a specific purpose. World is a bit of an odd case, but nevertheless also part of this first group. Much like an ocean or sea that spreads to the very horizon in any direction, world is also seen describing an endless span of various (and mostly abstract) concepts, so it seems sensible to view world as a sort of vastly filled receptacle.

The next group of nouns that undergo a similar semantic change as they become further adapted as quantifiers of multitude are the following, for English and German respectively: fleet, army, crowd, flock, bevy, host, as well as Armada, Heer, Armee, Schar, Horde. The inclusion of these quantifiers is somewhat unorthodox, given that the tools for analyzing the German and English data in this paper are taken directly from Rakhilina, 2010. The quantifiers of multitude that previously also denoted a `multitude' of a specific sort (i.e. fleet being a multitude of ships) were objectively considered as distinct from quantifiers that initially lacked an overt `multitude' component in their meaning (i.e. flood, wave, etc.) and were examined separately and in a different manner. Nevertheless, these multitude quantifiers are included in the present study, as they are among the most frequent words that indicate large amounts. The approximate path of semantic change they follow may be schematically presented as large entity composed of numerous physically independent elements (of similar nature) > large quantity (possibly of varied nature). The type of elements initially denoted by each of these terms is varied: in English, crowd, army, flock, bevy and host were first applicable only to people (likewise, Schar, Horde, Heer, Armee, in German), and fleet & Armada described a multitude of ships. With time, this group began to quantify entities beyond the primarily assigned type (to a bigger extent in the case of army, flock, bevy, host, Heer, and Armada). In fact, out of the top-26 list of English quantifiers, host has become the most universal, applicable for nearly every kind of multitude. While crowd, Schar, and Horde also expanded their application for describing inanimate objects and abstract notions, they are still more frequently seen in their original contextual “environment”.

Another (more localized) type of semantic change was experienced by pile, stack and Haufen, as they were developing as quantifiers: physically assembled elements creating whole unit > big quantity. Initially used to describe tangible heap-like masses composed of many physical elements, they've grown to now apply to denote metaphorical `heaps' of abstract elements (such as messages, tasks, questions, requests, etc.), typically indicating that such a multitude is built up over time due to the reluctance of the person observing it to deal with the buildup of things that demand their attention.

The pair Wand and Berg in German contribute to the group that experiences the following shift in meaning: tall singular object > large quantity. It is hypothesized that this change happened gradually, through an intermediate stage that involved the meaning `accumulated mass of physical objects' that also formed a visual `wall' or `mountain' (especially when used to exaggerate the size of such an accumulation). Both of these quantifiers are now seen describing both countable physical objects, as well as abstract notions (such as emotional states and events or occurrences). Even with abstract multitudes, it's often the case that the `mountain' or wall' are presented as a difficult, seemingly insurmountable obstacle for whoever is experiencing it.

The next group of quantifiers transforming in a similar way is comprised of web, bundle, chain & Bьndel, Kette, Labyrinth in English and German respectively. These terms undergo the following change in meaning as they widen their scope of quantifiable entities: many elements physically joined into a single unit > big quantity. In the case of chain (Kette), web and Labyrinth each individual component of the initially denoted item is physically connected to several others, while Bьndel typically indicates a multitude of elements that are physically bound together by something other than their constituents. As physical objects are supplemented by multitudes of abstract notions (events, actions, emotions, strategies) appearing with the quantifiers in this group, these multitudes tend to remain `bound' together in the sense that they are either caused by or otherwise concern a specific purpose, circumstance, etc. Labyrinth is a bit different, however: it remains most prevalent in descriptions of physical structures composed of numerous elements, but when quantifying emotional states or circumstances, it carries over the `intricate, confusing, easy to get lost in' aspect of its original meaning (additionally, this trend occurs with similar contexts involving web).

The remaining quantifiers of the “static” group are string and litany, and they share the trait of “lengthiness” in both of their original meanings. While string is a lengthy physical object, litany is long due the lengthy recital of prayer that it's used to describe. Both of them came to indicate multitudes of physical and abstract nature. String took on the quantification of physical objects arranged in a line (a string of pearls) and also became quite common to describe a series of occurrences and actions that (time-wise) took place one after another. Litany has also picked up the trend of indicating a chronological series of events, maintaining the monotonous and lacklustre nature of repetition in prayer.

The remaining quantifiers in English and German involve the semantic component of “movement”, which separates them from the diverse “static” groups that were outlined above. The approximate scheme of the semantic shift they experience is the following: moving mass > accumulation at a certain end-point (which was also first identified by Rakhilina for Russian data). As seen in Table 14 and Table 15 below, the members of this group may be clustered based on the trajectory of motion (denoted by the initial meaning of each quantifier), as well as the direction of motion from the point of view of a potential observer of a given multitude.

A large portion of the group is composed by terms that initially denote relatively horizontal movement: wave (Welle), stream (Strom), flood (Flut), spate (Schwall), swarm (Schwarm), and Wolke. A majority of them (with the exception of swarm (Schwarm) and Wolke) tend to depict movement towards their potential observer. These quantifiers experience a significant extension of available context to indicate a large number of physical objects (not rarely weapons, and other projectiles) and also a wide range of abstract occurrences: events, verbal and physical acts, and internal emotional states (the latter being a quite often occurring metaphorical transformation). The `movement' component is generally preserved, often serving to indicate a long-lasting influx or a continuation of specific occurrences from the perspective of a particular observer. The exceptions of this trend, swarm (Schwarm) and Wolke are conserving motion of a different type. Wolke, initially denoting a unified formation of myriads of ice or liquid water droplets, goes on to also describe various other small and light particles that tend to appear together and visually resemble a cloud (such as dust, gas, insects), and abstract notions (notably, emotional states) that metaphorically form a cloud due to their magnitude or significance. Meanwhile, swarm (Schwarm), originating as a quantifier for loudly moving insects, is still used prevalently with multitudes of animate creatures chaotically moving together in a general direction. In the occasional appearance of swarm (Schwarm) to quantify events, it's not clear whether the potential observer is more typical to be amid this metaphorical `cloud' or is not directly affected by it as it occurs.

Another subgroup of the `dynamic' quantifiers is composed of the following items, which additionally share a semantic component of downward motion directed at the observer: flurry, avalanche, barrage, Hagel, Sturm, Lawine, and Kaskade. As these terms gained application outside of contexts regarding the descent of frozen or liquid water, snow, ice, and rocks, they have started to indicate that whatever multitude of physical items or events and actions (currently relevant) was `appearing' , it was typically doing so in a sudden manner of rapid intense accumulation. Furthermore, this sort of manifestation is not rarely out of the observer's control, which is also a trait of natural phenomena that these quantifiers originally denote.

The final case is represented by the quantifier applications of explosion and Feuerwerk. These quantifiers stand out as they initially refer to movement that is slightly more complex than that of the previous `dynamic' quantifiers. Explosion is typically an event of many individual particles suddenly bursting from one single source into all directions with formidable force and sound, while Feuerwerk denotes a generally upward and outward appearance of lights in the sky (also in a loud manner). When used as quantifiers, explosion typically indicates an overwhelming multitude of sudden occurrences, events, and emotions, while Feuerwerk is more reserved for emotions and sense perception (of sound, color, taste, etc.) In case of events and actions, the explosive-like movement is seemingly made in the direction of the observer, while internal experiences (emotions, perceptions of taste, sound, etc.) seem to be caused by an external factor, but stem from within the observer.

After completing an overview of how German and English quantifiers have evolved over time in regard to their application with various entities, as well as the semantic shifts experienced by the quantifiers, we can now place them on a schematic scale of grammaticalization. Table 16, provided below presents this scale separately for English and German data. The placement of the values on each scale is relative to the other units in a given language.

As reflected in the table, the majority of quantifiers in both languages have departed from being prevalently applied in their original context. A few quantifiers, however, remain more `loyal' to the entity they describe initially (such is the case for crowd, swarm, Armee, Schar and Horde -- all originally denoting animate multitudes). Host and sea (as well as Ozean and Meer) have become the most universally applied quantifiers, and when used as such have undergone a significant loss of their original meaning. As stated before, most of the quantifiers examined in the current paper are gradually making their way on the scale of grammaticalization. Although they've widened their scope of available quantifiable entities, these “units” retain at least a part of their semantic component, whether its a metaphorized form of motion (wave -- Welle, flood -- Flut, Storm -- storm, stream -- Sturm, etc.), order of occurring entities (Labyrinth, Kette -- chain, string), or sudden manner of overwhelming appearance (as with avalanche -- Lawine, Kaskade, Feuerwerk, explosion, etc.)

Another parameter addressed by Rakhilina for examining Russian lexical quantifiers is the connotation they may introduce when portraying various multitudes. The exploration of English and German data in the current paper also aimed to identify any trends in regard to connotation, while analyzing the types of entities that each specific quantifier is used with (in Chapter I and Chapter II). Table 17, presented below, illustrates three corresponding groups in regard to connotation for the data in each language.

Based on the corpus data used to arrange the quantifiers in the table below, there is a noteworthy difference between English and German data. For the most part, English quantifiers are used to portray multitudes in a neutral or positive light, although a handful of quantifiers are used both in positive and negative descriptions. In German, however, it appears to be more commonplace for a lexical quantifier to be used when a multitude of physical or abstract nature is being portrayed as something negative. Furthermore, it can be noted that certain very similar or even identical quantifiers in each language (namely, flood and Flut, sea and Meer) do not completely coincide with each other in regard to connotation trends (both English quantifiers are generally in neutral contexts, while in German they noticeably appear with negative emphasis). Going back to Lehrer's previously mentioned statement about the nature of English quantifiers being optional (and hence requiring a special reason for their use), it might be warranted to further investigate whether it's indeed more likely for German speakers to use quantifier constructions specifically with the intention of underlining the undesired or otherwise negative character of a given multitude.

Conclusion

lexical quantifier language semantic

The current study presented a multifaceted analysis of the most frequent lexical quantifiers that appear in English and German to denote multitude. Overall, the gathered corpus data, along with etymological notes from several lexicography resources provided ample and suitable information that was used to analyze English and German quantifiers according to the methodology outlined by Ekaterina Rakhilina. This system involved the analysis of the quantifiers themselves, as well as the elements that made up the portrayed multitudes, and the overall character of a given large number of objects.

The first methodology aspect taken into consideration was the initial meaning of each quantifier, and the gradual changes that it experienced in widening its scope of available quantifiable entities. This divided the quantifiers in each observed language into three main groups: 1) quantifiers that originated as terms for multitudes of humans and animals (crowd, host, army, flock, bevy, swarm & Heer, Schar, Armee, Horde, Schwarm), 2) terms used to describe bodies of water (sea, ocean & Wolke, Meer, Ozean) and moving water (wave, spate, stream, flood, flurry, avalanche & Welle, Flut, Schwall, Lawine, Kaskade, Hagel, Strom) in various physical states, 3) words that were first used to quantify inanimate physical multitudes (fleet, pile, arsenal, stack, bundle, chain, string, web & Armada, Arsenal, Bьndel, Haufen, Wand, Berg, Kette, Labyrinth). A pair of the remaining outliers were terms related to sudden bursts of particles or lights (explosion, Feuerwerk), and the rest were barrage, world, litany, and Sturm.

The scope of quantifiable contexts, both early on and in more modern use in English and German has shown that the quantifiers also differ in the degree of grammaticalization that they've undergone: a handful of terms remain very restricted and thus barely grammaticalized as quantifiers (crowd, swarm, Armee, Schar, Horde), and very few have made it to the more advanced portion of the spectrum (host, sea, Ozean, Meer). The majority of the quantifiers are spread between these two groups:

1) English: army, flock, fleet, web, pile, stack, bundle, chain, world, explosion, bevy, ocean, wave, spate, stream, flood, flurry, avalanche, arsenal, string, barrage, litany;

2) German: Heer, Schwarm, Hagel, Armada, Arsenal, Kette, Labyrinth, Sturm, Bьndel, Feuerwerk, Wolke, Strom, Schwall, Welle, Flut, Haufen, Lawine, Kaskade, Wand, Berg.

It's easy to see that many quantifiers in German and English are not only overlapping in the sense of initially being equivalent terms, but also in regard to the extent of grammaticalization. Quantifiers in both examined languages also form the same groups in terms of the semantic shifts they experience, which was also an integral part of the LQ analysis proposed by Rakhilina. Similarly to Russian data, German and English quantifiers form two groups, based on the “static-dynamic” dichotomy of metaphorical shifts. The more `localized' formulas of semantic changes also show an overlap with Russian data (large receptacle > large quantity; moving mass > accumulation at a certain end-point), with the exception of certain outliers. Other quantifier traits (proposed in Rakhilina, 2010) to classify lexical quantifiers (including connotation, “usefulness” of the portrayed multitude to the speaker, trajectory of motion, and the direction of motion relevant to an observer of the given situation), have also functioned well for describing the appropriate German and English data. Another set of traits, this time relevant to the objects that make up the relevant multitudes, were also suitable for working with data in the current paper (namely, the order of the objects in a given multitude, orientation in space, variety among the multitude elements). Characteristics of a given multitude as a whole (continuous situations vs. sudden occurrences, growth of the multitude over time) have also been practical for exploring the behaviour of German and English quantifiers and their appropriate context of application.

The introduction of a versatile multi-factor system for examining lexical quantifiers (Rakhilina 2010) is proving to be a compelling innovation in the face of previously existing, more general approaches to this topic. The additional data for two Germanic languages has shown patterns similar to the existing results for Russian in regard to the semantic origins and transformations undergone by lexical quantifiers denoting multitude. With a potential for further testing on other languages, it remains to be seen in the future whether this methodology will persevere or require supplementation with more varied data.

References

Allan 1977 -- Classifiers. Allan, K. -- Language, 53, 1977. P 281-311.

Bibliographisches Institut GmbH (2018). Duden. Retrieved from https://www.duden.de/

Fillmore C.J. -- Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let

Alone. Fillmore С.J., Kay P., O'Connor M.C. -- Language, 64(3), 1998. P 501-538.

Goldberg 1995 -- Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Goldberg, A. -- Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995

Goldberg 2006 -- Constructions at Work. Goldberg A. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006.

Harper, D. (2018). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from

Hopper, Traugott 2003 -- Grammaticalization. Second edition. Hopper, P. J., Traugott E. C.-- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003

Klein, W. (2018) Digitales Wцrterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Retrieved from https://www.dwds.de/

Lehmann 1995 -- Thoughts on grammaticalization. Lehmann, C. -- Mьnchen / Newcastle: Lincom Europa.

Lehrer 1986 -- English Classifier Constructions. Lehrer, A. -- Lingua 68, 1986. P 109-148. North-Holland

McEnery, Xiao 2007. -- Quantifying constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. / McEnery, T.; Xiao, R. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics

Conference CL2007 University of Birmingham, UK 27-30 July 2007. ed. Matthew Davies; Paul Rayson; Susan Hunston; Pernilla Danielsson. Lancaster : Lancaster University, 2007.

Iomdin 2008 -- В глубинах микросинтаксиса: один лексический класс синтаксических фразем // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии

(Диалог'2008). Труды Международной конференции. Бекасово, 4-8 июня 2008 г. Л.Л. Иомдин. -- М.: РГГУ, 2008. Вып. 7(14). С. 178-184.

Rakhilina 2010 -- Лингвистика конструкций. Отв. ред. Е. В. Рахилина. -- М.: “Издательский центр “Азбуковник”, 2010.

Appendix

Размещено на Allbest.ru