102
Modern English Only and If Only
with resistance expressed to both the adversative and exceptive uses of con-
junctive only. Webster’s (s.v. only , 2) cites the fi rst condemnation as early as
1869, though an even earlier grammar (1851) notes the form without comment.
Evans and Evans (1957: s.v. only ) suggest that the rejection of conjunctive only
may be due to the fact that it is falling out of use in certain areas (and is thus
deemed “old fashioned”), but they see it as “still standard English.” Webster’s
agrees that it is standard, but speculates that its use in dialectal contexts may
lead to a perception of non- standardness. Peters ( 2004 : s.v. only ) notes resis-
tance to conjunctive only by 85 percent of one usage panel, perhaps because
the usage “smacks too much of conversation to be suitable for formal writing”
(cf.also Longman : s.v. only , which calls the form informal). In a study of cur-
rent dictionaries and usage manuals, Yang ( 1996 ) found that it may still be
thought colloquial and inappropriate in writing, though it is rarely considered
completely unacceptable.
Second, Halliday and Hasan ( 1976 : 251) point out that only in this use is
always initial and phonologically reduced, and Nevalainen argues that in this
use, conjuncts such as only “do not integrate with [the clause’s] internal struc-
ture” (1991: 51). Both of these are features of pragmatic markers. Third, the
diffi culties encountered by dictionary writers when attempting to give a defi ni-
tion of adversative only (see above) would suggest that this form has a prag-
matic rather than a lexical meaning.
Fourth, and more importantly, only would appear to serve an interper-
sonal function, or what Halliday and Hasan describe as the “internal” as
opposed to “external” function of conjunctions: “When we use conjunctions
as a means of creating text, we may exploit either the relations that are
inherent in the phenomena that language is used to talk about [i.e., an exter-
nal function] or those that are inherent in the communication process, in the
forms of interaction between speaker and hearer [i.e., an internal function]”
(1976: 241). They see the internal function as belonging to the interper-
sonal component (240, 323). In discussing adversatives, they understand
the difference to be that between the external meaning ‘in spite of the facts’
and the internal meaning ‘in spite of the roles we are playing, the state of
the argument’ (250, 253). Although they give no examples of only in this
“internal” – or interpersonal – sense, it would appear to be possible, espe-
cially with only that. In the following examples, the only clause refers to the
speaker’s state of knowledge, which is explicitly expressed in the preceding
clause:
(9) a. I don’t know anything, only he hasn’t any folks and he’s poor (1871 Alcott,
Little men Ch. VI [Curme 1931 : 324])
b. Actually, I basically do agree with Rich, only I don’t think it’s personal to
McCain. (2001 CNN_ Reliable [COCA])