110
Modern English Only and If Only
4.3.2 Grammaticalization
What do we make of the development of only in terms of processes of
grammaticalization?
The development of only from free adverb to focusing adverb has been
thoroughly studied by Rissanen ( 1985 ), Nevalainen ( 1991 ), and also König
( 1991 : 166– 173). Although the adjective ā nl ī c/ ǣ nl ī c ‘one, single, solitary,
mere, unique, excellent’ and the adverb ā nl ī ce/ ǣ nl ī ce ‘singularly, uniquely,
specially, splendidly, excellently’ exist in Old English, Rissanen ( 1967 , 1985 )
shows that adverbial only derives not from these forms but ultimately from the
numeral ā n which is used adjectivally in Old English (appearing as ā ne/ ā na )
and later (c1300) adverbialized; the addition of - li(che) is part of the more gen-
eral development of Middle English adverbs.^12 The progression from numeral
adjective/ adverb is consistent with recognized channels of grammatical-
ization. A further step in the development of only is its use as a focusing adverb
in the exclusive sense ‘solely, exclusively, merely, simply,’ which dates from
about 1300 (OED: s.v. only , def. A 2; MED: s.v. ō̆nlī , def. 1a). Thus, the steps
in the development of only are the following:
numeral one > polysemous Adj/ Adv only^13 > exclusive focusing only
The exact status of focusing adverbs is a matter of scholarly debate, though
it seems clear that they do not participate in clausal structure in the same
way that free adverbials do and that they are subordinate in a certain sense.^14
Focusing adverbs thus undergo decategorialization and a change from open to
closed class membership, to “perhaps a kind of paradigm” (König 1991 : 171);
in a sense, too, they can be understood as undergoing a decrease in syntactic
scope, since they become associated with the focused element. They are typic-
ally fi xed in a position prior to the focused item. However, they do not undergo
phonological attrition or morphological bonding and are not obligatory (König
1991 : 171– 172; Nevalainen 1991 : 13). The semantic change is consistent with
processes observed in grammaticalization since the meaning of exclusiveness
can be seen as an implicature of the meaning of ‘oneness.’^15
12 In Old English, þæt an + þæt - clause, þæt an alone, for an , or and no þæt an are used to express
adverbial meaning. The adverbialization of ā ne/ ǣ ne involves the collapse of the case ending,
the breaking of the bonds with the focused NP, and reinterpretation of the e ending as an adver-
bial marker (Rissanen 1967 , 1985 ).
13 Nevalainen believes that because of morphological coalescence in Middle English, the short
adverb and the adjective onlych probably reinforced one another.
14 Syntactically, Quirk et al. classify focusing adverbs as “subjuncts ” (1985: 604– 612) since
they have no pro- forms and they cannot normally appear in clefts and alternative negatives or
interrogatives (610– 612). However, semantically, focusing adverbs have sentential scope (see
Nevalainen 1991 : 69ff.).
15 The meaning ‘one’ is one of three semantic sources for exclusive particles (see Nevalainen
1991 : 12, 257; König 1991 : 166– 167).