113
4.3 Development of Onlydenoting relations within the communicative process (as discussed earlier). In
fact, Nevalainen ( 1991 : 73– 83) has argued that even in its focusing functions,
only already possesses textual and interpersonal functions. Textually, it is asso-
ciated with information focus in the clause and may serve as a comment- high-
lighter, while interpersonally it may serve as a kind of hedge (meaning, e.g.,
‘one could think it would be more than that’). Thus, the conjunctive use of only
can be seen as expanding the textual and interpersonal meanings of the focuser.
The shift from focus to adversative meanings involves a relatively clear-
cut change in scope. If focus is understood as presenting information bear-
ing upon the difference in pragmatic information between speaker and hearer,
then only belongs to the subclass of “restricting” focus, where “one member of
the presuppositional set is explicitly ... or implicitly ... rejected as incorrect”
(Nevalainen 1991 : 36). In its conjunctive sense, only likewise rejects a presup-
position, but in this case not the presupposition set of the focused item, but the
presupposition of the entire preceding clause. Thus, we can understand only as
undergoing the semantic– pragmatic expansion characteristic of grammaticali-
zation (Himmelmann 2004 ).
There is one last aspect of the grammaticalization of only to be discussed.
Grammaticalization is generally understood as occurring in a specifi c,
highly constrained linguistic context, as a process that affects lexical items
used in discourse. One possible context for the change in only exists in cases
where a focused item has been fronted and initial only may be interpreted
either as a focusing adverb or as a conjunction (see also the ambiguous
examples in 12):
(18) a. I am very well and have received no wound; only a small splinter hitt mee on
ye thigh, but did no damage, only made itt black and blew (1692 The Camden
miscellany , “Letter of Richard Haddock to his Father,” 42 [HC])
b. Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my peo-
ple be ruled: only in the throne will I be greter than thou (1611 King James
Bible , Genesis 41.40)
In (18a), for example, only may be interpreted as a focusing adverb with
phrasal scope (i.e., only a small splinter – and nothing larger than a splin-
ter – hit me) or as a conjunction with clausal scope (i.e., only a splinter hit
me – and nothing worse happened to me). Another likely context is impera-
tive sentences where only , when it occurs preverbally (an increasingly com-
mon position in the modern period)^19 is sentence initial. Furthermore, in
imperatives, the scope of only is increased, relating not to a sentence- internal
19 Nevalainen ( 1991 : 132– 134) notes that “anteposition” (i.e., preverbal position) of only rises
from 9% to 32% for all instances of only in the Early Modern and Modern English periods.
She also points out that although this position violates the Gricean maxim of manner (“Avoid
ambiguity”), it signals the clausal scope of only early in the sentence and minimizes a face
threat more effi ciently than does a postposition.