GRAMMATICALIZATION IN ENGLISH: A DIACHRONIC AND SYNCHRONIC ANALYSIS OF THE “ASS” INTENSIFIER A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of A 5 the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In . M s s English: Linguistics by Wilson Joseph Miller San Francisco, California December 2017 Copyright by Wilson Joseph Miller 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Grammaticalization in English: A Diachronic and Synchronic Analysis of the “ass” Intensifier by Wilson Joseph Miller, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in English: Linguistics at San Francisco State University. Anastasia Smirnova, Ph.D. Associate Professor GRAMMATICALIZATION IN ENGLISH: A DIACHRONIC AND SYNCHRONIC ANALYSIS OF THE “ASS” INTENSIFIER Wilson Joseph Miller San Francisco, California 2017 Grammaticalization theory is used to analyze language change cross-linguistically and in historical linguistics as lexical items move from open class content to closed class functional words. With natural language as the data, this analytic framework is used to perform a diachronic and synchronic analysis of “ass”—which has grammaticalized in colloquial American English into an intensifying clitic. The diachronic analysis focuses on the linguistic shifts “ass” underwent as a result of polysemy, metonymy, syntactic reanalysis and decategorialization, semantic bleaching, and pragmatic influences. The synchronic analysis is performed in lieu of the historical shifts to explicate descriptively the parameters for grammatical usage in contemporary language performance, focusing on the topics of syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology. I certify that the abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must take the time to thank, greatly, all of the people who have helped me along the way to complete this project. Particularly, I have to thank Dr. Jenny Lederer who oversaw this project in its entirety from beginning to end, and who was also my greatest mentor in the time I spent at San Francisco State University. I also have to thank Dr. Suzanne Scott and Dr. Mark Wicklund of Humboldt State University; they were my introduction to linguistics, and I wouldn’t be where I am today without them. Lastly, I also have to thank countless friends and family, including Isadora Jade Bjelland, who gave me the support I needed so badly in my educational endeavors to complete an M.A. in Linguistics. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Table....................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures................................................................................................................... viii List of Appendices...............................................................................................................ix Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 Literature Review..................................................................................................................2 A Diachronic, Synchronic, and Multi-modular Framework....................................2 Grammaticalization Concepts.................................................................................. 3 Previous Research on “ass” as an Intensifier...........................................................5 Methodology.........................................................................................................................8 Analysis.................................................................................................................................9 Diachronic Analysis................................................................................................10 Synchronic Analysis.............................................................................................. 21 Discussion...........................................................................................................................42 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................45 Reference............................................................................................................................47 Appendices..........................................................................................................................50 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Table 1 ...........................................................................................................16 2. Table 2 ...........................................................................................................25 LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Figure 1 ...........................................................................................................19 2. Figure 2 ...........................................................................................................22 3. Figure 3 ...........................................................................................................23 4. Figure 4 ...........................................................................................................24 5. Figure 5 ...........................................................................................................30 6. Figure 6 ...........................................................................................................31 7. Figure 7 ...........................................................................................................32 8. Figure 8 ...........................................................................................................41 9. Figure 9 ...........................................................................................................42 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1. Recorded Spoken Data........................................................................................ 50 2. Social Media Data................................................................................................51 3. COCA Data..........................................................................................................71 ix 1 Section 1: Introduction No language is exempt from change. Through everyday linguistic performance, speakers spur language shifts, revamping pre-existing lexical items into new, innovative constructs. Often nuanced and complex at the same time, these changes highlight trends not only in language usage, but also in the way speakers construct meaning through salient linguistic changes. English has recently, within the past eighty years, undergone an interesting change: it has grammaticalized an intensifier from the lexical item ass. There is no analysis that looks at the grammaticalization of ass, either in a diachronic or synchronic fashion. In using a grammaticalization framework and considering the findings of past research focusing on ass as an intensifier, this work performs a more in- depth, comprehensive diachronic and synchronic analysis than has been done to date. Three driving research questions motivate this work: (1) how did ass develop into an intensifier? (2) what are the typical features and restrictions of its use today? (3) what features does it share when it is compared to other English intensifiers? A grammaticalization framework makes it possible to delve deeply into these issues, answering questions related to both historical developments and contemporary usages. This paper is broken down into multiple sections: a literature review, a methodology, an extensive diachronic and synchronic analysis, a discussion, and a conclusion. The literature review is performed in three phases: (1) an explanation of the analytic framework used in this project; (2) a review of major grammaticalization definitions and concepts; and (3) a review of previous analyses of ass. The previous 2 analyses on ass contribute to the findings within this project in a variety of ways. In some instances, the findings of previous works corroborate the findings within this project, and at other times they serve as the basis for rebuttal or contention. Section 2: Literature Review Section 2a: A Diachronic, Synchronic, and Multi-Modular Framework This project conducts a diachronic (i.e., “change between two or more points in time”—the historical development) and synchronic analysis (i.e., “structure at a single point in time”—a current, contemporary state), using grammaticalization theory as its analytic foundation (Hopper & Traugott, 2003, p. 2). This framework allows an analysis that can delve deeply into the areas of semantics, syntax, phonology, and morphology, and it will highlight a clearer, more in-depth picture of the lexical to grammatical changes that ass has undergone in its shift to an intensifier. Debates on grammaticalization have a long history in historical linguistics (for this history, see: Heine, Claudi, & Hunnemeyer, 1991; Hopper, 1996; Hopper & Traugott, 2003; Lehmann, 2015). Projects with this framework can typically be divided into two camps, where researchers look at language change exclusively through either a diachronic or synchronic lens, rarely both. In the spirit of Hopper & Traugott (2003), this project performs a combined synchronic and diachronic analysis, mainly focusing on semantic and syntactic