Between adjective and noun:

mustardunfInternet and Web Development

Oct 21, 2013 (3 years and 1 month ago)

129 views

Peter
Lauwers

Between adjective and noun:

category / function mismatch,
constructional overrides

and coe
rcion

Peter
L
AUWERS

Ghent University & University of Leuven

Peter.lauwers@ugent.be



Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics

of Nounhood and Adjectivehood

Barcelona, March, 24
-
25, 2011

Peter
Lauwers

1. Introduction

Peter
Lauwers

Topic of this talk

Nominalized adjectives (NAs): Adj


N

(1)
simple
ADJ
,
beau
ADJ

(1a) le simple et le beau


'the simple and the beautiful'


(1b)
Faire du beau avec du simple, ça c'est de l'art.



‘To make beautiful things (stuff) with simple things (stuff), that
is what art is about’


Adjectivized nouns (ANs): N


䅤j

(2)
théâtre
N

des costumes très ‘théâtre’

'very theater
-
like costumes'


Peter
Lauwers

Structure of the talk

1.
Introduction

2.
Data: nominalized adjectives (= NAs)

3.
Problematic accounts

4.
A syntactic analysis in terms of categorial
mismatch

5.
Adjectivized nouns (= ANs)

6.
Conclusions

Peter
Lauwers

2. The data: nominalized adjectives
(NAs)

Peter
Lauwers

2.1.NAs: introduction

Meaning effects


(I)
le

beau,
le

simple
:



‘the beautiful’, ‘the simple',
'
(all) the beautiful (things)'




= GENERIC
[~ le fer 'iron']


(II)
Faire
du

beau avec
du

simple, ça c'est de l'art.


‘To make beautiful things (stuff) with simple things (stuff), that is
what art is about’



=
a (not very precise) portion of
le beau,
instantiated in a
particular situation


= SPECIFIC, indefinite
[~ du fer 'some iron']



(III)
Le

beau

[
de

+ NP]: e.g.
le beau de l'histoire
('the beaut. thing of
the story')



what is beautiful [in NP], the beautiful thing [of NP]


= SPECIFIC, definite
[~ le fer de la pioche 'iron of the pick']

Peter
Lauwers

le
beau
de NP

(3)

le beau (1)

du beau (2)

Peter
Lauwers

Remarks


Type 2:

in French, not in English, not in Spanish


Type 3: one reading


vs. 2 readings in Spanish

(Lapesa 1984; Bosque & Moreno 1990; Villalba
-
Bartra
-
Kaufmann 2009: 821)


a
'partitive' / 'individuating
' reading


(3)
Lo (más / *muy) pequeño de la casa (es el dormitorio)



<the (most / very) small of the house (is the bedroom)>




'The smallest part of the house'


a
degree / qualitative
reading


(4)
Lo (*más / muy) caro de la casa me impresionó. (la casa =
cara)


<the (most / very) expensive of the house impressed me>




'The high degree of expensiveness'


(5) lo tacaño de Ernesto; lo cariñoso de la niña (Google)



*l’avare d’Ernesto; *le mignon de la fille


(6) Me sorprendió lo cara que era la casa.


*Je fus surpris par le che(è)r(e) qu’était la maison.


Peter
Lauwers

I will not be dealing with ..


[+ human] NAs:




(7)

les pauvres
('the poor')



elliptic NPs



anaphoric NPs


(8a)


Tu voulais
de la colle
? Oui, j’
en

ai acheté
de la bonne
[colle]
.


You wanted glue
i
?

Yes, I

of it

have bought
good [t
i
].



NPs obtained by truncation (based on shared knowledge):


(8b)
la (ville) capitale

'the capital'


Peter
Lauwers

Productivity


Adj. + HUMAN N


(9)
le bavard ‘
the talkative [person]’,
l’aveugle
‘the blind
[person]’,

l’absent
‘the
absent [person]’


[+HUMAN] →
*du bavard, *de l’aveugle, *de l’absent
(*partitive
article)



Adj. + INANIMATE N


(10)
le faux
‘the false’,
le vrai
‘the truth’


[

ANIMATE] →
*les faux, *les vrais
(*plural)



Some combine with both:


(11)
l’inconnu
‘the unknown’

Peter
Lauwers

2.2.
The categorial status of NAs



Are NAs full
-
fledged nouns?


Criteria:

(i)
Determiners (+ number)

(ii)
Range of possible modifiers


Peter
Lauwers

(I) Determination


invariably
masculine
(


hence: 'neuter')
singular


Lack of plural: cf. many property nouns (*
trois/quelques tristesses

'three/some sadnesses' )
(Riegel et al. 1994: 169)



Determiners


(12)



definite:
le

beau / *ce beau (demonstrative) / *son beau
(possessive)


vs la, cette, sa beauté



indefinite, mass:
du
beau / [+ negation]
de

beau / *beaucoup
de/*peu de/*tant de ('a lot of'; 'few'; 'so many')
(cf. Leeman 1998: 226)


vs beaucoup de/... beauté



indefinite, count: *un


vs une beauté



*Quel beau(

!) ('what a...')


vs Quelle beauté!

Peter
Lauwers

II. Modification ~ source category [ADJ]

(i)

Adverbs
(of all kinds, except temporal/locative):


(13) mettre sans cesse
le facilement accessible
en avant


‘to put incessantly
forward
what is easily accessible



(ii) Subcategorized complements of the adjective
(which are thus
maintained !)


(14) Construire un trajet de pensées porteuses de l’abolition d’un
ordre établi, pour que l’humanité puisse être en mesure de
s’émanciper, n’est
-
ce pas non plus fabriquer
de l’utile à la société
?


‘To construct a collection of thoughts that support the abolition of the established order, in
order to allow humanity to emancipate itself, isn’t it like producing
things that are useful to
society
?’


Adverb

(i) +
subcategorized PP
(ii):

(15) Il ne faut viser que
le vraiment utile à la santé publique
.
(constructed example)

‘One should only aim at that which is really useful for public health.’


Peter
Lauwers

Modification ~ target category [N]

(i) PP introduced by
de
:


(16) Et le long plan de fin ... souligne
le dérisoire de cette histoire
en
ramenant les personnages à leur taille minuscule.


‘And the long zoom at the end ... underlines
the derisory character of
this story
by reducing the characters to their miniscule dimensions.’


(ii) ungrounded restrictive relative clauses:


(17) On n’est plus dans
le superficiel qui prétend changer votre vie en
24 heures
mais bien dans quelque chose de durable et
d'accessible à
tous.


‘This has nothing to do anymore with
those superficial things that
pretend to change your life within 24 hours
but rather with something
lasting and
accessible to anyone.’

Peter
Lauwers

(iii) *Adjectives

(18) la superficialité inouïe de ce blog /vs/
*le superficiel inouï
de ce blog


‘the incredible superficiality of this blog’

(19) une vulgarité assez insolente /vs/
*le vulgaire assez
insolent


‘a rather unashamed vulgarity’


BUT: incipient lexicalization

(20) des dialogues souvent drôles sans tomber dans
le vulgaire
facile

‘dialogues that are often funny without lapsing into easy vulgarity’




Peter
Lauwers

*Adjectives: semantic explanation?

+ adjective


establishes
distinguishable instances
of the concept expressed by the
NA on the basis of a particular property



NAs presuppose an instant process of
massification

or
homogenization of
the dissimilar
(Leeman 1998).


e.g. things that share the property of being strange



(21)
le bizarre
can be applied both to attitudes (abstract) and clothes
(concrete):

a.
le bizarre dans son comportement


‘the strangeness of his behavior’

b. le bizarre que l’on peut porter


‘the strange [things] one can wear



Peter
Lauwers

Confirmation 1

Villalba (2009: 9) : NA + PP


no quantization, no comparison:


(22a) *Lo honesto de los políticos aumenta día a día


(22b) *Lo honesto de los políticos es mayor que lo honesto del
gobierno.



<
a more general restriction on NAs:


do not accept individualization of the property on the basis of
an internal ( qualitative / quantitative) differentiation.




unable to compare different kinds of ‘honesto’, different
degrees of ‘honesto’ (as instantiated in the same of in other
referents).


Peter
Lauwers

Confirmation 2

NA + PP: additional restriction on degree modification

(23a) (je n’ai pas raconté) le {plus /

??très /

??assez} beau de
l’histoire


vs.

(23b) le très beau, l’assez beau, le plus beau, ...

; c’est du très beau


Thus
:
in
ternal comparison
(the most ADJ aspect of...) , no
ex
ternal comparison with other degrees of the same property
(as instantiated in other referents)


Cf. only partitive reading (~
más
), no “degree reading” (~
muy
)


(Lapesa 1984; Bosque & Moreno 1990; Villalba 2009);



Peter
Lauwers

Confirmation 3: anaphoric uptake

NAs ≠ antecedent of definite anaphoric pronouns


(24)

(24a)
Il n’a pas compris le vulgaire
i

de l’histoire.
*Celui
-
ci
i



‘He hasn’t understood the vulgar
i

[aspect] of the story. This
i

...’

/vs/


(24b)
la vulgarité
i

...
Celle
-
ci
i

...

‘the vulgarity
i

… This
i

…’



Since:


anaphoric pronouns isolate an individual (Leeman 1998 : 228,
following Kleiber 1992), which runs counter to the massification
obtained by transfer.


Cf. (25) *
Il y a
du Matisse

[= 'paintings of Matisse’] dans toutes les
salles du musée et
ce

Matisse....



Peter
Lauwers

Mixed patterns ~ ADJ/N

(26) [
Le
plus

sublime

de cette répétition
] était sans doute le
début.



The most sublime part of this rehearsal
was beyond any
doubt the

beginning.’


(27) Les pigeons blasés, perchés sur le marché couvert, guettent
la pourriture et [
le

trop

mûr

qu’on balance sur les trottoirs
].


‘the blasé pigeons, sitting on the roof of the indoor market
place, on the

lookout for rotten and for
overripe things that are
thrown on the

footpath




(F. Lasaygues,
Vache noire, hannetons
, 1985).

Peter
Lauwers

2.3. Summary: maximal template +
extensions (< lexicalization)


LE

(Adverb)
NA


(subcat. PP /
de

PP) (ungrounded relative clause)


DU

(Adverb)
NA

(subcat. PP) (ungrounded relative clause)



+ additional 'nominal' elements / features <
incipient lexicalization

(28) N’étant pas musicienne comment puis
-
je analyser cet accord, expliquer
le

tragique que
j’
entends dans ce seul accord.


‘Not being a musician, how can I analyze this chord, explain
the tragedy

that
I

hear in this sole chord
.’


loss of adjectival nature
:

(29)
*le
vraiment

tragique que
j'
entends

At the upper end of the lexicalization cline
(= N)

:
le

sérieux
('seriousness'/'reliability'),
le calme
(
‘peacefulness’/ ‘period of calm’),

le vide '
vacuum, empty space’, etc.



idiosyncratic semantic shifts

(30a) le vide complet, le grand vide, un tel {vide / calme / sérieux}, un calme
très agréable

(30b) son calme, son sérieux

; un peu de calme, beaucoup de sérieux


(30c) *le très sérieux de Paul

Peter
Lauwers

3. Problematic accounts

Peter
Lauwers

NAs are problematic for standard
syntactic structure

NAs:

Det + A’’

<
-

>

canonical rewrite rule: N’’


Det + N’

(or DP


Det + N’’)




N’’


Det


A’’



Adv

A’




A
°

Sprép



(31) Les plus jeunes de la classe


(Marandin, in Corblin, Marandin et Sleeman 2004: 35)







Peter
Lauwers

(I) Empty head / head deletion
(syntax)


Ia.
Deletion of a (pro) nominal head ; a base
-
generated null head




[
DP

the [
NP

rich
A

[
NP

Ø]
]]]
(Baker 2003: 121)




Cf. Olsen 1988 [German], Kester 1996 [Dutch], Longobardi 1994: 644 ;

Chierchia 1998:
394; Borer & Roy (2010)


Ib. Similar analyses


--

though less formalized:


Winther (1982)


Bally (1944
2
)



--

Sleeman (1996: 188):


“a base
-
generated empty noun bearing the feature [+abstract] at
the lexical level, which is licensed by partitivity”

Peter
Lauwers

Null heads: empirical problems

I. Which (pro)noun?

A Noun
?


(32) ?le
[truc]
vulgaire / ?la
[notion (de)]
vulgaire / ?le
[concept (de)]
vulgaire


‘the vulgar thing’ / ‘the notion (of) vulgar’ / ‘the concept (of) vulgar’




A pronoun
?
(Winther 1982)


(33) [+Human ANs]: ce +
lui/elle

+ (qui est)

malade



ce […]
malade [.... > un malade, les malades]


<this him/her (who is) sick> → ‘this ... sick [person]’


‘a sick

[person]’, ‘the sick’




But
: What about [inanimate] ANs?



(34)
ce
(+

??)
+
(qui est)
beau


*ce + beau (= ungrammatical !)


II.
Why no adjectives allowed?





Peter
Lauwers

(II) Accounts based on full lexical
recategorization: overview

IIa. Morphological approaches


"morphological derivation involves the systematic and massive
acquisition of a categorial identity" (Kerleroux 1996: 189)


traditional grammar:
dérivation impropre
(e.g. Nyrop 1908)


French morphologists:
conversion


E.g. Fradin (2003):
[le] bleu, [le] rouge, [le] calme, [le] sérieux
.

Corbin and Corbin, 1991

: 77; Kerleroux, 1996: 88 (although:
Kerleroux,
1996: 204)
; 2000: 93; Apothéloz, 2002: 101; Fradin,

2003: 157

IIb. Lexicological approaches:

relisting

of lexical items (Lieber 2004)

Cf. dictionaries: Entry ADJ., then "masc. noun"

IIIc. (pseudo
-
)syntactic approaches


standard treatment in
Construction Grammar
: a basically lexical
mechanism (Fillmore & Kay 1995: Ch. 3):


feature changing lexical constructions
which modify the categorial
specifications and “essentially create a new lexical item” (Fried &
Östman 2004: 38)


E.g
. proper noun (
Prague
) > common noun (
The Prague I
remembered was

completely different
)


<
-

> spirit of CxG
(Fried & Östman 2004: 39; Michaelis 2003: 175)


Peter
Lauwers

Conversion


= morphological operation that creates new lexemes characterized by
a
phonological form
, a
semantic value
and a
morphosyntactic
category
.


Characteristic of conversion is the fact that the phonological form of
both root and derivational product is identical. (Corbin 1987)



"conversions form part of
a paradigm of morphological operations
associated with a word construction rule" (Corbin 1987: 241),



E.g.


(35)
Word construction rule for
'
Property nouns'


Categories: Adj.




Nom


Semantics: ‘the fact, the quality of being Adj’ (Corbin 1987: 174,
243)


Formal processes:

-

suffix (
-
eur,
-
(i)té,
-
esse,
-
ise,
-
titude,
...):
vulgaire
Adj


vulgarité
N

-

conversion:
vulgaire
--
> (le) vulgaire





Peter
Lauwers

Conversion: problems

(a) The
intermediate categorial status
of the product


(b) NAs ≠
'out of context, hence out of syntax'
(as required by
conversion, Kerleroux, 2000: 95):


determiner = necessary


(c) integration of NAs within a Word Construction Rule is
problematic: (
slight )semantic differences

compared to
property nouns !


Peter
Lauwers

Semantics: differences

la beauté

the
quality

of being beautiful in
general
(generic use)

le beau

‘tout ce qui est beau’

(generic use)

all those referents that

have this particular quality in
common, construed as a
homogenous mass,

as indistinguishable entities

de la beauté


(specific, indefinite)

unspecified quantity of the quality of
‘beauty’ as it is

instantiated in a particular
situation


du beau

unspecified quantity (or portion) extracted
from the set of

referents having a

particular quality in common, construed as
a

homogenous mass, as indistinguishable
entities

la beauté (de X

) (specific, definite)

a specific instance of the quality of
‘beauty’ as it is
instantiated in particular
referents

Le beau (de X)




‘ce qu’il y a de beau [dans X]’


a specific instance of a

class of referents
having a particular quality in

common
construed as a

homogenous mass, in
association with a particular

referent

Peter
Lauwers

Extension?


beau
ext



= {the Sagrada Familia, the paintings of Van Gogh,
my swimming shorts, etc.}


= all possible
referents (objects)
that have this
quality in common; that is ‘what is beautiful’



beauté
ext




= {the beauty of nature, the beauty of
la Joconde
,
the beauty of the Sagrada Familia, etc.}


= all possible
instantiations of the quality '
beauty' as
instantiated in particular objects (but not the
objects
as such, cf. Riegel 1985: 88–90).
Peter
Lauwers

Intension?


beauté
Int
: 'the
quality

of being beautiful'


beau
Int
: ??


'the things
that are beautiful'



Peter
Lauwers

Rationale?

la beauté


can be defined on the basis of
their
intension


'
the quality of being beautiful in
general'

le beau


focused on the
extensional
(and
referential) dimension of the
property


'
the beautiful’,(all) the beautiful
(things)'


the
property

itself

the conceptualization of NAs
gives prominence
to the
ENTITIES that carry the
property
, although they are
conceived as a mass or
aggregate on the basis of a
common property

Peter
Lauwers

Confirmation

Verb + concrete object


e.g.
to buy, to have, to wear
, etc.


(36a) il n’achète que du beau, ils n’ont que du beau, il ne
porte que du beau

‘he only buys beautiful things’ / ‘they only have beautiful
things’ / ‘he only
wears beautiful things’


vs.


(36b) *il n’achète que de la beauté; *ils n’ont que de la
beauté; *il ne porte que de la beauté

*‘he only buys beauty’ / *‘they only have beauty’ / *‘he
only wears beauty’



Peter
Lauwers

4.
A syntactic analysis

in terms of categorial mismatch

Peter
Lauwers

4.1. Mixed categories and projections

Track 1.
A categorially underspecified head: the "indeterminate category
projection theory" (Bresnan 1997)


Cf. Malouf 2000 for the English gerund; cf. other references in
Bresnan (1997).

BUT: phrasal coherence: ordering principles (cf. Bresnan 1997)


adjectival modifiers = central (adv)


nominal modifiers = peripheral (det, PP)


Track 2.

Conflation of two distinct XPs around a shared head, based on
an intermediate shifting operation


Cf. Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 57ff; cf. also Lapointe 1993.


-

A category
-
switching projection from a single lexical head
at a
certain level within the tree
around a single head


-

The “atypical” head exhibits severe restrictions from the point of view
of nominal modification =>
conflation
of two subtrees rather than
superposition

Peter
Lauwers


N’’


Det

N’



N
°

PP / S (relative)



A’’


Adv

A’



A
°

PP

le vraiment drôle de l'histoire ('the really funny thing of the story')

le vraiment utile à la société ('the really useful to society')

Peter
Lauwers

4.2. Towards an explanatory construction
-
based
account: mismatch and coercion

Towards an account that



(i) offers a more
integrated

and (cognitively) plausible
explanation

for the
peculiar configuration of NAs


(ii) better captures the intuition that NAs are
marked

(non prototypical)
usages of words, pertaining to well
-
established word classes, that
contextually exhibit
some

syntactic and semantic properties of
another word class,
rather than phrases headed by a hybrid lexical
category
(marked morphologically as such).


Peter
Lauwers

4.2.1. Categorial mismatch and coercion

NAs = cases of
(categorial) MISMATCH


Cf. Francis (1999) , Francis & Michaelis (2004), Spencer (2005, 2007).


More specifically:
category / function mismatch


(I) Distorsion catégorielle

(Milner 1989, Kerleroux 1991, 1996, Leeman
1998)


Conflict between:

Y =
position

(= slot), which specifies a.o. the expected
categories

X =
terme

(= filler), endowed with a category


restrictions on 'target' modification' (= categorial deficiency)

vs.
morphological conversion


(37)
l’
agir
‘the acting’, le
signifier
du signe ‘the signifying of the
sign


Constructional dimension


⸮.


Peter
Lauwers

(II) Construction Grammar
(Michaelis 2003):
override

principle



Y = ‘slot’ within a construction



X = filler




“if
lexical
and
structural meanings
conflict, the semantic specifications
of the lexical element conform to those of the grammatical structure
with which that lexical item is combined"


(38) mass noun
soup

in the plural construction receives the
individuated construal associated with
count

entities:




They have good soups here
(Michaelis 2003)


(39)
to begin [to read] a book




object > event


This contextual adaptation of semantic features =
coercion
(
Pustejovsky, 1995

; Pustejovsky and Bouillon, 1995)
or
accommodation
(Goldberg 1995)



Rem
: on the syntactic level:
~ translation
(
°
Tesnière 1959)


But : full nouniness


NAs fall outside the scope of the theory

(Werner, 1993: 143; 190
-
191

; Koch
-

Krefeld, 1993)




Peter
Lauwers

A “constructional override” / coercion
triggered by a construction, but ...


Questions :



also
INTER
CATEGORIAL shifts (A > N and N > A) ?


what about the
syntactic effects
(e.g. modification) ?


<
-

> purely semantic concept such as 'coercion'


which target category can serve as a model for the coerced
interpretation?


≠ property nouns






Peter
Lauwers

4.2.2. A specific construction inheriting from the
determiner construction


To prevent our account from overgeneration: a particular type of
override construction specifying all these properties:


a
MASS GROUP IDENTITY
NOUN PHRASE
CONSTRUCTION



Cf.
Group Identity Noun Phrase construction
(Fried & Östman 2004: 74

75) for cases such as
the privileged
or
the poor



related to the
Determination construction
, but also differences




INHERITANCE


“to keep track of properties along which linguistic expressions
resemble each other” (Fried & Östman 2004: 71).


Peter
Lauwers

Formalisme de C&G


[Mass group identity NP] construction

(CxG; ~ Fried & Östman 2004)

Peter
Lauwers

Peter
Lauwers

Concretely...


both the properties of the
construction

and its
component parts
:



The head: (predicative) Adj



vs



The construction as a whole: NP



meaning:


‘set of referents defined by the property x (↓1) and construed
as a homogenous mass of indistinguishable entities’.



Inherited features: bold



Exclusive features:


the determiner slot is restricted to one or two determiners


a third, non
-
obligatory sister



Peter
Lauwers

5. Adjectivized nouns

Peter
Lauwers

5.1. Semantic effects

(40)
Resemblance
: ‘X presents characteristics of Y’


(40a)

Ces costumes sont
très théâtre
. ; des costumes
très théâtre
.



(These costumes are very theatre.)



‘These costumes are very ‘theatre
-
like.’


(40b)

Mon frère est
très professeur
.



(My brother is very teacher)



‘My brother is very ‘teacher
-
like'


≠ other constructions
(cf. Lauwers f.c.,
Word

60/1):

(41)
Inclination, propensity
: ‘X is characterized by the fact that X is keen on Y’


Je suis (très) fromage.



(I am very cheese.)


‘I like cheese (very much), I eat cheese very often; I am into cheese’


(42)
Content
: ‘X is characterized by the fact that X ‘has’ (contains) Y’


Cet été sera (très) {livre/cinéma/sport}.


(This summer will be (very) book/cinema/sport.)


‘This summer’s focus will be on {literature/film/sports}’




Peter
Lauwers

5.2. Categorial status: restrictions on
both sides

1
°

A full
-
fledged noun?


1.1.

N can only be completed by
adjectives
,
PPs
and
un
grounded
relative clauses

that yield


(i)
socio
-
culturally
well
-
established subtypes
of the type denoted by
the noun


(ii)
that, in combination with the noun, still satisfy the criterion of
stereotypical property association
.


(43) « vous avez été
très professeur
de morale
, M. le procureur
de la République ». (lit. 'very teacher of ethics')


(44) Un parfum à la fois chic, [...], et à la fois
très femme
qui
s'assume
.
(lit. 'a very woman
-
that
-
takes
-
responsibility
-
for
-
herself
-
like perfume')


1.2.
Adjectives

can never be anteposed
(with the 'resemblance
reading'):



(45)
*/#
Il est très piètre / bon professeur 'very bad / good
teacher'


Peter
Lauwers

2
°

A full
-
fledged adjective
?


2.1.

N' can only be preceded (and must be preceded) by a limited list
of degree adverb (
très
'very',
si
'so',
assez
'quite'
, un peu
'somewhat',
peu '
not very'), precluding other types of adverbs:


(46)
Ces costumes sont
relativement

{théâtraux / *théâtre}



'These costumes are relatively {theatrical / theatre}


(47) Il est
toujours

{pédant / */# professeur}


'He is always {pedantic / teacher}


Note that most of these adverbs can be combined with synonymous
adjectival expressions.


[
2.2.

AN do not take PP complements: *très professeur à + NP (vs
très utile à
+ NP).]


Peter
Lauwers


AP






A




N’






N
°

PP / Adj / ungr. relative clause

Adv

Peter
Lauwers

Syntax + Lexicalization


Degree Adverb
AN



(A)
subtype





(PP)
subtype





(ungrounded relative clause)
subtype

= basic syntactic template

+ additional 'adjectival' properties
< lexicalization


Lexicalization
:
vache, tarte, limite,
... [+ idiosyncratic semantic shifts]

-


anteposition of the AN:
*le très théâtre film

vs.
la très vache prof
('the very severe teacher'),

une vache bagarre
('a very tough
fight')

-


omission of the degree adverb:
le budget est limite
('the budget is
borderline')

-
other adverbs:
une prof relativement vache
'a relatively severe
teacher')

-
derivation of adverbs (
-
ly):
vache
-
ment; bête
-
ment

-
tendency towards agreement:
vos questions sont parfois très
tartes. (
'Your questions are sometimes very stupid')

Homonymy
:

un joueur très sport
('fairplay') vs
L'arrivee à l'aéroport est
assez sport

('sport
-
like')

Peter
Lauwers

Peter
Lauwers

6. Conclusions


forms with
mixed

morphological, semantic and syntactic properties with
regard to the traditional word classes



due to the
pressure

exerted by a
(
syntactic) construction
typical of
another word class

(=

mismatch, constructional override)



without specific morphological marking (unlike gerunds, infinitives, etc.)



[in CxG] a formalism based on a
specific

(shifting?) construction that
inherits features

from a default
target construction
, to capture both
restrictions and meaning effects, in order to prevent overgeneration.



This target construction serves a
model

(attraction)



the remaining gap to the target category can be bridged through a
gradient process of
lexicalization


Peter
Lauwers

References


Apothéloz, D., 2002. La construction du lexique français: principes de morphologie dérivationnelle. Ophrys, Gap.


Bally, Ch., 19442. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Francke, Bern.


Borer, H. & Roy, I. 2010. “The name of the adjective”. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (eds).
Adjectives.
Formal analyses in syntax and semantics
. 85
-
114.


Bresnan, J., 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In: M. Butt, T. Holloway King, Proceedings of the
LFG97 Conference.
CSLI publications.


Corbin, D., 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Niemeyer, Tübingen.


Corbin, D., Corbin, P., 1991. Un traitement unifié du suffixe

er(e
). Lexique 10, 61
-
145.


Corblin, F., 1995. Les formes de reprise dans le discours. Anaphores et chaînes de référence. Presses universitaires de
Rennes, Rennes.


Corblin, F., 1999. Les références mentionnelles: le premier, le dernier, celui
-
ci. In: A. Mettouchi, H. Quintin (eds), La
référence. Statut et processus. Travaux linguistiques du CERLICO. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, pp. 107
-
123.


Corblin, F., Marandin, J.
-
M., Sleeman, P. 2004.
Nounless determiners, In: Handbook of French Semantics, CSLI
Publications, pp. 23
-
41.


Cori, M., Marandin, J.
-
M., 1997. Un calcul de préférence en syntaxe. Revue Internationale de Systémique 11, 49
-
67.


Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., 1993. Construction grammar coursebook.
Unpublished ms., Department of Linguistics, University
of California, Berkeley.


Fradin, B., 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. P.U.F., Paris.


Francis, E.J., 1999.
Variation within lexical categories. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. [UMI Dissertation Abstracts]


Francis, E.J., Michaelis, L.A., 2004. Mismatch. Form
-
Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. CSLI
Publications, Stanford.


Fried, M., Östman, J.
-
O., 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In: M. Fried, Östman, J.O. (eds),
Construction Grammar in a Cross
-
Language Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 11
-
86.



Folia Linguistica

(2008) “
The nominalization of adjectives in French: from morphological
conversion to categorial mismatch”, p. 135
-
176.

Word

(f.c.) "
Copular constructions and adjectival uses of bare nouns in French: a case of
syntactic recategorization?

"

Peter
Lauwers


Goodman, N., 1951. The structure of appearance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.


Kerleroux, F., 1996. La coupure invisible. Etudes de syntaxe et de morphologie. Presses universitaires du
Septentrion, Paris.


Kerleroux, F., 2000. Identification d’un procédé morphologique: la conversion. Faits de Langue 14, 89
-
100.


Kester, E.
-
P. 1996.
The Nature of Adjectival Inflection. PhD Dissertation, University of Utrecht.


Kleiber, G., 1992. À propos de du Mozart: une énigme référentielle. In: G. Gréciano, G. Kleiber (eds), Systèmes
interactifs. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean David.
Klincksieck, Metz et Paris, pp. 241
-
256.




Koch, P., Krefeld, T., 1993. Gibt es Translationen?. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 109, 149
-
166.


Lambertz, T., 1995.
Translation et dépendance. In: F. Madray
-
Lesigne, J. Richard
-
Zappella (eds), Lucien Tesnière
aujourd'hui, Peeters, Louvain/Paris, pp. 221
-
228.


Leeman, D., 1998.
C’est du joli

!

Remarques sur un emploi d’adjectif dit «

substantivé

». In: A.Boone, D. Leeman
(eds), Du percevoir au dire. Hommages à André Joly. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp.

221
-
234.


Lieber, R., 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. CUP, Cambridge.


Marandin, J.
-
M., 1997. Pas d’entité sans identité”: l’analyse des groupes nominaux DET + A. In: B. Fradin, J.
-
M.
Marandin (eds), Mot et grammaires.
Didier Erudition, Paris, pp. 129
-
164.


Michaelis, L.A., 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In: H. Cuyckens


R. Dirven, J.R.
Taylor (eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163
-
209.


Milner, J.
-
Cl., 1989.
Introduction à une science du langage.
Seuil, Paris.


Newmeyer, F., 2004. Theoretical Implications of Grammatical Category


Grammatical Relation Mismatches. In:
Francis, E.J., Michaelis, L.A (eds), Mismatch. Form
-
Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar.
CSLI
Publications, Stanford, pp. 149
-
178.


Peter
Lauwers


Nyrop, K., 1908. Grammaire historique de la langue française.
T.III. Gyldendal, Copenhague.


Olsen, S., 1988. Das «

substantivierte

» Adjektiv im Deutschen und Englischen: Attribuierung vs. syntaktische
«

Substantivierung

». Folia Linguistica 22, 337
-
372.


Pustejovsky, J., 1995. The generative lexicon. MIT press, Cambridge, MA.




Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., 1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy.
Journal of Semantics 12(2), 133
-
162.


Rey
-
Debove, J., 1997. Le métalangage. Etude linguistique du discours sur le langage. Colin, Paris.


Riegel, M., 1985. L’adjectif attribut. P.U.F, Paris.


Riegel, M., Pellat, Chr., Rioul, R., 1994. Grammaire méthodique du français. P.U.F, Paris.


Sleeman, P. 1996. Licensing Empty Nouns in French. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.


Spencer, A. 2005. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’. In Orgun & Sells (eds.) Morphology and the Web of
Grammar. CSLI, 95

138.


Tesnière, L., 1959. Elements de linguistique structurale. Klincksieck, Paris.


Villalba, X. 2009. “Definite Adjective Nominalizations in Spanish”. In: M.T. Espinal, M. Leonetti & L. McNally
(eds.),


Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop
“Definiteness


and


DP


Structure


in


Romance


Languages”.


Arbeitspapier



124. Fachbereich
Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 139
-
153.


Villalba, X & Bartra
-
Kaufmann, A. 2009.
"Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner phrase”.
Lingua
120.4:
819
-
849.


Werner, E., 1993. Translationstheorie und Dependenzmodell. Kritik und Reinterpretation des Ansatzes von Lucien
Tesnière. Francke, Tübingen.


Wilmet, M., 2003. Grammaire critique du français. Duculot, Louvain
-
la
-
Neuve.


Winther, A., 1982. Un cas de dérivation non
-
affixale: la substantivation des adjectifs en français. Folia linguistica
16, 345
-
364.


Winther, A., 1996. Un petit point de morpho
-
syntaxe: la formation des adjectifs substantivés en français.
L’information grammaticale 68, 42
-
46.