Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-mdtzd Total loading time: 0.497 Render date: 2021-10-24T02:14:34.716Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

9 - Linearization When Multiple Orderings Are Possible: Adjective Ordering Restrictions and Focus

from III - Linearization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2019

Mónica Cabrera
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, California
José Camacho
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

A common observation in the literature is that unmarked or canonical readings of certain syntactic objects have different linearization requirements from marked, or focused, constituents of the same syntactic objects. Using the linear ordering of prenominal adjectives in English as a case study of marked and unmarked constituent orderings, I seek a deeper explanation for the underpinnings of linear ordering based on the hypothesis that the structural complexity of some specifier is the same as that of its sister, leading to a functional hierarchy of projections for adjectives that parallels that of noun phrases (Prinzhorn, 1996, as cited in Vergnaud, 2014a). I propose that dimensional adjectives are syntactically more complex than absolute adjectives along the semantic dimension of intersectivity, which derives the linear ordering observed. Second, once that hierarchy is established, putting narrow focus on an adjective permits multiple linear orderings, typically accounted for by movement of an adjective phrase to the Specifier position of a focus phrase (Laenzlinger, 2005; Scott, 2002; Svenonius, 2008; etc.).

Type
Chapter
Information
Exploring Interfaces , pp. 232 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Baker, M. (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373415.Google Scholar
Baker, M.(1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. & Vennemann, T. (1972). The Grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 20, 1932.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). In name only. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. & Picallo, C. (1996). Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DPs. Journal of Linguistics, 32(2), 349–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botha, R. (1983). Morphological mechanisms. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L., & Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths towards Universal Grammar: essays in honor of Richard Kayne. Georgetown University Press, pp. 85110.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.(2010). The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. (1977). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B., ed., Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–92.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 353–80.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2000). Locality and extended projection. In Coopmans, P., Everaert, M., & Grimshaw, J., eds., Lexical specification and lexical insertion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–33.Google Scholar
Gulli, N. (2003). Reduplication in syntax (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate Center, City University of New York.
Halle, M. (2008). Reduplication. In Freidin, R., Otero, C, & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 325–58.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–94.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.(2007). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. & McNally, L.(2010). Color, context and compositionality. Synthese, 174(1), 7998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(4), 811–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laenzlinger, C. (2005). French adjective ordering: perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua, 115, 645–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. (with Cedric Boeckx). (2005). A course in minimalist syntax: foundations and prospects. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Li, Y. A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 693702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, W. W. R. (2011). The symmetry of syntactic relations (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California–Los Angeles.
Liao, W. W. R. & Vergnaud, J. R. (2010). Phases and DPs. Paper presented at Glow in Asia, 8. Beijing Language and Cultural University, 12–14 Aug.
Liao, W. W. R. & Vergnaud, J. R.(2014). On Merge-markers and nominal structures. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Primitive elements of grammatical theory: papers by Jean-Roger Vergnaud and his collaborators. New York: Routledge, pp. 237–74.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Ms., Cambridge, MA: MIT.
McKinney-Bock, K. (2009). Adjective ordering restrictions: exploring relevant semantic notions for syntactic ordering. In Hogue, Alan & Schertz, Jessamyn, eds., Proceedings of Arizona Linguistics Circle 3. University of Arizona: Linguistics Department, pp. 116.Google Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K.(2013a). Building phrase structure from Items and Contexts (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
McKinney-Bock, K.(2013b). An argument for interval semantics of gradable adjectives. In Keine, S. & Sloggett, S., eds., Proceedings of NELS 42, vol. II. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, www.createspace.com/4280290.Google Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K. & Pancheva, R. in press. Why is Attributive heavy Distributive? Ms. Oregon Health and Science University and University of Southern California.
McKinney-Bock, K. & Vergnaud, J. R. (2010). Grafts and beyond. Paper presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW), 33. University of Wroclaw, Poland, 14–16 April.
McKinney-Bock, K. & Vergnaud, J. R.(2014). Grafts and beyond: Graph Theoretic Syntax. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Primitive elements of grammatical theory: papers by Jean-Roger Vergnaud and his collaborators. New York: Routledge, pp. 207–36.Google Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2014). Introduction. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Primitive elements of grammatical theory: papers by Jean-Roger Vergnaud and his collaborators. New York: Routledge, pp. 130.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. J. (2002). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of Nominal Phrases. In Cinque, G., ed., Functional structure in DP and IP: the cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford University Press, pp. 91116.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (2005). Division of labor between Merge and Move: strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. LingBuzz 000163. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000163.
Svenonius, P. (2008). The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of DP. In McNally, L. & Kennedy, C., eds., Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics, and discourse. Oxford University Press, pp. 1642.Google Scholar
Toledo, A. & Sassoon, G. (2011). Absolute vs. relative adjectives: variance within vs. between individuals. Proceedings of SALT, 21, 135–54. Retrieved from https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/88.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. (2009). Attributive adjectives and nominal templates. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(3), 525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R. (2011). Vagueness and linguistics. In Ronzitti, G., ed., Vagueness: a guide. New York: Springer, pp. 123–70.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J. R. (2009). A note on Q, relators and syntax. Ms., University of Southern California–Los Angeles.
Vergnaud, J. R.(2014a). Some explanatory avatars of conceptual necessity: elements of UG. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Primitive elements of grammatical theory: papers by Jean-Roger Vergnaud and his collaborators. New York: Routledge, pp. 123206.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J. R.(2014b). On a certain notion of occurrence: the source of metrical structure and much more. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Primitive elements of grammatical theory: papers by Jean-Roger Vergnaud and his collaborators. New York: Routledge, pp. 6191.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J. R. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2001). Derivation and constituent structure. Ms., University of Southern California.
Vergnaud, J. R. & Zubizarreta, M. L.(2005). The representation of Focus and its implications: towards an alternative account of some intervention effects. In Corver, H. N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., & Koster, J., eds., Organizing grammar: linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 641–60.Google Scholar
von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (2001). Intervention effects in the French wh-in-situ construction: syntax or interpretation? LSRL XXXI / University of Illinois at Chicago / April 19–22, 2001. In Nuñez-Cedeño, R., López, L., & Cameron, R., eds., A Romance perspective in language knowledge and use: selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 359–80.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×