sign in sign up
<<
Home , Nominalization, Nominal (linguistics)

ENCODING PROPERTIES: THE CASE OF ENGLISH 'NOMINALIZED'

Artemis Alexiadou University of Stuttgart artemis@ifla.uni-stuttgart.de

June 29, 2015

2

Tw o types of 'nominalized' adjectives in English

• Consider the contrast between (1) and (2):

(1) The pretty are expected to achieve. (2) The pretty is boring. Glass (2013)

• The two forms are semantically distinct: • (1) could be paraphrased as + people (predominantly generic interpretation) • (2) could be paraphrased as adjective + ness or other nominalizing

• Following Glass (2013), I will refer to (1) as the individuated type and to (2) as the mass type. 3

Not today: other types of de-adjectival

(3) The goodmass vs. The goodness

• Basic intuition: the good refers to the abstract entity, while the goodness is attributed to people or things. (4) a. The good is hard to find. b. The goodness of John is striking.

• They are not interchangeable: (5) Goodness is a great virtue/*The good is a great virtue.

• Villalba (2009): The goodmass refers to kinds of properties, goodness refers to kinds of qualities. 4

Adjectives as : a comparative perspective

• The use of adjectives as nouns is a productive phenomenon cross-linguistically, see also Borer & Roy (2010).

• In e.g. German (and Greek), individuated vs. mass forms are also morphologically distinct:

(6) Die Guten werden siegen. Plural the good-pl will win

(7) der Strich, der das Gute vom Bösen trennt... Singular, Neuter the line that the good from bad divides 5

Adjectives as nouns: a comparative perspective

• In , a Bantu language spoken in South Uganda, individuated de-adjectival nouns are formed with class 1/2 affixes, while mass ones are formed with class 14 affixes, Ferrari (2005):

(8) mu-gezi 'clever people' > gezi = clever

(9) bu-bi 'evil' > bi = bad 6

Adjectives as nouns: a diachronic perspective

• The two types were morphologically distinct in earlier stages of English as well, see e.g. Mustanoja (1960), Hewson (1972), Allen (2010) among others.

• (10-11) are examples from Middle English, from Aschenbrenner (2014: 167):

(10) ... Good and wikkednesse ben two contraries 'Good and evil are two contraries' (11) Þe gode are neuer Þe wors to preise 'the good are never the worse to praise'

7

Issues to be addressed

1. What are the properties of these two types of nominalized adjectives in Present Day English (PDE)?

2. What are the meaning differences between these two types?

3. Why do languages use nominalized adjectives next to nouns to refer to individuals and/or abstract objects? How do adjectives become nouns (or do they)? 4. Why do we have plural in (1), in the absence of plural morphology?

5. How can the historical development of the two types as well as a comparison with e.g. German and Greek help us understand the PDE behavior? 8

Roadmap

• The properties of individuated vs. mass nominalized adjectives

• To w a r d s an analysis

• Building individuated and mass readings

• Language change

• Conclusion

• Some further issues 9

The properties of individuated vs. mass: Glass (2013) 10

Some differences between individuated and mass

• Count vs. Mass :

(12) To o many rich/few rich are unwilling to share. individuated (13) To o much sweet is bad for you. mass

• Individuated type marginally ok with plural morphology, see also Smith (2005):

(14) to be down with the youngs..

11

Some similarities between individuated and mass

• Both accept adjectival modifiers: (15) The very rich have been pulling away from the pretty rich. (16) The very spicy is extremely nutritious.

• Both can have comparative and superlative forms: (17) the cheapest of the cheap... (18) Vertical discrimination discriminates between the higher and the lower..

• In sum, both types show mixed nominal-adjectival properties; type (1) behaves like a count , while type (2) like a .

12

To w a r d s an analysis

• Tw o families of approaches, which mostly focus on type (1) in individual languages, the mass one being mentioned in passing (see also Marchand (1969) and Aschenbrenner's (2014) recent comprehensive overview of the English and German literature on this topic):

• The cases at hand involve: 1. /substantivization of an adjective, see e.g. Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999), Glass (2013), without considering their internal nominal structure, but cf. Sleeman (2013) for Dutch. 2. True attributive adjectives which modify a null N (related to Pullum's (1975) notion of people-deletion, similar to cases of ellipsis in e.g. Lobeck 1995, see Kester 1996, McNally & de Swart 2014, cf. den Dikken 2001, Borer & Roy 2010).

13

Attributive adjectives modifying pro

• Kester (1996), den Dikken (2001), Borer & Roy (2010), McNally & de Swart (2014):

(19) DP pro1 [+human, +generic, + plural] individuated

3the FP pro2 [-human, +mass] mass

3AP NP rich pro

14

Arguments against pro

• In Kester's analysis, and those following her, pro1 is inherently specified as human. • But:

(20) New Swarm Theory: The Weak Can Lead the Strong [topic: insects]

(21) Latest shiny thing, new tech, doesn't matter. If you don't have a goal serving both creator and user, attention is misguided. However, the shiny are distracting for a reason. [shiny devices]

Glass (2013) 15

Arguments against ellipsis

• Difference in interpretation, see Quirk & al. (1985), Aschenbrenner (2014): no generic interpretation when N is present; note that the stirng in (22b) is ambiguous between a restrictive and a non-restrictive interpretation for the A.

(22) a. the clever b. the clever people

• Especially for the mass reading, it is often difficult to think of an appropriate noun that could have been elided:

(23) the evil [principle] (?) 16

Arguments against ellipsis

• Evidence from Dutch (Sleeman 2013): the affix –e • Participles ending in -en attributive position cannot bear –e; however, in the individuated reading they appear with –e:

(24) a. de verlaten(*e) echtgenote the abandoned spouse b. de verlatene the abandoned

• Evidence from Greek and German: the mass reading is invariably neuter suggesting nominalization. 17

Arguments in favor of nominalization

• Presence of plural morphology on type (1), e.g. the youngs, points to nominalization; see also Smith's (2005) findings on the basis of BNC corpus data (e.g. the crazies, the faithfuls).

• The historical development of (1) and (2) also suggests nominalization, presence of plural vs. singular morphology in earlier stages.

18

Arguments in favor of nominalization

• In e.g. German (and earlier English), a wider range of determiners (indefinite, quantifiers) are possible, suggesting a nominal core and not an inherently specified pro.

(25) Ein Guter (26) jemand Guter a good some good

• Conclusion: both types involve adjectives that become nouns. 19

Building individuated and mass readings

(27) DP

the3 QuantityP

3ClassP (individuation)

+count3 nP

3DegreeP

3 aP

√good 3 Borer (2005): ClassP is the locus of plural morphology. 20

Building individuated and mass readings

• The structure in (27) explains • the presence of D and nominal properties (n, ClassP). • the modification and comparison (DegreeP, aP) data.

• (27) also accounts for the of the two types, as described by Glass (2013): • Adjectives denote properties. • Lexicalization of properties as nouns is common in other language families. • In English the rich denotes • A set of individuals instantiating the property (individuated) • The property itself, conceptualized as an abstract mass (mass)

21

Building individuated readings: ClassP

• Count vs. Mass: the difference in meaning between the two types arises via the presence vs. absence of ClassP:

(28) [DP [QuantityP [ClassP +count/IND [nP [DegP [aP [√rich ]]]]]]]

• Sharvy (1979), Krifka (1995), Borer (2005), Bale & Barner (2009), Alexiadou & Gengel (2012) and others: • All nouns enter the derivation as mass, and become count in the , via ClassP, which introduces Bale & Barner's (2009) IND function; IND gives individuated readings. 22

Lexicalization of properties

• Property concepts are lexicalized as adjectives in languages that have this category.

• English provides evidence that properties can be encoded as abstract mass substances, even without (overt) nominalizing morphology.

• In other words, property concepts can be encoded as adjectives or nouns.

• The latter strategy is common in other language families. 23

Lexicalization of properties

(29) a. Alberto pan-ka Alberto stick-KA ‘Alberto’s stick’ b. Yang as-ki-na minisih-ka. 1SING shirt-1SING dirty-KA ‘My shirt is dirty.’ (Ulwa, Koontz-Garboden & Francez 2010) • The data in (29a) show that –ka marks the third person singular form of the possessive relation. • The data in (29b), by contrast, show that –ka also appears on words naming “property concept states”. 24

Lexicalization of properties

• Property nouns which occur in possessed properties pattern with mass nouns, see Baglini (2013).

• English deadjectival nominals, as we saw, and Wolof possessed properties, as discussed in Baglini, can co-occur with degree modifiers. (30) Awa am na-∅ xel (lool) Awa have FN-3s wit (very)

• As is well known, nominals are not compatible with degree modifiers. • This supports the syntactic analysis offered here, according to which nominalization of an adjective/state is involved. 25

Lexicalization of properties

• Cross-linguistic variation in encoding of properties relates to the elements available in a language to lexicalize properties.

• Nominal morphosyntax is an alternative that is used productively across languages. 26

Building individuated readings: ClassP

• Question: if the individuated type is count, why is it necessarily plural, i.e. why is a singular interpretation not available? • In German and earlier English, such an interpretation is/was available: (31) a. der Gute 'the good-sg' b. The povere is bore as is the riche 'The poor person is born the same way as the rich person' Middle English, from Aschenbrenner (2014: 168) • Processes of language change come into play. 27

Language change: Allen's (2010) observation

• The (generic) plural type is the most common in all periods of English. It becomes the default. 28

Language change

• The loss of (gender and number) inflection leads to the disappearance of the singular individuated type.

• It is no longer possible in PDE to morphologically distinguish between the rich (people) as opposed to the rich (person), as is the case in German.

• The language chooses the default interpretation for the individuated type, i.e. plural (frequency effect?). 29

Language change

• Moreover, in PDE, overt plural on 'de-adjectival nouns' often gives rise to idiosyncratic interpertations, e.g. the goods, the roughs.

• Acquaviva (2008), and Alexiadou (2011) argue that this type of plural is a nominalizer.

• In German, all these three types are morphologically distinct

(the goodind/mass vs. the goods; der Gute vs. die Guten vs. die Güter). 30

Subject- Agreement

• S(ubject)-V Agreement involves Agreement between properties of ClassP and the predicate. • ClassP is + count (plural). • PDE preserves the default Middle English pattern of agreement, namely plural. • Singular vs. Plural verb agreement is the only way to disambiguate between individuated and abstract/mass interpretations in PDE. 31

Conclusion

(1) The pretty are expected to achieve. (2) The pretty is boring.

• While both (1) and (2) are de-adjectival nouns, their semantic and grammatical differences relate to the fact that (1) includes ClassP, while (2) does not.

• Two-way (individuated vs. mass) distinction in English as

opposed to three-way (individuatedpl/sg vs. mass) distinction in e.g. German due to loss of inflection to avoid ambiguity.

• Plural agreement in (1) reflects the default interpretation of type (1). 32

Conclusion

• The study of these two patterns provides evidence that

• Meaning is assembled in the syntax. • The building blocks of meaning involve the combination, via Merge, of functional elements, bearing distinct syntactic and semantic functions, with a category unspecified core ().

33

Some further issues

(1) The pretty are expected to achieve. i. (1) can have a kind interpretation.

• However, in PDE a kind interpretation is associated with bare plurals only, in contrast to German, where definite plurals can also have a kind interpretation, see e.g. Dayal (2004) for some cross-linguistic discussion. • Difference between singular kind vs. plural kind in languages that have both: plural kind denotes members of the species (Dayal 1992). 34

Some further issues

• Lyons (1999): plural definite generics are possible in English with a limited set of nouns, e.g. the Danes, the vertebrates. • Kaluza (1981): • definite + plural can be used for generic use only with some types of nouns, such as family names, nominalized adjectives, or names of nationality. • It often refers to personal entities and shows them as one homogenous part, e.g. the Stuarts, the poor, the Swiss.

• The analysis predicts that in Earlier English plural definite generics were possible. • Van Linden & Davidse (2012): plural definite generics in Late Modern English data: (2) But it is not only necessary that the flowers should keep their honey for the insects.... (1879) 35

Some further issues

• Generalization of zero (Epstein 1993):

• In Old English, the generic plural occurs with the definite article. • In Middle English, the articleless use gains ground steadily (Mustanoja 1960).

• What other properties does this correlate with? 36

Some further issues ii. (1) is count, but while other determiners such as some and your are possible, numerals are not:

(3) *Three rich came in.

• Numerals in English require overt plurality.

• As Borer (2005: 114) argues, in English cardinals other than one are plural taking, i.e. three boys, several meats etc. 37

References

Acquaviva, P. 2008. Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A. 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. Proceedings of WCCFL 28, 33-41. Alexiadou, A. 2014. Multiple determiners and the structure of DPs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & K. Gengel. 2012. NP ellipsis without focus movement/projections: the role of classifiers. In I. Kucerova & A. Neeleman (eds.) Contrasts and Positions in Information structure. Cambridge University Press, 177-205. Allen, C. 2010. Substantival adjectives in the history of English and the nature of syntactic change. In R. Hendere & J. Hendricks (eds) Grammatical Change: theory and description, Pacific Lingusitics, Canberra, 9-25. Aschenbrenner, A. 2014. Adjectives as nouns, mainly as attested in Boethius translations from Old to Modern English and in Modern German. Herbert Utz Verlag. Baglini, R. 2013. Property concepts in Wolof. Handout, ACAL 44. Bale, A. & D. Barner. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: using comparatives to explore the mass /count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26: 217-252. Borer, H. 2005. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. & I. Roy. 2010. The name of the adjective. In P. Cabredo Hoffher & O. Matushansky (eds.), Formal Approaches to Adjectives. John Benjamins. Dayal, V. 1992. The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics", Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory II: OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 40, pp. 39-58. Dayal, V. 2004. Number Marking and (In)definiteness in Kind Terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.4: 393-450. den Dikken, M. 2001. Pluringuals, and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19-41. Epstein, R. 1993. The later stage in the development of the definite article: evidecne from French. In 1993, ed. B´by H. Andersen, 159-176. John Benjamins. Ferrarri, F. 2005. A Syntactic Analysis of the Nominal Systems of Italian and Luganda: How Nouns Can Be Formed in the Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, NYU. Giannakidou, A., & Stavrou, M. 1999. Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP. The Linguistic Review , 16 ,295–331. Glass, L. 2013. Deriving the two readings of English + Adjective. Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 18. Halle, M. & A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of . In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds) The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 111-176. Hewson, J. 1972. Article and Noun in English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Jespersen, O. 1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard/London: George Allen & Unwin. Kaluza, H. 1981. The use of articles in contemporary English. Groos. Kayne, R. 1989. Notes on English agreement. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages Bulletin, 1, 41–67. Kester, E.-P. 1996. The nature of adjectival inflection. LOT Dissertation. 38

References

Koontz-Garboden, A. & I. Francez. 2010. Possessed properties in Ulwa. Natural Language Semantics, 18: 197-240. Krifka, M. 1995. Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of Chinese and English’. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 398–411 Lobeck, A. 1995. Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge University Press. Marchand, H. 1969. The categories and types of Present Day English word formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Beck'sche Verlangsbuhandlung. McNally, L. & H. de Swart. 2014. Reference to and via properties: the view from Dutch. Ms. Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Utrecht University. Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Pullum, G. 1975. People deletion in English. In Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University, 14: 95-101 Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the . London: Longman. Reid, W. 1991. Verb & Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London/New York: Longman. Sauerland, U. 2003. A new sematnics for Number. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13, 258–275. Sauerland, U. & P. Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33:2, 283-319 Sharvey, R. 1979. The indeterminacy of mass predication. In J. Pelletier (ed.), Mass Terms: Philosophical Problems. Synthese Language Library, 6. D. Reidel. Dordrecht. 47–54. Sleeman, P. 2013. Deadjectival human nouns: conversion, nominal ellipsis , or mixed categories. Linguistica 8: 159-180. Smith, C.A. 2005. La substantivation des adjectifs en anglais contemporain. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris IV-Sorbonne. Smith, P. 2012. Collective disagreement. Proceedings of Console XX, 229-253. 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 . Van Linden, A & K. Davidse. 2012. Subject accessibility and adjectival complementation. In Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, ed. By A. Meurman-Solin & al. 199-227. Oxford University Press. Visser, F. T. 1963. A historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.