Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:53:29.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attributive adjectives, infinitival relatives, and the semantics of inappropriateness1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2011

NICHOLAS FLEISHER
NICHOLAS FLEISHER*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Wayne State University
*
Author's address: Linguistics Program, Department of English, Wayne State University, 5057 Woodward, Detroit, MI 48202, USAfleisher@wayne.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I investigate the syntax and semantics of a previously unexamined English adjective construction, exemplified by sentences like Middlemarch is a long book to assign. The construction, which I call the nominal attributive-with-infinitive construction (nominal AIC), is of interest for the semantics of gradability and modality. I argue that the major interpretive characteristic of the nominal AIC – the interpretation of inappropriateness associated with it – arises from the interaction between the positive degree operator associated with the gradable adjective and the modality of the infinitival relative clause, which contributes to the computation of the standard of comparison. Nominal AICs are compared and contrasted with a surface-identical construction I call the clausal AIC, with attributive too, and with attributive comparatives; they are shown to exhibit major syntactic and semantic differences from all of these. The paper serves both as a contribution to the semantic literature on gradability and as a contribution to the descriptive grammar of English, as it is, to the best of my knowledge, the first systematic description and analysis of the nominal AIC.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 341 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

My thanks to the editor and to two anonymous JL referees, whose comments have led to major improvements to the paper. I likewise thank Chris Barker, Andrew Garrett, Irene Heim, Chris Kennedy, Line Mikkelsen, and Alan Timberlake for valuable discussion and comments on earlier drafts, as well as audiences at UC Berkeley, Wayne State University, NELS 38 (Ottawa), and the LSA annual meetings in 2007 (Anaheim) and 2008 (Chicago) for helpful feedback. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1974a. Adjectives and adjective complement constructions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. [Report NSF-29]Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene. 1974b. Infinitival relative constructions. The Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 10), 37–46. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275–343.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1, 25–74.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53, 520–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Partee, Barbara H. (ed.), Montague Grammar, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1998. Easy clauses to mistake as relatives: The syntax of English postnominal infinitives. In Gelderen, Elly van & Samiian, Vida (eds.), The Twenty-seventh Western Conference on Linguistics, vol. 10, 108–119. Fresno, CA: California State University.Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff. 2000. Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics 28, 45–81. [Originally published under the name Delia Graff.]Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2009. Positive standards of comparison. In Schardl, Anisa, Walkow, Martin & Abdurrahman, Muhammad (eds.), 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 38), vol. 1, 283–296. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Dan & Nerbonne, John. 1992. Inheritance and complementation: A case study of easy adjectives and related nouns. Computational Linguistics 18, 269–309.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin & Nissenbaum, Jon. 2003. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Ms., Pomona College & McGill University.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars. 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14, 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1991. Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise, McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81, 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Merchant, Jason. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H.-J. & Rieser, H. (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Stechow, Arnim von & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, 639–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, Mark & Justice, David. 1974. Young to be riding. In Fillmore, Charles, Lakoff, George & Lakoff, Robin (eds.), Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, vol. I, XX-1–XX-16. Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of WH-constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger & Wilkinson, Karina. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1976. Capturing the adjective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stechow, Arnim von. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3, 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Duncan, Erin, Farkas, Donka & Spaelti, Philip (eds.), The Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 12), 439–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter & Kennedy, Christopher. 2006. Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 133–161. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar