11. Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions

Doetjes, Jenny; Rooryck, Johan

doi:10.1075/la.55.13doe

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the fem visit is a fem quite Perhaps unsurprisingly, this situation resembles that of epithet nouns, which also rule out a comparative reading. Doetjes & Rooryck (2001) specifically show that if N1 has lost its original lexical meaning, the binominal construction excludes a comparative reading. This is shown in (14).…”

Section: Small Clauses: Subject-predicate Structuresmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…the N preceding de or the N following de, respectively). Crucially, this choice is dependent on the amount of semantics associated with N1 (Doetjes & Rooryck 2001); consider (4), where the head/agreeing N is underlined:…”

Section: Phi-agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next section explores the possibility that, rather than a verbal functor, de is in fact a nominal functor. Doetjes & Rooryck (2001) The structure in (17) is appealing given the presence of an adverbial Evaluative head (à la Cinque 1999) and the potential of AF quite as an adverb. In particular, since in AF quite lacks both nominal and predicative properties and is derived from the English [ Adv quite], its status as an adverbial Evaluative head seems straightforward.…”

Section: Small Clauses: Subject-predicate Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Epithet nouns are instances of binominal constructions of the (Det) N1 de N2 type, of which French instantiates several types, see (2), on par with Romance more generally (cf. Cornilescu & Giurgea 2013, den Dikken 1998, Doetjes & Rooryck 2001, Español-Echevarría 1996, Hulk & Tellier 2000, Kayne 1975, 1994, Milner 1978, Tănase-Dogaru 2013 Drescher (2009). As both are semantically evaluative, it looks like AF has replaced the epithet N construction with the quite de construction.…”

Section: Introducing Quite De and Binominal Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

‘Quite’ in Acadian French: A variety of Scalar Focus

Alboiu

King

2016

isogloss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the properties of the quite de construction in the Baie SainteMarie, Nova Scotia variety of Acadian French in examples such as le/un quite de souper 'quite the/a supper' which have a hyperbolic connotation. Unlike epithet nouns and other French binominals (and Romance more generally), we argue that this Acadian French construction contains a complex DP with a unique N with an expanded left nominal periphery (cf. Giusti 2005Giusti , 2006Giusti , 2012. In order to unify its syntactic and semantic properties, we propose an analysis where [ Adv quite] is a scalar Focus head (following Kayne's 1998 treatment of scalar only), with a null M(easurement) Op(erator) (Rett 2008(Rett , 2011 in its specifier. This M-OP is associated with a degree argument (i.e. N) bound by existential closure, which forces its linearization within the predicate domain (cf. Diesing 1992). Lastly, we show that de in the AF 'quite de' construction cannot be construed as a linker (pace den Dikken 2004Dikken , 2006 or as a P category (pace Kayne 1994), but it is best analysed as a nominal functor (cf. Ihsane 2013) at the Comp-Infl interface whose role is to recategorize a referential DP into a property denoting DP.

show abstract

Section: Small Clauses: Subject-predicate Structuresmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Phi-agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Small Clauses: Subject-predicate Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introducing Quite De and Binominal Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

‘Quite’ in Acadian French: A variety of Scalar Focus

Alboiu

King

2016

isogloss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Un autre facteur qui est lié sémantiquement au facteur d'autonomie référentielle, qui intervient dans l'(im)possibilité de passivation, concerne le type d'objet. Si, comme en (9c), l'objet désigne une propriété inaliénable du réfèrent du sujet, le passif n'est pas admis (Keenan 1975, Doetjes et Rooryck 2003 (14) et (15). (14) a. Ce dîner m'a coûté les yeux de la tête.…”

Section: Propriétés Syntaxiques Et Sémantiquesunclassified