Degree Operators and Scope

Heim, Irene

doi:10.3765/salt.v10i0.3102

Cited by 282 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The norm determines how many dimensions are required for classification (e.g., all, most or some). Such an account conforms to conventional assumptions of the standard framework for the analysis of gradability (Cresswell 1976;von Stechow 1984;Kennedy 1999;Heim 2000;Hackl 2001;Kennedy & McNally 2005;Fox & Hackl 2006;Schwarzschild 2008;Rett 2008;Solt 2009;Beck 2011;Wellwood et al 2012). In this framework, a gradable adjective like tall usually denotes the relation in (35a) To model multidimensionality, assume that the relation dimension of associates each predicate (e.g., bird, healthy, similar), in each context, with a set of one or more predicatesits contextual dimensions (e.g., has a beak, healthy with respect to the flu, similar in shape).…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

“…In most current literature, all or most nouns (Kennedy 1999;Baker 2003;Morzycki 2009;de Vries 2010) are analyzed as denoting non-gradable properties (type <e,t>), while most adjectives are analyzed as denoting gradable properties (e.g., relations between entities and degrees, type <d,<e,t>> ;Cresswell 1976;von Stechow 1984;Heim 2000;Beck 2011). Thus, nouns are hypothesized not to license degree modification (e.g., comparative forms), because they do not have a degree argument (Kennedy 1999;Baker 2003).…”

Section: Quantification In Degree Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of dimensions in classification under predicates predicts their status in degree constructions

Sassoon

Fadlon

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an experimental study of multidimensional gradability across categories. The study tests whether and to what extent the naturalness of multidimensional adjectives and nouns in degree constructions is predictable from their conceptual-semantic properties -the way their dimensions are typically bound to create a unified interpretation. Past research suggests that binding by counting operations is common in multidimensional adjectives, possible in certain nouns (labeled additive nouns), and rare in others (dubbed multiplicative nouns; Hampton et al. 2009). We hypothesize that the higher naturalness of adjectives in degree constructions (Kennedy 1999) stems from a preference for dimension-binding by counting operations. Accordingly, we predict that additive nouns would be judged more natural than multiplicative nouns in any construction whose interpretation involves dimension-counting, e.g., dimensional quantifiers (as in: in {some, most, every} respect}) and degree modifiers (as in more P {than y, than Q, than y is Q}). The results of a naturalness survey involving 139 English speakers confirm our predictions. Moreover, our results indicate that the naturalness of a predicate in degree constructions and dimensional-quantifier constructions are tightly correlated, suggesting that dimension accessibility for counting is indeed an important predictor of morphological gradability.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Quantification In Degree Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of dimensions in classification under predicates predicts their status in degree constructions

Sassoon

Fadlon

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, it cannot outscope quantificational DPs and negation (Kennedy 1997, Heim 2000, Beck 2012, Romero 2015. To see this, notice that, if POS were allowed to scope over the quantifier, as in (44), we would predict that (43) has the reading in (45) (where s tall represents the contextual standard for tallness).…”

Section: Semantics Of Gradable Adjectives: Degrees and Posmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability and implicatures: A unified account of the scalar effects of disjunction under modals

Santorio

Romoli

2017

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Another domain where such a mismatch has been observed is comparative constructions: degree phrases have been argued to undergo covert extraposition in order to achieve the proper scope configuration (see e.g. Heim 2000).…”

Section: * Imperative Ke 2 -+ Unergative Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unaccusativity and the syntax of imperatives in East Circassian

Ershova

2017

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents novel evidence for the syntactic distinction between unergative and unaccusative verbs in East Circassian (or Kabardian). The evidence concerns a particular strategy of forming imperatives -simultaneous causativization and reflexivization -which is only applicable to unaccusative predicates. I argue that this type of imperative involves the promotion of the internal argument to the a higher position through the use of the causative morpheme which has been grammaticalized to mark imperative mood. The observed patterns suggest that imperative mood, while generally associated with the CP-layer, must be sensitive to the structure of vP.

show abstract

Degree Operators and Scope

Abstract: n/a

Cited by 282 publications

References 9 publications

The role of dimensions in classification under predicates predicts their status in degree constructions

The role of dimensions in classification under predicates predicts their status in degree constructions

Probability and implicatures: A unified account of the scalar effects of disjunction under modals

Unaccusativity and the syntax of imperatives in East Circassian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About