Granularity shifting: Experimental evidence from degree modifiers

Sassoon, Galit W.; Zevakhina, Natalia

doi:10.3765/salt.v0i0.2639

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I name accomplishments such as (10) and (11) non‐maximal accomplishments . In Section , adopting Sassoon and Zevakhina's () analysis of maximizers such as whole or complete(ly) in terms of granularity shift, I argue that this use of accomplishments is an artefact of the non‐maximal use of the (in‐)definite description that introduces the incremental theme (Kennedy & Levin, , p. 164; Martin et al, forthcoming). Relatedly, I argue that non‐maximal accomplishments entail CUL( e , P tel ) relative to a coarse granularity level g , although not relative to a finer granularity level g p .…”

Section: Non‐maximal Accomplishmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For others such as for instance Burnett (2012), non-maximal definite descriptions display the core properties of vague language. Still another option is the analysis in terms of granularity shift developed by Sassoon and Zevakhina (2012) in the adjectival domain that one could extend to the DP domain as follows. Unmodified DPs such as the N and a N are interpreted relative to a coarse granularity level g. For instance, when using statements such as Peter ate the pizza, it is normally appropriate to ignore some subpart of the pizza for the predication.…”

Section: Source Of the Non-maximal Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐culminating accomplishments

Martin

2019

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on non‐culminating accomplishments and distinguishes them from accomplishments used atelically. It delineates two different sources of event culmination denials after non‐progressive accomplishment sentences, namely, the perfective or a modal operator encoded in the VP. Furthermore, it argues that non‐culminating accomplishments also differ from non‐maximal accomplishments, which entail event culmination relative to a coarse granularity level, but allow culmination denials relative to a finer granularity level, via the non‐maximal use of the (in‐)definite description used to introduce the incremental theme argument.

show abstract

Section: Non‐maximal Accomplishmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Source Of the Non-maximal Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐culminating accomplishments

Martin

2019

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I would like to argue that this is related to the fact that, although maximality modifiers have a semantic effect (cf. Sassoon and Zevakhina 2013), their use has the side effect of decreasing the amount of imprecision allowed in the context. Consequently, the number of possible exceptions is reduced, making exceptives slightly less felicitous than when no maximizer is present.…”

Section: Maximality Modification In the Verbal Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjectives of completeness as maximizers of event nominalizations

Masià

2017

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Aspectual modifiers that have adverbial and adjectival counterparts are an important source of information for researching lexical aspect in the nominal domain. One class of such modifiers are adverbs of completeness (completamente 'completely', totalmente 'totally'), which are maximizers when modify adjectives, and their correspondent adjectives (completo 'complete', total 'total'). This paper addresses the inheritance of aspectual features and its relation to degree in event nominalizations of incremental theme verbs (traduccción 'translation', destrucción 'destruction') through the analysis of the modification performed by adjectives of completeness in Spanish. The proposal combines a syntactic account of deverbal nominalizations with a scalar approach to aspect. Adjectives of completeness are argued to be aspectual modifiers, with a contribution equivalent to that of their adverbial counterparts both in the verbal and in the adjectival domain, establishing thus a parallelism between degree modification of adjectives, verbs and nominals.Keywords. Adjectives of completeness; aspectual inheritance; nominalizations; incremental theme verbs; variable telicity; degree modification; maximizers.RESUMEN. Los modificadores aspectuales que tienen versiones adverbiales y adjetivales constituyen una importante fuente de información a la hora de investigar el aspecto léxico en el ámbito nominal. Los adverbios de completitud (completamente, totalmente), que son modificadores de maximalidad cuando modifican adjetivos, y sus correlatos adjetivales (completo, total) son modificadores de este tipo. Este artículo aborda la herencia de rasgos aspectuales y su relación con los grados en las nominalizaciones de evento de los verbos de tema incremental (traducción, destrucción) a través del análisis de la modificación por parte de los adjetivos de completitud en español. La propuesta combina un acercamiento constructivista a las nominalizaciones deverbales con un análisis escalar del aspecto. En concreto, se defiende que los adjetivos de completitud son modificadores aspectuales que tienen una contribución equivalente a la de sus correlatos adverbiales, tanto en el ámbito verbal como en el adjetival. Se establece así un paralelismo entre la modificación de grado de adjetivos, verbos y nombres.

show abstract

“…Various authors have offered different perspectives on the proper treatment of pragmatic halos and their size (i.a. Krifka 2006, Lauer 2012, Sassoon & Zevakhina 2012). In the present paper, we follow Morzycki's (2011) proposal to recast halos as a set of denotations that bear a contextually determined degree of resemblance to the denotation of the linguistic form they apply to.…”

Section: Expanding Halos: a Semantics For Hedging Likementioning

confidence: 99%

Marking imprecision, conveying surprise:Likebetween hedging and mirativity

Beltrama

Hanink

2018

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mirative expressions, which mark surprising information (DeLancey 1997), are often expressed through linguistic forms that are also used to encode other, seemingly unrelated, meanings -e.g. evidential markers that mark lack of direct evidence (Turkish: Slobin among others). In this paper, we show that the English particle like features a parallel polysemy between a mirative use and its better-known hedging use, which expresses weakened commitment to the strict denotation of a linguistic expression. After presenting several diagnostics that point to a genuine empirical difference between the hedging and mirative functions of like, we propose that both uses widen the size of a contextually restricted set, admitting elements that were previously excluded. More specifically, hedging like expands the set of 'similar enough' interpretations that we can apply to a linguistic expression in a context, including interpretations that we would normally consider to be too different from the context at hand. Mirative like, on the other hand, expands the set of worlds that we are willing to consider as candidates for the actual world in the conversation, resulting in the inclusion of worlds that interlocutors have previously ruled out due to perceived outlandishness. We therefore suggest that the two uses are best treated as sharing a common semantic kernel, deriving hedging and mirativity as effects of the particular type of object to which like applies.

show abstract

Granularity shifting: Experimental evidence from degree modifiers

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Non‐culminating accomplishments

Non‐culminating accomplishments

Adjectives of completeness as maximizers of event nominalizations

Marking imprecision, conveying surprise:Likebetween hedging and mirativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About