Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events

Wellwood, Alexis; Hacquard, Valentine; Pancheva, Roumyana

doi:10.1093/jos/ffr006

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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: 61%

“…A link between comparison and counting has been created in the literature on quantity words such as many and much and their derived comparative more (Hackl 2001;Schwarzschild 2002;Solt 2009;Wellwood et al 2012;Wellwood 2015); e.g., more boys than girls arrived directly relates to the cardinality of the arguments' sets (arriving boys and girls), but so is also John smokes more, which relates to cardinalities of events, and arguably more optimistic, which relates to dimension-set cardinalities.…”

Section: Spearman's Rho Every Most Somementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neeleman, van de Koot & Doetjes (2004) and Doetjes (2008) consider the hypothesis that, e.g., intensifiers like very, which are restricted to the adjectival domain, are syntactic heads that select for an adjective, while similar intensifiers in other languages, which apply across lexical categories, are adjuncts. Within-predicate comparisons do license different lexical categories (Wellwood et al 2012;Wellwood 2014).…”

Section: A Closer Look At Specific Constructions: Conceptual Vs Syntmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: 61%

Section: Spearman's Rho Every Most Somementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Closer Look At Specific Constructions: Conceptual Vs Syntmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Solt (2015) departs from Wellwood, Hacquard & Pancheva (2012) and Wellwood (2015) in attributing this more general meaning not to much directly, but to a covert operator she terms meas. Data like the examples in (25) indicate that the analysis of kaθīr constructions as involving an underspecified degree relation is appropriate for Arabic as well, and I follow Solt in attributing the meaning in question to covert meas.…”

Section: Quantity Superlative + Definite Dependentmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Cresti (1995) and Hackl (2009) analyse many/much as a relation between an individual and a degree that measures out the cardinality of the individual. However, Wellwood, Hacquard & Pancheva (2012), Solt (2015) and Wellwood (2015) point out that much measures out more than just cardinality. Arabic kaθīr is like much in this respect.…”

Section: Quantity Superlative + Definite Dependentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal quantification as degree modification in Arabic

Hallman

2016

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper demonstrates similarities between the universal quantifier kull 'every/all' and superlatives of quality and quantity in Standard Arabic. These similarities point to an analysis of kull as a kind of superlative. An analysis is developed that characterizes the meaning of kull as a minor variation on the meaning of the superlative morpheme that occurs in quality and quantity superlatives. The difference between kull's strongly distributive meaning analogous to every and its weakly distributive meaning analogous to all is argued to be the result of a type-shifting mechanism. This analysis teases apart the syntactic and semantic components of the three construction types examined here and identifies the uniformity that runs through them.

show abstract

Gradable Adjectives and Degree Expressions

Morzycki

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter provides an overview of the semantics of gradable adjectives and the grammatical mechanisms by which the meaning of these adjectives is modulated. This entails a discussion of how gradability and vagueness are related, and of how best to model that relation semantically. Perhaps the most informative window into this domain is the class of degree constructions – which includes comparatives, equatives, superlatives, and their less‐well‐understood grammatical cousins. These provide a view of how adjectives fit into larger structures, but it's possible to look in the other direction as well, by using a variety of degree morphemes (such as very and fully ) to explore subtle distinctions in the lexical semantics of adjectives themselves. Finally, over the last decade or so, major strides have been made toward answering a central question: how do languages differ in how they express gradation and comparison?

show abstract

Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events

Cited by 34 publications

References 16 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

Universal quantification as degree modification in Arabic

Gradable Adjectives and Degree Expressions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About