Movement of degree/degree of movement (original) (raw)
Degree expressions and the autonomy of syntax
1998
This paper argues for the autonomy of syntax. So-called degree expression come in two sorts: some are heads selecting an AP, others are adjoined to any suitable host. These two classes yield to a unitary semantics, which explains their largely complementary distribution. Hence, they can only be distinguished in syntactic terms, in particular c-selection. A further argument for an autonomous syntax comes from cases in which degree expressions are not in complementary distribution. It is demonstrated that the syntactic relation of specifier-head agreement explains such cases, and that this explanation cannot be reduced to a semantic fact.
Degree Expressions at the Syntax-Semantics Interface
Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics Interface, 2021
adverbs have received comparatively little attention in RRG. Degree adverbs have not been analyzed in RRG at all and have also been given comparatively less attention in other frameworks (for di erent analyses embedded in a generative tradition cf. Doetjes 1997, Vecchiato 1999). In this paper, I will primarily focus on adverbially used degree expressions, as exempli ed by the English examples in (1). A lot is used to indicate the intensity of frightening in (a). Following Bolinger (1972), cases like in (a) are called '(verbal) degree gradation' (I adopt the terminology put forward in Löbner 2012). In (b) a lot is used to specify the temporal duration of the sleeping event, whereas in (c) it indicates the frequency of his going to the cinema. Examples (b) and (c) are subsumed under the label 'extent gradation. ' (1) a. The dog frightens the boy a lot. b. Last night, the boy slept a lot. c. He goes to the cinema a lot. Although English makes use of a single adverb for extent and degree gradation, other languages like Polish use di erent adverbs for both subtypes of verb gra-Jens Fleischhauer, Anja Latrouite & Rainer Osswald (eds.). 2016. Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf: dup.
UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10 (1998) Degree expressions and the autonomy of syntax *
2013
This paper argues for the autonomy of syntax. So-called degree expression come in two sorts: some are heads selecting an AP, others are adjoined to any suitable host. These two classes yield to a unitary semantics, which explains their largely complementary distribution. Hence, they can only be distinguished in syntactic terms, in particular c-selection. A further argument for an autonomous syntax comes from cases in which degree expressions are not in complementary distribution. It is demonstrated that the syntactic relation of specifier-head agreement explains such cases, and that this explanation cannot be reduced to a semantic fact. 1
Degree fronting in Québec French and the syntactic structure of degree quantifier DPs
… and Linguistic Theory …, 2011
In this paper, we compare two syntactic constructions involving degree adverbs in English and Québec French: the Degree Fronting (DF) construction and the Intensification at a Distance (IAD) construction. We argue that, although they display some similar properties, these similarities are superficial. We argue that, while DF can be analyzed as involving movement, IAD cannot. We propose that the quantifiers in IAD sentences are base-generated in their surface positions, and that these syntactic positions coincide with the positions that the quantifiers occupy when they are quantifying over individuals or events. Furthermore, we argue that dialectal variation in distance quantificational structures between Standard European French and Québec French is due to differences in the semantics of degree adverbs in these dialects.
The Grammar of Degree: Gradability Across Languages
Annual Review of Linguistics, 2019
In this review, we discuss the empirical landscape of degree constructions cross-linguistically as well as the major analytical avenues that have been pursued to account for individual languages and cross-linguistic variation. We first focus on comparatives and outline various compositional strategies for different types of comparative sentences as well as points of cross-linguistic variation in the lexicalization of comparative operators and gradable predicates. We then expand the discussion to superlatives, equatives, and other degree constructions. Finally, we turn to constructions beyond the prototypical degree constructions but where degree-based analyses have been pursued; we focus on change-of-state verbs and exclamatives. This is an area that is especially ripe for future cross-linguistic research. We conclude by mentioning connections to other subfields of linguistics, such as language acquisition, historical linguistics, and language processing. Expected final online publi...
The role of animacy and definiteness in the clitic-DP nexus
Selected papers from …, 2005
We extend analysis of the Lower Applicative Dative DP in Spanish to account for the animate definite DP preceded by a and the fact that it is not possible to have both an animate dative definite direct object and a dative indirect object in the same clause. We argue that the presence of such a dative DP 'blocks' the upward movement of the direct object DP to the specifier of the Lower Applicative phrase. We analyse the case 'mismatch' between the third person accusative clitic and the coreferential dative DP with animate definite reference in River Plate Spanish as resulting from the raising of the accusative clitic to the head of the Applicative phrase and the movement of the DP to its specifier, where dative case is always assigned in Spanish. We propose that similar phenomena observed in some Australian languages are amenable to a similar analysis.
Reversing the perspective on Quantifier Raising
The controversial rule of Quantifier Raising cannot be fully subsumed under the standard definition of the Move operation. We argue that the differences between overt movement and QR can be accounted for if the syntactic computation proceed s top-down (and left-right), rather than bottom-up.
Looking beyond the broad subcategorization for √Verb, and peering into the more narrow feature selectivity of a specific verb's Probe-Goal relation (√drink vs √break), coupled with the defining status of DP as Phase, this brief note examines the behavior of complex DP-nominals and attempts to peg Merge-operations to X-bar theory in ways which show how, in reprojection, the lower more prosaic lexical merge-1 ('Comp of DP-as-Phase') contrasts with the upper functional merge-2. We suggest the former Merge-1 is a [-AGR] projection, (and not a full-fledge Phrase) while the latter Merge-2 is a full-expansive XP [+AGR] projection. Hence merge has Xbar theory implications. •We'll come to consider only the fullexpansive/Merge-2 XP [+Agr] as valued as the default Head-selection, i.e., that projection which allows for simultaneous projections of either verb type. (See verb in sentence (a') above as having this default Hselection status: √break selects for either Merge-2 or Merge-1), hence the H-selection of √break as default.
The special properties that psych(ological) verbs manifest cross-linguistically have given rise to ongoing debates in syntactic and semantic theorizing. Regarding their lexical aspect classification, while verbal psych predicates with the Experiencer argument mapped onto the subject (SE psych predicates) have generally been analyzed as stative, there is little agreement on what kinds of eventualities object Experiencer (OE) psych predicates describe. On the stative reading, OE psych predicates have been classified as atelic causative states. On the (non-agentive) eventive reading, they have been widely analyzed as telic change of state predicates and classified as achievements or as accomplishments. Based on Polish, Rozwadowska (2003, 2012) argues that non-agentive eventive OE psych predicates in the perfective aspect denote an onset of a state and that they are atelic rather than telic. This paper offers further support for the view that Polish perfective psych verbs do not denote a change of state, i.e., a transition from α to ¬α. The evidence is drawn from verbal comparison and the distribution of the comparative degree quantifier jeszcze bardziej 'even more' in perfective psych predicates. It is argued here that in contexts including jeszcze bardziej 'even more', the perfective predication denotes an onset of a state whose degree of intensity exceeds the comparative standard. While a degree quantifier attached to the VP in the syntax contributes a differential measure function that returns a (vague) value representing the degree to which the intensity of the Experiencer's state exceeds the comparative standard in the event, it does not affect the event structure of the perfective verb and it does not provide the VP denotation it modifies with a final endpoint. As the perfective picks the onset of an upper open state, perfective psych predicates typically give rise to an atelic interpretation.