Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication

Rothstein, Susan

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.005

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As we a have seen, the plausible semantic account is that in measure phrases, the measure head applies to a number to give a complex predicate. This is indeed what is assumed in Krifka (1989); Chierchia (1998); Landman (2004Landman ( , 2016) and many others. So in three litres, litres combines with three to form a complex predicate giving the property that a quantity has if it has the value 3 on the volume dimension calibrated in litres.…”

Section: Classifier Constructions and The Count-measure Contrastsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Here three kilos expresses a dimensional property of an accumulation of apples or flour. Some NPs, for example three glasses of water, are completely ambiguous between counting and measure interpretations, and others have primarily counting or primarily measure interpretations (though counting expressions may shift into mass expressions and vice versa, see Khrizman et al 2015;Landman 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, counting could be a form of measuring. This is the approach taken in Krifka (1989Krifka ( , 1995. Krifka argues that if two kilos of flour gives the quantity of flour in terms of kilo units, two cats should be treated as giving the quantity of cat in terms of natural units.…”

Section: Some Background On Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It then applies to the predicate *APPLE, to give the predicate in (7a). If three apples is in argument position, it will raise to the generalized quantifier type as in (7b), or be bound by default existential quantification (Kamp 1981;Heim 1982):…”

Section: Some Background On Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The semantic analysis of measures as in 10and 21is relatively uncontroversial (see Krifka 1989Krifka , 1995Chierchia 1998;Landman 2004Landman , 2016Rothstein 2009). However, the syntax of these constructions is not so straightforward.…”

Section: Syntax Of Measure Constructions -The Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account

Rothstein¹

2016

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I show that expressions like two glasses of wine are ambiguous between counting and measuring interpretations, and that each interpretation is associated with a different semantic representation. In each interpretation, glasses has a different function. In the counting interpretation, glasses is a relational noun, while in the measure interpretation, glasses is a measure head analogous to litre. This difference leads to a number of grammatical contrasts which can be explained by differences in the grammatical structure. I discuss whether these differences are only semantic or also expressed in the syntactic representation. The assumption that syntax directly reflects semantic interpretation leads to assigning counting NPs and measuring NPs two different syntactic structures: counting NPs are rightbranching with two modifying glasses of wine, while in measure expressions the numeral and the measure head form a measure predicate two glasses which modifies the N. I show that in Modern Hebrew and Mandarin counting structures and measuring structures clearly do have different syntactic structures, reflecting the semantic differences between counting and measuring. While the evidence in the case of English is less strong, the assumption that syntax directly reflects compositional syntactic structure results in the same basic syntactic contrasts in English as well. 1

show abstract

Section: Classifier Constructions and The Count-measure Contrastsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Background On Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Background On Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Syntax Of Measure Constructions -The Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account

Rothstein¹

2016

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

On constructional blocking of metonymies

Brdar

Brdar-Szabó

2017

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction between metonymy and grammar is commonly understood, in keeping with the classical cognitive linguistic doctrine about cognitive operations motivating linguistic structures, as unilateral – conceptual metaphor and metonymy shaping the grammatical system. However, we argue in this article that one of the possible corollaries of the Equipollence Hypothesis (Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2009; Ruiz de Mendoza & Luzondo Oyón, 2012) covers a truly bilateral interaction between grammatical structures and cognitive processes. The Equipollence Hypothesis is shown to allow for grammatical phenomena facilitating or constraining, i.e. blocking, the application of conceptual metonymies and their expressions across domains of linguistic inquiry. Specifically, we show in four case studies that grammatical constructions may actually pre-empt lexical (and grammatical) metonymy.

show abstract

Genitive (smixut) constructions in Modern Hebrew

Berman

2020

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter concerns the morpho-syntactic structure and usage-based properties of MH constructions involving two nominal constituents, an initial head and following modifier. Focus is on the three smixut ‘adjacency’ or ‘dependency’ constructions: (i) “construct-state” compounds in the form N^ N(P), where a caret indicates the relation between an initial bound head N and its free-form modifier; (ii) free, analytic N(P) šel (N)P constructions with the genitive marker šel ‘of’; and (iii) doubly marked N1pro2 šel N2 genitives. Usage-based analyses of alternations between these three options for expressing possession and other genitive relations reveal conflicting results, leading to the conclusion that text-type (genre, medium of expression, level of usage, and communicative setting) plays a major role in choice of construction. The chapter also considers two other binominal constructions – construct-state Adj^ Noun and Noun + Denominal Adjective phrases – and concludes by noting more general properties of Modern Hebrew reflected in current use of these constructions.1

show abstract

Adjectivally headed construct states and the semantics of metonymic predication

Cited by 4 publications

References 22 publications

Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account

Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account

On constructional blocking of metonymies

Genitive (smixut) constructions in Modern Hebrew

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About