Nonsources of Unpassives

Siegel, Dorothy

doi:10.1163/9789004368804_011

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The non-semantic tests for adjectivity can be either morphological or syntactic. The proper names clearly and unsurprisingly do not pass the morphological tests-synthetic comparatives and superlatives, the un-prefix (Siegel 1977): * Britneyer, * Britneyest, * un-McDonalds etc. The syntactic tests include the possibility of occupying prenominal position and the enough-shift (Bresnan 1973, Maling 1983.…”

Section: Syntactic Properties: Is It An Ap?mentioning

confidence: 96%

This Is So NP!

Bylinina¹

2010

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction we are discussing is a recent American English construction (though it can be found in a number of other languages as well) with an individual-denoting noun phrase (NP) in the predicate position modified by a degree modifier that typically occurs with gradable adjectives, as in 'This is so Obama!' We attempt to look deeper into the structure and compositional semantics of this construction, and though we do not provide a complete analysis of it, we believe that the study of this construction can contribute to questions of gradable predicate semantics, multidimensionality, degree constructions and proper name semantics. 1. THE CONSTRUCTION Some examples of the construction we will be discussing are in (1-2) (examples from web): (1) a. Matching shirt and hat is so McDonalds. (≈cheap, unfashionable) b. Buying DVDs is so 2004! (≈out-of-date) c. Yeah, that is so Obama! (≈cool) (2) a. Ad: "How to dance at a club or party: An analytical approach" Comment: "This is so Google!" This Is So NP! 2 b. this is SO PARIS ! absolutely amazing ! (about a fashion show) c. I preferred rural France, Paris is so Paris. d. It is SO New York City in the 1970s! (about Buenos Aires) e. It is a masterpiece video. The way it's put together, it is so New York. f. My mom is so Berkley (a name of a Facebook group) 1.1. The degree environment The striking property of the construction is the degree environment that the NP appears in. There is nothing particularly strange in a NP showing gradable behavior, see a recent discussion of 'gradable nouns' in Morzycki (2009a): (3) a. George is an enormous idiot! (=1 Morzycki 2009a) b. Gladys is a big beer-drinker. c. Three huge goat-cheese enthusiasts were arguing in the corner.

show abstract

Section: Syntactic Properties: Is It An Ap?mentioning

confidence: 96%

This Is So NP!

Bylinina¹

2010

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De acuerdo con el segundo diagnóstico, los participios verbales no admiten negación mediante el prefijo 'in-', mientras que los adjetivales sí la admiten, como se muestra en ( 7) y (8), respectivamente (véanse Bosque, 1990Bosque, , 1999Varela, 1990Varela, , 2002Gibert-Sotelo, 2017, entre otros. Para el mismo diagnóstico en inglés, véanse Siegel, 1973;Wasow, 1977;Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 1986;McIntyre, 2013) Asimismo, los participios adjetivales pueden admitir sufijos típicamente adjetivales como el superlativo (12), a diferencia de los verbales, que los rechazan (11) (cuarto diagnóstico) (Bosque, 1999;Borik & Gehrke, 2019) El quinto diagnóstico permite discernir si un participio es verbal o adjetival a partir de su capacidad de coordinarse con adjetivos: si se trata de un participio verbal, no podrá coordinarse con un adjetivo (13); si es un participio adjetival, sí (14) (McIntyre, 2013). El último de los diagnósticos citados se fija en la (im)posibilidad del participio de aparecer junto a un 'sintagma-por'.…”

Section: Participios Adjetivales: Diagnósticos Para Su Identificaciónunclassified

Los participios adjetivales: Clasificación y análisis sintáctico

Gibert-Sotelo

2022

Rev. signos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo sostiene que es posible establecer una clasificación de los participios adjetivales más minuciosa que las propuestas hasta la fecha. En concreto, se defiende que, al menos en español, los participios adjetivales pueden dividirse en cuatro clases: (i) los 'resultativos eventivos', que expresan un estado que se asocia a un evento previo sintácticamente presente (por ejemplo, 'Este plato está cocinado a fuego lento por un experto'); (ii) los 'resultativos no eventivos' -una clase inadvertida hasta la fecha-, cuyo significado resultativo no supone la presencia sintáctica de un evento previo (por ejemplo, 'El fenómeno está muy (in)explorado (*a conciencia) por la comunidad científica'); (iii) los 'puramente estativos', que denotan un estado puro, sin implicaciones resultativas ni eventivas (por ejemplo, 'Montse es admirada por todos'); y (iv) los llamados 'adjetivos perfectivos', que conllevan cierto valor resultativo, carecen de eventividad y no legitiman 'sintagmas-por' (por ejemplo, 'El monedero está vacío (*por un ladrón)'). Asimismo, se mantiene que las propiedades sintácticas y semánticas de cada clase dependen de la presencia o ausencia de ciertas proyecciones funcionales en la estructura; a saber: 'Aspecto' (Asp), 'Iniciación' (Inic) y 'Proceso' (Proc).

show abstract

“…Not all passive attributes may be coordinated with adjectives unless premodified: (38) *her sudden and criticised withdrawal/njeno iznenadno i kritizir (39) her sudden and much-criticised withdrawal/njeno iznenadno i veoma kritizir X. Not all passive participles may serve as the base for the derivation of the adjectives opposite in meaning by the prefix un-(educated/uneducated vs abandoned/*unabandoned) This test is widely proposed in most linguistic sources as a reliable indicator of the adjectival status of passive participles (first proposed by Siegel, 1973;Wasow, 1977;Bresnan, 1985;Quirk et al, 1985;Huddleston and Pullum, 2002) However, we claim it is not reliable enough for 3 reasons: many adjectives cannot be subjected to this morphological operation (big/*unbig, long/*unlong); many passive participles that have already achieved the full adjectival status fail this test as well (tired/*untired, disappointed/*undisappointed, bored/*unbored); Besides, this test fails to provide the straightforward account for the obligatory adverbial premodification of some passive attributes.…”

Section: B) the Passive Attribute Is Not Possible But The Derivation ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Constraints on Passive Attributes and Problems of Categorization

Arnaut-Karović

2013

Zb. rad. Isl. pedagoš. fak. Zenica (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been noted that without the appropriate adverbial modification some passive participles are not acceptable in the attributive position in English: e.g. *a found suitcase, *a killed young man, *a built apartment block, as opposed to some passive participles that are not subject to this restriction: e.g. an abandoned village, a complicated man, the needed discipline. The assumption that identification of categorial status can be better seen at the level of larger constituents, has led us to propose some distributional diagnostic tests to confirm whether they retain their verbal force or have achieved their adjectival status in English, when used in the attributive position. Since their morphological form has not proved to be reliable for identification of their category, we have proposed to test them by classifying the types of adverbs enabling some of the passive participles to be used attributively. Given that the same adverbs can modify both, adjectives and verbs, we have focused on the classification of degree adverbs pre-modifying passive participles attributively used. The tests proposed in this paper may show that the open class degree adverbs that modify passive participles in both, attributive and predicative distribution do not fall into the single class but split up into the subclasses: degree adverbs/intensifiers and adverbs of measure/quantity modifying passive participles in attributive and predicative function, respectively. Since passive participles, too, may have different interpretation and either adjectival or verbal/passive reading when used as attributes, the open class degree adverbs are tested at the level of participial phrase used attributively within the NP. The examples were compared with the translation equivalents in BCS to see whether the same constraint affects passive attributes in BCS. Keywords: degree adverbs, intensifiers, adverbs of quantity/ measure, passive participles, complementary distribution

show abstract

Nonsources of Unpassives

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

This Is So NP!

This Is So NP!

Los participios adjetivales: Clasificación y análisis sintáctico

Some Constraints on Passive Attributes and Problems of Categorization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About