Premodifiers in English

Feist, Jim

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511733192

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Complements are not included in Halliday's (1994) model. The only (broadly) Hallidayan study I am familiar with that discusses complements is Feist (2012), who categorizes all modifiers with thematic roles as Classifier. However, Feist's definition of Classifier is semantic in nature and corresponds to what are traditionally referred to as relational or associative adjectives as well as to nouns with similar meanings.…”

Section: New Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis

Breban¹

2017

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My central concern is the special use of proper names in the English noun phrase first discussed by Rosenbach (2006, 2007, 2010; Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rosenbach 2005): proper names which are used as modifiers with an identifying function, e.g. theBushadministration (‘Which administration does the noun phrase refer to? The one headed by Bush’). On the basis of a corpus study, I argue that existing analyses of Rosenbach (2007) and Schlücker (2013) fail to account for all cases; they also fail to capture the seemingly contradictory syntactic and functional properties of these proper names in a unified way. My alternative analysis is framed within Halliday's (1994) functional model of the English noun phrase, but radically thinks beyond the typical association of functions with word classes (see also Rijkhoff 2009). My proposal is that the majority of these proper names can be analysed as epithets, a function typically associated with adjectival modifiers such as theredcar. A smaller set, proper name modifiers such as aKerrysupporter, are analysed as complements (Payne & Huddleston 2002). I end by discussing the implications of this dual analysis for another open question, whether proper name modifiers are morphosyntactically phrasal modifiers or part of compounds.

show abstract

Section: New Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis

Breban¹

2017

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Giegerich (2012) has recently argued (contra Payne, Huddleston & Pullum (2010) but with Emonds (1972), Radford (1988)) that adverbs are merely a kind of Adjective, so that a separate word class Adv is not justified. Feist (2012), on the other hand, argues that Adjective is an unworkable category! (It is senses, not words, that should be categorised, says Feist, and new classes have evolved in the last 600-800 years.)…”

Section: The Numbers Game: How Many Pos?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers?

Denison¹

2013

JBA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The 'parts of speech' which have played a fundamental role in most descriptions of grammar, from primary school curriculum to advanced linguistic theory, are explored in this article, which considers some intriguing changes in recent everyday English that challenge traditional assumptions about the definition and usefulness of word classes such as 'pronoun', 'adjective' and 'noun'. The article raises important questions about what happens at the boundaries between these word classes and looks at how we can answer these questions-potentially changing the direction of both future linguistic research and pedagogical practice.

show abstract

“…This order preference has often been treated with discrete models for each constituent type. For example, it has been proposed that stacked adjectives follow (1) a general hierarchy based on inherence (Whorf, 1945)-that is, the adjective closest to the head is more inherent to the head-discrimination (Ziff, 1960), intrinsicness (Danks and Glucksberg, 1971), temporariness (Bolinger, 1967;Larson, 2000), or subjectivity (Scontras et al, 2017); (2) a binary hierarchy based on features such as relative/absolute (Sproat and Shih, 1991), stage-/individual-level (Larson, 1998), or direct/indirect (Cinque, 2010); or (3) a multi-category hierarchy of intensional/subsective/intersective (Kamp and Partee, 1995;Partee, 2007;Truswell, 2009), reinforcer/epithet/descriptor/classifier (Feist, 2012), and perhaps most famously, semantic features such as size/shape/color/nationality (Quirk et al, 1985;Scott, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration complexity and the order of cosisters

Dyer

2018

Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW 2018)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cost of integrating dependent constituents to their heads is thought to involve the distance between dependent and head and the complexity of the integration (Gibson, 1998). The former has been convincingly addressed by Dependency Distance Minimization (DDM) (cf. Liu et al., 2017). The current study addresses the latter by proposing a novel theory of integration complexity derived from the entropy of the probability distribution of a dependent's heads. An analysis of Universal Dependency corpora provides empirical evidence regarding the preferred order of isomorphic cosisters-sister constituents of the same syntactic form on the same side of their head-such as the adjectives in pretty blue fish. Integration complexity, alongside DDM, allows for a general theory of constituent order based on integration cost.

show abstract

Premodifiers in English

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis

Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis

Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers?

Integration complexity and the order of cosisters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About