Quality and Quantity Readings of Degree Expressions

Semas, 2023

Scalar implicature has been a top subject of inquiry in the Anglo-Saxon pragmat-ics field for quite a long time. Many experimental studies have been conducted about the interpretation and processing of weak quantifiers in English and other languages. Recently these types of studies have been conducted exploring a vast range of the so-called Horn scales, namely adjective scales. These stud-ies have shown that scalar implicatures are not always derived from the use of weak adjectives. Here I present experimental evidence coming from the study of the interpretation of scalar adjectives in Spanish that show that an enriched pragmatic context in addition to modalized propositions enhance lower-bound readings of weak scalar adjectives. Data also show that upper-bound readings are hardly derived by speakers, leading to the conclusion that scalar implicatures are pragmatic inferences derived from a handful of lexical items and not from a vast family of scalar terms.

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2017

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...

Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 2005

In some languages, measure phrases can appear with non-compared adjectives : 5 feet tall. I address three questions about this construction : (a) Is the measure phrase an argument of the adjective or an adjunct ? (b) What are we to make of the markedness of this construction *142lbs heavy ? (c) Why is it that the markedness disappears once the adjective is put in the comparative (2 inches taller alongside 2lbs heavier)? I claim that because degree arguments are 'functional', the measure phrase has to be an adjunct and not a syntactic argument of the adjective. Like event modifiers in extended NPs and in VPs, the measure phrase predicates of a degree argument of the adjective. But given the kind of meaning a measure phrase must have to do its job in comparatives and elsewhere, it is not of the right type to directly predicate of a degree argument. I propose a lexically governed type-shift which applies to some adjectives allowing them to combine with a measure phrase.

(Natural Language Semantics 06/2010; 18(2):141-181. DOI:10.1007/s11050-009-9052-8 · 0.92 Impact Factor) This paper provides a new account of positive versus negative antonyms. The data includes well known linguistic generalizations regarding negative adjectives, such as their incompatibility with measure-phrases (cf., two meters tall/ *short) and ratio-phrases (twice as tall/ #short), as well as the impossibility of truly cross-polar comparisons (*Dan is taller than Sam is short). These generalizations admit a variety of exceptions, e.g., positive adjectives that do not license measure phrases (cf., #two degrees warm/ cold), and rarely also negative adjectives that do (cf., two hours late/ early). Furthermore, new corpus data is presented, regarding the use of twice with positive and negative adjectives. The analysis the paper presents supposes that grammar associates gradable adjectives with measure functions – mapping of entities to a set of degrees, isomorphic to the real numbers (Kennedy 1999). On this analysis, negative adjectives map entities to values that are linearly reversed and linearly transformed in comparison with their values in the positive antonyms. As shown, the generalizations, as well as their exceptions, directly follow. Negative polarity is explained in terms of function-reversal, and non-licensing of measure-phrases is explained in terms of transformation by an unspecified value.

Semantics and Pragmatics, 2015

The standard degree analysis of gradability in English holds that the function of degree morphology, such as the comparative, measure phrases, and degree adverbs, is to bind a degree variable located in the lexical semantics of gradable predicates. In this paper, I investigate gradation structures in Washo (isolate/Hokan), and claim that this language systematically lacks degree morphology of this sort. I propose that this gap in the functional inventory of Washo stems from variation in whether gradable predicates introduce degree variables that can be bound by such operators, providing further cross-linguistic support for a similar proposal made by for Motu (Austronesian). Consequently, if we assume that gradable predicates in English are type d, e, t , then Washo and English must differ in their lexical semantics for gradable predicates. I also discuss an alternative account for handling the variation observed, couched within the degree-free analysis of van Rooij (2011a,b). Although this account can also capture the cross-linguistic facts, it does so at the expense of a unified analysis of degree constructions more generally. The results of this investigation inform questions about the nature of cross-linguistic * I am deeply grateful to my Washo consultants Ramona Dick and Steven James for teaching me their language. Thanks to

Linguistics and Philosophy, 1980

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...

Semantic analyses often take degree words like more, fewer, too, enough and most to be quantifiers over degrees , drawing important parallels with quantification in the domain of individuals. Scope ambiguities -or lack thereof -constitute an important diagnostic for the quantificational properties of the degree word, including the presence of quantifier raising . Importantly, however, lack of scope ambiguity may suggest a quantificational treatment of the degree word is unjustified (Kennedy 1999), or it may implicate independent grammatical restrictions on the relevant scope configurations .

Language, 2005

In this article we develop a semantic typology of gradable predicates, with special emphasis on deverbal adjectives. We argue for the linguistic relevance of this typology by demonstrating that the distribution and interpretation of degree modifiers is sensitive to its two major classificatory parameters:(1) whether a gradable predicate is associated with what we call an open or closed scale, and (2) whether the standard of comparison for the applicability of the predicate is absolute or relative to a context. We further show that the ...