Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Nounhood and Adjectivehood
Barcelona, 24-25 March 2011
Adjectival nominalizations: qualities and properties
Artemis Alexiadou
Universität Stuttgart
[email protected]
1. Introduction
Nominals derived from qualitative-evaluative adjectives can both appear in the presence of a
genitive, which introduces their external argument, and without:1
(1)
a.
b.
c.
John is honest.
John’s honesty impressed me.
Honesty is a valuable virtue.
There is a certain amount of consensus that (1c) denotes an abstract concept, i.e. it is a kindreferring term. (1b) refers to a quality John has, namely honesty.
In Greek, as in English and French, such nominals are ambiguous between the two readings.
The presence of the genitive disambiguates (Roy 2010).
(2)
a.
b.
c.
O Janis ine ilikrin-is.
The-John-gen is honest-msc.
John is honest.
I ilikrin-i-a
tu Jani
m’endiposiase
the honesty-fem the John-gen me impressed
John’s honesty impressed me.
I ilikrin-i-a
panda heri
ektimisis
the honesty-fem always receives respect-gen
Honesty is respectful.
In addition, Greek, a language with a three gender system, has another set of nominalizations
derived from such adjectives. Thus in addition to (2) and (3), Greek can also build (4).
Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999) state about this pattern that it denotes an inanimate kind. Such
nominalizations always bear neuter gender:2
(3)
a.
b.
1
O Janis
ine kalos.
The John-nom is good-msc
John is good.
i kalo-sin-i
tu Jani
the goodness-fem the John-gen
John’s goodness
standard nominalization
Such adjectives are labeled sub-sective, as they are always interpreted in relation to the noun they modify, see
Kamp & Partee (1995).
2
In their discussion they compare (4) to cases of nominal ellipsis, and not to (3), their main issue being whether
(4) contains an empty noun or not.
c.
i kalo-sin-i
ine megali areti
the goodness-fem is big virtue
Goodness is a great virtue.
standard nominalization
(4)
a.
neuter nominalization
cf.
b.
to kal-o
panda vriski anagnorisi
the good-neut always finds recognition
Good always finds recognition.
lo honesto (de Juan)
LO honest of Juan
Spanish3
In what follows, I will refer to (4) as neuter (adjectival) nominalization and to (3) as standard
(adjectival) nominalization, following Villalba (2009).
Some more examples are given in (5). As shown in (5), the standard nominalization is mostly
derived via the addition of an affix, -sin-, -tit- (or via a thematic vowel -i- as in 2b-c), and
bears feminine gender, while the neuter nominalization simply surfaces with the neuter form
of the adjective in question:
(5)
Adj-Masc
standard nominalization
neuter nominalization
a.
agath-os
good
agatho-sin-i
goodness-fem
to agath-o
the good-neut
b.
dike-os
just
dikeo-sin-i
justice-fem
to dike-o
the just-neut
c.
ore-os
beautiful
oreo-tit-a
beauty-fem
to ore-o
the beautiful-neut
d.
veve-os
certain
veveo-tit-a
certainity-fem
to veve-o
the certain-neut
• Both the neuter nominalization and the standard nominalization in the absence of a
genitive are said to be kind-referring.
• But are there any differences between the two?
• How can these be derived morpho-syntactically?
• Does the behavior of these nominalizations warrant a further ontological distinction?
Preview of the analysis:
• kalosini ‘goodness’: nominalization of an adjective. Quality.
• kalo ‘good’: nominalization of a root (= substantivization). Property.
3
Note here that French also has certain de-adjectival nominalizations which have inanimate reference and
always bear masculine gender, but are labeled the neuter-type in the literature. These formations are considered
not very productive. Sleeman (1996) considers these as cases of sub-stantivization:
(i)
L’important c’est de les aimer.
the important it is of them love
The important is to love them.
Sleeman (1996: 183)
2
2. The two readings of standard nominalizations
Roy (2010) identified the following differences between the counterparts of (1b-c) in French:4
(6)
a.
(i) Obligatory (overt) external argument
(ii) constant modification possible
(iii) de phrase is an argument
(iv) Must appear with an article in French and English
b.
(i) No apparent external argument
(ii) constant modification not possible
(iii) de phrase is not an argument
(iv) Can be bare in English (but not in French)
The standard nominalization in Greek is rather similar to its French counterpart. As in French,
(6a) type-nominals must appear with a genitive argument, while (6b) type-nominals must
appear without an overt external argument. In the absence of a genitive (2b) can only have the
abstract concept reading.
(2)
a.
b.
I ilikrinia tu Jani m’endiposiase.
the honest the John me impressed
John’s honesty impressed me.
I ilikrinia panda heri ektimisis
the honesty always receives respect
Honesty is always respectful.
Second, while (6a) type-nominals can be modified by aspectual adjectives expressing
frequency (e.g. constant), (6b) type-nominals resist systematically such modifications.
(7)
a.
b.
i sinehis ilikrinia
tu Jani
me endiposiase.
the constant honesty the John-gen me impressed
John’s constant honesty impressed me.
i (*sinehis) ilikrinia ine megali areti.
the constant honesty is big virtue.
Third, the obligatory genitive phrase appearing with an (6a) type-nominal must be interpreted
as a subject; (6b) type-nominals may sometimes take an overt genitive-phrase, but in that case
it can only be interpreted either as an object or as a possessive, i.e. as a quality attributed to an
individual. The presence of an aspectual modifier is degraded in this context:
(8)
a.
b.
i perifania tu Jani
ton tifloni.
the pride the John-gen him blinds
John’s pride blinds him.
i (*sinehis) perifania tu Jani
ton tifloni
the constant pride the John-gen him blinds
4
Roy labeled (6a) state nominals, and (6b) quality nominals. For me, both are quality nominals, and (6a) denotes
a permanent state, see Martin (2010).
3
Finally, as in French, in Greek both (6a-b) type-nominals must be constructed with an article;
in English (6b) type-nominals can appear bare:
(9)
a.
b.
*(The) popularity of his songs impresses me.
Popularity is a quality that he is lacking.
• Importantly: (6b) type-nominals behave like mass rather than count terms. Thus, they
can never take plural morphology:5
(10)
* i kalosines ine aretes aksiolatreftes
the goodnesses are virtues worth-worshipping
3. Differences and similarities between standard and neuter nominalizations
3.1 In the presence of a genitive
The neuter-nominal seems to be able to take a genitive argument. However, a PP is often
preferred, introduced via me ‘with’ and se ‘to’. A PP is out with the standard nominalization:6
(11)
a.
b.
c.
to kalo tu Jani/ me to Jani/sto Jani
the good the-John.gen/with the John/to John
Lit. The good thing about John.
to oreo
tis ipothesis/ me tin ipothesi/stin ipothesi
the beauty the situation-gen/with the situation/to the situation
Lit. the nice thing about the situation.
*i kalosini me to Jani
the goodness with the John
However, the neuter nominal + genitive (/+PP), differs from the standard-nominalization +
genitive. Importantly, the former does not tolerate modification via constant:
(12)
*to sinehes kalo tu Jani/me to Jani
the constant good the John-gen/with the John
• This points to the non-argument status of the genitive/PP with neuter nominalizations.
• The neuter nominalization has two readings.
• The first one is referential/partitive: here, the neuter nominal refers to one of the
properties, maybe the main one, that characterize the DP/PP:
5
Note here that (i) is possible:
(i)
Ekana poles kalosines
Did-1st many goodnesses
I performed many acts of kindness.
In this case, the noun bears the so-called event reading, which tolerates plural formation, see Martin (2010).
6
Note here that is possible to have the se ‘to’ P, when this has the kind-reading. However, the me P is out:
(i)
i kalosini
sti gineka
ine megali areti
the goodness to-the woman is a great virtue
Goodness in a woman is a great virtue.
4
(13)
a.
b.
To kalo tu Jani
ine i ipomoni tu.
the good the John-gen is the patience his
The good thing about John is his patience.
to kalo me ta vilia tu Larson
den ine i dedalodis plokes.
the good with the books the Larson-gen neg are the daedalian plots
The good thing about Larson’s books is not the daedalian plots.
• The second interpretation is quantificational. Here, we have degree quantification over
the scale denoted by the adjective predicated of the genitive:7
(14)
Me fovizi to agrio tis ipothesis.
me frightens the wild the situation-gen
It frightens me how wild the situation is.
• Neither of these readings is available for the standard-nominal + genitive.
• The situation seems similar to what has been observed for Spanish, see Villabba
(2009), where the data come from, building on Bosque & Moreno (1990):
(15)
a.
b.
Lo interesante del libro es el primer capítulo.
LO interesting of-the book is the first chapter
The interesting part of the book is the first chapter.
Me asusta lo peligroso de la empresa.
to.me frightens LO dangerous of the.FEM enterprise
It frightens me how risky the enterprise is.
Two differences between Greek and Spanish:
(i) Greek cannot form (16a), which is possible in Spanish. (16b) is in, and has a contrastive
meaning:
(16)
a.
b.
*to mikro tu spitiu ine to banio
the small the house is the bathroom
to oreo sto spiti
ine to banio tu.
the nice to the house is the bathroom its
The nice thing about the house is its bathroom.
partitive
(ii) (16c) is out in Greek. The quantificational reading does not permit a degree modifier,
rather it receives an absolute reading. See section 4:
7
Note here that Greek does not have a clausal counterpart of this construction. This relates to the fact that Greek
also uses a definite determiner in CP contexts in order to nominalize them (ii). As Giannakidou & Stavrou
(1999) argue in this case, the definite article + CP involves the referential sense of the definite article :
(i)
a.
Me fovizi to poso agria ine i ipothesi
me frightens the how wild.fem is the situation-fem
b.
*me fovizi to agrio pu ine i ipothesi
me frightens the wild that is the situation
(ii)
To oti ithe
me eskeplikse
the that came-3sg me surprised
The fact that he came surprised me.
5
c.
*to poli agrio tis ipothesis me fovizi
the much wild the situation me scares
quantificational
Thus, Greek, like Spanish, has 4 types of de-adjectival nominals:
(17)
a.
b.
i kalosini
(tu Jani)
the goodness (the John-gen)
to kalo (tu Jani/me to Jani)
the good (the John-gen/with the John)
(17a) but not (17b) relates to (18). This suggests that no predication relation exists between
the genitive/PP and the neuter nominalization. This is expected, if (17b) has an interpretation
along the lines ‘the good thing about John’:
(18)
O Janis ine kalos.
John is good.
As Villalba (2009) observes for Spanish, the standard nominalization differs from the neuter
nominalization in interpretation:
• (17a) refers to a quality possessed by John
• (17b) refers to a particular instantiation of a property in John, i.e. regarding John, that
of being good.
See Levinson (1978: 10): ‘Qualities thus show themselves as differing from properties in
being somewhat substance-like, in that varied amounts of them can be doled or parcelled out
in a particular instance’:
If this is correct, then we expect to find some differences between the two. In fact, the two
differ in the expected way:
i) Quantization: only the standard nominal with a genitive can be quantized:
(19)
a.
b.
i kalosini
tu Jani megaloni mera me ti mera.
the goodness the John-gen grows day with day
John’s goodness increases day by day.
*to kalo tu Jani/ me to Jani
megaloni mera me ti mera
the good the John-gen/with the John grows day with day
quality
property
If, qualities admit quantization, whereas properties do not, then this test suggests that (19b) is
a quality, while (19a) is a property.
ii) Generic contexts: only the standard nominalization + genitive is tolerated in generic
contexts:
(20)
S'afti ti hora i kalosini
ton politikon
ine poli sinithismeni.
in this country the goodness the politicians-gen is very common
In this country politicians’ goodness is very common.
quality
6
(21)
*'S'afti ti hora to kalo ton politikon ine poli sinithismeno
in this country the good the politicians is very common
property
• In section 6, we will see why (21) is ungrammatical.
3.2 In the absence of a genitive
• Both can be quantized:
(22)
a.
b.
to kako, otan de to timorisis stin arhi,
me ton kero megaloni.
the bad, when neg it punish in the beginning, with the time grows
The bad, when it is not punished from the beginning, increases with time.
i tosi kalosini
the so much goodness
• Both can appear in generic contexts:
(23)
S'afti ti hora i kalosini/to kalo ine poli sinthismeno
in this country the goodness/the good is very common
In this country, goodness/the good is very common.
• But they are not interchangeable:
(24)
a.
I kalosini ine megali areti.
the goodness is great virtue
Goodness is a great virtue.
b.
*to kalo ine megali areti.
the good is great virtue.
• If the bare nominals are generic, kind-referring terms, the behavior in (22-23) is
expected.
As shown in (25), both do not tolerate plural marking. This suggests that they both are mass
nouns.
(25)
a.
b.
*i kalosines ine haraktiristika pu tu erhonde aviasta
the goodnessses are characteristics that come as default
*ta kala ine haraktiristika pu tu erhonde aviasta
the goods are characteristics that come as default
• Mass nouns can be quantized, see, however, section 4, where it is shown that the
neuter nominalization cannot tolerate degree modifiers, but still can appear in contexts
like (22a):
(26)
poli nero
much water-neut
7
• If the neuter nominalization is not a quality, the contrast in (24) is also expected. It is
out in a context that explicitly requires qualities.
• Conclusion: the bare nominals of both types are kinds; they are kinds of qualities
(standard nominalization) and kinds of properties (neuter nominalization), Villalba
(2009).
4. Differences between the two types of nominalizations
Now, if both the bare standard nominalization and the bare neuter nominalization denote
kinds, kinds of qualities and kinds of properties respectively, are there any other differences
between the two?
i) There is a difference in productivity: all adjectives produce the standard nominalization, the
neuter one, however, is idiosyncratic, in the sense that it is possible with some adjectives but
not with all:
(27)
a.
b.
c.
perifanos
proud
ilikrinis
honest
mikro
small-petty
perifan-i-a
pride-fem
ilikrin-i-a
honesty-fem
mikro-tit-a
pettiness
*to perifano
the proud
*to ilikrines
the honest
*to mikro
the petty
In this context also note that the interpretation of the bare nominal is not always transparently
related to that of the adjective, e.g. to dikeo ‘the just’ can also have the meaning of law.
ii) Modification options: the neuter nominal does not tolerate any degree adjectival modifiers.
But note that this nominal can take modifiers that denote sub-kinds (28b):
(28)
a.
*I gonis mathenun ta pedia tus to poli kalo.
the parents teach the childern theirs the very good
*Parents teach their children the very good.
(Giannakidou & Stavrou 1999: 314)
b.
to kinoniko dikeo
the social just
This does not hold for the standard nominalization, which can take both degree modifiers as
well as sub-kind denoting modifiers.
(29)
a.
kivernisan
ja epta hronia me megali dikeosini.
governed-3pl for seven years with great justice
They governed for seven years with great justice.
b.
i kinoniki dikeosini
the social justice
8
(28b) and (29b) do not have the same meaning. In (29b) the adjective social is a relational
adjective modifying the head noun, in (28b) the interpretation is one of a particular kind of
‘law’, e.g. social law, international law etc.
iii) Comparatives and superlatives are out with the neuter nominal:
(30)
a.
*to pio dikeo
the more just
b.
i pio megali kalosini
the more
goodness
iv) Lack of possible adjectival readings:
(31)
o mikros grizos elefandas
the small grey elephant
Adjectives modify nouns in two modes: either by subordinating to the denotation of the noun
(scope reading, 32a) or by intersecting with it (32b).
(32)
a.
small grey elephant ⊆ grey elephant ⊆ elephant
b.
small ∩grey∩ elephant
(32b) is not a possible reading for (31), as the adjective small is not intersective. Crucially,
(33) does not have either of the above readings, (33) ‘is about greatness, beauty and truth and
not about things that are great, beautiful and true at the same time’:
(33)
i hora
tu megalu,
tu oreu,
tu alithinu
the country the great-gen, the beautiful-gen, the true-gen
(Giannakidou & Stavrou 1999: 317)
However, (34) is about a country that is good and just at the same time:
(34)
i horas
tis kalosinis
ke tis dikeosinis
the country the goodness-gen and the justice-gen
• The above suggests that the standard-nominal is formed out of an adjective.
• The neuter nominal, however, does not seem to have an adjectival base, i.e. it is a case
of substantivization, as proposed in Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999).
In the next section, building on Giannakidou & Stavrou, I will update their analysis within the
framework of Distributed Morphology.
5. Towards an analysis
An analysis of the patterns discussed here should capture:
9
i) the generic semantics associated with the bare nominalization
ii) the differences between the standard and the neuter nominalization
iii) the role of the genitive/PP with the neuter nominalization
iv) the differences between Greek and Spanish concerning the neuter nominalization
The idea in a nutshell:
• kalosini ‘goodness’: nominalization of an adjective.
• kalo ‘good’: nominalization of a root.
5.1 Background
Word formation in Distributed Morphology (see Arad 2005, Marantz 2001, Embick 2010):
1. Language has atomic, non-decomposable, elements = roots.
2. Roots combine with the functional vocabulary and build larger elements.
3. Roots are category neutral. They are then categorized by combining with category
defining functional heads.
• There are two cycles for word-formation (Marantz 2001/to appear):
(35) a. root-cycle
(35)
b.
eo
√Root
outer-cycle attachment
eo
x
functional head
x
eo
√Root
word formation from roots
(36)
v,n,a
word formation from words
Locality constraint on the interpretation of roots/Cyclic generalizations:
Roots are assigned an interpretation in the environment of the first category-assigning
head with which they are merged. Once this interpretation is assigned, it is carried
along throughout the derivation.
Arad (2005), Embick (2010)
Merger with root implies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
negotiated (apparently idiosyncratic) meaning of root in context of morpheme
apparent semi-productivity (better with some roots than others)
meaning of construction cannot be an operation on “argument structure” but must depend
on root semantics independent of argument structure
corollary of the above: cannot involve the “external argument”
Merger above a category-determining morpheme implies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
compositional meaning predicted from meaning of stem
apparent complete productivity
meaning of structure can involve apparent operation on argument-structure
can involve the external argument
Marantz (2001/to appear)
10
Arad (2005):
1. The language specific property: Roots may be assigned a variety of interpretations in
different morpho-phonological environments. These interpretations, though retaining some
shared core meaning of the root, are often semantically far apart from one another, and are by
no means predictable from the combination of the root and the word-creating head.
2. The universal property: The ability to be assigned multiple interpretations is strictly
reserved for roots. Once the root has merged with a category head and formed a word (n, v,
etc.), its interpretation is fixed, and is carried along throughout the derivation. This locality
constraint holds across all languages.
5.2 Deriving the two types of adjectival nominalizations
• kalo-sin-i ‘goodness’: in this case, we have an adjective that becomes a noun. Hence,
it is sensitive to modification that co-occurs with adjectives.
(37)
DP
3
D
nP
3
n
aP
sin
3
a
√KAL
∅
Note that all such nouns bear feminine gender. Since gender, as class, is part of the ‘lexical’
information, these are assigned to the n layer post-syntactically at the level of Morphological
Structure.
• kal-o ‘good’: in this case, we have nominalization of a bare root, hence no adjectival
base and no sensitivity to adjectival modification
(38)
DP
3
D
nP
3
o
√KALO
cf. Giannakidou & Stavrou’s 1999 (49), who offer a substantivization analysis:
(39)
DP
3
D
NP
to
3
N°
kalo
11
• The above explains the restrictions on productivity: root formations are idiosyncratic.8
Word-formations are productive:
• This explains the difference in the status of the genitive in the two contexts:
• if merger above a category denoting morpheme can involve the external argument, it is
expected that the argument of the adjective is carried over to the nominalization.
• If, on the other hand, merger at the root level does not involve the external argument,
it is expected that the genitive/PP with the neuter nominalization is not an argument.
• The PP/genitive is not an argument of the adjective, but rather a possessor, introduced
at the level of nP, as in (40). On the contrary, in (41), the genitive is an argument of
the adjective:
(40)
(41)
DP
3
D
nP
3
DP/PP
n‘
3
o
√KALO
DP
3
D
nP
3
n
aP
sin
3
DP
a’
3
a
√KAL
∅
neuter nominalization
standard nominalization
• From the above perspective, roots do not have arguments, see also section 6.
• The argument of an adjective is introduced at the aP level. Possessors are introduced
in Spec,nP, see section 6.
• The nominalization of the adjective inherits the argument of the adjective.
• The nominalization of a root lacks arguments.
8
Note here that Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999) claim that substantivization is a productive process in Modern
Greek:
(i)
a.
to ktes ferni to simera
the yesterday brings the today
b.
to ohi tu me pligose
the now his me hurt-3sg
In (i) as well as in the case of neuter nominalizations, the presence of the definite article is obligatory (and its
ensuing generic semantics), the gender is fixed, and modifiers are excluded.
12
• Interestingly, the morpho-syntax of (40) resembles the situation described in KoontzGarboden & Francez (2010) for Ulwa, an endangered Misumalpan language spoken
by 350 adults on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua, which lacks adjectives but uses
possessive constructions to express property concepts (PCs), see (42), their example
(2b):9
(42)
Yang as-ki-na minisih-ka.
1SING shirt-1SING dirty-KA
‘My shirt is dirty'
In their analysis,
‘PC roots cannot function as stand-alone syntactic words, and require affixation unless a
bimoraic adjacent host is present. The crucial question was why the relevant marking should
be syncretic with possessive marking, and our answer is that the choice of marking is
semantically determined. Specifically, we suggested that PC roots denote primitive properties
which cannot be predicated. Possessive morphology maps any property to the set of
individuals who have it, thus allowing properties to make a semantic contribution equivalent
to (though not identical to) that of corresponding predicates in languages that have
adjectives’.
Let me now turn to the generic semantics of the bare nominalizations.
5.3 Definite determiners in Greek
In Giannakidou & Starou’s analysis it is the definite determiner that is responsible for the
generic semantics of the neuter nominal.
First of all, note that in Greek proper names must co-occur with definite articles, a fact that is
taken as support for the expletive status of the definite article (Longobardi 1994) or the
predicate analysis of proper names (Borer 2005).
(43)
o Janis
the John
Giannakidou & Stavrou (1999) argue against an expletive analysis of the definite determiner
in generic readings.
Greek, like Romance, and unlike English resorts to the definite determiner to construct
generic readings:
(44)
a.
b.
I fitites ine spanii edo.
the students are rare here
Students are rare here.
I fitites agapun to diavasma.
The students love-3pl the reading
Students love reading.
(Giannakidou & Stavrou 1999: 322-323)
9
These authors in related work (Francez & Koontz-Garboden 2010) describe a number of possessive patterns
that are used across languages.
13
For Giannakidou & Stavrou, the definite determiner in Greek is ambiguous between a
referential and a generic interpretation. The former realizes Chierchia’s (1998) ι-operator,
while the latter realizes his nominalization operator.
As is well known, according to Chierchia, kinds can be regarded as nominalization of
predicative common nouns and predicative common nouns as the predicativization of kinds.
The down operator nominalizes, the up operator predicativizes. It seems natural to identify a
kind in any given world or situation with the totality of its instances. As Chierchia points out,
not any old property will have the corresponding kind.
Chierchia (1998: 349): If DOG is the property of being a dog, then ∩ DOG is the
corresponding kind. Conversely, if d is the dog-kind, ∪d is the property DOG of being a dog.
∩
and ∪ are maps that allow us to get a kind from the corresponding property and vice versa.
If ∩ applied to a property P does not yield a kind, then ∩P is undefined.
• Giannakidou & Stavrou conclude that the kind referring interpretation of the neuter
nominalization is associated with the definite determiner.
• However, the standard bare nominalization also bears generic semantics. This casts
doubts on the specifics of their analysis.
Thus, while the bare nominalization is generic in both instances, the differences between the
neuter nominalization and standard nominalization must follow from differences in their
internal structure.
• The crucial difference between the two is that the standard nominalization is derived
from an adjective (kalosini ‘goodness’: nominalization of an adjective).
• The neuter nominalization is derived from a root (kalo ‘good’: nominalization of a
root.
• Both denote kinds, in the absence of a genitive/PP, however, they differ in that the
former denote kinds of qualities and the latter kinds of properties.
• How do kind-readings emerge in this system?
(45)
D [Num discrete quantification [Class semantic singularity [ n [ Root
cf. Borer (2005), see also Alexiadou, Iordachioaia & Soare (2010):
In Borer’s work, the ClassP introduces division, i.e. the function of dividing something. This
projection has an individuating function. Mass NPs lack ClassP.
6. Some remarks on how morpho-syntax feeds semantics
• This raises the question as to the contribution of the different pieces in the morphosyntactic structure of these nominalizations to their interpretation.
14
• Our nominalizations involve nominalizers that either combine directly with a root or
with a word, namely an adjective.
•
Acquaviva (2007): the minimal units of interpretation are those that define a semantic
type, and these are not roots, but core nouns and verbs. Roots are smaller; in this
sense, they have no meaning by themselves but co-occur with category-assigning
heads to form interpretable typed grammatical entities. But how does DOG differ from
CAT, then, if both have the structure [root + n]?
Acquaviva:
the root DOG acts as an index that makes the noun dog different from nouns based on other
roots. In the abstract syntactic representation before Vocabulary insertion, roots have the
function of differential indices. They do not mean anything by themselves, but act as nametags which define identity and difference.
An interpretation only arises when constructs are assembled and become interpretable as
kinds of entities, predicates, states, or activities. A noun and a verb that share the same root,
but only the root, will share as it were the same name-tag while denoting distinct types of
referents, as schematized below; a pair like to tape and tape, on the other hand, shares a larger
domain consisting of root and [n], which derives the transparently denominal semantic
relationship:
(46) Roots as indices for the minimal units of semantic interpretation:
(action labeled hammer)
a
[[ HAMMER ] v ]: 'to hammer-do'
(kind of entity labeled hammer)
b
[[ HAMMER ] n ]: 'a hammer-thing'
c
[[[ TAPE ] n ] v ]: 'to use a tape-thing' (action on an entity labeled tape)
d
[[ TAPE ] n ]: 'a tape-thing'
(kind of entity labeled tape)
Roots are the names that, attached to elements which specify a type, identify one particular
concept belonging to that type. The template [[ROOT] n] specifies entity-referring concepts;
substituting DOG or CAT for the root defines two different entity-referring concepts, which
underlie the full-fledged nouns dog and cat.
• If this view is correct, then kalo ‘good’, is of type (46d), i.e. a good-thing, good is a
label for an entity.
(47)
[[GOOD] n ]
• On the other hand, kalosini ‘goodness’ is of type (46c), i.e. good is a label for a
state/quality, which then becomes a noun.
(48)
[[[GOOD ] a ] n ]
It might, however, be that the grammar makes a number of property concepts available and
languages differ as to how the package them, as adjectives or nouns or both.
15
• In the presence of a genitive/PP, (47) is interpreted as the (singular) or one of the good
things/properties about the subject.
• This is much unlike a) the interpretation of the genitive in the standard nominalization
and b) the interpretation possessors standardly receive. Why?
• As mentioned, in the standard nominalization the DP is an argument of the adjective
(state):
(49)
[nP [aP DP [GOOD ]]]
• This is not the case in the neuter nominalization.
• Sleeman (1996) argues that substantivization (in French) is licensed by partitivity,
which is why a noun of this type tends to have a contrastive meaning.
• What is the morpho-syntax of partitivity?
Building on Alexiadou & Gengel (to appear), who follow Borer (2005), partitivity involves
the presence of ClassP, see (44), repeated below:
(44)
D [Num discrete quantification [Class semantic singularity [ n [ Root
As mentioned, in Borer’s work, the ClassP introduces division, i.e. the function of dividing
something. This projection has an individuating function, which can be informally
paraphrased as ‘one big of the type car’ for a given phrase ‘a big car’.
In order to get partitive readings, the presence of ClassP is required (Alexiadou & Gengel to
appear).
• In order to get a definite singularity reading, ClassP is required.
In the context of to kalo tu Jani ‘the good thing about/in John’, we do have this singularity
reading.
• The DP/PP applies to the unit denoted by the nominalization; this is not given at the
level of the nP, which is mass, but at the level of ClassP. Thus the DP/PP interacts
with singularity, suggesting that this is an adjunct/specifier of ClassP.
Note that pluralization is then possible:
(50)
a.
b.
ta kala
tis krisis
the goods the crisis-gen
The good things about the crisis
ena apo ta kala tis krisis
one from the goods the crisis-gen
One of the good things about the crisis
• This explains why the neuter nominal + genitive(/PP) is out in generic contexts. But
since the standard-nominalization + genitive denotes a permanent state, we expect it to
be acceptable in such contexts.
16
• A question that arises is whether the distinct realizations of the possessor with the
neuter nominalization, genitive, me ‘with’ P, and se ‘to’ P also carry distinct
meanings.
se = locative preposition
me = comitative preposition
• It seems that they are all realizations of a possessive relation, which roughly has the
interpretation that one (major) good thing of John’s, see Francez & Koontz-Garboden
(2010).
7. What about the differences between Greek and Spanish?
Recall: there are two differences between Greek neuter nominalizations and their Spanish
counterparts: i) restrictions on the partitive reading and ii) no degree modification in the
quantificational reading:
(16)
a.
b.
c.
*to mikro tu spitiu ine to banio
the small the house is the bathroom
to oreo sto spiti
ine to banio tu
the nice to the house is the bathroom its
The nice thing about the house is its bathroom
*to poli agrio tis ipothesis me fovizi
the much wild the situation me scares
partitive
quantificational
(ii) follows from the absence of an adjective source. This in turn would mean that in Spanish
in both cases an adjectival source is involved (see also Sleeman 1996 for some discussion on
Dutch).
(i) suggests that in Greek only a subset of property concepts feed this ‘nominalization’
pattern. If the neuter nominalization involves formation at the root level, this is a kind of nonsystematic idiosyncrasy that is expected.
8. Summary
• Two types of adjectival nominalizations: adjective-derived, and root-derived.
• Distinct morpho-syntactic and semantic properties.
• Two levels of word-formation: root-level, word-level.
References
Acquaviva, P. 2007. Roots and lexicality in Distrubuted Morphology. Ms.
Alexiadou, A. & K. Gengel. to appear. Classifiers as morphosyntactic licensors of NP ellipsis:
English vs. Romance. Proceedings of NELS 39.
Alexiadou, A., G. Iordachioaia & E. Soare. 2010. Number/Aspect interactions in the syntax of
nominalizations: a distributed Morphology approach. Journal of Linguistics 46: 537-574.
Arad, M. 2005. Roots and patterns. Springer, Dordrecht.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense vol. I. In name only. Oxford University Press.
17
Chierchia, G. 1988. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:
339-405.
Embick, D. 2010. Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press.
Francez, I. & A. Koontz-Garboden. 2010. The grammar of property possession. Paper
presented at the Workshop on Adjectives and Relative Clauses, Venice, June 2010.
Giannakidou, A. & M. Stavrou. 1999. Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP. The
Linguistic Review 16: 295-331.
Kamp, H. and B. Partee. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–91.
Koontz-Garboden, A. & I. Francez. 2010. Possessed properties in Ulwa. Natural Language
Semantics 197-240.
Levinson, J. 1978. Properties and related entities. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 39, 1-22.
Marantz, A. 2001/To appear. Words and Things. Ms., MIT & NYU.
Martin, F. 2010. Stage-level and individual level readings of quality nouns: a study in
aspectual morpho-semantics. Paper presented at Going Romance 23, Leiden, December
2010.
Roy, I. 2010. Deadjectival nominalizations and the structure of the adjective. In Alexiadou &
Rathert (eds.), The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks,,p. 129158. Mouton de Gryuter.
Sleeman, P. 1996. Licensing empty nouns in French. Ph.D. Dissertation. HIL.
Villalba, X. 2009. Definite adjective nominalizations in Spanish. In M.T. Espinal, M. Leonetti
& L. McNally (eds.), Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop “Definiteness
and DP Structure in Romance Languages.
Villalba, X. & Bartra-Kaufmann, A. 2009. Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner
phrase. Lingua 120: 819-849.
18