Investigating gradable predicates, comparison,
and degree constructions in underrepresented
languages
M. Ryan Bochnak
[email protected]
Fieldwork Forum ∼ November 6, 2013
Joint work with Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten (UMass Amherst)
Paper to appear in Methodologies in Semantic Fieldwork.
M. Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.) OUP.
Comparison cross-linguistically
Comparison and degree constructions have received attention in
the typological literature, mostly in morphology and syntax
I
Ultan (1972), Stassen (1985, 2011), Bobaljik (2012)
Comparison cross-linguistically
Comparison and degree constructions have received attention in
the typological literature, mostly in morphology and syntax
I
Ultan (1972), Stassen (1985, 2011), Bobaljik (2012)
Recent work on the semantics of comparison and gradability in
under-studied languages:
I
Bogal-Allbritten (2008, 2013), Beck et al (2009), Eckardt (2009),
Pearson (2010), Hohaus (2012), Bochnak (2013), Francez &
Koontz-Garboden (2013)
Comparison cross-linguistically
Comparison and degree constructions have received attention in
the typological literature, mostly in morphology and syntax
I
Ultan (1972), Stassen (1985, 2011), Bobaljik (2012)
Recent work on the semantics of comparison and gradability in
under-studied languages:
I
Bogal-Allbritten (2008, 2013), Beck et al (2009), Eckardt (2009),
Pearson (2010), Hohaus (2012), Bochnak (2013), Francez &
Koontz-Garboden (2013)
Reference grammars often don’t include information that
semanticists need to integrate the data into theories of gradability
and comparison
I
More detailed fieldwork needed!
Challenges
The meaning of gradable predicates is highly context-dependent.
(1)
Context: Alice’s height is 5’10”.
a. Alice is tall (for an adult female).
b. Alice is not tall (for a woman on her varsity basketball
team).
Challenges
The meaning of gradable predicates is highly context-dependent.
(1)
Context: Alice’s height is 5’10”.
a. Alice is tall (for an adult female).
b. Alice is not tall (for a woman on her varsity basketball
team).
Gradable predicates do not form a uniform class.
I
e.g., type of standard (relative or absolute), ordering polarity,
whether a predicate is associated with a measurable dimension
Today’s talk
I
Methodologies for obtaining data on semantic distinctions
highlighted in the theoretical literature
I
Case studies from Washo and Navajo
I
Suggestions for tasks involving visual and non-visual stimuli
for obviating difficulties with context-sensitivities and different
predicate classes
Outline
Classes of gradable predicates and modifier licensing
Classifying gradable predicates
Modifier selection in Navajo and Washo
Morphological marking of adjective classes
Norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Crisp judgment contexts
Norm-relatedness and lexical competition
Conclusions
Outline
Classes of gradable predicates and modifier licensing
Classifying gradable predicates
Modifier selection in Navajo and Washo
Morphological marking of adjective classes
Norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Crisp judgment contexts
Norm-relatedness and lexical competition
Conclusions
Relative vs. absolute standards
A subset of gradable predicates are vague in the bare
(positive/absolute) form
I
not a matter of fact whether Alice at a height of 5’10” counts
as tall or not
I
depends on comparison class
I
no absolute cut-off for the boundary between tall and not tall
I
these have relative standards
I
tall, short, wide, narrow, deep, shallow, expensive, cheap,
pretty, ugly, etc.
Relative vs. absolute standards
Others have absolute standards, and are not vague
I
e.g. wet: an object counts as wet if it has a non-zero amount
of moisture
I
these have endpoint-oriented standards
I
wet → minimum (lower-endpoint) standard
I
closed → maximum (upper-endpoint) standard
I
minimum standards: wet, bent
I
maximum standard: closed, dry, full, straight
Relative vs. absolute standards: empirical distinctions
Entailments in comparatives:
Relative standards:
(2)
Alice is taller than Barbara. ; Alice is tall.
Minimum standards:
(3)
The table is more wet than the counter. ⇒ The table is
wet.
Maximum standards:
(4)
This nail is straighter than that one. ; This nail is
straight.
Relative vs. absolute standards: empirical distinctions
Modifier licensing:
I
very only compatible with relative standard predicates (and
minimum standard predicates)
I
completely only compatible with maximum standard predicates
(5)
a. The bottle is very tall/pretty/#closed.
b. The bottle is completely closed/#tall/#pretty.
Dimensional vs. evaluative predicates
Dimensional properties are quantitative; often associated with
systems of measurement (in languages that lexicalize systems of
measurement)
(6) tall, heavy
Evaluative predicates are qualitative; descriptive properties
(7) hardworking, lazy, pretty, ugly, colors
Dimensional vs. evaluative predicates:
empirical distinctions
A bit difficult in English
Norm-related interpretations in how questions (Bierwisch 1989)
(8)
How tall is Alice?
is tall
no inference that speaker thinks Alice
(9)
How ugly is Alice?
ugly
inference that speaker thinks Alice is
Extreme adjectives
Class of adjectives whose values occupy the ‘extreme’ end of a
scale (Paradis, 2001; Morzycki 2012)
I
e.g., gigantic, gorgeous
License their own class of modifiers (in English)
(10)
a. Your shoes are downright/positively
gigantic/gorgeous/#big/#pretty.
b. Your shoes are very big/pretty/#gigantic/#gorgeous.
Ordering polarity
Antonym pairs: tall/short, wet/dry, open/closed
I
intuition: range over the same scales, but from opposite
perspectives
Empirical distinctions in English:
(11)
Charlie is as tall as David. ; Charlie and David are tall.
(12)
Charlie is as short as David. ⇒ Charlie and David are short.
(13)
Charlie is 5 feet tall/*short.
Modifier selection
Recall: English modifiers very, completely, track type of standard
Navajo yee’: tracks positive vs. negative polarity
Washo šemu: doesn’t track any distinction
Navajo yee’
Usually translated as very, but has a more restricted distribution
I
only compatible with negative-polarity predicates
Navajo yee’
Usually translated as very, but has a more restricted distribution
I
only compatible with negative-polarity predicates
(14) shideezı́
‘áìts’óózı́ yee’
my.little.sister 3-slender yee’
‘My little sister is very slender.’
(15) dı́ı́ dibé yázhı́ ’áìtsı́sı́
yee’
this sheep small 3-little/small yee’
‘This lamb is very small.’
(16)
# shideezhı́
nineez yee’
my.little.sister 3-tall yee’
Intended: ‘My little sister is very tall.’
Washo šemu
Also translated by speakers as very, but actually more similar to English
really in having no combinatorial restrictions
(17) PilkáykayiP šémuyi
tall
šemu-ipfv
‘He is very tall.’
(18) Pilšı́:šibiP šémuyi
straight šemu-ipfv
‘It’s really straight.’
(19) Pilk’únk’uniP šémuyi
bent
šemu-ipfv
‘It’s really bent.’
Washo šemu
Also translated by speakers as very, but actually more similar to English
really in having no combinatorial restrictions
(17) PilkáykayiP šémuyi
tall
šemu-ipfv
‘He is very tall.’
(18) Pilšı́:šibiP šémuyi
straight šemu-ipfv
‘It’s really straight.’
(19) Pilk’únk’uniP šémuyi
bent
šemu-ipfv
‘It’s really bent.’
It can also modify non-gradable predicates
(20) mé:hu dókto šému k’éPi
man doctor šemu 3-cop-ipfv
‘The man is a real doctor.’
CA and NCA marking in Navajo
Verbal predicates in Navajo come with prefixes that mark
situational and viewpoint aspect, iterativity, distributivity
Adjectival stems also bear prefixes: comparative aspect (CA)
and non-comparative aspect (NCA)
(21)
a. -neez
‘tall’
b. nineez
3-tallNCA
c. ’ánı́ìnééz
3-tallCA
CA and NCA marking in Navajo
CA morphology is largely restricted to Bierwisch’s (1989)
dimensional properties
I
evaluative properties only have a NCA-marked form
(22)
I
a. -zhónı́
‘pretty’
b. nizhónı́
3-prettyNCA
c. No CA-marked form
Navajo: morphological marking of adjectival class
Outline
Classes of gradable predicates and modifier licensing
Classifying gradable predicates
Modifier selection in Navajo and Washo
Morphological marking of adjective classes
Norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Crisp judgment contexts
Norm-relatedness and lexical competition
Conclusions
Norm relatedness in degree constructions
A construction is norm-related if there is an inference that the
positive (bare) form of the predicate holds
Norm relatedness in degree constructions
A construction is norm-related if there is an inference that the
positive (bare) form of the predicate holds
(23)
a. Alice is taller than Betty. ; Alice and Betty are tall.
b. Betty is shorter than Alice. ; Alice and Betty are
short.
(24)
a. Alice is as tall as Betty. ; Alice and Betty are tall.
b. Alice is as short as Betty. ⇒ Alice and Betty are short.
(25)
Alice is tall compared to Betty. ; Alice and Betty are tall.
Washo conjoined comparison
Washo uses conjoined comparison: two clauses with antonymous
predicates are juxtaposed
(26) t’é:liwhu delkáykayiP k’éPi daPmóPmoP delkáykayiP-é:s
man
tall
3-cop woman
tall-neg
k’áPaš
3-cop
‘The man is taller than the woman.’
‘The man is tall, the woman is not tall.’
Washo conjoined comparison
Washo uses conjoined comparison: two clauses with antonymous
predicates are juxtaposed
(26) t’é:liwhu delkáykayiP k’éPi daPmóPmoP delkáykayiP-é:s
man
tall
3-cop woman
tall-neg
k’áPaš
3-cop
‘The man is taller than the woman.’
‘The man is tall, the woman is not tall.’
I
No dedicated comparative morphology
I
Do these gradable predicates receive a norm-related
interpretation?
I
How can we tell? The translation doesn’t tell us.
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Since vague gradable predicates are context-dependent, the
fieldworker and consultant need to share a common ground for
what ‘counts’ as tall, short, etc.
I
Need to embed test sentences in contexts that make the
common ground clear (cf. Matthewson 2004)
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Since vague gradable predicates are context-dependent, the
fieldworker and consultant need to share a common ground for
what ‘counts’ as tall, short, etc.
I
Need to embed test sentences in contexts that make the
common ground clear (cf. Matthewson 2004)
(27)
a. Context: comparing a man who is five feet tall and
woman who is four an a half feet tall (i.e., both are
clearly short for adult humans)
b. XThe man is taller than the woman.
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Since vague gradable predicates are context-dependent, the
fieldworker and consultant need to share a common ground for
what ‘counts’ as tall, short, etc.
I
Need to embed test sentences in contexts that make the
common ground clear (cf. Matthewson 2004)
(27)
a. Context: comparing a man who is five feet tall and
woman who is four an a half feet tall (i.e., both are
clearly short for adult humans)
b. XThe man is taller than the woman.
c. # t’é:liwhu delkáykayiP k’éPi daPmóPmoP
man
tall
3-cop woman
delkáykayiP-é:s k’áPaš
tall-neg
3-cop
‘The man is tall, the woman is not tall.’
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Challenge: many contexts we could use to test norm-relatedness
are not straightforward to present orally to a field consultant
I
The previous example worked because the contact language
(English) provides a means for precisely talking about heights
(i.e., measure phrases like 5 feet)
I
E.g., big → no conventional means for precisely measuring
bigness; associated with many dimensions (height, weight,
width)
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Visual stimulus task:
I
Fieldworker collects set of objects that differ along some
dimension (e.g., height, width)
I
This set should consist of objects of the same type (to obviate
comparison class issues)
I
Items should differ in a wide enough range such that the
predicate holds only of a subset
I
Fieldworker and consultant discuss the set of objects, and
mutually decide on which ones count as e.g., tall, short, or
in-between
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
After identifying the large, small, and medium-sized pinecones, we
test two from the ‘small’ group:
(28)
a. Context: comparing two small pinecones; both are
clearly not big (for pinecones)
b. XThis one is bigger than that one.
c. # wı́:diP behéziNaš lák’aP wı́:diP t’ı́:yeliP
this small
one this big
Intended: ‘This one is small, that one is big.’
Crisp judgment contexts
English comparatives support crisp judgments:
I
can be used even if there is only a slight difference in the
property that compared objects hold
(29)
a. Context: Charlie’s height is 5’6”, and David’s height is
5’5”.
b. XCharlie is taller than David.
Crisp judgment contexts
We can adapt the visual stimulus task from above to test crisp
judgments as well
I
Note: using expressions like ‘a little bit taller than’ or ‘slightly
taller than’ reintroduces vagueness into the context if
presented orally
Crisp judgment contexts
We can adapt the visual stimulus task from above to test crisp
judgments as well
I
Note: using expressions like ‘a little bit taller than’ or ‘slightly
taller than’ reintroduces vagueness into the context if
presented orally
Technology can be your friend:
I
create images that can be presented on a screen
Crisp judgment contexts
(30)
a. Context: comparing two ladders, one only slightly taller
than the other
b. # wı́:diP delkáykayiP k’éPi wı́:diP delkáykyaiP-é:s
this tall
3-cop this tall-neg
k’éPaš
3-cop
Intended: ‘This one is tall, this one is not tall.’
Crisp judgment contexts
(30)
I
a. Context: comparing two ladders, one only slightly taller
than the other
b. # wı́:diP delkáykayiP k’éPi wı́:diP delkáykyaiP-é:s
this tall
3-cop this tall-neg
k’éPaš
3-cop
Intended: ‘This one is tall, this one is not tall.’
Washo conjoined comparisons do not support crisp judgment
contexts
Section summary
The investigation of norm-relatedness and crisp judgment effects
was facilitated by the use of visual stimuli of a certain type
I
Can be used for initial explorations where speakers are invited
to spontaneously offer a sentence to describe a situation
I
Also essential for targeted follow-up elicitation to test a
sentence against the pictured context
I
Fieldworker and consultant explicitly negotiate which objects
hold a property
Caveat: need to test norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
independently!
Outline
Classes of gradable predicates and modifier licensing
Classifying gradable predicates
Modifier selection in Navajo and Washo
Morphological marking of adjective classes
Norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Crisp judgment contexts
Norm-relatedness and lexical competition
Conclusions
Norm-relatedness in Navajo
NCA-marked predicates receive a norm-related interpretation
(31)
a. Context: You are describing your family to me. Your
little sister is tall for a young girl. She is only 10 years
old but is already 5’ tall.
b. shidéézhı́
nineez
my.younger.sister 3-tallNCA
‘My younger sister is tall.’
Comment: ‘You can say this.’
c. * shidéézhı́
’ánı́ìnééz
my.younger.sister 3-tallCA
Intended: ‘My younger sister is tall.’
Norm-relatedness in Navajo
Norm-relatedness of NCA-marked predicates in comparatives
depends on whether a given gradable predicate has both NCA and
CA forms
(32)
a. If an NCA-marked adjective has a CA-marked
counterpart, then the comparative construction with
the NCA-marked adjective is necessarily norm-related.
b. If an NCA-marked adjective does not have a
CA-marked counterpart, then the comparative
construction with the NCA-marked adjective is not
necessarily norm-related.
Norm-relatedness in Navajo
(33)
a. Context: you are describing your family to me. Your mother
and your younger sister are both short women. Your mother
is 5’2” and your younger sister is 4’11”.
b. shimá
shidéézı́
yilááh
’ánı́ìnééz
my.mother my.younger.sister 3-beyond 3-tallCA
‘My mother is taller than my younger sister.’
c. Comment: “This sounds good. They aren’t tall, but my mom
is taller.’
d. # shimá
shidéézı́
yilááh
’at’éego
my.mother my.younger.sister 3-beyond 3-being
nineez
3-tallNCA
Intended: ‘My mother is taller than my younger sister.’
e. Comment: “You don’t want to use nineez. This implies that
they’re tall people. You’d have to use ’ánı́ìnééz.”
Norm-relatedness in Navajo
Challenge:
I
We can get at this contrast for dimensional predicates because
the contact language contains measure phrases to describe
precise contexts orally
I
Recall: we could also use visual materials to test other
dimensional predicates
I
But predicates in Navajo that lack CA forms are evaluative
→ these are subjective properties; speakers take into account
a variety of factors to determine whether an object counts as
pretty or nizhónı́
I
May be more difficult to find appropriate visual stimuli where
it is obvious that items differ in degree of beauty
Norm-relatedness in Navajo
Suggestion: contexts presented orally can easily be tailored to elicit
judgments on norm-relatedness
(34)
a. We’re looking at rugs at a trading post. You hold up two
rugs that are not good-looking: their wool is dyed in strange
colors, the weaving was not done in straight lines, and the
design is not complex. One is of slightly better quality that
the other, however. I ask what you think of the two rugs.
b. dı́ı́ diyógı́ ’eii diyógı́ yilááh
’át’éego nizhónı́
this rug that rug 3-beyond 3-being 3-prettyNCA
‘This rug is prettier than that one.’
c. Comment: “It is relative to what you’re comparing. If you
have two ugly rugs, then you’re just saying that this one is
better than the other.”
(Compare NCA-marked predicate nineez 3-tallNCA , which was
unacceptable in a context where both objects were short)
Outline
Classes of gradable predicates and modifier licensing
Classifying gradable predicates
Modifier selection in Navajo and Washo
Morphological marking of adjective classes
Norm-relatedness and crisp judgments
Methods for testing norm-relatedness
Crisp judgment contexts
Norm-relatedness and lexical competition
Conclusions
Conclusions
I
The fieldworker should be aware of the typology of gradable
predicates, including the distinctions discussed here.
I
A complete description of gradability and comparison requires
investigation into several classes of gradable predicates in
several constructions and contexts
I
A mix of oral and visual contexts can be used to obviate
issues with context-dependence and norm-relatedness
Conclusions
Plea for more fieldwork!
I
This is a relatively new and exciting area of cross-linguistic
research in semantics
I
More detailed fieldwork on this subject can inform future
theoretical research