(Non-)Intersective adjectives and root suppletion

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Linguistic Review Pub Date : 2019-07-06 DOI:10.1515/tlr-2019-2027
M. Despić
{"title":"(Non-)Intersective adjectives and root suppletion","authors":"M. Despić","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper I examine certain gradable adjectives in Serbian, whose suppletive comparative forms display unexpected semantic properties. In particular, while these adjectives are ambiguous between intersective and non-intersective readings in the positive form, their suppletive comparative and superlative forms are limited to the non-intersective interpretation. These facts show, I argue, that in a theory like Distributed Morphology either adjectival roots or category-assigning heads they combine with come in semantic subtypes (i.e. are specified for certain semantic properties; Harley 2005, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014). I show how the analysis I propose explains semantic properties of change-of-state verbs derived from these adjectives and why these adjectives are restricted to the intersective interpretation when their positive form takes the long-form (definite) inflection. I also provide an illustration of how Arregi and Nevins’s (2014) analysis of the so-called “disuppletive” roots, such worse/badder, can deal with the facts presented in this paper. Finally, I discuss implications of these facts in the context of Bobaljik’s (2012) approach to suppletive comparative morphology.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"507 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In this paper I examine certain gradable adjectives in Serbian, whose suppletive comparative forms display unexpected semantic properties. In particular, while these adjectives are ambiguous between intersective and non-intersective readings in the positive form, their suppletive comparative and superlative forms are limited to the non-intersective interpretation. These facts show, I argue, that in a theory like Distributed Morphology either adjectival roots or category-assigning heads they combine with come in semantic subtypes (i.e. are specified for certain semantic properties; Harley 2005, Anagnostopoulou and Samioti 2014). I show how the analysis I propose explains semantic properties of change-of-state verbs derived from these adjectives and why these adjectives are restricted to the intersective interpretation when their positive form takes the long-form (definite) inflection. I also provide an illustration of how Arregi and Nevins’s (2014) analysis of the so-called “disuppletive” roots, such worse/badder, can deal with the facts presented in this paper. Finally, I discuss implications of these facts in the context of Bobaljik’s (2012) approach to suppletive comparative morphology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(非)交叉形容词与词根补语
摘要本文考察了塞尔维亚语中某些可分级形容词,这些形容词的补充比较形式表现出意想不到的语义特征。特别是,虽然这些形容词在阳性形式的交叉和非交叉阅读之间是模糊的,但它们的补充比较和最高级形式仅限于非交叉解释。我认为,这些事实表明,在分布式形态学这样的理论中,无论是形容词词根还是类别分配词头,它们都与come-in语义亚型相结合(即,为某些语义属性指定;Harley 2005,Anagnostopoulou和Samioti 2014)。我展示了我提出的分析是如何解释由这些形容词派生的状态变化动词的语义特性的,以及为什么当这些形容词的积极形式采用长形式(确定)屈折时,它们被限制在交叉解释中。我还举例说明了Arregi和Nevins(2014)对所谓的“不可分解”根源的分析,即更坏/更坏的根源,如何处理本文中提出的事实。最后,我在Bobaljik(2012)的补充比较形态学方法的背景下讨论了这些事实的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
期刊最新文献
Coordination versus separation: difference of gapping between Chinese and English and its prosodic attribution Force mismatch in clausal ellipsis Simplifying the theoretical treatment of wager verbs On the verb-raising analysis of non-constituent coordination in Japanese Morphological analysis of alienability contrast in Nuer: an atypical typical case
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1