Academic literature on the topic 'Adjective ordering'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Adjective ordering.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Adjective ordering"
1
Pérez-Leroux, Ana, Alexander Tough, Erin Pettibone, and Crystal Chen. "Restrictions on ordering of adjectives in Spanish." Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 9, no. 1 (2020): 181–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/1.9.1.5277.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract. Sequences of multiple modifying adjectives are subject to poorly understood lexical ordering restrictions. There are certain commonalities to these restrictions across languages, as well as substantive language variation. Ordering restrictions in Spanish are still under empirical debate, with some proposing strict ordering for direct modifier adjectives; others proposing broad ordering restrictions based on the contrast between intersective and non-intersective adjectives, and yet others raising the possibility that adjectival order is fully unrestricted. The goal of the present study is to examine corpus evidence for adjectival sequences. We look at both sequences of two postnominal adjectives (Noun +Adjective + Adjective, NAA sequences) as well as sequences of one prenominal, and one postnominal adjective (Adjective + Noun +Adjective, ANA sequences). The results from the NAA datasets clearly categorically confirms that relational adjectives are structurally closer to the noun. There is some evidence for an ordering bias along the line of the intersectivity hypothesis, but little else in term of hard evidence for restrictions. Additional ordering constraints appear once we incorporate the ANA datasets into the empirical picture. One interpretation is that these restrictions can be subsumed under an approach where evaluative adjectives have to occupy the prenominal restriction. In sum, the evidence is most compatible with the middle ground approach, but not with a fully articulated set of ordering restrictions.
2
Scontras, Gregory, Judith Degen, and Noah D. Goodman. "Subjectivity Predicts Adjective Ordering Preferences." Open Mind 1, no. 1 (2017): 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00005.
Full textAbstract:
From English to Hungarian to Mokilese, speakers exhibit strong ordering preferences in multi-adjective strings: “the big blue box” sounds far more natural than “the blue big box.” We show that an adjective’s distance from the modified noun is predicted not by a rigid syntax, but by the adjective’s meaning: less subjective adjectives occur closer to the nouns they modify. This finding provides an example of a broad linguistic universal—adjective ordering preferences—emerging from general properties of cognition.
3
Kachakeche, Zeinab, and Gregory Scontras. "Adjective ordering in Arabic: Post-nominal structure and subjectivity-based preferences." Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5, no. 1 (2020): 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4726.
Full textAbstract:
Adults have a collective tendency to choose certain adjective orderings in nominals with multiple adjectives. For example, English-speaking adults prefer the order big blue box over blue big box; they are uncomfortable with the latter ordering, yet they are unable to articulate why. Scontras, Degen & Goodman (2017) showed that subjectivity is a robust predictor of adjective ordering preferences in English. That is, less subjective adjectives are preferred closer to the noun. In the example big blue box, big is more subjective than blue, so it is preferred farther from the noun. This paper investigates adjective ordering preferences in Arabic, a language with post-nominal adjectives (i.e., a language where adjectives occur after the noun they modify). We have found that native speakers of Arabic have adjective ordering preferences, and, like English, these preferences are predicted by subjectivity. In addition to establishing the preference baseline in monolingually-raised Arabic speakers, we also ask what happens to ordering preferences in heritage speakers: bilinguals who shifted their language dominance from Arabic to English early in childhood.
4
Ollennu, Yvonne Akwele Amankwaa. "ADJECTIVE SEQUENCING IN GA." Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics 10 (December 13, 2017): 71–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/bjll.v10i0.1384.
Full textAbstract:
The use of multiple words to describe nouns is a common phenomenon in language and languages that have adjectives employ this word class.Ga, a Kwa language of the Niger Congo, branch is no exception, whereas languages without adjectives may use other lexical categories like nouns and verbs which play the adjectival role. Ga has adjectives and employs them as attributives for nouns. The paper examines the syntactic rule governing the occurence of several adjectives serving as attibtutes of a single head noun. In this paper the noun is considered as the head of the Ga Nominal Phrase. The order of these adjectives has not received scholarly attention in Ga and this is to fill that gap in the literature. I argued that the order of adjectives is not haphazardly arranged but follows a laid down syntactc prescription. For instance the data showed that Dimension adjectives normall occur in first position, whereas colour adjectives occur further from the head noun. It was also revealed that in the ordering of adjectives in which Value adjectives is included, the Age adjective occurs in last position and Value adjective occurs first or last when included in the ordering of adjectives for a noun. Consequently, it is opined that defying the arrangement in the ordering of the adjectives resulted in unacceptable forms.The adjectives are grouped according to Dixon semantic classes. Data is gathered from native speakers of Ga. The findings contribute to the existing literature on adjective sequencing in Ghanaian languages.
5
Samonte, Suttera, and Gregory Scontras. "Adjective ordering in Tagalog: A cross-linguistic comparison of subjectivity-based preferences." Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4, no. 1 (2019): 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4511.
Full textAbstract:
Previous studies have shown that speakers have robust adjective ordering preferences. For example, in English, big red apple is strongly preferred to red big apple. Recently, Scontras et al. (2017) showed that an adjective’s distance from the noun it modifies is best predicted by the adjective’s subjectivity, with less subjective adjectives preferred closer to the modified noun. However, this finding was limited to English. The current study investigates the status of subjectivity-based adjective ordering preference in Tagalog, a language that forms its modification structures with the conjunction-like LINKER particle. Using Tagalog translations of the original English materials, we show that subjectivity predicts ordering preferences in Tagalog, as it does in English.
6
Rosales, Cesar Manuel, and Gregory Scontras. "On the role of conjunction in adjective ordering preferences." Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4, no. 1 (2019): 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4524.
Full textAbstract:
Adjective ordering preferences are robustly attested in English and many unrelated languages. In nominals with multi-adjective strings (e.g., big blue box), chances are the order of the adjectives is non-arbitrary. However, ordering preferences are claimed to neutralize in cases where multi-adjective strings are formed via conjunction (e.g., blue and big box). We provide empirical evidence in support of this claim, but with an important caveat: conjunction neutralizes adjective ordering preferences in languages like Spanish where multi-adjective strings obligatorily feature conjunction. In English, where multi-adjective strings optionally feature conjunction, ordering preferences persist in the presence of conjunction.
7
McKinney-Bock, Katy. "Adjective Classes and Syntactic Ordering Restrictions." LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 1 (May 2, 2010): 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.481.
Full textAbstract:
I argue there are four classes of adjectives relevant to syntactic ordering: predicative/intersective, predicative/non-intersective, non-predicative, classifying (Svenonius 2008, Alexiadou et al 2007), and previous proposals have not identified the relevant semantic dimensions. Among the properties of gradability, mass/count, and intersectivity, only intersectivity is syntactically relevant. The four classes of adjectives are motivated by the distribution of ordered/non-ordered adjectives, scope effects with certain adjective-pairs, PP-modification, N-dropping and comparatives (Bouchard 2002, Higginbotham 1985, Kennedy 1999). DP structure involves 1) merging the classifying adjective with pronounced N, 2) merging intersective adjectives with N, 3) merging non-intersective adjectives with a silent copy of N.
8
Muromatsu, Keiko. "Adjective ordering as the reflection of a hierarchy in the noun system." Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2001 1 (December 31, 2001): 181–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.08mur.
Full textAbstract:
Adjective ordering in English, as in other languages, is nonrandom. In English, the restrictions involve left-to-right sequence, this being a specific case of the general principle: proximity of adjectives to the noun. This article provides a syntactic analysis of such restrictions, focusing not on the adjectives themselves but rather on properties of the nouns modified by them, namely their count/mass properties. Based on the claim that count and mass are hierarchically organized rather than dichotomous, as previously thought adjective ordering is shown to be a reflection of the count/mass distinction. This system accounts for the universality of the ordering restriction on adjectives, the universal principle being proximity to the noun. The difference in linear ordering in English and Spanish is ascribed to the presence/absence of a functional category, this being considered as a parameter. Non-canonically ordered adjectives in English are given a syntactic account as well, thus obviating the need for a pragmatic account.
9
Leivada, Evelina, and Marit Westergaard. "Universal linguistic hierarchies are not innately wired. Evidence from multiple adjectives." PeerJ 7 (August 1, 2019): e7438. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7438.
Full textAbstract:
Background Linguists and psychologists have explained the remarkable similarities in the orderings of linguistic elements across languages by suggesting that our inborn ability for language makes available certain innately wired primitives. Different types of adjectives, adverbs, and other elements in the functional spine are considered to occupy fixed positions via innate hierarchies that determine orderings such as A>B>C, banning other permutations (*B>C>A). The goal of this research is to tap into the nature and rigidity of such hierarchies by comparing what happens when people process orderings that either comply with them or violate them. Method N = 170 neurotypical, adult speakers completed a timed forced choice task that featured stimuli showing a combination of two adjectives and a Spelke-object (e.g., ‘I bought a square black table’). Two types of responses were collected: (i) acceptability judgments on a 3-point Likert scale that featured the options ‘correct’, ‘neither correct nor wrong’, and ‘wrong’ and (ii) reaction times. The task featured three conditions: 1. size adjective > nationality adjective, 2. color adjective > shape adjective, 3. subjective comment adjective > material adjective. Each condition had two orders. In the congruent order, the adjective pair was ordered in agreement with what is traditionally accepted as dictated by the universal hierarchy. In the incongruent order, the ordering was reversed, thus the hierarchy was violated. Results In the first experiment, the results of n = 140 monolinguals showed that across conditions, both congruent and incongruent orders were generally accepted as correct. For 2/3 conditions, the difference in acceptability ratings between congruent and incongruent orders did not reach statistical significance. Using time as a window to processing, reaction times showed that incongruent orders do not take longer to process than congruent ones, as should be the case if the former were treated as being licensed under some type of special condition (e.g., contrastive focus) that reverses the unmarked order and legitimizes the violation of the hierarchy. In the second experiment, the results of n = 30 bidialectals, tested in both language varieties, corroborated the findings of the first experiment. Conclusions Our findings do not provide evidence for an innate hierarchy for adjective ordering that imposes one rigid, unmarked order. We discuss the importance of notions such as subjectivity and inherentness, and show that for some conditions, not only is there no evidence for a hard constraint that bans incongruent orders, but even simple preferences of congruent orders over incongruent ones are hard to discern. Capturing the bigger picture, given that both the hierarchies and their legit permutations have been described as innate, our results reduce the amount of primitives that are cast as innate, eventually offering a deflationist approach to human linguistic cognition.
10
Glass, Lelia. "Deriving the distributivity potential of adjectives via measurement theory." Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 3, no. 1 (2018): 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4343.
Full textAbstract:
The boxes are heavy can convey that each box is heavy (distributive), or that some individually light boxes qualify as heavy when lifted together (nondistributive; Schwarzschild 1996, Schwarzschild 2011). In contrast, the boxes are fragile generally requires each box to be fragile (distributive). Which adjectives behave like heavy or like fragile, and why? This paper proposes a measurement-theoretic account. For a gradable adjective to be understood nondistributively, I argue that a⊕b must exceed a and b along the scale associated with the adjective. That way, the contextual standard θ for what ‘counts as’ (adjective) in the context can be set in such a way that the composite object a⊕b surpasses the contextual standard θ while a and b individually fall short of it – a nondistributive understanding, in that the adjective is true of a⊕b together but not of a or b individually. This ordering is possible for heavy but not fragile, deriving their differences. More generally, researchers agree that an adjective’s potential for distributivity depends on what we know about the property it describes. Making that idea more explanatory, this paper articulates which features of the property described by the adjective matter for distributivity and why.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Adjective ordering"
1
Panayidou, Fryni. "(In)flexibility in adjective ordering." Thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, 2014. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/8815.
Full textAbstract:
The present thesis investigates adjective ordering across languages, with an emphasis on Greek and Cypriot Maronite Arabic (CMA). Cross-linguistically, attributive adjectives are argued to be ordered according to their semantic class (Hetzron 1978; Dixon 1982; Cinque 1994, 2010, among others). Given that the orders attested cross-linguistically are very similar, it is claimed that all orders have the same underlying order, which is imposed by syntax as in Cinque 2010. If adjective ordering restrictions are indeed syntactic, the question that arises is how to account for violations of the order. I defend the view that the order can be affected by various factors. Following Sproat and Shih (1991) and Cinque (2010), I assume that there is an indirect vs. direct distinction in adjectival modification, and I claim that Greek polydefinites are an instance of the former, whereby the adjective merges inside a Reduced Relative Clause – a PredP as in Bhatt 2000. The additional definite article is not a true article, but the realisation of Pred0. Moreover, I argue that adjective ordering phenomena give us an insight into whether adjectives modify the noun as heads or phrases. The claim is that both are necessary; adjectives that are structurally closer to the noun combine with it as heads, while structurally higher adjectives, e.g. adjectives with complements or adjectives that have a predicative source, are phrasal-modifiers. The ability of adjectives to have access to both types of modification also leads to apparent violations of the order. Finally, I discuss new data from CMA, which allows both prenominal and postnominal adjectives. Adjectives borrowed from Greek are found in either position, while native Arabic adjectives are strongly preferred postnominally. I argue that adjective ordering and placement is inflexible in CMA, and that the facts follow by the need of phrases in the extended nominal projection to inherit a nominal feature.
2
McKinney-Bock, Katy. "Adjective ordering restrictions: exploring relevant semantic notions for syntactic ordering." University of Arizona Linguistics Circle, 2010. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/104642.
Full textAbstract:
I propose that ordering restrictions among adjectives (e.g., the big gray poodle) are driven by the covert syntactic complexity of the adjectival projections. The more complex the projection containing the adjective, the higher in the structure it must merge. Intersective adjectives (gray) merge with the NP, and non-intersective adjectives (big) merge also with a covert for-PP that contains a copy of the NP. This differs from the usual approaches to adjective ordering, which turn to fine-grained semantic subclasses (e.g. height, length, color) or functional heads in the DP to explain adjective ordering restrictions.
3
Sakai, Hideki. "Do Recasts Provide Second Language Learners With Negative Evidence?" Diss., Temple University Libraries, 2015. http://cdm16002.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p245801coll10/id/345682.
Full textAbstract:
Teaching & Learning<br>Ed.D.<br>The purpose of this experimental study is to examine the effects of recasts on narrowing overgeneralized grammar in the second language (L2). The study involved testing three major hypotheses of the mechanisms underlying recasts: the direct contrast hypothesis (Saxton, 1997, 2000), the additional input hypothesis (Gass, 1997; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1996, 2007), and the enhanced salience hypothesis (Leeman, 2003). Two structures (adjective ordering and indirect passives) were selected for this study, mainly because it was assumed that Japanese learners of English might produce overgeneralized rules that allow incorrect structures because of their first language (L1) influence. The participants were 97 Japanese university students learning English as a foreign language in Japan. They were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: recast (the REC Group), non-contingent positive evidence (the POS Group), recast plus additional input (the REC+ Group), and input with enhanced salience (the SAL Group). A pretest, posttest, and delayed-posttest design were employed. The measurement instruments were an oral production task, elicited imitation task, and untimed grammaticality judgment task, each of which was designed to elicit participants’ implicit and explicit knowledge about adjective ordering and indirect passives. Thus, the independent variable was the treatment conditions, and the dependent variable were the test scores regarding ungrammaticality of the overgeneralized rules of the target structures. After data screening, the data from 75 of the 97 participants were analyzed for adjective ordering, and the data from 90 participants were analyzed for indirect passives. The results showed that the POS Group did not improve on all the measures for adjective ordering and indirect passives; thus, it was suggested that positive evidence was not sufficient for the participants to narrow overgeneralized rules for the target structures. The findings indicated that for adjective ordering, medium effect sizes for the comparison of the POS and REC Groups were obtained on the grammaticality judgment tests for the pretest-posttest and pretest-delayed posttest comparisons. Thus, based on these effect sizes, the direct contrast hypothesis was partially supported (i.e., for one of the two structures and one measure of the three tests). Furthermore, on the basis of the results that the REC and REC+ Groups did not differ significantly on any measure and that on the adjective-ordering grammaticality judgment tests, the comparison between the REC+ Group and the POS Group obtained a medium effect size for the pretest-delayed posttest comparison, the provision of recasts in the REC and REC+ Groups was effective at least for the adjective-ordering grammaticality judgment tests; however, additional input alone did not have an impact on L2 learners’ retreat from the overgeneralized rules. Finally, the results showed that the POS and SAL Groups did not differ significantly and that there existed a difference in the performance on the adjective-ordering grammaticality judgment tests between the REC Group and the SAL Groups. Salience might not be effective in helping L2 learners retreat from overgeneralized rules, and the enhanced salience hypothesis can be interpreted as being limited to learning some linguistic structures. In conclusion, the present study provides empirical evidence that L2 learners can persist in using incorrect overgeneralized rules due to L1 rules and that ten tokens of the target structures are not effective for L2 learners to retreat from the overgeneralized rules. Furthermore, the findings lend support to the direct contrast hypothesis as a mechanism underlying recasts for one of the two target structures.<br>Temple University--Theses
4
Wilkinson, Bryan. "Identifying and Ordering Scalar Adjectives Using Lexical Substitution." Thesis, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2018. http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=10623407.
Full textAbstract:
<p> Lexical semantics provides many important resources in natural language processing, despite the recent preferences for distributional methods. In this dissertation we investigate an under-represented lexical relationship, that of scalarity. We define scalarity as it relates to adjectives and introduce novel methods to identify words belonging to a particular scale and to order those words once they are found. This information has important uses in both traditional linguistics as well as natural language processing. We focus on solving both these problems using lexical substitution, a technique that allows us to determine the best substitute word for a given word in a sentence. We also produce two new datasets: a gold standard of scalar adjectives for use in the development and evaluation of methods like the ones introduces here, and a test set of indirect question-answer pairs, one possible application of scalar adjectives.</p><p>
5
Thetso, 'Madira Leoniah. "The distribution and interpretation of the qualificative in seSotho." Thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/25561.
Full textAbstract:
Text in English<br>This study explores the syntax of the substantive phrase, more especially substantive phrase composed of more than one qualificative, in Sesotho. Adopting interviews, questionnaires and documents, the study seeks to investigate the syntactic sequence of qualificatives, their relation to the modified head word and influence of such ordering pattern in the phrase. Structurally, qualificatives comprise two components, namely the qualificative concord and stem. The qualificative serves to give varied information about the implicit or explicit substantive resulting in seven types of qualificatives in Sesotho, be they the Adjective, Demonstrative, Enumerative, Interrogative, Possessive, Quantifier and Relative. From the Minimalist perspective, the qualificative is recursive. The study established a maximum of five qualificatives in a single phrase. The number is generally achieved by recurrence of the Adjective, the Possessive and the Relative up to a maximum of four of the same qualificative in a single phrase. It is observed that the recurrence of the Demonstrative, Interrogative, Enumerative and Quantifier is proscribed in Sesotho. Regarding the ordering of qualificatives, it is also observed that the Demonstrative, Interrogative, Quantifier and Possessive mostly occupy the position closer to the substantive while the Adjective, Enumerative, Possessive and Quantifier mostly occur in the medial position. The Possessive and Relative occur in the outer-border position of the phrase. Such a sequence is influenced by several factors including focus, emphasis, the nature of the relationship between the head word and the dependent element, the syntactic complexity of the qualificative and the knowledge shared by both the speaker and the hearer about the qualified substantive. It can, therefore, be concluded that there are no strict rules of occurrence of the qualificatives in Sesotho.<br>African Languages<br>D. Litt. et Phil. (African Languages)
Books on the topic "Adjective ordering"
1
Wellwood, Alexis. The Meaning of More. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804659.001.0001.
Full textAbstract:
This book re-imagines the compositional semantics of comparative constructions with words like “more”. It argues for a revision of one of the fundamental assumptions of the degree semantics framework as applied to such constructions: that gradable adjectives do not lexicalize measure functions (i.e., mappings from individuals or events to degrees). Instead, the degree morphology itself plays the role of degree introduction. The book begins with a careful study of non-canonical comparatives targeting nouns and verbs, and applies the lessons learned there to those targeting adjectives and adverbs. A primary distinction that the book draws extends the traditional distinction between gradable and non-gradable as applied to the adjectival domain to the distinction between “measurable” and “non-measurable” predicates that crosses lexical categories. The measurable predicates, in addition to the gradable adjectives, include mass noun phrases, plural noun phrases, imperfective verb phrases, and perfective atelic verb phrases. In each of these cases, independent evidence for non-trivial ordering relations on the relevant domains of predication are discussed, and measurability is tied to the accessibility of such orderings. Applying this compositional theory to the core cases and beyond, the book establishes that the selection of measure functions for a given comparative depends entirely on what is measured and compared rather than which expression introduces the measurement
2
Lassiter, Daniel. Measurement theory and the typology of scales. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198701347.003.0002.
Full textAbstract:
Most previous work on graded modality has relied on qualitative orderings, rather than degree semantics. This chapter introduces Representational Theory of Measurement (RTM), a framework which makes it possible to translate between qualitative and degree-based scales. I describe a way of using RTM to extend the compositional degree semantics introduced in chapter 1 to qualitative scales. English data are used to motivate the application of the RTM discussion between ordinal, interval, and ratio scales to scalar adjectives, with special attention to the kinds of statements that are semantically interpretable relative to different scale types. I also propose and motivate empirically a distinction between ‘additive’ and ‘intermediate’ scales, which interact differently with the algebraic join operation (realizing sum formation or disjunction, depending on the domain). This distinction is reflected in inferential properties of non-modal adjectives in English, and is also important for the analysis of graded modality in later chapters.
Book chapters on the topic "Adjective ordering"
1
Kim, Min-Joo. "Adjective Ordering Restrictions: The View from Korean." In The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Modifiers and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Springer International Publishing, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05886-9_3.
Full text
2
Sproat, Richard, and Chilin Shih. "The Cross-Linguistic Distribution of Adjective Ordering Restrictions." In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Springer Netherlands, 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_30.
Full text
3
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giuliana Giusti. "The Acquisition of Adjectival Ordering in Italian." In Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Springer Netherlands, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9207-6_4.
Full text
4
McKinney-Bock, Katy. "Linearization When Multiple Orderings Are Possible: Adjective Ordering Restrictions and Focus." In Exploring Interfaces. Cambridge University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108674195.011.
Full text
5
"Chapter Ten. Adjective Ordering In Herodotus: A Pragmatic Explanation." In The Language of Literature. BRILL, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004156548.i-251.76.
Full text
6
van Schaaik, Gerjan. "Adverbs and their like." In The Oxford Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198851509.003.0014.
Full textAbstract:
A popular method of classifying adverbs is by looking at what they modify: adjective or verb. Another criterion is whether or not the adverbial expression reflects an attitude of the speaker towards the content of his utterance. Both groups, objective and subjective adverbs, contain large numbers of lexical adverbs, all highly conventionalized. Other groups sharing these properties are adverbs of place and indeterminate adverbials. Adverbial phrases can be formed in several ways: by using an adjective, by drawing from the lexical stock of ready-to-use adverbs, by various forms of suffixation, and by reduplication. Adverbials based on the notions ‘with’ and ‘without’ deserve special attention, particularly with respect to possessive expressions. The final section discusses constructions based on kinship terms which do not follow the canonical suffix ordering.
7
Nicolae, Alexandru. "Word order in the nominal phrase." In Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198807360.003.0004.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter examines the main changes in the syntax of Romanian nominal phrases as they are reflected in the ordering of DP-internal constituents. The first part of the chapter focuses on the ‘low definite article’, i.e. structures in which the noun bearing the definite article occupies a non-DP-initial position. The low definite article is relevant to the emergence of the Romanian article (its suffixal nature singles out Romanian in Romance) on the one hand and to the understanding of the freer DP-internal word order characteristic of old Romanian on the other hand. The changes in the position of adjectives relative to the head noun and in the linearization of adjectives with respect to one another are then addressed. Finally, residual head-final structures in the nominal and adjectival domain and discontinuous constituents are analysed.
8
Wellwood, Alexis. "Measuring states." In The Meaning of More. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804659.003.0004.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter extends the theory developed in the previous chapter in which an expression like “much” (implicitly as part of “more”, explicitly as part of phrases like “too much” when combined with nouns and verbs) uniformly introduces measure functions into the compositional semantics of comparatives. The present focus is on adjectival comparatives, which are typically analyzed as involving lexical specification of measures by the adjectival target. Exploring both novel and familiar data, drawn from the morphosyntactic and semantic literatures, this chapter suggests that the balance of evidence diagnoses the relevance of order-theoretic properties at the lexical level rather than the presence of lexically-specified measures. The positive proposal offered is that adjectives express properties of states, and the distinction between gradable and non-gradable is on a par with that between mass and count nouns: the former introduce non-trivial ordering relations while the latter do not.
Conference papers on the topic "Adjective ordering"
1
Leung, Jun Yen, Guy Emerson, and Ryan Cotterell. "Investigating Cross-Linguistic Adjective Ordering Tendencies with a Latent-Variable Model." In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.329.
Full text
2
Eng, Stefan, Jennifer Tan, and Markus Iseli. "Adjective Intensity Ordering by Representing Word Definitions as a System of Linear Equations." In 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC). IEEE, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/icsc.2018.00047.
Full text