Good manners - Affectedness Workshop 2015

Affectedness Workshop 2015: Verb Classes and the Scale of Change in Affected Arguments
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, August 13-14, 2015
On GOOD manners
Berit Gehrke (CNRS-LLF / Paris Diderot)
(based on joint work with Elena Castroviejo)1
1
Introduction
• Three readings of well (and its counterparts in other languages; henceforth WELL):
– Discourse particle (in the beginning of a sentence, usually with comma intonation) (1-a)
– Manner (with verbs, including participles) (1-b)
– Degree (with adjectives, including adjectivized participles) (1-c)
(1)
a.
b.
c.
Well, this idea is very interesting.
He has written the article well.
They are well acquainted.
T HIS PAPER: manner and degree readings of WELL
• Manner WELL seems to be uniformly available: event predicate in the verbal domain
• ‘Degree’ WELL: not a uniform phenomenon
– The examples to illustrate ‘degree’ WELL generally involve participles, as in (1-c) (e.g.
Bolinger 1972; Kennedy and McNally 2005; McNally and Kennedy 2013).
– In (standard) English, it is usually not possible to use well as a ‘degree’ modifier of genuine
adjectives (2-a) (unlike degree modifiers like very, etc.); similarly for German (2-b).
(2)
a. *The train is well blue / long / beautiful.
b. *Der Zug ist gut blau / lang / schön.
the train is well blue long beautiful
– In Catalan, this is possible (3). (Also in some varieties of Spanish, cf. Hernanz 1999, 2010; GonzálezRodrı́guez 2006; González-Rivera and Gutiérrez-Rexach 2012; Gutiérrez-Rexach and González-Rivera 2014)
(3)
El tren és ben blau / llarg / bonic.
the train is well blue long beautiful
‘The train is very / rather / quite blue / long / beautiful.’
• ‘Degree’ WELL: Two different phenomena (Castroviejo and Gehrke 2015)
1. ‘Manner-in-disguise’ WELL, e.g. (1-c) (event modifier, just like manner WELL, e.g. (1-b))
⇒ English and German WELL is not an adjectival degree modifier, but exclusively a VP
modifier (a predicate of events, in the broadest sense, to include states).
⇒ Whether or not a degree reading is available depends entirely on properties of the
underlying verb.
2. (Degree-)‘intensifying’ WELL, e.g. (3) (absent in Eng/Ger, present in Span/Cat)
⇒ Catalan WELL has similar uses as other degree modifiers (cf. translation of (3)).
⇒ Intensifying WELL expresses the speaker’s approval of a property ascription.
(more on Catalan in Castroviejo and Gehrke 2015)
1 This
research has partially been supported by project FFI2012-34170 (MINECO) and by the Ramón y Cajal program
(RYC-2010-06070).
1
2
‘Degree’ WELL in English (McNally and Kennedy 2013) (McN&K)
(see also Kennedy and McNally 1999, 2005)
• Degree ‘well’ arises with past participles, usually not with genuine adjectives (recall (2)).2
• Three conditions on the degree interpretation of well:
1. It requires a gradable adjective [adjectivized past participle].
2. It requires a totally closed scale (diagnostics: modifiability by partially/fully) (6).
(6)
a. The truck is well / partially / fully loaded.
b. ??Marge was well / partially / fully worried when she saw the flying pig.
3. The standard of comparison cannot be the maximum, given the assumption that ‘degree’
well boosts the standard; cf. (7) vs. (8).
(7)
(8)
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER:
a. They are well acquainted.
b. The truck is well loaded.
ONLY MANNER :
a.
b.
The book is well written.
The hay is well loaded.
• The standard with deverbal adjectives is determined by the scale structure derived from the
underlying event/argument structure.
– When the argument is an incremental theme (8): What counts as a loaded/written incremental theme can only be such that the maximum standard is met (it is completely
loaded/written).
→ ONLY MANNER
– With other arguments (e.g. (7)), the standard is not necessarily the maximum (e.g. a truck
can also be partially loaded).
→ ‘ DEG ’ is available
⇒ The ‘degree’ interpretation is possible only if the argument of the modified participle
is a non-incremental theme argument of the source verb.
• ‘Degree’ well cannot be a true degree modifier, though:
– True degree modification does not allow additional degree modification (9-a).
– ‘Degree’ well, however, does (9-b).
(9)
2 Kennedy
(4)
a.
b.
c.
a. *{completely very / very completely} red
b. very well acquainted
and McNally (2005, 375) provide the following examples for ‘genuine’ adjectives with ‘degree’ WELL:
We are well aware of the difficulties.
They are well able to solve their own problems.
The bud was well open. (Bolinger 1972, 43)
We are not sure that (4-a,b) should be treated as genuine adjectives; (4-c) could be like a truncated participle. Similar
marginal cases also exist in German, in which genuine adjectives usually do not combine with WELL; cf. (5).
(5)
Das Glas ist gut voll.
the glass is WELL full
‘The glass is quite / fairly full.’
We leave these marginal cases for future research.
2
• General idea of McNally and Kennedy’s (2013) analysis:
, ‘Degree’ WELL is a special case of manner WELL; both apply to events.
, It denotes a measure function on events (a relation between events and degrees).
, This measure function is the same as that denoted by the adjective good: it maps an event
onto a(n open) scale of goodness.
/ The scale structure requirements are built into the lexical semantics of ‘degree’ well.
• Account framed in Generative Lexicon, HPSG (building on Pollard and Sag 1994; Pustejovsky
1995; Badia and Saurı́ 2000, 2013):
(10)
Lexical representation for well (Figure 2 in McNally and Kennedy 2013):
• Kennedy and McNally (2005): ‘Degree’ well takes a closed-scale adjective and returns a new gradable adjective
meaning based on the relative adjective good (11).
– The derived predicate measures the goodness of the event that is related to the degree to which the subject
has the property named by the adjective.
– With deverbal adjectives: the degree to which the object possesses the relevant property as a result of participating in the event.
(11)
[[well]] = λ G[0,1] λ dλ x.good(ε(ιd 0 [G[0,1] (d 0 )(x)])) = d
• ‘Degree’ vs. manner: Participles come with a telic and an agentive quale (in the sense of
Pustejovsky 1995).
– Manner: well applies to the event in the agentive quale,via selective binding (assignment
of a value on the goodness scale to the process of the event)
– ‘Degree’: well applies to the event in the telic quale (assignment of a value on the goodness
scale to the result state)
3
(12)
Lexical representation for loaded-with (Figure 5 in McNally and Kennedy 2013):
• loaded-with vs. loaded-on:
– A state of being loaded with something can truthfully obtain as soon as the smallest loading event has occurred.
→ There are result states of different degrees of loadedness that can be qualified with
respect to the goodness scale.
– A state of being loaded on some container (with incremental themes) will only truthfully
obtain when the loading has been completed.
→ All result states are identical in degree and it does not make sense to try to qualify
them with respect to the goodness scale.
• Problems of the account:
– Even though McN&K aim at deriving the degree reading from the manner reading, they
actually do not do that: they do not provide an account of manner well.
– The only thing that ‘degree’ and manner well have in common is that they denote properties
of events; but McN&K build the conditions above directly into the lexical semantics of well
(and thus they have a lexical entry for ‘degree’ well only).
• What we will use:
, ‘Degree’ WELL is a special case of manner WELL; both denote properties of events.
, Both denote a measure function on events (a relation between events and degrees).
, This measure function is the same as that denoted by the adjective good.
4
3
‘Degree’ vs. manner WELL in German
• Some of the properties identified for English ‘degree’ WELL hold for German as well:
– ‘Closed-scale adjectives’ (participles) are compatible with ‘degree’ WELL (13).
(13)
a.
b.
Die Tür ist {halb / gut} geschlossen.
the door is half WELL closed
Der Lastwagen ist {halb / gut} beladen.
the truck
is half WELL AT-loaded
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER
– ‘Degree’ WELL allows additional degree modification (14).
(14)
a.
b.
Die Tür ist {sehr / ziemlich} gut geschlossen.
the door is very rather
WELL closed
Der Lastwagen ist {sehr / ziemlich} gut beladen.
the truck
is very rather
WELL AT -loaded
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER
– The ‘degree’ reading is not possible with incremental themes (15).
(15)
a.
b.
3.1
Das Buch ist gut geschrieben.
the book is WELL written
Das Heu ist gut geladen.
the hay is WELL loaded
ONLY MANNER
ONLY MANNER
Some doubts about McN&K’s generalizations
• A totally closed scale is not sufficient for the degree reading: Some participles that allow modification by partially etc. (16-a) nevertheless do not give rise to the ‘degree’ reading (16-b).
(16)
a.
b.
Die Tür ist {teilweise / halb / ganz} geöffnet.
the door is partially half whole opened
Die Tür ist gut geöffnet.
the door is WELL opened
ONLY MANNER
• Incremental theme verbs do not have a result state in their lexical representation (= no telic
quale), but denote an activity only (= have an agentive quale).
→ An incremental theme can add a scale to measure out the event (cf. Kennedy 2012).
→ However, WELL does not modify the theme but only the participle.
NB Out of context, these verbs are not good inputs to adjectival passivization, precisely because they
lack a stative component (17) (cf. Gehrke 2015, and literature cited therein).
→ They can only have a ‘job-is-done’ reading (in the sense of Kratzer 2000).
→ Additional manner modification (in this case WELL) can render the adjectival passive construction acceptable.
(17)
Das Buch ist ?(gut) geschrieben.
the book is well written
⇒ The underlying verbs only have a process (activity component) for WELL to measure.
5
3.2
Changing the perspective: Which verbs are compatible with ‘degree’ WELL?
• The restrictions on the ‘degree’ reading of WELL are the same in the verbal domain (here: with
verbal passives); cf. (18) vs. (19).
(18)
a.
b.
(19)
a.
b.
Die Tür wurde gut geschlossen.
the door became WELL closed
Der Lastwagen wurde gut beladen.
the truck
became WELL AT-loaded
‘ DEG / MANNER
Das Buch wurde gut geschrieben.
the book became WELL written
Das Heu wurde gut geladen.
the hay became WELL loaded
ONLY MANNER
‘ DEG / MANNER
ONLY MANNER
• What are the restrictions on both readings?
– Manner reading: Only possible with agentive verbs
– Speculations about the degree reading:
1. Do we need states / result states / ‘target states’ (Kratzer 2000)?
2. Do we need a (potential) lack of agentivity?
3. Do we need a high degree of affectedness?
3.3
Do we need a (result) state?
• Even verbs that do not derive adjectival passives allow for degree reading (the only possible
reading), such as the stative verbs in (20).
(20)
a.
b.
Sie kennen einander gut.
they know each other WELL
Sie passen gut zusammen.
they fit
WELL together.
ONLY ‘ DEG ’
ONLY ‘ DEG ’
BUT: Not all verbs with stative components allow for ‘degree’ WELL (21).
(21)
a.
Die Tür ist gut geöffnet.
the door is WELL opened
b. *Er war gut gelangweilt / überrascht.
he was WELL bored
surprised
This is not due to scale structure: compatibility with partially etc. (22)
(22)
a.
b.
Die Tür ist {teilweise / halb / ganz} geöffnet.
the door is partially half whole opened
Er war {teilweise / halb / ganz} gelangweilt / überrascht.
he was partially half whole bored
surprised
This could be a blocking effect; cf. (23).
(23)
a.
b.
Er war sehr gelangweilt / überrascht.
he was very bored
surprised
Die Tür ist weit geöffnet.
the door is wide opened
6
ONLY MANNER
Alternatively, we could assume that the participles in (23-a) are directly derived from the verbal
root (not containing a VP) (cf. lexical adjectivization in Kratzer 2000).
– Adverbial modifiers (like WELL) cannot access a VP but only the AP.
→ In German, APs cannot be modified by WELL (recall (2)).
– In Catalan, they can, and we only get the intensifying reading (24).
(24)
Estava ben avorrit / sorprès.
was WELL bored surprised
ONLY INTENSIFYING
(on Catalan ben see Castroviejo and Gehrke 2015)
3.4
Do we need (potential) lack of agentivity?
• The necessarily agentive verbs in (25) do not allow for the degree reading.
(25)
a.
b.
Er tötet gut.
he kills WELL
Sie ist gut in den
Baum geklettert.
she is WELL in the.ACC tree climbed
ONLY MANNER
ONLY MANNER
→ Speculation: The unavailability of a ‘degree’ reading might be due to the fact that the activity/volitional component of these verb( use)s cannot be absent; they are necessarily agentive.
E.g. partial correlation with whether or not a verb can participate in the causative-inchoative
alternation (26) (which we take to involve the suppression of a cause, cf. Siloni to appear)
(26)
a.
Die Tür schließt sich.
the door closes SELF
‘The door closes / is closing.’
b. *Das Buch schreibt sich.
the book writes SELF
c. #Er tötet sich.
he kills SELF
(#:
ONLY REFL)
BUT: The correlation is not perfect:
(27)
a.
b.
3.5
Die Tür öffnet sich.
the door opens SELF
Die Tür ist gut geöffnet.
the door is WELL opened
ONLY MANNER
Do we need a high degree of affectedness?
• Beavers’s (2011) Affectedness Hierarchy
(28)
The Affectedness Hierarchy: for all x, φ , e,
∃s[result0 (x, s, gφ , e)] → ∃s∃g[result0 (x, s, g, e)] → ∃s∃Θ[Θ(x, s, e)] → ∃Θ0 [Θ0 (x, e)]
quantized → non-quantized → potential → unspecified
Diagnostics:
– φ is telic: only quantized ones
– Change entailed of x: Only quantized, non-quantized
7
– x takes result XP: quantized, non-quantised, some potential
– Happened/did to x: quantized, non-quantized, potential
– φ is dynamic: quantized, non-quantised, potential, some unspecified
– Result XP variation: low with quantized, low/high with non-quantised, high with potential
Examples:
– Quantized change: break, shatter, destroy, devour x
– Non-quantized change: degree achievement, e.g. widen, cool, lengthen, cut, slice x
– Potential for change: wipe, scrub, rub, punch, hit, kick, slap x
– Unspecified for change: see, laugh at, smell, follow, ponder, ogle x
• Quantized: ‘ DEG ’ / MANNER
(29)
a.
b.
Die Vase ist gut zersplittert.
the vase is well shattered
Das Gebäude ist gut zerstört.
the building is well destroyed
Uses of break that do not have inchoative variants also do not allow for the degree reading:
(30)
Das Brot ist gut gebrochen.
the bread is well broken
• Non-quantized (degree achievements): ‘ DEG ’ / MANNER
(31)
a.
b.
Der Wein ist gut gekühlt.
the wine is well cooled
Die Hose ist gut gekürzt.
the trousers is well shortened
Verbs of cutting: M ANNER ONLY (32) (also no inchoative version)
(32)
a.
b.
c.
Das Holz ist gut geschnitten.
the wood is well cut
Der Kuchen ist gut angeschnitten.
the cake
is well ATcut
Das Band ist gut durchgeschnitten.
the ribbon is well THROUGHcut
• Potential for change:
(33)
MANNER ONLY
Der Tisch ist gut gewischt.
the table is well wiped
• Unspecified for change: no adj. pass. / good degree of V-ability
(34)
a. *Die Frau ist (gut) gesehen.
the woman is well seen
b. Hans hat die Frau gut gesehen.
John has the woman well seen
8
⇒ good degree of visibility
(35)
3.6
a. *Die Blume ist (gut) gerochen.
the flower is well smelled
b. Hans hat die Blume gut gerochen.
John has the flower well smelled
c. Die Blume riecht gut.
the flower smells good
⇒ good degree of smell-ability
⇒ good smell
Summary
• Whether or not we get a ‘degree’ reading of
denoted by the (underlying) verb.
WELL
depends entirely on the nature of the event
⇒ ‘Degree’ well is an adverbial modifier in the verbal domain (event predicate), not an adjectival degree modifier.
• Necessary but not sufficient conditions for the degree reading (preliminary results):
⇒ Stativity
⇒ Possible lack of agentivity
⇒ High degree of affectedness
4
Towards a proposal
• General idea: Both manner and ‘degree’ WELL involve event modifying WELL (as in (35-b)).
The differences result from the different kinds of events that are modified.
(for an extension to Catalan intensifying WELL see Castroviejo and Gehrke 2015)
• The adverb WELL is a VP modifier that has the same lexical semantics as the underlying adjective
GOOD (approval by some judge). (inspired by the prose in McNally and Kennedy 2013)
• We follow the degree approach to gradable adjectives (e.g. Kennedy 1999) and treat good as a
measure function (a relation between degrees and individuals) (36-a).
• Combining this with the standard treatment of manner modifiers (= VP modifiers) as predicates
of events (e.g. Parsons 1990), we get the semantics of WELL in (36-b).
(36)
a.
b.
[[good]] = λ d.λ x[good(x) ≥ d]
[[well]] = λ d.λ e[good(e) ≥ d]
(in the absence of additional degree morphology d gets bound by POS, which determines the standard with respect
to some comparison class, as commonly assumed in degree approaches to gradability)
4.1
Manner WELL
• The manner reading of WELL is available with all verbs that allow for manner modification.
– These are usually all verbs that have an activity/process component.
– Many stative verbs do not allow manner modification (Katz 2003, 2008; Maienborn 2007;
Mittwoch 2005).
(Nevertheless we assume that also states have an event argument and that the reduced availability of manner modification with states is due to their being conceptually poorer; see, e.g., Geuder 2006.)
9
4.2
‘Degree’ WELL: Different options
• Similar adverbs discussed in the literature:
– ‘Degree-of-perfection’ adverbs (Eckardt 1998); e.g. perfectly, beautifully, badly, well
∗ These are a special case of manner adverbs (Schäfer 2005).
∗ These are possibly semantic blends of manner and result (Piñón 2008).
– ‘Resultative’ adverbs (Geuder 2000) / ‘result-oriented’ adverbs (Eckardt 2003); e.g. heavily, elegantly (37) (from Geuder 2000, 69)
(37)
a.
b.
c.
They decorated the room beautifully.
She dressed elegantly.
They loaded the cart heavily.
• Geuder (2000) discusses three different analyses (all treat them as predicates of events):
– Modification of the event in the telic quale of the verb (Pustejovsky 1995)
– Result state modification (e.g. Parsons 1990)
– Geuder (2000): Predicate transfer (in the sense of Nunberg 1995)
The event decomposition option
• We could follow a common implementation of event decomposition in terms of VP shells.
–
WELL
modifies a VP that is associated with an activity/CAUSE.
–
WELL
modifies a VP that is associated with a (result) state.
→ MANNER
→ ‘ DEG ’
e.g. Parsons’s (1990) analysis of ‘open wide’:
(38)
(∃e)[Cul(e)∧Agent(e, x)∧(∃e0 )[Cul(e0 )∧Theme(e0 , y)∧ CAUSE(e, e0 )∧(∃s)[open(s)∧
Theme(s, y) ∧ Hold(s) ∧ BECOME(e0 , s) ∧ Being-wide(s)]]]
A possible argument for this account:
• Eckardt (2003) on German: Result-oriented adverbs have to appear after the direct object (39)
(manner adverbs can appear in both positions).
(39)
... (dass) Hans {*schwer} den/einen Wagen {schwer} belud.
that) Hans heavily
the/a
carriage heavily loaded
‘... (that) Hans loaded the carriage heavily.’
⇒ German WELL gets the degree reading only in the lower position:
(40)
a.
b.
BUT:
... (dass) Hans gut den/einen Wagen belud.
that) Hans well the/a
carriage loaded
... (dass) Hans den/einen Wagen gut belud.
that) Hans the/a
carriage well loaded
ONLY MANNER
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER
WELL has to modify the VP as a whole; in case the causative/agentive component of a verb
cannot be left out, we only get the manner reading.
Q: Is this just another point that shows that verbs like kill should not be decomposed in the syntax?
10
The predicate transfer option
• Geuder’s (2000) treatment of resultative adverbs as event modifiers:
– Resultant individuals are hidden in a verb’s meaning as implicit (semantic but not syntactic)
arguments, as in (41); e.g. load in (42).
– By predicate transfer these event modification is turned into indirect modification of resultant individuals.
(41)
a.
b.
c.
d.
They decorated the room beautifully. → beautiful decoration
She dressed elegantly. → elegant dress
They loaded the cart heavily. → heavy load
She wrapped the gift nicely. → nice wrapping
(42)
a.
Semantic arguments: AGENT, THEME , LOCATION , RES(ultant)-I(ndividual)
load(e)(a, x, y, r)
Lexical entailments:
→ a CAUSE (BECOME (AT (x, f LOC (y)))
& R(r, y), such that
- it presupposes BECOME (AT (x, f LOC (y))
- y specifies a function for r [roughly: “transport”]
& CONSTITUTE(x, r) [here: r is a collective object with x-individuals as parts]
b.
BUT: The ‘degree’ reading of WELL might not arise in the same environments:
(43)
a.
b.
gut beladen/verpackt/eingewickelt
well AT-loaded/PREF-packed/IN-wrapped
gut geschmückt/gekleidet
well decorated/dressed
‘ DEG ’/ MANNER ?
ONLY MANNER ?
NB Though the respective paraphrases with nominalizations might still hold:
(44)
a.
b.
gut beladen/verpackt → gute Ladung/Verpackung
gut geschmückt/gekleidet → guter Schmuck/gutes Kleid
The underspecification option
• Remains agnostic as to the precise implementation of the restrictions on ‘degree’ WELL.
– We could follow Schäfer (2008), who builds on Eckardt’s (1998) notion of a ‘big event’ e∗ ,
a complex event consisting of smaller event objects (introduced by the PART OF-relation).
– Abstracting away from the degree argument and from Tense, good accesses either the big
event or part of the event, as illustrated for (18-b) in (45).
(45)
5
∃e∗ , x[subject(x, e∗ )∧object(the-cart, e∗ )∧∃e[PART OF(e, e∗ )∧load(e)∧good(e/e∗ )]]
Summary
• We have elaborated on and qualified McN&K’s claim that ‘degree’
by examining its distribution in (English and) German.
WELL
is an event modifier
• Both manner and ‘degree’ readings of WELL share a common semantic core:
good is applied to an event.
• The ‘degree’ reading arises when WELL applies to a (result) state of a non-agentive event that
selects a highly affected argument.
11
References
Badia, Toni, and Roser Saurı́. 2000. Enlarging HPSG with lexical semantics. In Proceedings of CICLing 2000, ed. Alexander F. Gelbukh, 101–122. Mexico City, Mexico: Computer Research Center, National Polytechnic Institute.
Badia, Toni, and Roser Saurı́. 2013. Developing a generative lexicon within HPSG. In Advances in Generative Lexicon
Theory, ed. James Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki, and Chungmin Lee, Text,
Speech and Language Technology, vol. 46, 327–370. Dordrecht: Springer.
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:335–370.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Castroviejo, Elena, and Berit Gehrke. 2015. A GOOD intensifier. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (JSAI-isAI
2014 Workshops, LENLS, JURISIN, and GABA, Kanagawa, Japan, November 23-24, 2014, Revised Selected Papers), ed. Tsuyoshi Murata, Koji Mineshima, and Daisuke Bekki, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Eckardt, Regine. 1998. Adverbs, Events, and Other Things: Issues in the Semantics of Manner Adverbs. Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
Eckardt, Regine. 2003. Manner adverbs and information structure: Evidence from the adverbial modification of verbs of
creation. In Modifying Adjuncts, ed. Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Catherine Fabricius-Hansen, 261–306.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gehrke, Berit. 2015. Adjectival participles, event kind modification and pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory .
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2000. Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Tübingen.
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2006. Manner modification of states. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, ed. Christian Ebert and
Cornelia Endriss, 111–124. Berlin: ZAS.
González-Rivera, Melvin, and Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach. 2012. On the syntax and semantics of extreme-degree modifiers
in Puerto Rican Spanish. Paper presented at LSRL 42, Southern Utah University.
González-Rodrı́guez, Raquel. 2006. Negación y cuantificación de grado. In Actas del xxxv simposio internacional de la
sociedad española de lingüı́stica, ed. Milka Villayandre, 853–871. León: Universidad de León.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier, and Melvin González-Rivera. 2014. Adverbial elatives in Caribbean Spanish. Paper presented
at CGG24 in honor of Violeta Demonte.
Hernanz, M. Lluı̈sa. 2010. Assertive ‘bien’ in Spanish and the left periphery. In Mapping the Left Periphery: The
Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Paola Beninca and Nicola Munaro, 19–62. Oxford University Press.
Hernanz, Maria-Lluı̈sa. 1999. Polaridad y modalidad en español: entorno a la gramática de BIEN. Research report
GGT-99-6, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://seneca.uab.es/ggt/membres/hernanz.htm.
Katz, Graham. 2003. Event arguments, adverb selection, and the Stative Adverb Gap. In Modifying Adjuncts, ed. Ewald
Lang, Claudia Maienborn, and Catherine Fabricius-Hansen, 455–474. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Katz, Graham. 2008. Manner modification of state verbs. In Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse,
ed. Louise McNally and Christopher Kennedy, 220–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Chris. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York:
Garland Press.
Kennedy, Chris. 2012. The composition of incremental change. In Telicity, Change, State: A Cross-Categorial View of
Event Structure, ed. Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally, 103–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 1999. Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. In Proceedings of SALT 9,
ed. Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch, 163–180. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates.
Language 81.2:345–381.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. Ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Maienborn, Claudia. 2007. On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Existence: Semantics and Syntax, ed. Ileana Comorovski
and Klaus von Heusinger, 107–130. Dordrecht: Springer.
McNally, Louise, and Chris Kennedy. 2013. Degree vs. manner well: A case study in selective binding. In Advances
in Generative Lexicon Theory, ed. James Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki, and
Chungmin Lee, Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol. 46, 247–262. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mittwoch, Anita. 2005. Do states have a Davidsonian argument? Some empirical considerations. In Event Arguments:
Foundations and Applications, ed. Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein, 69–88. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12:109–132.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Current Studies in Linguistics
Series 19. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Piñón, Christopher J. 2008. Illegibly. Paper presented at ‘8. Ereignissemantik-Workshop’, IDS, Mannheim, December
2008.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: CSLI.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Schäfer, Martin. 2005. German Adverbial Adjectives: Syntactic Position and Semantic Interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leipzig.
Siloni, Tali. to appear. On the syntactic representation of events. In Handbook on Event Structure, ed. Rob Truswell.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12

Download Report