Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 315–362 | Cite as

Reference to and via properties: the view from Dutch

  • Louise McNally
  • Henriëtte de SwartEmail author
Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

Many languages offer a surprisingly complex range of options for referring to entities using expressions whose main descriptive content is contributed by an adjective, such as Dutch de blinde ‘the blind (person),’ het besprokene, ‘the (matters) discussed,’ or het ongewone van het niet roken ‘the strange (thing) about not smoking.’ In this paper, we present a case study of the syntax and compositional semantics of three such constructions in Dutch, one of which we argue has not previously been identified in the literature. The data and the analysis will shed light on our understanding of how reference using adjectives differs from that using nouns in languages that have the two categories, as well as on the differences between reference to entities via their properties vs. reference to properties themselves. Finally, we briefly discuss related work and indicate directions for future study of the typological variation found in this rich and highly understudied corner of natural language.

Keywords

Adjective semantics Noun semantics Abstract objects Nominalization Inflected adjectives Kinds Properties Tropes 

References

  1. Alexiadou, A. (2011, March). Adjectival nominalizations: Qualities and properties. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nounhood and Adjectivehood. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, A., & Iordachioaia, G. (2013, February). Two syntactic strategies to derive (abstract) deadjectival nominalizations. Paper presented at the workshop on adjectives and their nominalizations, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Arsenijević, B. (2011). The semantic ontology of deadjectival nominalizations in Serbo-Croatian. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 40, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauseroy, D. (2009). Syntaxe et sémantique des noms abstraits statifs: Des propriétés verbales ou adjectivales aux propriétés nominales. Dissertation, Université Nancy.Google Scholar
  5. Borer, H., & Roy, I. (2010). The name of the adjective. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (Eds.), Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics (pp. 85–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosque, I., & Moreno, J. C. (1990). Las construcciones con lo y la denotación del neutro. Lingüística, 2, 5–50.Google Scholar
  7. Broekhuis, H., Keizer, M., & den Dikken, M. (2013). The syntax of Dutch. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Published 1980 by Garland Press, New York).Google Scholar
  9. Chierchia, G. (1984). Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Published 1989 by Garland Press, New York).Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012). Exclusivity, uniqueness, and definiteness. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9 (pp. 59–76). Paris: CNRS Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Dayal, V. (1995). Quantification in correlatives. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural language (pp. 179–206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. de Hoop, H. (1992). Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  14. Del Gobbo, F. (2003). Appositives at the interface. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  15. Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  16. Farkas, D., & de Swart, H. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3, 1–54. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://semprag.org/article/view/sp.3.6.
  17. Geist, L. (2007). Predication and equation in copular sentences: Russian vs. English. In I. Comarovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 79–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Giannakidou, A., & Stavrou, M. (1999). Nominalization and ellipsis in the Greek DP. The Linguistic Review, 16, 295-332.Google Scholar
  19. Glass, L. (2014). Deriving the two readings of English determiner + adjective. In U. Etxeberria, A. Fălăuş, A. Irurtzun, & B. Leferman (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18 (pp. 164–181). Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/.
  20. Grimm, S., & McNally, L. (2013). No ordered arguments needed for nouns. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 123–130). Amsterdam: ILLC Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Second revised version. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
  22. Hinterwimmer, S. (2013). Free relatives as kind-denoting terms. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 140–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobson, P. (1995). On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural language (pp. 451–586). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz. (Published 1999 by Garland Press, New York).Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp. 156–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kester, E.-P. (1996). The nature of adjectival inflection. Dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  27. Larson, R. (2002). The grammar of intensionality. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Logical form and language (pp. 228–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lauwers, P. (2008). The nominalization of adjectives in French: From morphological conversion to categorial mismatch. Folia Linguistica, 42, 135–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leonetti, M. (1999). El artículo. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Vol. 1, pp. 787–890). Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
  30. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Marzo, D., & Umbreit, B. (2013, February). Deadjectival nominalizations in Romance languages from a lexicalist perspective. Talk presented at the Workshop on Adjectives and their Nominalizations, Stuttgart University.Google Scholar
  32. McCawley, J. (1998). The syntactic phenomena of English (Vol. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. McNally, L. (2008). DP-internal only, amount relatives, and relatives out of existentials. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNally, L., & de Swart, H. (2011). Inflection and derivation: How adjectives and nouns refer to abstract objects. Pre-proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 425–434).Google Scholar
  35. Meier, C. (2003). The meaning of ‘too’, ‘enough’, and ‘so…that’. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 69–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moltmann, F. (2004). Properties and kinds of tropes: New linguistic facts and old philosophical insights. Mind, 113, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Partee, B. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 203–300.Google Scholar
  38. Partee, B. (1986). Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. Proceedings of NELS, 16, 354–366.Google Scholar
  39. Partee, B. H. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jong, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  40. Piñón, C. (2005). Adverbs of completion in an event semantics. In H. J. Verkuyl, H. de Swart, & A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richtarcikova, V. (2014, September). DPs with adjectival core in Slovak: A corpus based study. Paper presented at the 9th annual meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society, Seattle.Google Scholar
  45. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  46. Sassoon, G. (2013). Vagueness, gradability and typicality: The interpretation of adjectives and nouns. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Riemsdijk, H. A. (1985). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  48. von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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. Arbeitspapier 124 (pp. 139–153). Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
  50. Villalba, X. (2013, June). Eventualities under deadjectival nominalizations. Paper presented at JeNom 5, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  51. Villalba, X., & Bartra-Kaufmann, A. (2010). Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner phrase. Lingua, 120, 819–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, E. (1983). Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yee, C. (2010). Building DRT lexical entries for superlatives and ordinal numbers. Ms., Stuttgart University. Retrieved January 2015, from http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jg0YzQ4M/.
  54. Zamparelli, R. (1995). Layers in the determiner phrase. Dissertation, University of Rochester (Published 2000 by Garland Press, New York).Google Scholar
  55. Zucchi, A. (1993). The language of propositions and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Translation and Language SciencesUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Utrecht Institute of LinguisticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations