Skip to main content
Log in

Chamorro evidence for compositional asymmetry

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In earlier work, we developed an composition in which predicates can be composed with arguments by operations other than Function Application, and it makes a difference which composition operation is employed. Here we take our approach further by examining two nonsaturating operations that combine property contents: Restrict, which composes a predicate with the property content of an indefinite; and Modify, which is involved in predicate modification. Nonsaturating operations that combine property contents are often formalized in terms of predicate intersection, which is commutative. Using Austronesian language Chamorro, we argue that Restrict and Modify are not ‘commutative’, but instead incorporate an asymmetry: they take one content to supply a domain that is narrowed further by combination with the other content. Syntactically, it is transparent which category’s content supplies the domain. But semantically, this information can be recovered only from the way in which the composition operation affects the contents that it composes, since—as we show—the same contents can be composed with distinct results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson S. (2000). Some lexicalist remarks on incorporation phenomena. In: Stiebels B., Wunderlich D. (eds). Lexicon in focus, Studia Grammatica 45. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 123–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker M. (1988) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner M. (2001) Surface composition as bridging. Journal of Semantics 18: 127–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan J. (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung S. (1998) The design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung S. (2003) The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 547–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung S., Ladusaw W. (2004) Restriction and saturation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. (2003). The dual source of adjectives and XP- vs. N-raising in the Romance DP. Paper delivered at the CASTL Kick-Off Conference, University of Tromsø, Norway, October 2003.

  • Cooreman, A. (1983). Chamorro texts. Ms., Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

  • Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings: The semantics of propositional attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, N. (1997). Pronominal anaphora and the quantified phrase. MA paper, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham J. (1993) Interrogatives. In: Hale K., Keyser S. (eds). The view from Building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp. 195–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadmon N., Landman F. (1993) Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H. (1975) Two theories about adjectives. In: Keenan E. (eds). Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 123–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp H., Partee B. (1995) Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. (1974). The functional principle: Generalizing the notion of “subject of”. In M. Lagaly, R. Fox, & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 298–309). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Keenan, E. (1983). Boolean algebra for linguists. In S. Mordechay (Ed.), UCLA working papers in semantics (pp. 1–75). Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.

  • Keenan E. (2002). Some properties of natural language quantifiers: Generalized quantifier theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 627–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan E., Stavi J. (1986) A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 253–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy C. (1999) Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Garland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2003). Towards a grammar of vagueness. Ms., Northwestern University.

  • Kennedy C., McNally L. (2005) Scale structure, degree modification and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E., Sag I. (1985) Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 163–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. In A. Farley, P. Farley, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), CLS 22: Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second Regional Meeting (pp. 1–15). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Kratzer, A. (1994). The event argument and the semantics of voice. Ms., University of Massa-chusetts, Amherst.

  • Kratzer, A. (2004). Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing negation. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 237–259). Columbus: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.

  • Ladusaw W. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In: Lappin S. (eds). The handbook of contem-porary semantic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 321–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R. (1998). Events and modification in nominals. In D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (Eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.

  • Mithun M. (1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1970) Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Workshop on Grammar and Semantics (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Onedera, P. (1994). Fafa’ña’gue yan Hinengge Siha. St. Anthony School, Tamuning, Guam.

  • Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Potts, C. (2003). The logic of conventional implicatures. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Pustejovsky J. (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen S. (1989) Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenning K. (1978) Anaphora as an approach to pragmatics. In: Halle M., Bresnan J., Miller G. (eds). Linguistic theory and psychological reality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 162–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. (1967). The grammar of goodness. In Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 172–195). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Woodbury, H. (1975). Noun incorporation in Onondaga. PhD dissertation, Yale University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Chung.

Additional information

We are indebted to Manuel F. Borja, William I. Macaranas, Maria P. Mafnas, Maria T. Quinata, and Anicia Q. Tomokane for their judgments and commentary on the Chamorro examples. Thanks also to the numerous people who have helped us (acknowledged in Chung and Ladusaw 2004), and especially to Jürgen Bohnemeyer, Guglielmo Cinque, Hans-Martin Gärtner, Edward Keenan, Angelika Kratzer, Jim McCloskey, Louise McNally, Gillian Ramchand, Peter Svenonius, an anonymous reviewer, and audiences at AFLA, SALT, SULA, the CASTL Kick-Off Conference, Swarthmore, and the Universities of Chicago, Massachusetts (Amherst), and Pennsylvania.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chung, S., Ladusaw, W.A. Chamorro evidence for compositional asymmetry. Nat Lang Semantics 14, 325–357 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9007-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9007-x

Keywords

Navigation