Cover not available
Part of
A0 – The Lexical Status of Adjectives
Edited by Phoevos Panagiotidis and Moreno Mitrović
[Language Faculty and Beyond 17] 2022
► pp. 257–292

First-phase semantics

| Leibniz Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS)Berlin | Bled Institute
Everything else being equal, the procedural principles of interpretational composition should abide by the morphosyntactic structure that is provided to the conceptual intentional interface, in its totality and without stipulative exception. To equip the theory of mapping and interpretation with stipulations that would ‘skip’ or ignore nodes would mean ridding that theory of the principle-based power of explanation it is presumably designed to provide. It seems an undesirable consequence to me to end up with a model in which most morphemes are void of meaning or some kind of contribution to meaning. A foundational lexical structure, qua First Phase, containing an acategorial root and a categorising head, has not received a principled analysis which would not pull cheap tricks and attempt to assign denotation, or at least non-void denotational properties, to the categorial (n, v) formatives and the acategorial loci of lexical meaning (roots). This paper sketches a programme for doing exactly that: semantics at Phase One of the morphosyntactic derivation.
Keywords: first-phase, derivation by phase, semantic compositionality, type theory, multi-sorted, adjectives, adjectival meaning, nouns, nominal meaning, verbs, verbal meaning, lexical categories, meaning, interpretation, interpretation theory, totality, partiality, sort theory, property, predicates, set, English, Slovenian, adverb, phi-features, defectivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Property Theory
    • 1.2Microsemantics
      • 1.2.1On the partiality/totality of structure reading
  • 2.Thesis
  • 3.Implementation: Roots as properties, categories as kinds
  • 4.A biversal sort-theoretic property theory for root categorisation
    • 4.1BPT1.0
    • 4.2BPT2.0
  • 5.Deriving nouns and verbs
    • 5.1Nouns
    • 5.2Verbs
  • 6.Deriving adjectives
    • Modulating degrees and deriving gradability.
    • Laxing the filtering effects.
  • 7.Discussion
    • Conclusions.
    • Problems and outlook.
    • Beyond first-phase: a sort-theoretic aetiology of alternatives.
  • Notes
  • References
  • Acknowledgements
Published online: 24 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.17.08mit
References (73)
References
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics: UMass Amherst dissertation.
Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1). 5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, R. & T. Vennemann. 1972. The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte 20. 19–32.Google Scholar
Bassi, Itai 2021. Fake Features and Valuation From Context: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Bobaljik, J. D. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan 2015. The Degree Semantics Parameter and cross-linguistic variation. Semantics and Pragmatics 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit 2013. Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Margit 2016. The status of degrees in Warlpiri. In Mira Grubic & Anne Mucha (eds.), Proceedings of The Semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian Languages, 1–17. Potsdam: Universitatsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1989. On the Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences. In Properties, Types and Meaning, 167–192. Springer Netherlands. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf 1931. Überwindung der Metaphysik durch Logische Analyse der Sprache. Erkenntnis 2. 219–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1959. The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language. In Alfred Jules Ayer (ed.), Logical positivism The Library of Philosophical Movements, chap. 3, 60–81. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
1989. Introduction. In Properties, Types and Meaning, 1–20. Springer Netherlands. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice and Intervention Oxford studies in semantics and pragmatics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. g6sm. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro & Raymond Turner. 1988. Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 261–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA.: Ginn.Google Scholar
2013. Problems of Projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. 1976. The Semantics of Degree. In Barbara Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, 261–292. Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1989. On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’. In Properties, Types and Meaning, 69–129. Springer Netherlands. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Embick, David 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. The Motivation for Roots in Distributed Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(1). 69–88. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 1999. Locality in Post-Syntactic Operations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34. 265–317.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf, Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fălăuş, Anamaria 2013. Introduction: Alternatives in semantics and pragmatics. In Anamaria, Fălăuş (ed.), Alternatives in Semantics, 1–35. London: Palgrave Macmilan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feferman, Solomon 2015. A simpler property theory for natural language semantics. Unpublished Ms. Stanford University.
Fox, Danny & Roni Katzir. 2011. On the Characterization of Alternatives Natural Language Semantics 19. 87–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotzner, Nicole 2017. Alternative Sets in Language Processing. How Focus Alternatives are Represented in the Mind. London: Palgrave Macmilan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec, Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275–288.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar
Hansen, Nat & Emmanuel Chemla. 2017. Color adjectives, standards, and thresholds: an experimental investigation. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(3). 239–278. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Katzir, Roni 2007. Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 669–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005. Movement and Silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1). 1–45. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Irene Heim. 2002. 24.979 Topics in Semantics. Fall 2002. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourse-Ware.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Klein, E. 1991. Comparatives. In Arnim von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung, 673–691. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew & John Beavers. 2017. Change of State Verbs and the Semantics of Roots. In Cole Brendel, Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda McCarvel, Jeff Pynes & Ed, Rubin (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. In press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate Phrases: the View from Japanese. In Yokio Otsu (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
M., Bierwisch. 1989. The Semantics of gradation. In Bierwisch M. & Lang E. (eds.), Dimensional adjectives, 71–261. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno 2021. Superparticles: A Microsemantic Theory, Typology, and History of Logical Atoms (Studies in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 98). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno & Phoevos Panagiotidis. 2020. Adjectives exist, adjectivisers do not: a bicategorial typology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1)(58). 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, Moreno & Uli Sauerland. 2016. Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(4). 471–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard 1970a. English as a Formal Language. In Bruno Visentini (ed.), Linguaggi nella Società e nella Tecnica, 188–221. Milan: Edizioni di Communita.Google Scholar
1970b. Unviersal grammar. Theoria 36. 373–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcisk & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, 221–242. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2011. Categorial Features and Categorizers. The Linguistic Review 28. 325–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen & Robert Wall. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Lingusitics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer 2021. Natural language without semiosis. Paper presented at various venues. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland. https://omer.lingsite.org/.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica 2007. Antonymy and Evaluativity. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17. 210. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.G. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats 1985. Association with Focus: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
Russell, Bertrand 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1908. Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types,. American Journal of Mathematics 30. 222–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1973. The Comparative. In Generative Grammar in Europe, 528–564. Springer Netherlands. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Shimada, Junri 2007. Head Movement, Binding Theory, and Phrase Structure. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1). 1–6.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada 2012. On the semantics of phi features on pronouns: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Szabolcsi, Anna 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieu, Lyn, Jacopo Romoli, Peng Zhou & Stephen Crain. 2015. Children’s Knowledge of Free Choice Inferences and Scalar Implicatures. Journal of Semantics 33(2). 269–298. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Von Stechow, Arnim 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1-2). 1–77. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis, Susan J. Hespos & Lance J. Rips. 2018. The Object : Substance :: Event : Process Analogy. In Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe & Shaun Nichols (eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, 183–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar