32.2227, Review: English; Romance; Syntax: Moreno (2020)
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Wed Jun 30 20:10:32 UTC 2021
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2227. Wed Jun 30 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 32.2227, Review: English; Romance; Syntax: Moreno (2020)
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 16:10:00
From: Valentina Maniglia [fklvale at hotmail.it]
Subject: Relational Adjectives in Romance and English
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36693417
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-3834.html
AUTHOR: Mihaela Marchis Moreno
TITLE: Relational Adjectives in Romance and English
SUBTITLE: Mismatches at Interfaces
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2020
REVIEWER: Valentina Maniglia, Università di Salerno
SUMMARY
As the title “Relational Adjectives in Romance and English. Mismatches at
Interfaces” suggests, this volume, written by Mihaela Marchis Moreno and
published by the Cambridge University Press, presents itself as an attempt to
investigate the discord which Relational Adjectives present at the interfaces
between different levels of language, namely morphology, syntax and semantics.
Scholars and researchers who are interested in the topic know that the main
difficulty involved in studying it is exactly what the author calls a
“mismatch” between the form and the meaning of Relational Adjectives, as they
have the morphological shape of an adjective but –from a syntactic and
semantic point of view – they behave like nouns.
This aspect has caused problems for morphological theories (but also for
syntactic and semantic ones), which are also reflected in the different terms
used in the literature to define Relational Adjectives, highlighting different
characteristics of these elements: “classificatory adjectives”, “associative
adjectives”, “pseudo-adjectives”, “attributive-only adjectives”, “denominal
adjectives”, “transposed adjectives”, and “denominal nonpredicate adjectives”
are some of them.
Most scholars agree, however, that these adjectives present noun-like
properties, which is also the main focus of their works. In the analysis
proposed by Marchis Moreno in this book the focus is instead on the syntactic
and semantic properties at the base of the use of these elements, as well as
on their distribution.
The approach used by the author to account for the “non-linear” nature of
Relational Adjectives is to analyze them within theoretical frameworks which
can help in dealing with this mismatch, which she identifies as “The
Distributed Morphology Framework” and “Ontological Semantics”, on the basis of
their theoretical assumptions, mechanisms, and approaches.
The study is based on a previous sub-classification of relational adjectives
(namely thematic and classificatory adjectives) and is carried out with
particular attention to the theoretical discussion of the topic and the
description of actual morpho-syntactic related phenomena.
The main aim of the book is to examine the morpho-syntactic and syntactic
properties of Relational Adjectives (also in light of other linguistic
elements with which they interact or with which they show similarities and
symmetries) at the syntax-morphology interface, so as to provide a deeper
understanding and a wider perspective on the topic.
The various chapters of the book are a combination of a linear analysis and
the insertion of digressions to look at the various aspects which are involved
in the study. The book comprises eleven chapters including the first chapter,
which is a general introduction describing the main goals, the expectations
and the novelties of her approach, and the conclusion, in which the author
summarizes the main points tackled in the study and suggests further research.
Chapter 2 (“What Does Morphology Learn from Relational Adjectives?”)
illustrates the differences between the Lexicalist approach and non-Lexical
approaches, arguing that the latter (in particular the framework of
Distributed Morphology) can not only be a helpful tool for the analysis of
Relational Adjectives, but that these elements can also represent a good
example for explaining the functionality of a non-lexicalist approach, casting
light on what morphology is.
Chapter 3 (“Ontological Semantics: Qualifying versus Relational Adjectives”)
firstly introduces the framework of Ontological Semantics and shows the main
reasons why it can be helpful for the study of Relational Adjectives. In
particular, the model elaborated by Ontological semantics can demonstrate how
to deal with the “number underspecificity” of Relational adjectives, when this
phenomenon occurs at the interfaces between different modules of grammar.
A semantic classification of adjectives (qualifying vs relational) and a
differentiation between prototypical vs marginal (relational) adjectives
follows. On the basis of morphological, semantic, and syntactic criteria, the
author argues that qualifying and relational adjectives differ at each level
(the main differences being: 1) the former are morphologically simple lexemes
while the latter are derivational categories, 2) relational adjectives cannot
occur in prenominal position, and 3) they can’t be graded). Furthermore, the
application of different tests based on the different types of adjective’s
modification, results in a three-way distinction of relational adjectives:
argumental, event modifier, and nominal modifier, all of which have different
behaviors and functions.
Chapter 4 (“A Classification of Relational Adjectives across Languages”)
comprises a detailed presentation of the treatment of relational adjectives
proposed in existing literature on different languages, where they have been
mainly considered within the framework of generative semantics, within the
standard lexical hypothesis, or within the non-lexical approach (the latter
including Marchis Moreno’s approach). The chapter ends with a split
classification of relational adjectives: thematic and classificatory
adjectives, which, in spite of the differences they show, share the
possibility of being analyzed as being underlying nouns, as they have in
common a denominal nature.
In Chapter 5 (“The Morpho-syntactic Analysis of Relational Adjectives”),
Marchis Moreno discusses the denominal nature of relational adjectives (after
illustrating the pros and cons of such an approach). On the basis of this she
makes a sharper distinction between Thematic adjectives (which correspond to
argument bare nouns) and Classificatory adjectives (which correspond to
nonargument bare nouns). Different tests show that both thematic adjectives
with classificatory adjectives and argument bare nouns with nonargument bare
nouns show similarities from a semantic point of view (as they have the same
unspecific interpretation) but they differ from a syntactic point of view (the
former being arguments of the noun, the latter acting as restrictive
modifiers).
After arguing for the validity of an approach which distinguishes subclasses
of relational adjectives (Thematic and Classificatory) with tests and
arguments, Chapters 6 through 9 are dedicated to a more detailed discussion of
the main properties and behaviors of these subclasses of adjectives. These are
compared and/or related to other cases present in Romance languages showing
syntactic and/or semantic similarities with them (in particular, she
correlates the genitive case of Romanian with Thematic Adjectives —a
similarity which can account for their argumental status—and Classificatory
adjectives with “de” modifier phrases in Romance, which, can on the other
hand account for their modifying role.
Based on this first Hypothesis that Thematic-adjectives shows syntactic and
semantic similarities with “de” prepositional genitives in Romance (such as
their argumental status, ungrammaticality in predicative position and the same
semantic interpretation), Chapter 6 (“The Syntax of Thematic Adjectives”)
starts with a detailed illustration of the syntactic properties of both
elements, followed by an illustration of the similarities and differences,
aimed at checking the validity of the proposed Hypothesis . The main
differences are the following: unlike genitives, Thematic adjectives cannot
occur in complex event nominals; two Thematic adjectives can occur together in
a sentence while two genitives cannot; Thematic adjectives cannot control
purpose clauses.
As complex event nominals are an important element which divides genitives
from Thematic adjectives, Chapter 7 (“Deverbal Nominalizations”) aims at
providing an explanation of the incompatibility between Thematic adjectives
and complex event nominals regarding different types of deverbal
nominalizations in Romanian, on the basis of Cornilescu’s division into those
which have an event reading and those which have a result reading, and the
aspectual properties they show.
After making these distinctions, Marchis Moreno investigates the behavior of
Thematic adjectives with different types of nominals in Romanian. She accounts
for the impossibility of Thematic adjectives occurring in complex event
nominals in Chapter 8 (“Thematic Adjectives and Nominalization”), where, in
fact, the first Hypothesis provided is revised in the light of the different
tests showing important differences between Thematic adjectives and “de”
prepositional phrases, as well as their non-nouniness (due to their lack of
countability).
Chapter 9 (“The Syntax of Classificatory Adjectives”), together with Chapter
6, is dedicated to the illustration of the properties of Classificatory
adjectives, the features of which differ from those of relational adjectives
both from a semantic and a syntactic point of view. The author’s analysis
here, based on several tests (such as correspondence with genitives,
predicativity, occurrence with “cel” and correspondence to “de” modifier
phrases in Romance), shows that the main differences concern their function in
a sentence: unlike Thematic adjectives, Classificatory adjectives are not
arguments, but rather modifiers of the noun to which they are added.
The last chapter before the conclusions, Chapter 10 (“Relational Adjectives as
Compounding”) has the goal of demonstrating that one way to understand the
nature of relational adjectives is to compare them to compounding in Romance
(based on the assumption that “a compound always involves two constituents
linked by a grammatical relation that is not overtly expressed”). This
postulation is built on the classification of compounds in Bisetto & Scalise
(2015), who distinguish between subordinate, attributive and coordinative
compounds. According to Moreno Marchis, thematic adjectives and classificatory
adjectives correspond respectively to subordinate compounds (which express a
complement relation: e.g.. “taxi driver”) and attributive compounds (because
they express a modification relation: e.g. “blue cheese”)
EVALUATION
As is clear from the description of the different chapters above, the book’s
structure follows the different steps and aspects tackled step-by-step in the
analysis.
One of the merits of this book is that the different aspects involved in the
study, as well as the different elements which the author takes into
consideration, are systematically described, with the use of digressions so
that the reader can have easy access to the useful information needed to
follow the logical course of the analysis. On the other hand, a more clear
explanation of the order of chapters or a division into different parts would
have been appreciated, as the digressions and the interplay between the topics
could be a bit confusing for less expert readers.
Nevertheless, it is in my view the structure itself that empirically shows
coherence from a scientific point of view. The analysis, all in all, is
carried out in line with scientific principles and method: an empirical
approach under the guidance of a reference framework; the elaboration of a
first Hypothesis; a set of theoretical discussions and empirical data to
verify the validity of the Hypothesis; revision of the Hypothesis and
elaboration of a second one on the basis of the previous results. Each step is
always accompanied by the illustration of pros and cons of the approach used.
A wide acknowledgement and illustration of the existing literature on the
topic (but also on other aspects of the research) constitutes another point in
favour of the book. The analysis proposed always takes into consideration
other existing studies and provides important references for the different
aspects involved, another fact which goes hand in hand with the volume’s goal.
As the work itself aims at illustrating the need to take into account wider
perspectives and not just focus on a limited research field, the book can be
of interest to scholars with different interests such as morphology, syntax,
or semantics, but mainly for those who are interested in the interconnection
between them (morpho-syntax, semantics-syntax, etc.).
On the other hand, I would not recommend this book for a first approach to
relational adjectives, as the work presupposes a pre-existing knowledge (at
least a morphological one) of the topic.
Given that -according to the author- relational adjectives (with their
features and behavior) could cast light on the theoretical debate between
lexicalists and non-lexicalists, both groups of scholars could find “food for
thought” in this book.
More in line with the work, however, the author suggests specific further
research which, in general, would allow deeper studies in this work’s
direction. What Marchis Moreno suggests is the possibility of investigating
the interplay between number, case, and aspect in the nominal domain; a deeper
study of genitive assignment in Romance versus incorporation in Germanic; the
investigation of cross-linguistic variation among different types of
compounding in Romance and Germanic.
What I personally would suggest, however, is an extended analysis in other
Romance languages, as the examples provided in the book mainly refer to
Romanian and Spanish.
REFERENCES
Bisetto, A. and Scalise, S. 2015. The Classification of compounds. Lingue e
Linguaggio. IV.2, 319-322
Iacobini, C. 2017. Gli aggettivi denominali come basi di derivazione
prefissale nel corpus Midia, in R. D’Alessandro, G. Iannàccaro, D. Passino, A.
M. Thornton (a c. di), Di tutti i colori. Studi linguistici per Maria
Grossmann, Utrecht, Utrecht University, pp. 133-145.
(https://www.uu.nl/en/university-library/publishing/utrecht-university-reposit
ory)
Wandruszka, U. 2004. Aggettivi di Relazione, in M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (a c.
di), La formazione delle parole in italiano, Tübingen, Niemeyer, pp. 382-394.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
First year PhD student at University of Salerno (Italy). Research interest:
General Linguistics; Morphology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2227
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list