2010 | 46 | 1 | 27-49
Article title

Motivating Certain Variation Patterns in Degree Constructions: Semantics Meets Grammaticalization

Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
We analyze patterns of variation in degree constructions as ultimately semantically motivated (Beck et al. 2004);> more precisely, as rooted at the (structured) level of logical form via a parameter based on binding. The paper pursues two related objectives. First, we complement the sharp distinction between languages like Japanese vs. English with a case of a language that seems to be parametrically intermediate. We suggest that Modern Romanian is sensitive to largely the same configurations which are conspicuous in the Japanese/English split, but that it marks the relevant dependencies overtly. Second, we probe for the grammaticalization process of the pertinent functional items involved in marking degree dependencies by conducting a diachronic pilot study. In this part of the article, we analyze data from (literary) Old Romanian. We investigate the degree constructions at this stage of the language in preliminary fashion and point out that they display a particularly instable situation with regard to the diagnostics of the degree parameter discussed, a factor which may have enhanced the grammaticalization of the particular strategies under discussion and hence co-motivates the apparently idiosyncratic current distribution in the language.
Physical description
  • University of Tübingen
  • Alboiu, G., A.A. Avram, L. Avram, and D. Isaac (eds.). 2007. Pitar Mos: A building with a view. Papers in honour of Alexandra Cornilescu. Bucharest: Bucharest University.
  • Ayres-Bennet, W. 1996. A history of the French language through texts. London: Routledge.
  • Beck, S. To appear. Comparatives and superlatives. (Ms., Universität Tübingen. To appear in The HSK handbook of semantics.)
  • Beck, S., S. Krasikova, D. Fleischer, R. Gergel, S. Hofstetter, C. Savelsberg, J. Vanderelst and E. Villalta. To appear. "Cross-linguistic variation in comparison constructions". (To appear in the Language Variation Yearbook.)
  • Beck, S., O. Toshiko and K. Sugisaki. 2004. "Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English". Journal of East Asian linguistics 13. 289-344.
  • Bhatt, R. and S. Takahashi. 2007. "Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the direct analysis of phrasal comparatives". In: Friedman, T. and M. Gibson (eds.). 19-36.
  • Bobaljik, J.D. and S. Wurmbrand. 2008. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the 3/4 signature. (Ms., University of Connecticut.)
  • Bresnan, J. 1973. "Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English". Linguistic Inquiry 4. 275-343.
  • Büring, D. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Campos, H. 2005. "Noun modification and last resort operations in Arvantovlaxika and in Romanian". Lingua 115(3). 311-347.
  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1993. "The theory of principles and parameters". In Jacobs, J., A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.). 506-569.
  • Constantinescu, C. 2007. "On some Romanian (a de a) degree constructions". In Alboiu, G., A. A. Avram, L. Avram, and D. Isaac (eds.). 65-85.
  • Cornilescu, A. 1992. "Remarks on the determiner system of Romanian: The demonstratives ‘al’ and ‘cel’". Probus 4. 189-260.
  • Cornilescu, A. 2009. Re-analysis and grammaticalization: The structure of the comparative connector decât. (Ms., Bucharest University.)
  • Corver, N. 2000. "Degree adverbs as displaced predicates". Rivista di linguistica 12. 155-191.
  • Densusianu, O. 1975. Opere. Histoire de la langue roumaine, II. Bucharest: Minerva.
  • Detges, U. and R. Waltereit. 2002. "Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis". Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21. 151-195.
  • Embick, D. 2007. "Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 1-37.[WoS]
  • Féry, C. and W. Sternefeld. 2001. Audiatur Vox apientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie.
  • Friedman, T. and M. Gibson (eds.). 2007. Proceedings of SALT 17. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
  • Friedman, T. and S. Ito (eds.). 2009. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  • Gergel, R. 2009. On the realization of LF-binding in degree dependencies. (Ms., Universität Tübingen.)
  • Grosu, A. 1994. Three studies in locality and case. London: Routledge.
  • Grosu, A. and J. Horvath. 2006. "Reply to Bhatt and Pancheva's ‘late merger of degree clauses’: The irrrelevance of (non)conservativity". Linguistic Inquiry 37. 457-483.[Crossref]
  • Heim, I. 2001. "Degree operators and scope". In: Féry, C. and W. Sternefeld (eds.). 214-239.
  • Heim, I. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. (Ms., MIT.)
  • Heim, I and A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.[WoS]
  • Hofstetter, S. 2008. "Comparison in Turkish: a rediscovery of the phrasal comparative". Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Universität Stuttgart.
  • Hulk, A. and E. Verheugd. 1994. "Accord et opérateurs nuls dans les projections adjectivales". Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 23. 17-45.
  • Jacobs, J., A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.). 1993. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. (Vol. 1.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Johnson, K. 2000. "How far will quantifiers go". In: Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 187-210.
  • Johnson, K. and S. Tomioka. 1997. "Lowering and mid-size clauses". Paper presented at the Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, Universität Tübingen.
  • Kayne, R. 2006. "A note on the syntax of numerical bases". In: Suzuki, Y. (ed.). 21-41.
  • Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.
  • Kennedy, C. 2008. "Modes of comparison". Chicago Linguistic Society 43. 141-165.
  • Krasikova, S. 2008. "Comparison based on POS". Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 13, Universität Stuttgart.
  • Krasikova, S. 2009. "Comparing to what is possible or permitted". Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 14, Universität Wien.
  • Martin, R., D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.). 2000. Step by step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Nissenbaum, J., and B. Schwarz. 2009. "Infinitivals with too: Degree operator scope and Parasitic Gaps". In: Friedman, T. and S. Ito (eds.). 551-568.
  • Pinkham, J. 1986. The formation of comparative clauses in French and English. New York: Garland.
  • Price, S. 1990. Comparative constructions in Spanish and French syntax. London: Routledge.
  • Reglero, L. 2007. "On Spanish comparative subdeletion constructions". Studia Linguistica 61. 130-169.[WoS][Crossref]
  • Rosetti, A. 1986. Istoria limbii române, editie definitivâ. Bucharest: Editura ŝtiintificâ ŝi enciclopedicâ.
  • Rubin, E. J. 2003. "Determining pair merge". Linguistic Inquiry 34. 660-668.[Crossref]
  • Shimoyama, J. 2008. "Clausal comparatives and cross-linguistic variation". Paper presented at Universität Tübingen, Jul 08.
  • Stechow, A. von. 1984. "Comparing semantic theories of comparison". Journal of Semantics 3. 1-77.
  • Suzuki, Y. (ed.). 2006. In search of the essence of language science. Tokyo: Hituzi.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.