Adjectives, adverbs and

prepositions: three categories or

only one?
Boban Arsenijević, University of Graz

The A0 Workshop, Bled 2018

1
Yesterday
• Larson:
adjectives are translucent, nouns are opaque for probing.
NP-NP agreement, Ezafe make translucent, Ps = independent probes.
technical implementation?
• Mitrović & Panagiotidis:
Compositional semantics needed for the first phase.
It should reflect / derive lexical categories.
• Savoia et al:
Diminutives restrict classifier heads (units of counting).

2
Aims
• Decompose lexical categories
• … in a way that explains the stronger ’lexical category’ effects of nouns and
verbs, compared to adjectives, adverbs, prepositions
• … and the mutual differences among the latter,
• … and sets ground for a compositional semantics.
• Model their behavior in terms of the valuation of a classifier feature,
postulated as generally available on all lexical items.
• Due to the breadth of the topic and early stage of the account: a relatively
sketchy model.

3
Plan of the talk
• Briefly compare adjectives with nouns and verbs regarding semantics.

• Propose a syn-sem interface account of their differences.

• Overview the typological status of adjectives, arguing that they are

not universal.

• Consider the broader picture, with adverbs and prepositions.

• Argue that adjectives, adverbs and prepositions make one class

together, and propose a syn-sem account for their differences.
4
Semantic ontology
• Nouns head expressions which may refer to any entity, from
individuals, via eventualities to properties and propositions, from
kinds to instantiations, and can be referential as well as predicative.
• Verbs head expressions which may refer only to eventualities, both
kinds and instantiations, and can be referential as well as predicative.
• Adjectives head expressions which cannot refer – they express
properties, but only in a predicative way (or attributive – to the extent
it does not derive from the former).
• Predicates are typically structurally complex in natural language.

5
Ontological classes described and referred to
• For N(P)s and V(P)s, the described class is the class referred to.
• For Adj(P)s it is not, since they do not refer.
Describe Refer to
Nouns / NPs Anything Anything
Verbs / VPs Eventualities Eventualities
Adjectives / APs Properties Nothing
• But there is also a certain doubling in saying they describe properties
– they express properties, but they can describe anything (a long war,
a subtle jealousy, a firm statement).
6
Ontological classes described and referred to
• A better formulation is thus to say that like nouns, Adjectives describe
anything, they just cannot refer.

Describe Refer to
Nouns / NPs Anything Anything
Adjectives / APs Anything Nothing
Verbs / VPs Eventualities Eventualities

• They are referentially defficient nouns (cf. historical treatment).

7
Lexical categories and referentiality
• Baker (2003): a fundamental difference between verbs, nouns and
adjectives; only verbs license specifiers, only nouns bear a referential
index, and adjectives do neither.
• Verbs too carry a referential index.
John was drinking a beer. He did it in / it took half an hour.
John bought a red shirt. It was (*it) #lightly / light.
(oklight shirt, *lightly red)
• Adjectives are lexical items which do not carry a referential index.
• What kind of creature is a referential index? A formal model?
8
Deriving lexical categories
• Acquaviva (2008): „All lexical categories are made up of category-less
roots combined with category-assigning heads (Marantz 2001, Embick
and Marantz 2006, Embick and Noyer 2007).“
• My aim: go one step further in decomposition: independently
needed, semantically interpretable features underlie traditional
categories (cf. Borer 2005).
• n = an unrestrictedly valued classifier feature,
v = a classifier feature valued for eventualities,
a = an unvalued classifier feature?
adv, p = ?

9
Referential capacity
• Referentiality is modelled in syntax in terms of the heads like D, Dem,
T, and pronouns sitting within them or in their specifiers.

• But referential capacity is something different – it is a condition of

referentiality.

• I propose to model it in terms of a classifier feature.

• Reference is always via units of counting, and the classifier feature

makes syntactically visible the units of counting for a given predicate
(usually introduced as a root(-complex)).
10
Classifiers mediate reference
• Roots do not establish mass reference (contra Borer 2006) – they
simply cannot refer.

• One way to put it: roots are purely intensional – valued classifiers
endow them with an extension.

• The unit of counting specifies a way of reference, and is a condition of

referentiality.

• Mass and collective predicates too involve classifier features – their

classifier features take messy values in terms of Landmann (2011).
11
Classifier-values
• Classifier features are universally
present in all languages, thez just
receive different types of realization.

• A classifier feature takes a value from a

range of features such as: [individual], pen
[eventuality], [place], [time], [portion],
[paucity]…
length [Cl:individual]
• It may be further conceptually eniched
by adjoined roots.
12
Lexical categories
• Being a lexical category can be identified with the capacity to project and
determine a particular extended projection, while sitting at its bottom.
• Verbs can be modelled in terms of a classifier feature which gets the value
EVENTUALITY (which may be further restricted by AspP etc).
[ClP [Cl:eventuality] r]
• Nouns can be modelled in terms of a classifier feature which gets any value
pragmatically compatible with the root.
[ClP [Cl:value] r]
• The verbal and the nominal extended projection are condition by the
respective classifier features.
13
Adjectives
• Adjectives are lexical items with an unvalued classifier feature.
• That is something like a Cl-wh feature, ranging over all values.
• Adjectives are reduced classifier-relatives.

[DP D1 [RelCP (…) D2 (…)]]

identifies the referential index of D1 with D2
[ClP Cl1 [AdjP (…) Cl2 (…)]]
identifies the counting unit index of Cl1 with Cl2

14
Adjectives
• Adjectives are reduced Cl-relatives with the following internal
structure (unvalued Cl moves to the phase edge, yields lambda
abstraction): ’RelClP’

Cl

λx λu. unit(x, u)  r(x) Cl

r

15
Adjectives, example

’RelClP’

Cl

λx λu. unit(x, u)  tall(x) Cl

tall

16
Semantic composition
the tall women
the: ιx
tall: λx λu. unit(x, u)  tall(x)
women: λx ιu. person(u)  unit(x, u)  woman(x)  Pl(x)
tall women:
λu. tall(u) λx ιu. person(u)  unit(x, u)  woman(x)  Pl(x)
 λx ιu. person(u)  unit(x, u)  woman(x)  Pl(x)  tall(x)
the tall women
ιx λx ιu. person(u)  unit(x, u)  woman(x)  Pl(x)  tall(x)
 ιx ιu. person(u)  unit(x, u)  woman(x)  Pl(x)  tall(x)

17
Prediction regarding cross-linguistic
availability
• On the strongest hypothesis, the set of extended projections is
universal.

• The availability of particular relative strategies varies across languages

(e.g. WALS, Chapter Relativization Strategies).

• The proposed view predicts that adjectives are not universal.

18
Are adjectives universal?
• Both answers argued for in the literature.

They are not universal. Some languages simply do not have them.

They are universal, but sometimes disguised as another category –

they have three types of manifestation cross-linguistically: noun-like,
verb-like and mixed (Dixon 2004, Stassen 2013).

• I argue for the former and against the latter view.

19
Are adjectives universal?
• Both answers argued for in the literature.

They are not universal. Some languages simply do not have them.

They are universal, but sometimes disguised as another category – they

have three types of manifestation cross-linguistically: noun-like, verb-like
and mixed (Dixon 2004, Stassen 2013).

• Verb-like adjectives are verbs, noun-like adjectives are not so noun-like –

they act as a separate class (no reference, different syntax, morphology).

20
Two different perspectives
• Universal from the essentialist perspective: adjectives exist if the
’adjectival content’ is expressed in one way or other (even if it is clear
that what expresses them is a verb or a noun).
color, shape, size, age… in modification or predication contexts
• Universality of adjectives vs. universality of concept-position pairs.
• Not universal from the formal perspective: adjectives exist if they
show distinctive morphological and syntactic properties.
own inflection (comparison, own declensions), agreement with the
noun, failure to coordinate with bare nouns and verbs...

21
Dixon’s (1992) essentialist view with
5 types of languages

22
Type 1, open class
• Noun-like property: agrees with head noun in number, gender, case
etc.
 This is not noun-like: nouns in these languages typically do not agree
with head nouns in number, gender, case...

• Other properties: In predicative use, verb to be is often required.

Proves that adjectives are also a separate class from verbs (they need
a support-verb to be used as verbal predicates).

23
Noun-like adjectives are not noun-like
• Noun-like adjectives in a large number of languages only share some
properties with nouns (occurring as predicates, having declension).
John is tall / a teacher. visok : visokog, učitelj : učitelja SC
tall.Nom : Gen teacher.Nom : gen
• They still have a clear set of prominent distinctive properties (comparison,
inability to head arguments, access to multiple declensions, in some
languages also a special set of declensions).
smart, smarter, smartest; valve, *valver, *valvest.
The/a bird sings. *(*The/*a) small sings.
slavn-og glumc-a brz, brza, brzo : konj, *konja, *konjo
famous-GenMSg actor-GenMSg fast.MSg FSg NSg horse.MSg FSg NSg

24
Type 2, open class
• In predicative use, inflected according to or similarly to verb pattern

In other words: there are no adjectives in the language, verbs

(inflected or uninflected) are used instead.

25
Type 3, open class
• Noun-like: in NP, same inflections as nouns.

• Verb-like: in predicative use, inflected according to verb pattern.

In other words, the language has uncategorized stems which may
take nominal, as well as verbal inflection.
There is no special adjectival inflection, or other distinctive property
– hence there are no adjectives.

26
Type 4, open class
• Adjectives are characterized by properties quite different from those
of nouns or verbs.

In other words, the adjectival category is clearly individuated.

27
Type 5, closed class
• A small, closed set of adjectival lexemes can be clearly distinguished
from nouns and verbs.
• However, most ’adjectival’ meanings are expressed by verbs and / or
nouns.

Likely an intermediate stage in language change between a stage with

and a stage without the adjectival category (in either direction).
Hence, neither are adjectives a lexical category in these languages,
nor do these languages make a stable language-type.

28
Summary of Dixon (1992)

• Adjectives are not universal - there are two types of languages:

1. those with adjectives as a separate productive class of lexical items,

and
2. those without them.

• This suggests that indeed, adjectives are a derived category, whose

existence in a language depends on the parameters of its grammar.

29
The bigger picture: other lexical categories
• Traditionally: N, V, Adj, Adv, (P).

• N and V as opposite poles – a strong inclination in the field to capture

the entire categorization in terms of N and V – from Chomsky 1970 to
Mitrović and Panagiotidis 2018.

• A special relation between Adj and Adv, and as I argue also between
Adj, Adv and P.

• A special status of P – lexical and / or functional (semi-functional,

Corver and van Riemsdijk 2001), yet rather universal.
30
Adj, Adv, P are sticking out in different ways
• Vs and Ns are universal, proper open classes and a majority of lexical
items are conceptually rich.

• Adjs, Advs are not universal: they are present as a class in some
languages, absent in others.

• Ps are universal, and have little or no conceptual content; not a

proper open class: they have a relatively low number of members.

• Why?

31
Nouns
• To be nominal means to be a predicate with a valued classifier feature
(the classifier is specified for the type of unit, and that unit matches
the semantics of the root).
• The classifier feature specifies and makes syntactically visible a
dimension along which the units of counting are identified
(Arsenijević 2018, similar to Borer 2006).
• In classifier languages, both components are overtly lexicalized (the
classifier, the root).
• In gender languages, the classifier component is realized on the noun,
as its declension class (i.e. grammatical gender), see Arsenijević
(2017).
32
Schematically represented
Mandarin nP/ClP Russian nP/ClP

Cl P root
zuo
[Cl] root gender:F
root sov -a
shan [Cl]
zuo shan sova
Cl hill owl

33
Verbs
• To be verbal means to be a predicate with a valued classifier feature
restricted to eventualities.

• The classifier feature, again, specifies and makes syntactically visible a

dimension along which the units of counting are identified.

• In some languages, the classifier component is overtly realized as an

aspectual particle or a verbal classifier.

• In others, it is realized by the TAM morphology, or null.

34
Adjectives
• To be adjectival means to be a relative noun (analogousto relative
clauses): a noun which cannot refer because its classifier feature is
unvalued and hence acts as a predicate.

• Adjectivs do not determine an own extended projection, nor do they

sit at the bottom of one: they need to merge with a bottommed
structure to have their classifier valued.

• These two properties make their surface properties less lexical-

category-like.

35
Adverbs and adjectives are one category
• In many languages, they are indistingushable.
• Adverbs share the semantic types of adjectives.
• They express the same concepts: dimension, capacity...
• They occur as modifiers (ad-non-nominally) and predicates.
• They often mark comparison (John drives faster / fastest).
• The two behave like positional variants of each other (an occasional
sailor, darkly dressed).
• They are connected by an implicational universal: if a language has no
adjectives, it also has no adverbs (Hengeveld et al. 2004).
36
Adverbs
• Advs are Adjs in structural contexts without a noun to agree with.
• They are rescued by a default classifier, which may be silent, or
realized either as the default gender ending, when one is available
(e.g. NSg in Slavic), i.e. as a special suffix (English -ly , Turkish -ca).
• In some languages, the strategy is to provide the adverb with a noun
in the form of a cognate objects (from Akkuş & Öztürk 2017):
nahar talu-ma koys tala ala sari Sason Arabic
sun appearing-a beautiful appeared.3m this morning
‘The sun appeared a beautiful appearance this morning.’

37
 Illustration
VP
run quick-ly
VP

[Cl] run

Agree ClRelPron
with

GREAT VELOCITY
38
Adverbs, adjectives and prepositions
• Adverbs and adjectives are one category with prepositions, the
difference being in the complexity of the internal structure.
• Prepositions typically involve relatively simple internal structures,
while in adjectives and adverbs they may be of considerable
complexity (cf. participles, denominal adjectives).

tall = [WITHP [GREAT HEIGHT]], where [GREAT HEIGHT] incorporates in WITHP.

in the way

shelveV = [PUTV [ON SHELF]], where [ON SHELF] incorporates in PUTV.

39
More precisely
tall = [[ClRelPro] [[WITH] [GREAT HEIGHT]]], where
[GREAT HEIGHT] incorporates in [WITH], and then all together in [ClRelPro].

in the way

shelveV = [[Cl:temp] [[PUT] [ON SHELF]]], where

[ON SHELF] incorporates in [PUT], and then all together in [Cl:temp].

40
In other words
• Traditional category p stands for a Cl-relativizer.

• Particular prepositions are p+root complexes, i.e. classifier-relatives

just like adjectives.

• In prepositions, the internal structure of the Cl-relative involves an

unsaturated argument position.

• In adjectives, it does not necessarily, but may do – although it is then

typically more deeply structurally embedded, and therefore less
obligatory.
41
P, Adj
from = [ClRelPro] [FROM], where
[FROM] incorporates in [ClRelPro].
and
tall = [[ClRelPro] [[WITH] [GREAT HEIGHT]]], where
[GREAT HEIGHT] incorporates in [WITH], and then all together in [ClRelPro].
much like
shelveV = [[Cl:temp] [[PUT] [ON SHELF]]], where
[ON SHELF] incorporates in [PUT], and then all together in [Cl:temp].

42
An adjective and a PP
NP

NP chair PP

white chair of NP

n white

43
Underlyingly, under the present analysis
PP: white PP: of white

ClRelPro P ClRelPro P

OF WHITE OF NP

Cl white

44
Prepositions
• A preposition relates two entities along particular dimensions.
• Their root-content restricts these dimensions (with maps one linear
structure onto another, through an n-dimensional structure onto an
n+1-dimensional one, on the lower bound of one structure onto the
upper bound of another).
• The unit of counting made visible to syntax by the classifier
component must be compatible with the dimensional restriction of
the prepositon (a pragmatic requirement).
• In syntax, an agree relation is established between the Cl features of
the preposition and of the noun, which is realized as case.
45
[Cl]-checking via Agree, realized as case
on the beach PP

ON DP
ClRelPron ...
NP

Agree BEACH

BEACH [Cl:place]
46
[Cl] on P needs to be checked by a nominal
• In adjectives, the complements are roots, which lack the Cl feature,
hence they cannot check the Cl feature of the preposition.

PP/AdjP

brave
p0 P
WITH
ClRelPron
GREAT COURAGE

47
 Unvalued [Cl] as a relativizer,
triggers agreement
brave chicken
[Cl:animate]

CHICKEN PP/AdjP
rise / match
p0
WITH
ClRelPron
GREAT COURAGE

48
Lexicalization
NP
brave chicken

[Cl:animate] CHICKEN PP/AdjP

WITH
Agree ClRelPron
chicken brave-(Agr)
GREAT COURAGE

49
Support: a further similarity
• All AdjPs and AdvPs, and no other phrasal category can universally be
substituted by PPs,
• without affecting the grammaticality, and
• without affecting the meaning.
the white chair : the chair of white (color)
she spoke angrily : she spoke with anger / in an angry manner
• The substitutes consist either of a P and a property-noun (often a
nominalized adjective), or of a P, an adjective and a taxonomic noun
hyperonymous to the adjective (arguably combining at kind-level).

50
Support: eliminating an asymmetry
• Nouns and verbs are semantically organized around three poles: pro-words
and a continuum from rich content words to light, semi-functional words.
it, he, that car, love, bottle place, time, thing
takovam ’do that’ (Bulg) kiss, dream, inspect do, begin, cause
• Adjectives and adverbs only have content words and pro-words.
such smart, lazy, subtle /
so, here, then angrily, gently, fully /
• Prepositions only have the light, (semi-)functiona members.
/ / on, of, by, from

51
The asymmetry is eliminated if Adj/Adv = P
• If prepositions are treated as the functional members of a common
category with adjectives / adverbs, the asymmetry disappears.

Pro-words Content-words Semi-functional

it, he, that car, love, bottle place, time, thing
takovam ’do that’ (Bulg) kiss, dream, inspect do, begin, cause
such smart, lazy, subtle on, of, to
so, here, then angrily, gently, fully on, of, to

52
Prediction confirmed: (AdjP  AdvP) and PP
are positionally equivalent
• Adnominal modification, AdjP and PPs:
a problem of enormous complexity : an enormously complex problem
• Modifying the verb and its projections, AdvPs and PPs:
She walks with elegance. : She walks elegantly.
• Copula-predicate, AdjP/AdvP and PPs:
He is on vacation. : He is on drugs. : He is well. : He is drugged.
• Secondary predicate, AdjP and PPs:
John drove with tears in his eyes. : John pushed it away from the desk.
John drove drunk. : John wiped it clean.

53
Even finer parallels
• PPs, just like adjectives, can realize kind-modification (Arsenijević et
al. 2014), yielding the same effects regarding the availability of
subsective interpretations.

an inspiring engineer a writer of great influence

(intersective or subsective)
an inspiring nervous engineer a writer on a trip of great influence
(only intersective)
an inspiring civil engineer a writer in residence of great influence
(intersective or subsective)

54
Even finer parallels
• Both kind-modification PPs and kind-modification adjectives compete
with noun-noun compounds.

mašinski inženjer (SC) Maschinenbauingenieur (German)

machine.Adj engineer machine_engineer
’machine engineer’

supa sa knedlama (SC) Knödelsuppe (German)

soup with dumplings dumplings_soup
’dumplings soup’

55
More support: conjunction
• PPs conjoin with both adjectives and adverbs better than with DPs:
John sails fast and against the stream.
John is ill and on vacation.
?John is mean and an addict.
*John is mean and addict. / *John is a mean and an addict.

• Traditionally explained as a case of semantic conditioning of

conjunction (the same semantic type) – but it does not explain the
contrast with N – which is a predicate.
56
And more support
• This account predicts the asymmetric behavior of adnominal items
and finite verbs when it comes to agreement.

• Adnominal items involve unvalued [Cl], and their agreement is

triggered by the matching/rising relation between two [Cl] features.

• This means that only the hierarchically local goal can be the source of
the agreement features.

• The verb agrees with D – i.e. any D available on the goal is a possible
source of the relevant features.
57
Conjunct agreement
• A wide variety of languages allows agreement with a single conjunct.
• When adnominal items agree, it is only with the first conjunct.
bela / *bele / *beli pisma i olovke Serbo-Croatian
white.NPl / FPl / MPl letter.NPl and pen.FPl
• When finite verbs agree, it can be the first or last conjunct, resolved
or default.
Pisma i olovke su prodata / prodate / prodati
letter.NPl and pen.FPl AuxPl sold.NPl / FPl / MPl
’The white letters and pens have been sold.’

58
Summary
• If being a lexical category equals the capacity to determine / fit in an
extended projection, only n and v are lexical categories (though even they
derive from classifiers).
• Adjs, Advs and Ps are one class: items headed by a classifier-relativizer.
• Adjectives and adverbs involve incorporation of more complex root-
structures than Ps – the latter crucially never incorporate the immediate
complement.
• Asymmetries between Adj, Adv and P can be derived from:
1) the fact that Advs and Adjs often incorporate all the material from the
complement,
2) an agreement relation that the Cl feature of Adjs and Advs needs to
establish in the absence of an overt direct nominal complement.

59
Conclusion
• Lexical categories can be decomposed into classifier-level properties.
• Being a ’proper’ lexical category equals having a valued classifier, which
among other things licenses an own extended projection.
• Other grammatically relevant classes of lexical items involve unvalued
classifiers, and its interaction with the context determines their behavior.
• This behavior forms classes such as adjectives, adverbs or prepositions.
• Prepositions are bear Cl-relativizers, the most primitive of all relativizers.
• This view predicts the following hierarchy of likeliness of being universal:
nouns, prepositions, verbs, adjectives, adverbs.

60
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

61
Appendix 1:
What do we mean by ’a lexical category’?
• A class of lexemes sharing highly general morphological properties?

• A type of syntactic head projecting a particular phrase, or a sequence

of functional projections?

• Typological prototypes, with varying (degrees of) instantiation in

particular languages.

• A class of expressions expressing the same ontological class.

62
A class of lexemes sharing highly general
morphological properties
• Adjectives: lexical items that may have different forms for
comparison, gender, number, case, definiteness (such that
comparison is interpretable and others are not) – and no forms
specified for aspect, tense or evidentiality.
• Showing a subset of the positively expressed properties suffices to
verify an adjective.
• A language has adjectives if it has a class of lexemes which have forms
for an invariant subset of the above features.
• A language has no adjectives if it has no such class (i.e. if either none
or all of its lexemes behave in the described way).
63
Some issues
• Languages with extremely poor morphology have no lexical categories?
• What about partial overlaps? E.g. not all adjectives are gradable.
 Still, the comparative form of an adjective is semantically / pragmatically
degraded, but on a noun it yields ungrammaticality:
#deader, #woodenest : *windower, *bottlest, *dissapearest
• Does analytic expression count? Consider analytic comparison, which
typically combines with verbs and nouns in the very same, or similar way as
with adjectives.
po mlad : po bjaga : po domakin Bulgarian
Cmpr young Cmpr runs Cmpr host
’younger’ ’runs more’ ’more of a host’

64
The opposition between synthetic and
analytic comparison
• It turns out that due to its lack of inflective comparison, Bulgarian
adjectives cannot be defined via comparison.
• Compare this to Serbo-Croatian and English, where nominal as well as
adjectival predicates can be graded, but only adjectival predicates via
inflection (which always has a fixed direction along the scale).
Hilari je više predsednik / *predsednikija no će Donald Tramp ikad biti.
Hillary is more president / *presidenter than Donald Trump will ever be.
Terens Flečer je manje nastavnik nego podoficir obuke.
Terence Fletcher is less teacher than drill sergeant.

65
A class of lexical items able to occur in /
lexicalize a particular structural position
• Partially circular: the structural positions are postulated partly based
on lexical classes considered to be categories.

• Closely related to the first attempt: the availability of particular forms

often conditions the ability to occur in certain positions.

• The immediate context of a lexical category is its (extended)

projection: do adjectives project any higher than AdjP?

• DegP is the best candidate, but it has been argued to be sitting as

high as TP (from Chomsky 1965 to Bhatt and Pancheva 2004).
66
Typological prototypes, with varying
instantiation in particular languages
• Lexical categories are abstract notions standing for a tendency that
certain different properties be linked with the same set of lexemes.
• In concrete languages, different subsets of these properties
characterize the instantiations of the prototypical category.

• Adjectives: denote dimension, capacity, color...

used adnominally and as predicates,
often involve a scalar semantic component

67
Some problems: vague and incomplete
• Even among the three core features – at least one needs to be relativized
already at the general level: some of the core adjectives like color terms or
those denoting materials are not gradable, and one is open and disjunctive.
• Needs further measures to explain why exactly certain properties tend to
cooccur, and why other combinations tend not to (i.e. why the same class
often occurs both adnominally and predicatively, but not adnominally and
headding arguments, or why the same class is often adnominal and
gradable, but not adnominal and tensed).
• Is it methodologically correct to treat a category X in language A which
displays the adnominal use and comparison, and a category Y in language
B, which displays predicative use and comparison – as the same category?
• The set of prototypical categories ’happen to’ match the the categories
instantiated in Latin / English / Indo-European.

68
Intermediate summary
• Adjectives (and adverbs) are semantically non-referential nouns. This
can be modelled as the absence of the classifier feature in an
otherwise equivalent item.

• Adjectives (and adverbs) are not universal – some languages do, and
some do not have them. This implies a derived nature.

• Adjectives are most directly defined by their morphological and

semantic properties (the set of endings, the ontological class), and do
not seem to project an extended projection.

69
Appendix 2: Strength of lexical categories in a
typological perspective
• A possible counterargument to the claim that some languages have
no adjectives:
• Verb-like adjectives have special properties compared to prototypical
verbs (e.g. Acehnese verbs with adjectival meanings – but also some
other, more typical verbs – must be non-controlled – which
essentially means no agent-agreement, Durie 1986).
Lȃn ka=gadöh=pok=pirak gopnyan ka=saket=geuh Acehnese
I Inch=lost=pot=silver he Inch=sick=3
’I lost the silver pot.’ ’He is ill.’ (~’He has started illing’)

70
Appendix 2: Strength of lexical categories in a
typological perspective
Lȃn ka=gadöh=pok=pirak gopnyan ka=saket=geuh Acehnese
I Inch=lost=pot=silver he Inch=sick=3
’I lost the silver pot.’ ’He is ill.’ (~’He has started illing’)
• Adjectival meanings are simply expressed by non-agentive verbs, a
legitimate subclass of V.
• It is natural that a semantic property of a subclass influences its
grammatical behavior (consider causative verbs, Indo-European
relational and possessive adjectives, Kimian stative verbs).

71
Ill-based conclusions
• saket ’sick’ is a verb because it occurs in exactly the same context as
gadöh ’lost’, an ’uncontroversial verb’.

Lȃn ka=gadöh=pok=pirak gopnyan ka=saket=geuh Acehnese

I Inch=lost=pot=silver he Inch=sick=3
’I lost the silver pot.’ ’He is ill.’ (~’He has started illing’)

• But what guarantees that gadöh ’lost’ is a verb? That it has a meaning
that ’better known’ languages typically realize with verbs?

72
In the eye of the linguist
• As arbitrary as:
• saket ’sick’ is an adjective because it expresses a core adjectival
meaning (property) and occurs in a core adjectival position
(predicate);
• gadöh ’lost’ is an adjective too (better represented as ’absent’) and
receiving the verbal interpretation ’lost’ due to the inchoative marker.

Lȃn ka=gadöh=pok=pirak gopnyan ka=saket=geuh Acehnese

I Inch=lost=pot=silver he Inch=sick=3
’I lost the silver pot.’ ’He is ill.’ (~’He has started illing’)

73
Syntactic context is liberal, inflection matters
• Even in Indo-European languages, only inflection can be taken as an
indication of the category.
• Non-inflectionally realized context does not count.
• Consider analytic comparison, which typically combines with verbs and
nouns in the very same, or similar way as with adjectives.

po mlad : po bjaga : po domakin Bulgarian

Cmpr youngAdj Cmpr runsV Cmpr hostN
’younger’ ’runs more’ ’more of a host’

• No ground for either conclusion: both saket ’sick’ and gadöh ’lost’ are
category-less roots.

74
’Verb-like adjectives’ are not adjectives; they are
non-categorized roots in a verbal contexts
• Modification and predication are two different strategies to attribute
a property to a referent.
• Without further measures being taken, adjectives are only capable of
the former.
• For the latter, they either need a light verb (typically a (semi-)copula:
John is sad), or they have to be embedded in a verbal shell (yielding a
state verb or a perfect inchoative: anakeda pingu ’smart child’, lit.
’child knows’ from Kambera, Klamer 1998, ka=saket ’to have become
ill’ from Acehnese, Durie 1986).
• Even when the copula is invisible, its temporal effects are attestable.
75
Temporality
• The two strategies for expressing properties: predication (stative
verbs) and adjectives, are not semantically are equivalent.

• Crucially: predication does, while modification does not introduce the

temporal dimension into the syntactic structure (consider
nominalizations: sadness vs. being sad, smartness vs. knowing).

• Adjectives may have temporal lexical meaning (contemporary, future),

or allow for interpretations which involve the temporal dimension,
but, unlike verbs, they alone do not open room for structural effects
on temporal interpretations.
76
Two types of languages with respect to lexical
categories

• Type 1: categorial features (classifiers, aspect, comparison) are

realized by independent words (usually clitics), and encyclopedia
items seem polyvalent: only semantics and pragmatics restrict their
occurrence in different syntactic contexts.

• Type 2: categorial features are affixal on root morphemes, and

encyclopedia items seem more strongly categorially restricted.

77
Type 1
• Categorial features (classifiers, aspect, comparison) are realized by
independent words (usually clitics), and encyclopedia items seem
polyvalent: only semantics and pragmatics restrict their occurrence in
different syntactic contexts.
• A simple solution is to model it as a tendency to store nouns in the
encyclopedia, which due to their underspecification, easily convert.

• Consider the Kambera root wài ’water (Klamer 1998: 110):

wài = water; in nominal contexts: water;
in adjectival contexts: be a believer;
in verbal contexts: believe something.

78
Illustration: bàndil ’shoot’
(Kambera, Kramer 1998)

Ndedi ningu =a bi bàndil

not_yet be Mod real rifle
'There were/are no rifles yet’

Na= bàndil ànga =ka bi hurundandu

3SgNom shoot useless =Prf Der soldier
’Soldiers will just shoot me without reason’

79
Type 2
• Categorial features are affixal on root morphemes, and encyclopedia
items seem more strongly categorially restricted.
• A more even distribution in the encyclopedia between verbs, nouns
and bigger chunks.

krov ’roof’ (Serbo-Croatian)

N Adj V
tom krov-u *krov-a kuća *Oni krov-e kuću.
that.Dat roof-Dat roof-FSgNom house.F they roof-Pres3Pl house.Acc
’to that roof’

80
Appendix 3: Morphological properties
• In some languages, Adjs / Advs take affixes (agreement of adjectives,
adverbial suffix), and Ps do not in any. Why is it the case?
Because in Ps, the ClRelPron always has a categorized nominal
complement, against which it checks and values its Cl feature locally ,
while in Adjs and Advs, the ClRelPron does not have a categorized
immediate complement, and their Cl feature gets checked by the
head of the modificandum for adjectives, or by an abstract semi-
lexical noun in adverbs (MANNER, TIME, PLACE)?
Not a sufficient explanation.

81
Underlyingly, under the present analysis
PP: white PP: of white

ClRelPro P ClRelPro P
???

OF P OF NP
AGREE
WHITE COLOR Cl white

82
Apendix 4: Argument structure
• Ps take obligatory DP-arguments, Adjs and Advs often have none, and
may also take PP-arguments. Why if they are the same class?
Some Ps may drop their arguments (around, up).
Adjs, Advs incorporate the locally c-commanded nodes – where the
Ps’ obligatory arguments sit; their arguments are typically more
deeply embedded.
Moreover, semi-functional verbs all take only DP-arguments (do X, be
X, begin X), while more lexical ones may take PPs as well, so the
explanation for why semi-functional PAAs all take arguments must be
more general.
83