Acknowledgments
Beingrootedinpragmaticsandasemanticistatheart,Ineverthelesshadasoftspotfor syntax,eventhoughIcouldn’tputittomuchuseinmyownwork.Butthatchanged whenI,togetherwithKatharinaTurgay,submittedanarticleonGermanintensifiers tothe JournalofComparativeLinguistics andSusiWurmbrand,theeditor-in-chief, andespeciallyoneoftheanonymousreviewerssentusdownthepathoffeaturesand agreement,whichhelpedustremendouslytogetagriponthequirkybehaviorofthese expression.Thispaper,which,withsomeadaptations,willresurfacehereasoneofthe threemajorcasestudies,wasmyfirstforayinactuallyemployingmodernsyntactic toolsinmyownworkanditmademewanttodothatmore.Hence,itfollowed naturallythatIwantedtogoaftersomesyntacticproblemsformysecondbook(my so-called“Habiltationsschrift”).
Thiswasthefirstsourceofinspirationforthiswork.Thesecondonecamefrom alongtalkwithDanielHole,onthesouthboundtrainfromtheDGfSmeeting inMarburg,whotoldmeabouthisideaofanagreement-based,distributedanalysis oftheevaluativereadingofGerman nur (‘only’),whichseemedtobeagoodwayto tacklesomeparticularproblemsraisedbyexpressiveadjectives.AlthoughIwasvery inspiredbytheseideas,Imentallyfiledthemawayforthetimebeing,butwhenIcame toCologneinSpringandhadtogivealectureseries,Idecidedtodevoteittothe moregrammaticalsideofexpressivityandthisiswhereIdevelopedthecoreideasof thesyntacticanalysisofexpressiveadjectivesthatIwillpresentinthisbook.
Therearemanypeoplewhosupportedandinspiredmeduringthisprojectand whoindirectlyinfluencedthefinalproduct.First,mycolleaguesinCologneprovided mewithagreatworkingenvironment.ThankstoSusanneCouturierforhelpingme togetthrougheverybureaucraticjungle,especiallybeforeIevencametoCologne. TheteamIhadinmyfirsttwoyearswasablasttoworkwith,specialthanksto CedricLawida,FrankKirchhoff,IlkaHuesmann,KarinBarber,MartinEvertz,and YaminaMiri,andtoBeatricePrimusforlettingmeborrowthemforherforthat time.TimGrafdeservesmanythanksforhelpingmewiththesmallexperimentin Chapter,especiallywiththestatistics.PetraSchumacherwasalwaysapleasureto co-examstudentswith,inspiringtoco-teachwith,andveryefficienttoco-authora paperwith(hopefully,therewillbemoretocome).SinceIcametoCologne,Stefan Hinterwimmerhasbecomeoneofmyclosestacademicfriends,notjustfortalking aboutallthingslinguisticsinourofficeandatthemanyconferencesandworkshops wehaveattendedtogether,butalsoforgoingoutfordinnerandtothemovies.
OutsideofCologne,IamespeciallythankfultomyAccidentalTex(as)Posse— ChrisDavis,ElinMcCready,andRobertHenderson.Ihadthejoyofworkingwith
allofthemindependentlyonallthingsexpressiveandIthinkatsometimeweshould goforthebigwinandwriteapapertogether.
IamgratefultoDavidAdgerandHagitBorerforhavingincludedthisworkfor publicationintheirseries.TohavemyownbookintheOSTLserieswasalittle academicdreamofmine,eversinceIgotmyhandsonofthisseries—ChrisPotts’s bookonthelogicofconventionalimplicature.Ihadtworeviewsonmyproposal forthisbook,whichwereveryconstructiveandhelpfulingettingabetterpictureof whatIthinkthisbookshouldbe.
IthankJuliaSteerandVickiSunter,myeditorsatOUP,whowereapleasuretowork withandwereveryhelpful,asIalreadyknewfrommypreviousbook.Thetypesetters ofOUPdidaterrificjobincreatingaprettybookoutofthequirkilycustomizedLaTeX sourceIprovidedthemwith.ManythankstoMartinNobleandHayleyBuckleyfor gettingthemessthatismyEnglishintogoodshape.
Atvariousstagesofmyworkonthisbook,Ihaveprofitedinmanywaysfrom theinput,inspiration,support,andconversationswith,orgeneralfriendlinessof, AndreasTrotzke,AngelikaKratzer,AntonioFortin,BeritGehrke,CarlaUmbach, ChiaraGianollo,CécileMeier,DanielHole,EmarMaier,ElenaCastroviejoMiró, ErikStei,FabianBross,FrankSode,GisbertFanselow,Hans-MartinGärtner,Hedde Zeijlstra,HenkZeevat,HorstLohnstein,HubertTruckenbrodt,JosefBayer,Katharina Hartmann,KatjaJasinskaja,KatieFrazier,KiluvonPrince,LisaMatthewson,Malte Zimmermann,ManfredKrifka,MarcoGarcíaGarcía,MaribelRomero,Markus Steinbach,MartinBecker,MichaelFranke,RegineEckardt,SaschaFink,Sophie Döring,SophieRepp,StanleyDonahoo,SvenLauer,SusiWurmbrand,andVolker Struckmeier.Needlesstosay,thislistisbynomeansexhaustiveandIherebygrantthe righttothrowsome‘damn’slursatmetoeveryoneIforgottomentionwhodeservedit. MybiggestthanksgotoEdeZimmermannandKlausvonHeusinger.ToEdefor beingaconstantinspirationandforsupportingmethroughalltheseyears,evenwhen IdecidedtoleaveFrankfurtinordertoacceptapositioninCologne.ToKlausfor gettingmetoCologneinthefirstplaceandforsupportingmeeversinceduringmy postdoclife.
Aswithmypreviousbook,Idonotevenattempttothankmyfamilyhere,because eventhelongestandmostelaborate“Thankyou!”inanacknowledgmentsectionwill notbeabletoexpresshowgratefulandhumbledIamtohavethesewonderfulpeople inmylife.But damnit :thankyou!
ListofTablesandFigures
Tables
.Allfeaturescombinationsandconfigurations .Comparisonbetweennon-localadjectivesandexpressiveadjectives .Parametersofmixedmodel,situationresponses,syntacticembedding .FourcasesofEI-constructions .ClassesofEIs .TotalGooglehitsforEDCs .Syntax–semantics(mis)matcheswithEIs .DetailedGooglehitsforthevariantsin(.) .TheGermanpronounsystem .Comparingthethreeapproachestovocativemeaning
Figures .Bühler’s(/:)Organonmodeloflanguage .Thefacultyoflanguageanditsinterfaceswithothercomponents .Modelofamimimalistgrammar .Multiplespell-outmodel .MeanproportionsofsentenceresponsesdependingonpositionoftheEA andcausalityofsubject .Proportionofsubjectresponses giventhatsentenceresponsewasnotgiven, dependingonpositionoftheEAandcausalityofsubject .Numberofsentencevs.non-sentenceresponsesdependingonembedding andposition .Schaden’s()“IPA”-taxonomyofvocativeuses .Afour-waytaxonomyofvocativefunctions .StructuraltypesofeVocs
ListofAbbreviations,Symbols, andTypographicConventions
Abbreviations
Aadjective absabsolutive accaccusative addradresseehead
addrPadresseephrase
Adradresseehead
AdrPadresseephrase
Advadverb allocallocutive
APadjectivephrase
AParticulatory-perceptualsystem
Ccomplementizer
CIconceptual-intentionalsystem compcomparative
CPcomplementizerphrase
Ddeterminer
DAdescriptiveadjective datdative
Degdegreeelementhead
DegPdegreephrase
DegN adnominaldegreeelement
DegN Padnominaldegreephrase
DPdeterminer
EAexpressiveadjective
EDC(s)externaldegreemodificationconstruction
EIexpressiveintensifier ergergative
eVocexpressivevocative
FL facultyoflanguage
familiarfamiliarform(ofpronouns)
femfeminine
formalformalform(ofpronouns) gengenitive
intjinterjection
xviii ListofAbbreviations,Symbols,andTypographicConventions
IPinflectionphrase
ipxintensifyingprefixoid
LFlogicalform
mascmasculine
MPminimalistprogram
Nnoun
neutneuter nomnominative
NPnounphrase
OCoccasionalconstruction
P&Pprinciplesandparameters
partparticle
pastpasttense
PFphonologicalform
plplural
SA(big)speechacthead
sa(little)speechacthead
SAP(big)speechactphrase
saP(little)speechactphrase sgsingular
Spspeakerhead
SpPspeakerphrase supsuperlative Ttense
TPtensephrase vlittle v head
vPlittle v Phrase
Vverb
VPverbphrase
Vfin finiteverb
VOCvocative
VocPvocativephrase
Syntacticandsemanticsymbols
c context
cS speakerofcontext c
cA addresseeofcontext c
cL locationofcontext c
cW worldofcontext c
w world
CNUcontextsofnon-defectiveuse
Ø-youcovertndpersonpronoun
PØ phonologicallyemptypreposition
ΛA logophoricagent
ΛP logophoricpatentient
φφ-features(case,number,gender)
[
∗ X ∗] selectionalfeature:selectingforX
[iF]feature,interpretable
[uF]feature,uninterpretable
[iDef]definitenessfeature,interpretable
[uGen]genderfeature,uninterpretable
[iNum]numberfeature,interpretable
[uNum]numberfeature,uninterpretable
[iT]tensefeature,interpretable
[uT]tensefeature,uninterpretable
[iEx]expressivityfeature,interpretable
[uEx]expressivityfeature,uninterpretable negativeattitude(valueoroperator)
INTintensification(valueof Ex-feature)
prop aproposition
emo emotiveevaluation
int intensificationfunction interpretationfunction
u interpretationfunctionforuse-conditionalcontent
t interpretationfunctionfortruth-conditionalcontent
• separatorofuse-conditionalcontent separatorformixedcontent
¬ logicalnegation
∧ truth-conditionalconjunction
∃ existentialquantifier
∀ universalquantifier semantic(type)clash
! expressivetypeshifter
↑= typelifter(for e to e, t )
γ examplefoundbygoogling
λ lambdaoperator
π projectionfunction
∪ setunion
⊆ subsetrelation
∈ elementrelation
℘ powerset
+ > implicates abbreviationfunction
Typographicconventions
Inlinguisticexamples,Iuse boldface tohighlightrelevantexpressions,andsmall capstoindicatefocusaccentonanexpression.Insemanticformulas, boldface marks logicalconstants.Inthemaintextandinquotations,Iuse italics togiveemphasis. Italics inthemaintextarealsousedforexpressionsintheobjectlanguage.Iuse “quotationmarks”fortranslationsofobjectexpressions,verbatimquotes,aswellas scarequotes.
Introduction
.Descriptiveandexpressivelanguage
Languagecanbeusedforalotofdifferentpurposes.Forinstance,youcanuseitto advertiseproducts.
(.)ManufacturedinEurope,theVirtuoso’smmconicalburrsgrindcoffeeat .to.g/sec.dependingonthesetting.ButwhatreallysetstheVirtuoso burrsapartisthattheseburrscandoaveryuniformgrind,withadistinct lackoffinesacrossitsgrindingrange.SotheVirtuosoburrsareexceptional forespresso,drip,manualbrewingmethodsandPressPot.Theseconicalburrs aredurableandwillremainsharpformanyyears.Theburrshaveaprecision mountingsystemtoensureastableplatformforaccurategrinding.
[https://www.baratza.com/grinder/virtuoso/]
Languagecanalsobeusedtorantaboutsomethingyouarefrustratedwithorthat makesyouangry.
(.)USPS,pleasejustshutdownyourworthlessfuckingoperation.Youareawaste ofspaceandoxygen.Youcouldn’tdeliveryourboogerhooktoyourown fuckingnoseholeifyourlifedependedonit.Youaresofuckingworthlessthat youcouldn’tevendotheonlyjobthatyouhaveindeliveringapackagetomy door.[…]Sothefuckingnameoftheroadthat’sinmyaddressthatisalso partofyourroute,wasn’tabigenoughfuckinghint?Itsnotthatfuckinghard. Shit,evenifyoucantmemorizeeveryaddressonyourroutethenjustfucking googlemapitorsomeshit.DoyouhaveaGPS?Goddamn.Igooglemapmy addressanditpopsrightthefuckup.IFyouhaveANYfuckingdoubt,why notdoublecheck?Nofuckthat.
[https://www.ar.com/forums/general/Dear-USPS--you-had-one-job----rantinside-/-/]
Thesetwoexampletextshaveobviouslyquiteadifferentfeeltothem,notjust regardingtheircontent,butalsoregardingtheirformandthekindsofexpressions involved.Thereasonforthesedifferencesisrootedinthedifferentfunctionsthatplay
TheGrammarofExpressivity.Firstedition.DanielGutzmann. ©DanielGutzmann.FirstpublishedinbyOxfordUniversityPress.
themajorroleintheirtexts.ByfunctionIdonotmeanadvertisingorventingoffone’s emotions,butamorebasicdistinction.Onafundamentallevel(.)isprimarilyused to describe anobjectintheworldandthepropertiesithas,whereas(.)isprimarily usedto express theemotionsandattitudesofthespeaker.Thesebasicfunctionshave beencalledthedescriptiveandexpressivelanguagefunctionsinsemiotictheoriesof language,asinBühler’s(/)orJakobson(a)work.Whilethedescriptive functioninvolvestherelationofthelinguisticsigntoobjectsorstateofaffairsinthe extra-linguisticworld,theexpressivefunctioninvolvestherelationbetweenthesign tothespeakerandwhatitconveysabouther.Eveniftherearerarelycasesinwhicha linguisticexpressionpurelyfulfillsonefunction,wecanseethatthetextin(.)falls mostlyonthedescriptivesideofthisdivide,while(.)mostlyfulfillstheexpressive function.
Itisimportanttonotethatthedistinctionisnotsomuchaboutwhatcontentis communicatedbyalinguisticexpression,butmoreaboutthe“mode”or“channel”in whichitgetsconveyed.Manycontentsmaybeconveyedeitherinadescriptiveway orbyusingtheexpressivelanguagefunction.Consider,forinstance,thefollowing examples(Kaplan).
(.)a.Ouch!
b.Oops!
(.)a.Iaminpain.
b.Iwitnessedaminormishap.
Toacertainextent,utterancesoftheexpressionsin(.)conveythesameinformation asutterancesofthosein(.).Ifyou(correctly)utter ouch,youareinpainandif you(correctly)utter oops youwitnessedaminormishap.Howeverwhatdiffersis whatKaplan(:),inhisinfluentialpaperon ouch and oops,callsthe“modeof expression.”Theexpressionsin(.) describes particularsituation,whilethecorrect useoftheexpressionin(.) express or display thatthespeakerisinthosesituations.
Thedistinctionbetweendescriptiveandexpressivelanguagealsohasdeepramificationabouthowtoapproachthemeaningofdescriptiveandexpressiveexpressions. Whilethemeaningofdescriptiveexpressionscanbecapturedbyanalyzingthe contributiontheymaketothetruth-conditionsofasentence,thisdoesnotholdup forexpressivelanguage.Itdoesnotevenmakesensetoaskunderwhatconditions anutteranceof“Oops!”istrue.Instead,asKaplan()argued,itmakesmuch moresensetoaskabouttheconditionsunderwhich oops canbefelicitouslyused, pickinguponeofthemainideasoftheoriesof“meaningasuse”thatsprungfrom Wittgenstein’slatework(Wittgenstein).Soinsteadofthinkaboutthe truthconditional meaning,wearethinkingaboutthe use-conditional meaningofexpressive items(Recanati:).Comparingthetruth-conditionsfor(.b)andtheuseconditionsfor(.b)illustratestheparallelsanddifferences.
(.) “Iobservedaminormishap”
is true, iffthespeakerobservedaminormishap.
(.) “Oops!”
is felicitouslyused, iffthespeakerobservedaminormishap.
Inbothcases,wehaveaconditioninthethirdlinethatismeanttocapturethe meaningofanexpressionintheobjectlanguageinthefirstline.Sincethetwo conditionsin(.)and(.)arethesame—atleast,letusassumethatforthesakeof thepresentdiscussion—thetwoexpressionsconveythesamesemanticinformation. However,theydifferinhowtheexpressionisconnectedtoitsinformation.Itistruth thatconnectstheexpressionandthecontentinthefirstcase;itisfelicitoususeinthe second.Theyhavedifferentmodesofexpression.
.Fromsemanticstosyntax
Thedifferenceinmodeofexpressionisoneofthefundamentaldifferencesbetween thedescriptiveandexpressivelanguagefunctionand,beinginspiredbythepioneering workbyKaplan()andthelaterformalizationbyPotts(),Idevotedmuch ofmyearlierworktofleshoutthereflexesthatthedistinctionbetweentruthconditionaldescriptiveanduse-conditionalexpressiveaspectsofmeaninghavefor semanticcomposition,howthesetwo“dimensionsofmeaning”interactwitheach otherandhowasuitable,compositionalsemanticframeworkcanhandlebothsides (Gutzmannb).Togetherwithahugebodyofotherworkonexpressivecontent invariouslanguagesandmanydifferentkindsofexpressions,ithasbeenshownthat theexpressivelanguagefunctionfindswidespreadanddiverserealizationinnatural language.1Thismakesitsafetoassumethatthefollowinghypothesisistrue.
(.) Hypothesisofexpressivelanguage (SemPragversion)
Theexpressivelanguagefunctionisreflectedinspecializedlinguisticitemsand constructionsthatexhibitspecialsemanticandpragmaticproperties.
Forinstance,theliteraturehasshownthatexpressiveitemscannoteasilybedenied indiscourseandarehardtoembedunderhighersemanticoperators.Iwillreturn tothesesemanticandpragmaticpropertieslateron.However,evenifthespecial semanticandpragmaticpropertiesofexpressivesreceivedalotofattentionand,by now,areratherwell-studied,thequestionofwhethertheexpressivelanguagefunction isreflectedinthegrammarhasnotreallybeenaskedinthesemanticliterature,my ownworkincluded.Totheextentthatexpressiveitemsthatareattestedtohavespecial
1See,forinstance,thecontributionsinGutzmann&Gärtner.
grammaticalbehavior,itisarguedtobeafeatureoftheirexpressivecontent.For instance,withrespecttoexpressiveadjectiveslike damn,towhichIwilldevotean entirechapterlaterinthisbook,Potts(:–)writesthatexpressiveadjectives “aresyntacticallymuchlikeotherstrictlyattributiveadjectives”andthatanexpressive adjective“playsnospecialroleinthesyntaxofanominalitappearsin,beyond simplyadjoiningasanymodifierwould.”Heconcludes“thatthecontrastsbetween [expressiveadjectives]andotherattributiveadjectivesdon’tfollowfromproperties ofthestructurestheydetermine”(Potts:).However,asIhopetoshowin thisbook,expressivelanguageisnotjustspecialwithrespecttoitssemanticsand pragmatics,butalsoregardingitsgrammar.Therefore,thestrongerhypothesisthat Iaimtoestablishisthefollowing.
(.) Hypothesisofexpressivelanguage (strongerversion)
Theexpressivelanguagefunctionisreflectedinspecializedlinguisticitems andconstructionsthatexhibitspecial grammatical,semantic,andpragmatic properties.
Thisstrongerversionofthehypothesisofexpressivelanguagestillmaynotlook verystrong.Butkeepinmindthatthespecialgrammaticalfeaturesitreferstohave tobeunderstoodasgenuinegrammaticalfeaturesthatcannotbetracedbackto theirspecialsemanticsorpragmatics.Forinstance,Ihavearguedinvariousplaces (Gutzmann,a,b,)thatthespecialgrammaticalbehaviorofso-called modalparticlesinGermancanbederivedfromtheiruse-conditionalnature.They havespecialgrammaticalproperties,which,however,arebasedontheirsemantics. Thehypothesisin(.)isstrongerthanthat.Andmyaimforthisbookistogoa stepfurtherthan(.).Insteadofjustassumingthatexpressiveitemsshowspecial grammaticalbehavior,Iassumethatthemerefactthattheyareexpressiveitemsisa grammaticalpropertyitself.Inparticular,Iargueforthefollowinghypothesis.
(.) Hypothesisofexpressivesyntax
Expressivitydoesnotonlyplayaroleforsemanticsandpragmatics,butitisa syntacticfeature.
WhenIsay syntacticfeature here,Imeanthisinthetheoreticalsenseoftheterm feature.Thatis,Iarguethatexpressivityisasyntacticfeaturelike,forinstance,tense ornumberorgender,andthatthisexpressivityfeaturecanbeinvolvedinsyntactic operationslikeothersyntacticfeatures—itmaypartakeinagreementrelations,itmay triggerothersyntacticoperationslikemovement,andmaybeselectedforbyother expressions.
Iwillargueforthehypothesisofexpressivesyntaxinanindirectway.Inthree extensivecasestudiesIwillinvestigatespecialpropertiesofthreekindsofexpressions: expressiveadjectives,expressiveintensifiers,andexpressivevocatives.Ineachcase, Iwillshowhowananalysesthatisbuiltonthehypothesisin(.),andwhichassumes
thatexpressivityisasyntacticfeature,canexplainsomeofthepuzzlinggrammatical propertiesoftheseexpressions,which,asIwillargue,donotfollowfromtheirspecial semanticsalone.Hence,inanutshelltheplanforthisbookisasfollows.Inthenext twochapters,Iwillprovidethetheoreticalsemanticandsyntacticbackgroundthat willbeneededforthethreecasestudiesthatIwillcarryoutinChapters–and whichformtheheartofthisbook.Iwillfinishthisbriefintroductionwithanoverview oftheindividualchapters,beforegivingashortoutlineofhowtoapproachthisbook ifyouareonlyinterestedinasubsetofwhatIwilldealwith.
.Overviewofthechapters
Chapter Inthesecondchapter,Igodeeperintotheexpressivefunctionoflanguage,theexpressionsthatrealizeitandhowithasbeenapproachedinformal semantics.Thechapteroffersaverybriefhistoricalperspectiveonthenotionof expressivityandintroducesthegeneralideaofhybridsemantics,beforepresenting variousinstancesofexpressionsthatcanbeviewedasfulfillingtheexpressivelanguagefunction.Duringthis,Iwillintroducethethreemainphenomenatobedealt withinthisbook:expressiveadjectives,expressiveintensifiers,andexpressives.The datasectionalsoincludesadiscussionofspecificsemanticpropertiesthatareoften associatedwithexpressivemeaning.Inthesecondhalfofthechapter,Iwillgivean overviewofrecentformalapproachestoexpressivity.Iwillsketchthemainideasput forwardbyPotts()foraformalsemanticapproachtoexpressivemeaningthatis basedontheideaofamultidimensionalsystem,beforepresentingthespecificsystem thatIwilluseforthepurposesofthecasestudies.Thiswillbeavariantofthesystem developedinGutzmannb,whichIspecificallycutdownandstreamlinedfor whatwillbeneededintheremainderofthisbook.
Chapter Havinglaidouttheempiricaldomainandthesemanticbackground ofexpressivityinthesecondchapter,thethirdchapterwillprovidethesyntactic backgroundandtalkaboutsyntax,features,andagreement.Thiswillbenecessary tospelloutthehypothesisofexpressivesyntaxmoreprecisely.Afterabriefsketch ofthearchitectureofaminimalistsyntax,Iwillfocusonthenotionofsyntactic features,whichwillbeputtouseinallthreecasestudies.Iespeciallyfocusonthe notionofagreement,whichwillbethesyntacticoperationthatismostcrucialfor theanalysesinthecasestudies.StartingwithChomsky’s()originalconception, whichIcallC-Agree,Idiscussmorerecentapproachestoagreement(likePesetsky &Torrego)whicharesimplerbutlessconstrainedthanC-Agree,astheydrop thebiconditionalbetween(un)interpretabilityand(un)valuedness(henceIcallit “S-Agree”);somethingthatwillbecrucialforthecasestudiescarriedoutlater.This willthenleadtotheevenmorerecentdebateregardingthedirectionofagreement. Iwillsidewiththeviewthatagreementlooksupwards(Zeijlstra),whichwill
provetobeaperfectfitforthedatadiscussedinChapter.Iwillconcludewitha discussionofphasesandtheirrelevanceforAgreement.FollowingBoškovi´c(, )aswellasZeijlstra(),IassumethatonlyCPisaboundaryforAgreement, whileDPisnot.Iwillalsobrieflydiscusssomeapproachesthatattempttorepresent certainaspectsofthecontextinsyntaxandinvestigateiftheycanbeputtouseforthe followingcasestudies.
Chapter Chapterdealswithaposterchildforexpressivelanguage.Ascanbe witnessedfromthetextin(.)atthebeginningofthischapter,expressiveadjectives (EAs)arecommonexpressionsoftheexpressivelanguagefunction.Theyarealso, fromasemanticpointofview,thebeststudied.Interestingly,expressiveadjectives arealsothemostobviouscaseinwhichthesemanticliteratureignoresthesyntactic componentcompletelyandevenassumesthatexpressiveadjectivesdonotbehave differentlyfromordinaryattributiveadjectives.However,ifonedigsjustalittle deeper,onecanfindmanypropertiesinwhichexpressiveadjectivesdifferfromtheir descriptivecounterpartsincrucialways.Thebiggestdifferenceisthatexpressive adjectiveshavesomeintriguingscope-andargument-takingbehaviors.Ontheone hand,theyhavethestrongtendencytobelinkedtothespeakerandthusexpress thespeaker’sattitudeevenifsemanticallyembedded.Thisisawellknownfactand semanticapproachesalongthelinesofPotts()directlyimplementthisbehavior inthesemanticsystem.Thereishoweveranother,notsowelldocumentedproblem thatexpressiveadjectivesposeforthesyntax–semanticsinterface.Theirsemantic argumentdoesnothavetobetheirsyntacticsister,butmaybesomebiggerconstituent thatcontainstheadjectiveitself.Forinstance,anexpressiveadjectiveinsideanobject DPcanneverthelessbeinterpretedasexpressinganegativespeakerevaluationregardingtheentiresituationexpressedbythesentence.Aproperapproachtoexpressive adjectivesshouldnotonlybeabletodealwithspeakerlinking,butalsoprovidean explanationofargumentextension.
Havingestablishedthattheexistingsemanticapproaches(Gutzmannb; McCready;Potts)andothersdonotofferanexplanationofargument extension(eventhoughtheyaremoresuccessfulwithregardstospeakerlinking), Iturntotheradicalpragmaticsolutiontothissyntax–semanticsmismatchput forwardbyFrazier,Dillon,&Clifton().Theirapproachcompletelyignores syntacticstructureandmaythusbecalledan“anti-syntactic”approach.However, theirsuggestioncanberejectedbyshowingthatthereindeedaresyntacticconstraints fortheinterpretationofexpressiveadjectives.Ithereforepresentanewapproach totherolesyntaxplaysfortheinterpretationofexpressiveadjectives.Forthis, Iemploytheupwardslookingagreementmechanismarguedforintheprevious chapter.Assuminganuninterpretableexpressivityfeatureontheexpressiveadjective andacorrespondinginterpretablefeatureattherespectivelocusofinterpretation,the mismatchbetweenthesyntacticplacementoftheexpressiveanditsinterpretationcan
besolvedbyagreement.AsIwillshow,thisapproachnotonlygivesusanexplanation fortheobservedsyntacticrestriction,butalsohighlightssomefurtherinteresting propertiesofexpressiveadjectives.
Theupshotofthischapterforthehypothesisofexpressivesyntaxisthatexpressivity asasyntacticfeaturecanbeinvolvedinagreement.
Chapter IncontrasttotheexpressiveadjectivesfromChapter,theclassof expressiveintensifiers (EIs),asIcallthem,havereceivedalmostnoattentionin theliterature.Underthislabel,Iconsideraspecialclassofdegreeexpressionsin varietiesofcolloquialGerman,includingexpressionslike sau ‘lit.femalepig,’ voll ‘fully’and total ‘totally,’whicharedistinguishedfromordinarydegreeintensifierslike very byseveralpuzzlingsyntacticproperties.Mostimportantly,theycanappearin whatIcalltheexternaldegreemodificationconstruction(EDCs),aconstructionof theform[EID(A)NP].Despiteprecedingthedeterminerintheseconstructions, theEIstillintensifiestheadjectiveornouninsidetheDP.Inthissense,EIsgive risetothemirrorproblemoftheoneposedbyexpressiveadjectives,astheyoccur abovetheirsemantictarget.Besidesthismismatchregardingsyntacticpositionand semanticinterpretation,thereisanotherform–interpretationmismatchinvolvedwith EIs:itsinterpretationmustbeindefinite,irrespectiveofthedefinitedeterminerthat isstronglypreferredinthisconstruction.Inaddition,thereisalotofvariationgoing onbetweendifferentEIs.
AfterpresentingadetaileddescriptionofthebehaviorofEIs,bothininternaland externalpositionsandinadjectivalandadnominaluse,IdevelopananalysisofEDCs toaddresstheseissues.ThemainideaisthatEDCsarederivedfromacanonical DP-structurebymovingtheEIwiththedeterminerwheretheyformacomplexquantifier.Crucially,andthisiswherethischapterdirectlybuildsonthepreviousones,this movementistriggeredbyanexpressivityfeatureinD.Thechapterconcludeswith someinterventioneffectsthataredirectlypredictedbytheanalysisandconfirmedby thedata.ThischapterisarevisionofGutzmann&Turgay.Whileadoptingthe mainstructureandargumentsofthatarticle,itupdatestheanalysispresentedtherein totoolsemployedhereandalsoinvestigatesthesemanticinterpretationofEIsinmore detail.Someaspects,whicharediscussedinGutzmann&Turgay,aremissing fromthischaptersincetheyaredealtwithelsewhereinthisbook.
Theupshotofthischapterforthehypothesisofexpressivesyntaxisthatexpressivity asasyntacticfeaturecantriggermovement.
Chapter Inthethirdandfinalcasestudy,IinvestigatewhatIcallexpressive vocatives.Incontrasttotheprevioustwocases,atleasttheordinaryvariant ofvocativeshasreceivedsomeattentioninthesyntacticliterature(Haegeman ;Haegeman&Hill;Hill,),evenalthoughtheconnectionto semanticapproaches(likethosebyEckardt;Portner;Predelli)is notmadeexplicit.Afterabriefdiscussionofstandardvocatives,theirstructure,
andtheirfunctions,Iturntoexpressivevocatives(eVocs),whichconsistofa secondpersonpronounandanexpressivenominalpart.Afterdiscussingthe specialpropertiesofeVocsinmuchdetail,therebyidentifyingthreestructural subtypes(autonomous,parenthetical,andintegratedones),Idiscussprevious approachestovocativesemantics.However,sincenoneofthesehadeVocsontheir radar,itcomesasnosurprisethattheyarenotabletodealwiththem.Taking thecrucialinsightsoftheseapproaches,Idevelopanewsemanticapproachto eVocsthatbuildsontheideathatintegratedeVocsareactuallythemostbasic ones,consistingofapronounandexpressivemodification.Parentheticaland autonomouseVocsarethenextensionsoftheintegratedversion,justadding anactivationalvocativefunctionandanexclamationalcomponentrespectively. However,sincethesemanticanalysisleavessomecrucialrestrictionunaccountedfor, Iassumethat,syntactically,eVocsconsistofaD-element—thepronoun—whichhas toselectforanexpressivecomplement.
Theupshotofthischapterforthehypothesisofexpressivesyntaxisthatexpressivity asasyntacticfeaturecanbeselectedforbyotherexpressions.
Chapter Thefinalchapterisaboutlookingbackandlookingahead.Itconcludes withabroadviewofthetopicdealtwithinthisbookandsummarizesthemain findings.Iwillsketchwhatthemainconclusion—thatexpressivityisrepresentedin syntax—maymeanforexistingandfutureresearchonexpressivesandthesyntax–semanticsinterface,beforegivingsomeconcretesuggestionsforfuturedirectionsof investigations.
.Howtoapproachthisbook
Letmeclosethischapterwithanoteonhowtoreadit.Ofcourse,theidealscenario istoreaditfromfronttoback,butsinceIknowthatthisoftendoesnotnecesssarily fitresearchers’andstudents’time,Itriedtosetupthebookinarathermodularway sothat,dependingonyourpreviousknowledgeandinterests,youcanreadchapters moreorlessselectively.
Forthesemanticist IfyoucomefromaplaceliketheonefromwhichIcame whenstartingthisproject,youareasemanticistfamiliarwithexpressivesandmultidimensionalsemanticframeworksintheKaplan/Pottstraditionandyoucansafely skipChapter,maybeonlygoingbacktocheckthecompositions’rules,which(for expositoryreasons)deviateabitfromhowtheyaresetupin,say,McCready orGutzmannb.Ifyouarealsofamiliarwithminimalistsyntaxandthevarious notionsofagreement,youcanthendirectlyjumptothecasestudiesinChapters– andreferbacktoChapterswhennecessary.
Forthesyntactician Ifyouareasyntacticianfamiliarwithsyntacticminimalism andwonderwhatexpressivityhastodowithsyntacticfeatures,youmayjustread
Chapter,beforegoingtothecasestudies.Chaptersandmaybeespecially interestinghere,astheymakethemostuseofthesyntacticmachinery,whileChapter onexpressivevocativesisabitlighteronsyntacticaspects.
Forthestudent Bothbackgroundchapters—Chapteronexpressivityandthe semanticsbehinditandChapteronthesyntacticbackground—shouldgiveyou everythingthatisneededtofollowtherestofthebook,aslongasyouhavesomebasic traininginsemantics(youshouldknowwhatfunctionalapplicationandsemantic typesare)andsyntax(youshouldknowwhatCPsandDPsare).
“Iamjustinterestedinthedata” Incaseyoujustcamehereforthequirkydataon expressives,youcanstartbyjustreadingthecasestudiesinChapters–.Ineach chapter,Ipresentalmostalloftheimportantobservationsandgeneralizationsbefore Idiscussanddeveloptheiranalyses.Incaseyouthengetinterestedandwanttoknow moreaboutthebackgroundoftheanalyses,youcanreferbacktotheappropriate sectionsinChaptersand.
Theexpressivefunctionoflanguage
.Somehistoricalbackground
Theideathattherearedifferent“functions”or“modes”oflanguageisnotarecent inventionofmodernlinguistics,buthasalongstandingtradition,notonlyinlinguisticsitself,butalsoinrelatedfields.Maybenotthefirst,butfromtheperspectiveof linguistics,mostinfluentialuseofthenotionofexpressivitycanbefoundinsemiotics, especiallyinBühler’s(/;/)workinwhichhedevelopshisso-called Organonmodel oflanguage,asdepictedinFigure..Accordingtothismodel,the linguisticsign,asrepresentedbythetriangleinthecenteroftheillustration,has threedifferent semanticfunctionsoflanguage.Thesedifferentfunctionsarerooted intheconnectionsthelinguisticsigncanhavetodifferentcornerstonesofcommunicativeacts.
First,thereisthe representation or descriptive function(“Darstellungsfunktion”) whichencompassestherelationofthesigntotheobjectsorstateofaffairstowhich itrefers.Sincethiscanbeunderstoodinareferential-semanticway,itiscertainlythe moststudiedofthethreefunctionsandtheonethatgotmostattentioninformal linguistics.AndwhileBühler(/:)does“notdisputethedominanceofthe representationalfunctionoflanguage”,hearguesthatthefullfunctionoflinguistic signsdoesnotstopattheirrelationtoobjectsandstateofaffairs.Crucially,Bühler viewsthelinguisticsignasa“amediatorbetweenthespeakerandthehearer”and hence,ithasfunctionsbeyondthepurerepresentational,descriptivefunction.
Rather,eachofthetwoparticipantshashisownpositioninthemake-upofthespeechsituation, namelythesenderastheagentoftheactofspeaking,asthesubjectofthespeechactionon theonehand,andthereceiverastheonespokento,astheaddresseeofthespeechaction ontheotherhand.Theyarenotsimplyapartofwhatthemessageisabout,rathertheyarethe partnersinanexchange,andultimatelythisisthereasonwhyitispossiblethatthesoundas amedialproducthasaspecificsignificativerelationshiptoeach,totheoneandtotheother severally.(Bühler/:–)
Whilethe appealing functionincludestheeffectstheuseofalinguisticsignhas(oris intendedtohave)onthehearer,itisthespeakeraboutwhomthe expressive function encodesinformation.Thatis,whileusingalinguisticexpressiondoesnot refer tothe
TheGrammarofExpressivity.Firstedition.DanielGutzmann. ©DanielGutzmann.FirstpublishedinbyOxfordUniversityPress.
