Predicative degree constructions in Spanishfaculty.smu.edu/apastor/Pastor Probus 2010.pdf ·...

Predicative degree constructions in Spanish1

ALBERTO PASTOR

Probus 22 (2010), 27–71 0921–4771/10/022-027DOI 10.1515/prbs.2010.002 ©Walter de Gruyter

Abstract

This article explores adjectival degree constructions formed around the cop-ular element de ‘of’ in Spanish such as un montón de listo (a load of smart,‘considerably smart’), como tú de gordo (like you of fat, ‘as fat as you’), andasí de alto (this of tall, ‘this tall’.) In these constructions, a predication relationtakes place between the degree to which the property denoted by the adjective ispossessed (the subject) and the different expressions appearing to the left of thecopular element de ‘of’ (the predicate). A subdivision is made between “iden-tificative predicative degree constructions” (IPDCs) and “evaluative predica-tive degree constructions” (EPDCs). In the former, the predication is done bymeans of a comparative clause ({como tú/igual que tú} de gordo, like you offat, ‘as fat as you’) or a deictic lexical unit (así de alto, this of tall, ‘this tall’). Inthe latter, the predicate is a nominal expression (un montón/mogollón/la tira/lahostia . . . } de listo, {loads/a load/the strip/the host . . . } of smart, ‘considerablysmart’). This distinction is based on a number of contrasting properties thatthese two types of predicative degree constructions display with respect to eval-uativity, combination with degree clauses introduced by para ‘for’, (in)felicityin definite environments, (in)compatibility with non-specific indefinite DPs,functioning as a nominal predicate, subject-predicate/predicate-subject wordorder alternations, and information structure. It is argued that the divergentsemantic, pragmatic, and formal properties found in IPDCs and EPDCs comeas a result of the different nature of the degree predicate involved in each typeof construction and a dissimilar syntactic configuration of the predication re-lation (under the syntactic theory of predication in Den Dikken 2006).

1. I am indebted to two anonymous reviewers and Luis Eguren for their thoughtful suggestionsand ideas. My appreciation also goes to Rachel Simpson for discussion of some crucial dataand for patiently editing this paper.

28 Alberto Pastor

1. Introduction

Numerous research papers have been published since the very beginning ofGenerative Grammar in which symmetries and parallelisms among the differ-ent grammatical categories have been studied with the objective of reducing toa minimum the mechanisms that govern human language. With regard to pred-icative relations, Den Dikken (2006) (based on other previous works such asDen Dikken 1995, 1998; Bennis et al. 1998; and Moro 1997, among others) hasrecently developed a syntactic theory of predication whose main hypothesis isthat all predication relations are syntactically represented in terms of a struc-ture in which the constituents denoting the subject and the predicate dependon a copular element (relator) that establishes the semantic and syntacticconnection between them.

In light of Den Dikken’s (2006) syntactic theory of predication, this arti-cle explores the predication relations that take place inside adjectival degreeconstructions formed around the copular element de ‘of’, such as those onesexemplified in (1):

(1) a. {un{a

montónload

//

mogollónloads

//

lathe

hostiahost

//

lathe

tirastrip

. . . }

. . . }deof

caroexpensive

‘{considerably/significantly/outrageously/extremely/. . . } expen-sive’2

b. {como{like

yoI

//

igualsame

quethat

yo}I}

deof

jovenyoung

‘as young as I’c. así

thisdeof

altotall

‘this tall’

In Section 2, it is argued that in the aforementioned constructions (1) a predi-cation relation takes place between the degree to which the property denoted bythe adjective is possessed3 (the subject) and the different expressions appearing

2. This type of adjectival predicative degree construction (i.e., NP/DP-of-Adj) is not attested inEnglish. The different nuances of the nominal expressions un montón ‘a load’, mogollón‘loads’, la hostia ‘the host’, la tira ‘the strip’, la leche ‘the milk’, etc. found in Spanishpredicative degree constructions are captured (to some extent) in English through adverbssuch as considerably, significantly, substantially, outrageously, well, etc. Nevertheless, theorder in which these terms appear in the translation of (3a) does not correspond necessarilyto the word-for-word glossing. I will mostly use considerably for convenience.

3. More technically speaking, the degree to which the property denoted by the adjective is ap-plied to its external argument.

Predicative degree constructions in Spanish 29

to the left of the copular element de ‘of’ (the predicate). Consequently, theseconstructions are called “predicative degree constructions” (or PDCs) in orderto distinguish them from other degree constructions formed by only an adjec-tive and a degree operator. Next, Section 3 presents a number of contrastingproperties displayed by the different PDCs with respect to evaluativity, com-bination with degree clauses introduced by para ‘for’, (in)felicity in definiteenvironments, (in)compatibility with non-specific definite DPs, functioning asa nominal predicate, subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alterna-tions, and information structure. Based on these contrasts, two different typesof PDCs are distinguished: a) “evaluative predicative degree constructions” (orEPDCs), and b) “identificative predicative degree constructions” (IPDCs). Thesubsequent sections show that the different semantic, pragmatic, and formalproperties displayed respectively by EPDCs and IPDCs come from a differentnature of the degree predicate (Section 4) and a different syntactic configura-tion of predication (Section 5). Section 4 deals with the semantics of PDCs. Onthe one hand, it is proposed that the expressions that function as predicates inIPDCs (i.e., comparative clauses and the deictic term así ‘this’) introduce thedegree (Deg2) that serves as a point of reference for the degree to which theproperty denoted by the adjective is applied to its external argument (Deg1),such that Deg1 is identified with Deg2. On the other hand, it is argued thatthe degree predicate in EPDCs (i.e., nominal expressions such as mogollón‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc.) takes as its argument theinterval opened between Deg1and Deg2 such that the distance of this intervalis predicated to be considerably big. Next, in section 5 it is claimed that IPDCsand EPDCs underlie a different syntactic configuration of predication —alongthe lines of Den Dikken (2006) and Villalba and Bartra-Kaufmann (2010) onQualitative Binominal Noun Phrases. In IPDCs, the predicate is generated inthe specifier of a predicative small clause (Relator Phrase) whose head spellsout as de ‘of’, and its subject occupies the relator’s complement position.On the other hand, the EPDCs’ predicates (i.e., un montón ‘a load’, mogollón‘loads’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc.) are base-generated in the complement of thepredicative small clause (RP) and then undergo predicate displacement (“pred-icate fronting”) to the specifier of an upper focus phrase internal to the ex-tended projection of the graded adjective, crossing the subject’s position alongthe way, and thus linearizing to its left. Lastly, the conclusions of this work andfinal remarks are presented in Section 6.

2. Predicative degree constructions (PDC)

There exists in Spanish a variety of adjectival degree constructions built aroundthe element de ‘of’, as has been shown in (1) at the onset of this article. For the

30 Alberto Pastor

sake of illustration, consider the following classification of these constructionsaccording to the syntactic nature of the expressions appearing to the left of theelement de ‘of’:

(2) DP/NP

a. Estethis

videojuegovideo game

esis

[un[a

montónload

deof

divertido]fun]

parafor

alguiensomebody

quethat

busquelooks-for

acción.action

‘This video game is considerably fun for somebody who is lookingfor action.’

b. JuanJohn

llevabawas.wearing

una

relojwatch

[mogollón[loads

deof

caro].expensive]

‘John was wearing a significantly expensive watch.’c. Pedro

Peteresis

[(un)[(a)

mazopack

deof

guapo].handsome]

‘Peter is extremely handsome.’d. Nos

uspusohe.put

unan

examenexam

[la[the

hostiahost

//

lathe

lechemilk

//

unaa

pasadapass

//

. . .

. . .deof

difícil].difficult]

‘He gave us an outrageously difficult exam.’

(3) Comparative clause

a. JuanJohn

esis

[como[like

PedroPeter

deof

gordo].fat]

‘John is as fat as Peter.’b. María

Maryesis

[igual[same

quethat

túyou

deof

delgada]slim]

‘Mary is as slim as you.’

(4) Deictic termViveshe.lives

conwith

una

hombreman

[así[this

deof

alto].tall]

‘She lives with a man this tall.’

The adjective constructions in brackets in (2)–(4) share a number of properties.First, they are degree constructions. Note, in this sense, how the insertion of anon-gradable adjective is not allowed (unless, obviously, these adjectives arereinterpreted as gradable properties):

(5) a. *JuanJohn

llevabawas.wearing

una

relojwatch

[mogollón[loads

deof

digital].digital]

‘*John was wearing a significantly digital watch.’


b. *JuanJohn

esis

[como[like

PedroPeter

deof

español].Spanish]

‘*John is as Spanish as Peter.’c. *Vive

she.livesconwith

una

hombreman

[así[this

deof

presidencial].presidential]

‘*She lives with a man this presidential.’

Second, in the examples (2)–(4) a predicative relation is established betweenthe degree to which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its exter-nal argument and the different expressions appearing to the left of the elementde ‘of’. In this way, a sentence such as tu novia es {un montón/mogollón/lahostia . . . } de guapa (your girlfriend is {a load/loads/the host/. . . } of beauti-ful, ‘your girlfriend is considerably beautiful’) is understood as ‘the degree ofbeauty of the referent of the DP tu novia ‘your girlfriend’ occupies a consid-erably high position in the scale (of beauty) in a given context’. Specifically,the nominal expressions in bold in the examples in (2) add an interpretation inwhich the degree involved is predicated to be considerably high with respectto a standard value. On the other hand, in the example in (3a) the degree offatness of the proper noun’s referent (Juan) is predicated to occupy the sameplace on the scale as the degree of fatness associated with the individual de-noted by Pedro.4 Similarly, by means of the deictic term así ‘this’ in (4) the

4. Similarly, the interpretation of a simili-construction such as (i) is that ‘the degree of uglinessof John is equal to the degree of ugliness of a toad’. In this example, the entity denoted by theDP un sapo ‘a toad’ is taken as the prototype of ugliness, thus giving rise to an extreme-degreedenotation (Bosque 1999).

(i) JuanJohn

esis

[como[like

una

sapotoad

deof

feo].ugly]

‘Johns is as ugly as a toad.’

(ii) a. MaríaMary

salegoes-out

conwith

una

chicoguy

[que[that

vagoes

a explotarto-explode

deof

gordo].fat]

‘Mary is going out with a guy so fat that he is going to explode.’b. María

Marysalegoes-out

conwith

una

chicoguy

[[

titi

deof

gordofat

(que(that

vagoes

a explotar)i].to-explode)i ]

(→)

‘Mary is going out with a guy so fat (that he is going to explode).’

An extreme-degree denotation is also found in constructions in which the predication overdegrees is conveyed by a resultative clause such as in (iia). The denotation of this utterance isthat ‘the degree of fatness of María’s boyfriend equals the minimum degree needed to causesomeone to explode’. Note, also, that in this type of construction it is possible to find inSpanish instances in which ellipsis of the resultative clause (previously right-dislocated) hastaken place (iib), with an added emphatic/exclamative value (and with a suspended intonationpattern). On the quasi-comparative reading of resultative clauses and their extreme degreeinterpretation, see Pastor (2008a) and the references cited therein.

32 Alberto Pastor

degree of height of the external argument of the adjective (un hombre ‘a man’)is predicated to be equal to the point in the air signaled by the ostensible ges-ture made by the speaker.5 Having said that, it can be affirmed that when thepredication over degrees is made through a comparative clause (3) or a deicticterm (4) an equative interpretation between two degrees is obtained. In otherwords, the degree introduced by these expressions is identified with (equal to)the degree in which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its exter-nal argument. These ideas will be further developed in Section 4 in discussingthe semantics of PDCs.

Lastly, it is also characteristic of the degree constructions in (2)–(4) thata copular element de ‘of’ is inserted between the subject and the predicate.This de ‘of’ does not seem to be a true preposition in these cases given thata) it does not add any lexico-semantic component to the composition of thedenotation of these constructions; and b) its presence is not linked to obliquecase assignment, which is the canonical function of prepositions, provided thatSpanish adjectives do not include case features in their lexical entry. Therefore,it seems that the unit de ‘of’ found in the degree constructions in (2)–(4) is asemantically empty term whose function is to mediate the relation betweenthe adjectival degree phrase (the subject) and the degree modifier expressions(the predicate) appearing on its left. In this sense, it reminds us of the copularelement de ‘of’ found in “A of N”-predicative constructions such as el tontodel doctor (the idiot of the doctor, ‘that idiot of a doctor’) and lo inútil de tupropuesta (the-neut useless of your proposal, ‘the futility of your proposal’)(see, among others, Napoli 1989; Suñer 1990; Kayne 1994; Den Dikken 1995,1998, 2006; Español-Echeverría 1997, 1998; Hulk & Tellier 2000; Villalba &Bartra-Kaufmann 2010).

Therefore, based on these aforementioned properties, the class of degreeconstructions illustrated in (2)–(4) will be called “Predicative Degree Con-structions” (PDCs). PDCs characteristically involve a predication relation that(a) takes place between the degree to which the property denoted by the ad-jective is possessed (the subject) and other degree-modifying expressions (thepredicate); and (b) is mediated by a semantically empty element de ‘of’. Later,in presenting the semantic and syntactic analyses of PDCs (Sections 4 and 5),

5. The term así ‘this/that’ can also refer anaphorically to another degree previously introduced,as illustrated in the following conversation:

(i) a. — JuanJohn

midemeasures

dostwo

metros.meters

‘John is two meters tall.’b. — No

nocreothink.I

quethat

seabe.he

asíthat

deof

alto.tall

‘I do not think he is that tall.’


recent theory on the semantics and syntax of gradable adjectives and degreeterms will be used to understand how PDCs fit into the wider set of adjectivaldegree constructions. In the meantime, it suffices to say PDCs are a specialsubset of degree constructions that are different from other instances formedby only a gradable adjective plus a degree operator such as Juan es pos-altopara su edad (‘John is pos-tall for his age’)6 and Juan es más inteligente quetú (‘John is more intelligent than you’). In the latter two examples, the degreeoperators (pos- and más ‘more’) introduce the degree to which the propertydenoted by the adjective is applied to its external argument (Kennedy 1999); inthe case of PDCs, a predication over the degree introduced by degree operatorsis also added.

3. Two types of predicative degree constructions

This section presents a number of contrasting properties displayed among thedifferent PDCs in (2)–(4) with respect to evaluativity, combination with de-gree clauses introduced by para ‘for’, (in)felicity in definite environments,(in)compatibility with non-specific indefinite DPs, functioning as a nominalpredicate, subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alternations, andinformation-structural profile. Based on these contrasts, two different types ofPDCs will be distinguished: (a) “evaluative predicative degree constructions”(or EPDCs), and (b) “identificative predicative degree constructions” (IPDCs).

3.1. Evaluativity

Following Rett (2008), a construction is “evaluative” if it makes reference toa degree that exceeds a contextually specified standard.7 The evaluativity of adegree construction can be tested in a general sense by determining whether ornot it entails its corresponding positive construction: φ entails ψ iff for everycontext c, if φ is true at c then so is ψ (Bierwisch 1989). In (6), the differenttypes of PDC presented in (2)–(4) are tested for evaluativity:

6. I assume from Kennedy (1999), among many other authors, the idea that the degree to whichthe dimension denoted by the adjective in positive form is introduced by a morpheme pos-that lacks phonetic content and, syntactically, heads an upper degree phrase in the extendedprojection of the adjective. This phonetically empty degree term pos- licenses the degreeclause introduced by para ‘for’(Juan es pos-alto para su edad ‘John is pos-tall for his age’;*Juan es arquitecto para su edad ‘*John is architect for his age’) that provides the standardvalue with respect to which the degree, in which the gradable property is applied to the subjectof predication, is measured (Sánchez 1995).

7. Rett (2008) bases this on the notion of “evaluativity” used in Neeleman et al. (2004); Seuren(1978) alternatively refers to this property as ‘orientedness’, and Bierwisch (1989) as ‘norm-relatedness’.

34 Alberto Pastor

(6) a. JuanJohn

esis

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

lathe

hostiahost

//

. . . }

. . . }deof

alto.tall

⇐JuanJohn

esis

alto.tall

‘John is considerably tall.’b. Juan

Johnesis

{como{as

PedroPeter

//

igualsame

quethat

PedroPeter

//

así}this}

deof

alto.tall

� ⇐JuanJohn

esis

alto.tall

‘John is {as tall as Peter/this tall}.’

Based on (6a), a PDC containing a nominal expression such as mogollón‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, la hostia ‘the host’ is evaluative because it at-tributes to the subject of predication (John) a height that exceeds a relevantstandard. On the other hand, one can verify that (6b) is not evaluative becauseit does not entail that John is tall. Note that an utterance such as (6b) does notmake reference to a degree that necessarily exceeds a contextual standard (asit is the case in (6a)); in fact, (6b) could be felicitously uttered if John’s andPeter’s heights (or the point in space referred to by the deictic term así ‘this’)were below the relevant standard of tallness. For instance, it could plausiblybe used in a situation in which John and Peter are both adult men who are 1.5meters tall (significantly shorter than what is considered average).

3.2. Degree clauses with para ‘for’

Degree clauses with para ‘for’ indicate the parameter according to which thedimension denoted by the gradable adjective is measured (Sánchez 1999). Thefollowing data show that comparative degree predicates (7a) and the deicticterm así (7b) reject their combination with a para-degree clause:

(7) a. PedroPeter

esis

[{como[{like

túyou

//

igualsame

quethat

tú}you}

deof

gordofat

(*para(*for

suhis

estatura)].stature)]

‘Peter is as fat as you (*for his stature).’b. Mi

Myhijoson

esis

[así[this

deof

altotall

(*para(*for

suhis

edad)].age)]

‘My son is this tall (*for his age).’

Conversely, the nominal degree predicates in (2) are compatible with para-degree clauses, as illustrated in (8):


(8) EseThat

hombreman

esis

[{mogollón[{loads

//

una

montónload

//

lathe

hostiahost

//

. . . }

. . . }deof

gordofat

parafor

suhis

estaturastature

yand

edad].age]

‘That man is {considerably/significantly/outrageously} fat for hisstature and age.’

3.3. Definite environments

The nominal expressions that serve as degree predicates in (2) are pragmati-cally anomalous inside DPs headed by the definite article with specific reading(9a),8 as opposed to comparative and deictic degree predicates, which are fe-licitous in these very same environments (9b).

(9) (Scenario: two friends evaluate potential dance partners)

a. #Bailadance.you

conwith

lathe

chicagirl

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

. . . }

. . . }deof

alta.tall

‘#Dance with the considerably tall girl.’b. Baila

dance.youconwith

lathe

chicagirl

{igual{same

quethat

túyou

//

comolike

túyou

//

así}this}

deof

alta.tall

‘Dance with the girl {as tall as you/this tall}.’

3.4. Indefinite environments

The predicative nominal expressions in (2) favor the specific reading of indefi-nites, as indicated by the data in (10a):9

8. The example in (9a) is infelicitous when the DP serves as a first mention definite description.In Section 4.3. I will argue that the use of the evaluative degree predicates such as mogollón‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, una pasada ‘a pass’, la hostia ‘the host’ in an utterance such as(9a) is pragmatically anomalous because of the hearer’s difficulty to find a relevant contextin which the definite article’s existence and informational uniqueness presuppositions aresatisfied. However, note that this utterance (9) can be felicitously used if there has been aprevious mention (discourse anaphora) of a classification of individuals with respect to thedegree to which they possess the property of “being tall” (Leonetti 1999). On the debatebetween a theory of definiteness based on uniqueness (Russell 1905; Hawkins 1978, andmany others) and a characterization of definiteness based on familiarity (Heim 1982, 1983among others), see Abbot (2004).

36 Alberto Pastor

(10) a. (+Spec/??−Spec)Mismy

hermanosbrothers

compraronbought

unaa

casahouse

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

. . . }

. . . }deof

grande.big

‘My brothers bought a considerably big house.’b. (+/−Spec)Mis

myhermanosbrothers

compraronbought

unaa

casahouse

{igual{same

queas

lathe

tuyayours

//

comolike

lathe

tuyayours

//

así}this}

deof

grande.big‘My brothers bought a house {as big as mine/this big}.’

However, when the predication over degrees is done by means of a comparative(3) or a deictic expression (4), one can easily obtain in (10b) both an interpre-tation in which ‘there is one same house that my brothers bought altogether’(just like in (10a)), and a reading in which ‘each of my brothers bought a dif-ferent house’. Moreover, these comparative and deictic predicative expressionsare also compatible with a non-specific determiner such as cualquier ‘any’ in(11b), as opposed to nominal degree predicates (11a).10

(11) a. ??Meme

mudaríamove.would

ato

cualquierany

casahouse

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

. . . }

. . . }deof

grande.big

‘??I would move to any considerably big house.’b. Me

Memudaríamove.would

ato

cualquierany

casahouse

{igual{same

queas

lathe

tuyayours

//

comolike

lathe

tuyayours

//

así}this}

deof

grande.big

‘I would move to any house {as big as yours/this big}.’

9. Other authors have called attention on the interferences between certain degree constructionsand (in)definite and (non)specific environments (Leonetti 1999; Bosque 1996, 2001; Pastor2008b).

10. A similar test can be done with subjunctive relative clauses. In this case grammaticality judg-ments vary, and some speakers may find (i) fully grammatical.

(i) Buscolook-for.I

una

hombreman

quethat

%sea%be-subj.he

mogollónloads

deof

joven.big


3.5. Nominal predicates

Comparative and deictic degree modifying expressions can also function asnominal predicates, as illustrated in (12) and (13), respectively:

(12) a. MaríaMary

llegóarrived

conwith

una

señorman

{como{like

tuyour

hermanobrother

//

igualsame

queas

tuyour

hermano}.brother}

‘Mary arrived with a man like your brother.’b. El

theseñorman

conwith

elthe

quewho

llegóarrived

MaríaMary

esis

{como{like

tuyour

hermanobrother

//

igualsame

queas

tuyour

hermano}.brother}

‘The man with whom Mary arrived is like your brother.’

(13) a. JuanJohn

bailódanced

conwith

unaa

chicagirl

así.this

‘John danced with a girl like this.’b. La

thechicagirl

conwith

lathe

quewho

bailódanced

JuanJohn

esis

así.this

‘The girl with whom John danced is like this.’

Nevertheless, the cases (12)–(13) require a context in which the dimensionassociated with the predicates can be inferred. Thus, in uttering the example in(12a) one needs to know whether the resemblance with the referent of the DPtu hermano ‘your brother’ is established according to beauty (como tu hermanode guapo, like your brother of tall, ‘as tall as your brother’), friendliness (comotu hermano de simpático, like your brother of friendly, ‘as friendly as yourbrother’), or any other relevant property in a given context. Likewise, if theutterances in (13) come with a horizontally outward movement of the speaker’shands, one would understand that the speaker talks about the degree of fatnessof the girl with whom John danced.

On the contrary, the degree modifying expressions in (2) cannot act as nomi-nal predicates, and require the phonetic realization of all lexical units that makeup the degree constructions to which they belong (14a), even in those cases inwhich the dimension being graded is explicitly mentioned, such as in (14b):

(14) a. *MaríaMary

llegóarrived

conwith

una

señorman

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

lathe

tira}.strip}

‘*Mary arrived with a man considerably.’

38 Alberto Pastor

b. *Enin

cuantomuch

ato

altura,height

elthe

señorman

conwith

elthe

quethat

llegóarrived

MaríaMary

esis

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

lathe

tira}.strip}

‘*As for height, the man with whom Mary arrived is consider-ably.’

3.6. Subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alternations

The degree modifying expressions un montón ‘a load’, mogollón ‘loads’, latira ‘the strip’, mazo ‘pack’, etc. can appear to the left of the adjective (15a) aswell as in a post-adjectival position (15b) (see also (40)). Note that in the lattercase, the insertion of the copular element de ‘of’ is not required:

(15) a. mogollónloads

*(de)*(of)

altotall

‘considerably tall’b. alto

tallmogollónloads

The alternation between an initial position and a final position in nominal de-gree predicates does not affect the DPC’s basic semantics; it only involves afocus shift:

(16) a. JuanJohn

estáis

[mogollón[loads

deof

gordo].fat]

‘John is considerably fat.’a.′ Juan

Johnestáis

[gordo[fat

mogollón].loads]

‘John is fat, considerably so.’b. Este

thisniñokid

esis

[un[a

montónload

deof

listo].smart]

‘This kid is considerably smart.’b.′ Este

thisniñokid

esis

[listo[smart

una

montón].load]

‘This kid is smart, considerably so.’c. Esa

thatchicagirl

estáis

[mazo[pack

deof

guapa].pretty]

‘That girl is considerably pretty.’c.′ Esa

thatchicagirl

estáis

[guapa[pretty

mazo].pack]

‘That girl is pretty, considerably so.’


While in the examples (16a–c) the informative focus falls onto the consider-ably high degree to which the properties “being fat”, “being smart”, and “beingpretty” are possessed, in the utterances (16a′–c′) the speaker addresses the at-tention of the hearer towards the fact that certain individuals are characterizedfor having these properties.

Let us now look at what happens with the following data in which the com-parative clauses appear in positions at the beginning and at the end of the ad-jectival construction where they are generated:

(17) a. JuanJohn

esis

[como[like

yoI

deof

alto].tall].

‘John is as tall as I am.’a.′ Juan

Johnesis

[alto[tall

comolike

yo].I]

‘John is tall, like me.’b. Juan

Johnesis

[igual[same

quethat

yoI

deof

listo].smart]

‘John is as smart as I am.’b.′ Juan

Johnesis

[listo[smart

igualsame

quethat

yo].I]

‘John is smart, like me.’

It is important to remark that in these cases the appearance of the comparativeclause in an initial or a final position involves a meaning shift (as indicated bythe English glosses). Thus, in the examples (17a,b) what is compared is thedegree to which the individuals involved are ascribed certain properties. Thisway, in (17a) one understands that ‘John’s degree of height equals the speaker’sdegree of height’. Similarly, the example in (17b) is interpreted as ‘John andthe speaker have the same degree of intelligence’. However, in the sentencesin (17a′, b′), where the comparative clause appears in final position, the com-parison is not between degrees, but rather properties. Thus, the interpretationof these examples (17a′, b′) is that both individuals are predicated to have theproperties “being tall” and “being smart”, respectively. Note also that these ex-amples (17a′, b′) do not entail that such properties are possessed to the samedegree by the two individuals involved in each example. In (17a′), for instance,the individuals “John” and the speaker are predicated to be tall (in a positivedegree), without implying whatsoever that both individuals are equally tall, asit is indeed the case in (17a). In support for this contrast is the fact that theutterance in (18a) is felicitous, whereas the example in (18b) is pragmaticallyanomalous:

40 Alberto Pastor

(18) a. JuanJohn

esis

altotall

comolike

yo,I

perobut

yoI

soyam

inclusoeven

una

pocolittle

másmore

altotall

quethat

él.he

‘John is tall like me, but I am even a bit taller than he.’b. #Juan

Johnesis

comolike

yoI

deof

alto,tall

perobut

yoI

soyam

inclusoeven

una

pocolittle

másmore

altotall

quethat

él.he

‘#John is as tall as I, but I am even a bit taller than he.’

Based on these data ((16)–(18)), it can be concluded that the sequences [comoyo de alto] and [alto como yo] ([like I of tall, ‘as tall as I’/tall like me]) belongto two different types of constructions, and, therefore, they cannot be derivedone from another.

Moreover, a subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alternation likethat one shown in (16) does not take place either in instances in which thepredication over degrees is carried out by means of the deictic term así:

(19) *Mimy

hijoson

esis

[alto[tall

así].this]

3.7. Information structure

DPCs with predicative nominal expressions (un montón ‘a load’, mogollón‘loads’, la hostia ‘the host’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc.) (2) are ungrammatical insyntactic contexts that force the (contrastive) focus interpretation of the subject(i.e., the adjectival degree phrase) (20):

(20) a. *MaríaMary

esis

una

montónload

sóloonly

deof

guapabeautiful

(no(not

deof

inteligente).intelligent)‘*Mary is considerably only beautiful.’

b. *MaríaMary

esis

una

montónload

deof

guapa,beautiful,

perobut

nonot

deof

inteligente.intelligent‘*Mary is considerably beautiful, but not intelligent (consider-ably not intelligent).’


In contrast, in the PDCs in which the predication over degrees is done by meansof a comparative clause (3) or a deictic unit (4), the subject can be focused, asshown by the wellformedness of the following examples:

(21) a. MaríaMary

esis

comolike

yoI

soloonly

deof

altatall

(no(no

deof

guapa).beautiful)

‘Mary is like me only with respect to height (not with respect tobeauty).’

b. MaríaMary

esis

comolike

yoI

deof

alta,tall,

perobut

nonot

deof

guapa.beautiful

‘Mary is like me with respect to height, but not with respect tobeauty.’

(22) a. Quierowant-I

lathe

mesatable

asíthis

soloonly

deof

anchawide

(no(no

deof

larga).long)

‘I want the table like this only in width (not in length).’b. Quiero

want-Ilathe

mesatable

asíthis

deof

ancha,wide,

nonot

deof

larga.long

‘I want the table like this in width, not in length.’

3.8. Summary

This section presented a set of adjectival degree constructions featuring a pred-ication relation between the degree to which the property denoted by the grad-able adjective is possessed (the subject) and other degree modifying expression(the predicate), which can be a nominal phrase (NP/DP), a comparative clause,or a deictic term. It is also characteristic of predicative degree constructionsthat a copular element de ‘of’ appears between the subject and the predicate.Besides these commonalities, there are also semantic, pragmatic, and formaldifferences between PDCs with nominal expressions, on the one hand, andDPCs with comparative clauses and a deictic term, on the other hand, as sum-marized in (23):

42 Alberto Pastor

(23)Degree predicate

NP/DP Comparativeclause

Deicticexpression

Evaluativity Yes No NoDegree clause with para‘for’

Yes No No

Compatible with definite de-scriptions

No Yes Yes

Favor the specific reading ofindefinites

Yes No No

Nominal predicate function No Yes YesWord order alternations Yes No NoFocalized subject No Yes Yes

Based on the data presented in this section, the set of PDCs ((2)–(4)) will besubdivided into two subclasses: (a) “Evaluative predicative degree construc-tions” or EPDCs (24), in which the predication over degrees is carried out bynominal expressions such as un montón ‘a load’, mogollón ‘loads’, la hostia‘the host’, etc. By means of these nominal expressions, the degree to which theproperty denoted by the adjective is applied to its external argument is predi-cated to be considerably high with respect to a relevant standard.

(24) Evaluative predicative degree constructions (EPDCs)

a. Estethis

videojuegovideo game

esis

[un[a

montónload

deof

divertido]fun]

parafor

alguiensomebody

quethat

busquelooks-for

acción.action

‘This video game is considerably fun for somebody who is look-ing for action.’

b. JuanJohn

llevabawas-wearing

una

relojwatch

[mogollón[loads

deof

caro].expensive]

‘John was wearing a significantly expensive watch.’c. Pedro

Peteresis

[(un)[(a)

mazopack

deof

guapo].handsome]

‘Peter is extremely handsome.’d. Nos

uspusoput-he

unan

examenexam

[la[the

hostiahost

//

lathe

lechemilk

//

unaa

pasadapass

//

. . .

. . .deof

difícil].difficult]

‘He gave us an outrageously difficult exam.’


And (b) “identificative predicative degree constructions” or IPDCs (25), inwhich the degree to which the property denoted by the adjective is appliedto its external argument is predicated to be equal to another degree introducedby either a comparative clause (como yo de alto/igual que Pedro) (25a) or adeictic element (así de alto) (25b):

(25) Identificative predicative degree constructions (IPDCs)

a. JuanJohn

esis

[{como[{like

yoI

//

igualsame

quethat

Pedro}Peter}

deof

feo].ugly]

‘John is as tall as I/Peter.’b. Vive

lives-sheconwith

una

hombreman

[así[this

deof

alto].tall]

‘She lives with a man this tall.’

The following sections will show that the different semantic, pragmatic, andformal properties displayed respectively by EPDCs and IPDCs come from adifferent nature of the degree predicate and a different syntactic configurationof predication (under the framework of Den Dikken’s (2006) syntactic the-ory of predication; also incorporating ideas from Villalba & Bartra-Kaufmann2010).

4. Semantics and pragmatics of PDCs

Before dealing directly with the interpretation of PDCs, the assumptions onthe semantics and syntax of gradable adjectives and degree terms used in thisarticle will be introduced.11 From a semantic point of view, it is widely ac-cepted that gradable adjectives include the notions of “degree” and “scales” intheir denotation. Authors such as Bartsch & Vennemann (1972, 1973), Bier-wisch (1989), Cresswell (1977), Heim (2000), Kennedy (1999), Kennedy &McNally (2005a), Klein (1991), Seuren (1973), and von Stechow (1984) de-velop their proposals from two main ideas: a) gradable adjectives project theirarguments onto abstract representations of measurement or “degrees”; and b)a set of degrees totally ordered with respect to a dimension (height, price, etc.)constitutes a “scale”. Building upon these assumptions, and following the ideasof Bartsch & Vennemann (1972, 1973), Kennedy (1999) analyzes gradable ad-jectives as “measure functions”. A gradable adjective such as tall is analyzedas a function from the subset of the domain of the individuals that have a valueof height to degrees of height. Measure functions turn into properties of indi-viduals by means of degree morphology (more, -er, -est, less, etc.). According

11. For the exposition of the semantics of gradable adjectives, I follow Kennedy (2007).

44 Alberto Pastor

to Kennedy, degree morphemes perform two main functions: they provide oneof the arguments to the measure function denoted by the adjective and imposerestrictions to the degree derived from the application of the adjective to itsargument, typically by relating it to another degree. Kennedy develops his pro-posal from comparative degree terms (more/-er, less, as) and the positive formpos- (John is pos-tall for his age) in English. Thus, in an example in Spanishsuch as Juan es más alto que Pedro (‘John is taller than Peter’), by means ofthe degree morpheme más ‘more’ the referent of the proper noun Juan is pro-jected onto a degree “Deg1” on a scale of height, such that Deg1 enters intoa relation (an inequality comparison relation) with the other degree “Deg2”introduced by the clause [que Pedro] (‘than Peter’). Similarly, in the sentenceJuan es pos-alto para su edad (John is pos-tall for his age) the degree mor-pheme pos- (positive form) introduces a degree Deg1 in the upper interval onthe scale (of height) that is equal to or greater than the degree Deg2 consid-ered to be the standard degree of height for a boy of the same age as Peter. Onsyntactic grounds, it is a standard assumption since the works of Abney (1987)and Corver (1991) (see also Higginbotham 1985; Zwarts 1992; Corver 1997a,b) that gradable adjectives project extended functional structure headed by de-gree morphology and, thus, that the extended projection of gradable adjectivescorresponds to a degree phrase, not to an adjective phrase.12

Let us now deal with the interpretation of PDCs, starting with identificativepredicative degree constructions (IPDCs). Recall that in IPDCs (25) the predi-cation over degrees takes place by means of a comparative clause (como yo dealto, ‘like me of tall’) or a deictic expression (así de alto ‘this of tall’). Thisway, in a sentence such as Juan es como yo de alto (John is like me of tall,‘John is as tall as I’) the adjective alto ‘tall’ projects first a DegP headed bythe phonetically empty degree operator pos-, which introduces a degree Deg1in the upper interval on a scale of height (see Kennedy 1999, among others).Next, by means of the comparative clause [como yo] (like me) the degree Deg1is predicated to occupy the same point on the scale as other degree Deg2, inthis case, the speaker’s degree of height. Likewise, when the degree predicationis done by means of the deictic term así, such as in the sentence Juan es así dealto (John is this of tall, ‘John is this tall’), one understands that John’s degreeof height (Deg1) matches the degree of height signaled by the ostensive gesturemade by the speaker (Deg2). In other words, the expressions that function as

12. Pastor (2008b) proposes a split analysis of adjectival degree projections in three levels (basedon Spanish) such that between AP and DegP there is an intermediate projection (QP) in whicha semantic component of scalar interpretation is added. Heading QP is the quantitative termpoco ‘little’, by means of which the lower interval of the scale is selected, or a phoneticallyempty quantitative unit (equivalent to mucho ‘much’ in Old Spanish) that selects the upperinterval on the scale.


predicates in IPDCs (i.e., comparative clauses and the deictic term así ‘this’)introduce the degree that serves as a point of reference (i.e., Deg2) for the de-gree to which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its externalargument (i.e., Deg1), such that the Deg1 is identified with (equal to) Deg2.

I will now focus on the interpretation of EPDCs (24), that is, predicativedegree constructions in which the predication over degrees is done by meansof a nominal expression such as un montón ‘a load’, mogollón ‘loads’, la tira‘the strip’, la hostia ‘the host’, etc. Taking as an example the sentence Juan esun montón de alto (John is a load of tall, ‘John is considerably tall’), note firstthat the gradable adjective alto ‘tall’ projects a DegP headed by an empty de-gree operator (pos-) that saturates the adjective’s degree argument, thus addingthe interpretation that the dimension denoted by the adjective is applied to itsexternal argument to a certain degree on the scale (see Kennedy 1999, amongothers). Then comes the insertion of un montón ‘a load’. This nominal expres-sion acts as a predicate that takes as its argument the interval (i.e., a set ofdegrees) opened by the degree operator pos- (Deg1) with respect to a standarddegree of height (Deg2) in a given context, such that this interval is ascribed theproperty of being similar to un montón ‘a load’; thus giving rise (via metaphor)to a reading in which the size of that interval is considerably big. As a result,the entire degree construction receives an evaluative reading of “high degree”:‘the degree to which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its ex-ternal argument occupies a position considerably high on the scale with respectto a relevant standard’.13

13. This very same interpretative process occurs, for instance, in la tira de largo (the strip of long)by means of a metaphorical comparison to a tira ‘a strip’, which denotes something that islong in nature; or in mogollón de caro (loads of expensive) through the use of mogollón ‘loads’(from Catalan mogobells ‘economic compensation’), which conveys the meaning of a largequantity. The original metaphoric relationship is less clear in Modern Spanish in examplessuch as la hostia de caro (the host of expensive, ‘extremely expensive’) or la leche de feo (themilk of ugly, ‘extremely ugly’), yet the phrase retains a high degree reading. On the otherhand, in recent times other nominal expressions such as (un) mazo (pack of cards) (i) and lapolla (dick/penis) (ii) are also found in newly created EPDCs in Peninsular Spanish slang.Observe, for instance, the following data (found on internet using Google):

(i) a. . . . yand

saltarto-jump

desdefrom

lothe

altotop

deof

una

campanariobell-tower

lathe

polladick

deof

altohigh

. . .

‘. . . and to jump from the top of an extremely high bell-tower’b. Este

thispoemapoem

esis

lathe

polladick

deof

largolong

. . .

‘This poem is extremely long’c. Tú

youhoytoday

estabaswere

lathe

polladick

deof

aburridobored

enin

casahouse

. . .

‘Today you were extremely bored at home’

46 Alberto Pastor

Keeping this distinction in mind, the remainder of this section explains thefirst four contrasting properties between EPDCs and IPDCs presented in Sec-tion 3: evaluativity, their combination with degree clauses introduced by para‘for’, their (in)felicity in definite descriptions, and their (in)compatibility withnon-specific indefinites.

4.1. Evaluativity

According to the aforesaid semantic characterization of EPDCs, the nominalexpressions acting as degree predicates in these constructions take as theirargument a set of degrees, specifically the interval opened by the degree in-troduced by the degree operator pos- (Deg1) with respect to a standard value(Deg2). This makes EPDCs inherently evaluative since the degree predicates(un montón ‘a load’, mogollón ‘loads’, etc.) include in their denotation the ref-erence to a degree that exceeds the relevant standard (see Section 3.1. on thedefinition of “evaluativity” assumed in this work). Following Rett (2008), onecan think of a degree modifier that encodes evaluativity – such as mogollón‘loads’– as a function from a set of degrees to a subset of those degrees (theones above the standard):14

(26) MOGOLLÓNi � λ D〈d,t〉 λ d. D(d) ∧ d > si

On the other hand, IPDCs are not specified for evaluativity. In other words,there is nothing in the semantics of these constructions that leads to evaluativ-ity. In an utterance such as (27a), an equative relation is established betweentwo degrees (27b) such that this sentence is true if John’s degree of height(Deg1) is equal to Peter’s degree of height (Deg2), regardless of whether theirdegree of height exceeds a relevant standard:

(ii) a. Una

1212

parafor

NereaNerea

nuestraour

guiaguide

quethat

esis

una

mazopack

deof

guapa . . .pretty‘A score of 12 for our guide Nerea, who is very pretty’

b. Soyam-I

unaan

tíaaunt

mazopack

deof

locacrazy

. . .

‘I am a very crazy girl’

In the examples in (i) the size of the interval from Deg2 (pos-) to Deg1 (a standard value) isascribed the property of being long by comparing it metaphorically to the male sexual organ.And in (ii) the interval between the degree of beauty/craziness of the girls and a standardvalue is said to include numerous degrees, just like a pack is composed of a large quantity ofcards.

14. I assume with Rett (2008) that s (i.e., the standard value) is a pragmatic variable, and thus itis left unbound in the semantics.


(27) a. JuanJohn

esis

comoas

PedroPeter

deof

alto.tall

‘John is as tall as Peter.’b. {d1:tall’(J,d1)}={d2:tall’(Pd2)}

Recall from Section 3.1 that a sentence such as (27a) could be felicitouslyuttered if John’s and Peter’s heights were below the relevant standard of tall-ness; for instance, in a situation in which John and Peter are both adult menwho are only 1.5 meters tall.

4.2. Combination with degree clauses introduced by para ‘for’

If the previous discussion is on the right track, it seems that an explanation forthe second contrasting property between EPDCs and IPDCs illustrated in Sec-tion 3 has been found. While the former are compatible with degree clausesintroduced by para ‘for’ (8), the latter reject them (7). Based on the afore-mentioned semantics of IPDCs, the ungrammaticality of a sentence such as*Juan es {como yo/así} de feo para ser modelo (*John is {like I/this} of uglyfor being a model, ‘*John is {as ugly as I/this ugly} for a model’ ) is due tothe fact that the degree predicate (i.e., the comparative clause como yo ‘likeme’ and the deictic term así ‘this’) and the degree clause with para ‘for’ arein complementary distribution, given that both expressions perform the samesemantic function with respect to the (positive) degree to which the propertydenoted by the adjective is applied to its external argument. Recall that, follow-ing Kennedy (1999), the semantic function of degree operators is to provideone of the arguments to the measure function denoted by the adjective and toimpose restrictions to the degree derived from the application of the adjectiveto its argument (Deg1), typically by relating it to another degree (Deg2). Thus,in a sentence such as Juan es pos-alto para su edad (John is pos-tall for hisage), the degree operator pos- introduces a degree Deg1 in the upper intervalon the scale that is equal to or greater than another degree Deg2 considered tobe the standard degree of height for a child of the same age as John. Havingsaid that, the inclusion of the clause para ser modelo (for being a model) in theexample *Juan es {como yo/así} de feo para ser modelo (*John is {like I/this}of ugly for being a model, ‘*John is {as ugly as I/this ugly} for a model’) isungrammatical because the degree argument associated with the degree clausewith para ‘for’ (i.e., Deg2) has already been introduced by the comparativeclause (como yo, like I) or the deictic term así ‘this’.

On the other hand, the evaluative nominal expressions found in EPDCs arecompletely grammatical with para-degree clauses, as illustrated in (8). Thereason for this compatibility is that in the case of the EPDCs (see (24)) thenominal expressions un montón ‘a load’, mogollón ‘loads’, la hostia ‘the host’

48 Alberto Pastor

function as predicates that take as their argument the interval opened by Deg1(i.e., the degree introduced by the positive degree operator) with respect toDeg2 (i.e., a standard value), which, in turn, can be explicitly expressed bymeans of the degree clause introduced by para ‘for’ (see (8)).

Therefore, although the different types of expressions appearing to the left ofthe copular element de ‘of’ in PDCs perform the same basic semantic function,that is, they all are predicates over degrees, nevertheless they have differenceswith respect to the argument they select. In the case of IPDCs, the degree predi-cates (i.e., comparative clauses and the deictic así ‘this’) take as their argumentthe degree Deg1(i.e., the degree to which the property denoted by the adjectiveis possessed), such that Deg1 is identified with another degree Deg2 that theyintroduce. On the other hand, in EPDCs the nominal expressions un montón ‘aload’, mogollón ‘loads’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc. target the interval opened be-tween Deg1and Deg2, such that the distance of that interval is predicated to beconsiderably big.

Before moving on to the next two contrasting properties between EPDCsand IPDCs, let us first look at the pragmatic implications of their semantics.Observe the following data:

(28) a. JuanJohn

salegoes-out

conwith

unaa

mujerwoman

[pos-joven].[pos-young]

‘John is going out with a young woman.’b. Juan

Johnsalegoes-out

conwith

unaa

mujerwoman

[como[as

élhim

deof

pos-joven].pos-young]‘John is going out with a woman as young as he.’

c. JuanJohn

salegoes-out

conwith

unaa

mujerwoman

[mogollón[loads

deof

pos-joven].pos-young]‘John is going out with a considerably young woman.’

The utterance in (28a) requires a context in which there exists a woman thatis young to a degree Deg1 (introduced by the degree morpheme pos-) that ex-ceeds another degree Deg2 that serves as a point of reference; in this case, Deg2could be the age of John (or any other standard value relevant contextually). Inthe sentence (28b), the degree serving as a point of reference (i.e., Deg2) isintroduced by the comparative clause como él ‘as he’, such that this sentence istrue if the degree to which the woman and John are young is identical. Lastly,in order for the example in (28c) to be true, this sentence not only requires acontext in which there exists a woman who is young to a degree Deg1 that ex-


ceeds another degree Deg2 serving as a point of reference (just as it is the casein (28a)); but also its truth values depend on the personal criteria of the speakerused to judge the distance of the interval opened between Deg1 and Deg2. Thistype of judge dependency associated to EPDCs underlies the next two con-trasting properties between EPDCs and IPDCs. Specifically, only EPDCs area) infelicitous inside determiner phrases headed with the definite article withspecific reading (4.3), and b) force the specific reading of indefinites (4.4).

4.3. PDCs inside definite descriptions

In this section, it will be argued that the infelicity of EPDCs in definite en-vironments that has been attested above in (9a) (see Section 3.3) is due toan interference between the judge dependency of the evaluative degree predi-cates and the definite determiner’s presuppositions of existence and informa-tional uniqueness.15 Before going into a more detailed explanation of this prag-matic anomaly, note first that sentences containing evaluative degree predicates(mogollón ‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc.) must be rela-tivized to individuals. For instance, when a mother utters the sentence (29a) toher son, the latter may agree with his mother that he needs to gain some weight,but most likely he will disagree with respect to how skinny she believes him tobe, as illustrated by the response in (29b):

(29) a. Mother:Hijo,son

sóloonly

pesasweigh-you

7070

kilos;kilos

estásare.you

mogollónloads

deof

flaco.skinny

‘My son, you only weigh 70 kilos; you are considerablyskinny.’

b. Son: No,no

mamá,mom

nono

seasbe.you

exagerada.exaggerated

‘No, mom, don’t exaggerate.’

More technically speaking, the truth values of the sentence in (29a) depend onthe personal judgment of the speaker (the mother in this example) to evalu-ate the distance opened by the degree to which the son is skinny with respect

15. In this respect, EPDCs pattern in the same way as other evaluative degree construc-tions including degree modifiers such as muy ‘very’, bastante ‘quite’, extremadamente ‘ex-tremely’, etc. (#Baila con la chica muy/bastante/extremadamente alta, Dance with the girlvery/quite/extremely tall), and elatives such as altísimo (#Baila con la chica altísima, Dancewith the girl tall-superlative) (I borrow the term “elative” from Bosque 2001; see also Pastor2008b).

50 Alberto Pastor

to a standard value. Assuming Lasersohn’s (2005) framework of judge depen-dency,16 the context provides an individual (a judge) to be used in evaluatingthe sentence in (29a) for truth or falsity, just as it provides a time and world;hence the example in (29a) can be true relative to the mother but false relativeto the son. Put more formally, for any world-time-judge triple 〈w,t,j〉, mogollóndenotes the set of intervals of degrees that are considerably big to j in w at t.In other words, the meaning of evaluative degree predicates such as mogollón‘loads’ in (29a) is directly dependent on the value of the judge. Under the as-sumption that speakers and hearers normally take themselves to be the judgewhen making and assessing assertions (i.e., an autocentric perspective) (seeLasersohn 2005),17 in order to assert the sentence in (29a), the speaker onlyhas to believe that this sentence is true with herself as the judge regardlessof whether her assertion was or was not accepted and added to the CommonGround.

Keeping these ideas in mind, let us now focus on the pragmatic anomalyof EPDCs inside definite environments in (9) (see note 8). An utterance suchas (9a) is infelicitous due to the hearer’s difficulty to find a context in whichexists only a unique girl distinguished from the rest of discourse referents inthe Common Ground for being considerably tall. Since the criterion to deter-mine what it means to be tall to a degree considerably high with respect to astandard value is only known by the speaker (the judge in Lasersohn’s terms),it interferes with the definite article’s presuppositions of existence and infor-mational uniqueness (Roberts 2003), which must be shared by the speaker andthe hearer. In terms of the Relevance Theory (Wilson & Sperber 2004), theuse of the evaluative degree predicates such as mogollón ‘loads’, un montón‘a load’, una pasada ‘a pass’, la hostia ‘the host’ in an utterance such as (9a)is pragmatically anomalous because the hearer cannot easily find a relevantcontext in which the definite article’s existence and informational uniquenesspresuppositions are satisfied.18

16. Lasersohn’s (2005) framework of judge dependency is intended to account for the meaning ofpredicates of “personal taste” such as fun or tasty. See also Stephenson (2007) for a modifiedversion of Lasersohn’s proposal.

17. Following Lasersohn (2005), speakers could also take the perspective of someone else whenthat individual is particularly salient (i.e., an exocentric perspective) as in Juan está mogollónde flaco según su madre (‘John is considerably skinny to his mom’). However, according toStephenson (2007) there is always a default autocentric perspective, and this type of exampleis to be analyzed as only superficially exocentric.

18. The English construction [very+A] seems to be semantically similar to EPDCs. However, thesequence [very+A] can be felicitously uttered in definite environments (Dance with the verytall girl) as opposed to (9a). The reason for this contrast is that very performs a different se-mantic function. Kennedy & McNally (2005b) analyze very as an intensifier whose semanticfunction is to manipulate the standard function introduced by the positive form. According tothese Kennedy and McNally, [very tall] is (syntactically and semantically) just like [tall], The


4.4. PDCs inside indefinites

As we know from Section 3.4., EPDCs and IPDCs display a different distribu-tion inside indefinite determiner phrases: while the latter are compatible withboth the specific and the non-specific reading of indefinites (see (10b), (11b)),the former are excluded from non-specific indefinites (see (10a), (11a)). Inthis section, it is argued that the specific reading of indefinite DPs contain-ing an EPDC comes as a result of “noteworthiness” of the DP’s referent. Ionin(2006), who studies the semantic and pragmatic properties of the indefinitethis[+referential] in English (for instance, This guy enters a bar and . . . ), pro-poses that there exists a direct relation between noteworthiness and the refer-ential interpretation of indefinites. Ionin’s main claims, which are assumed inthis article, are summarized as follows: (i) this[+referential] includes a felicitycondition such that the individual denoted by the nominal it introduces musthave a noteworthy property; (ii) noteworthiness makes the DP referential, soit appears to have wide scope over other operators.19 This makes referentialityresponsible for the specific interpretation of the DP it heads.20

Returning to the linguistic phenomenon under consideration in this subsec-tion, that is, the restricted distribution of EPDCs inside indefinite DPs, note firstthat, pragmatically, the use of evaluative degree predicates (mogollón ‘loads’,un montón ‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’, la hostia ‘the host’, etc.) is conditionedto situations in which the speaker considers that the distance of the intervalopened by the degree operator pos- (Deg1) with respect to a Deg2 is “note-worthy” (i.e., worthy of mention) such that the speaker places the informativefocus of the utterance onto the predication of degree. For the sake of illustra-tion, note that the use of an utterance such as (29a) requires a context in whichthe speaker believes (judges) that the degree to which her son is skinny is worthnoting, precisely for being (according to her) a considerably high degree on thescale with respect to a standard value. Moreover, by using the evaluative degreepredicate mogollón ‘loads’ in (29a) the speaker addresses the attention of thehearer to her evaluation of the distance between the degree to which a property

difference is that the standard of comparison for the former is computed by considering onlythose objects that count as tall in the context of utterance. In other words, while in an EPDCsuch as la chica mogollón de alta (the girl loads of tall) the standard value is known only tothe speaker, in the very tall girl the standard value is more likely part of the Common Ground.

19. Ionin (2006) assumes a notion of specificity as “the intent to refer” (Fodor & Sag 1982), andargues that to predicate an individual a noteworthy property implies that the speaker has aparticular referent in mind.

20. A third claim made by Ionin (2006) is that the pragmatic principle “Maximize Presupposition”explains why this[+referential] is in complementary distribution with the, since the latterinvolves the presupposition according to which there is a unique individual that has a property,which is not the case for the former. This makes the more informative than this[+referential],although they are both referential.

52 Alberto Pastor

is possessed (Deg1) and another degree serving as a point of reference (Deg2).This is the reason why a follow-up assertion on the part of the son such as #no,no estoy flaco (‘no, I am not skinny’) would be anomalous, since what is atissue in this conversation is not whether or not the son is skinny, but rather howeach speaker judges the degree to which the son is skinny according to his/herown criteria. Similarly, in an utterance such as Me ascendieron por ser [unmontón de trabajador] (‘I was promoted for being considerably hardworking’;see also (41) below) the informative focus falls onto the predication over de-grees more than onto the dimension denoted by the adjective. In this way, oneunderstands that the cause of the promotion is not exactly “being hardwork-ing”, but rather having that property to a considerably high degree. In terms ofthe discourse information structure, in this example the denotation of ‘a con-siderably high degree’ corresponds to the new information (focus), while thedenotation of ‘being hardworking’ is taken as the background information. Infavor of the focal nature of EPDCs’ predicates is also the fact that these con-structions are excluded from syntactic environments forcing an interpretationin which the informative focus falls onto the subject (i.e., the adjectival degreephrase), as has been illustrated above by the examples in (20).21 To summa-rize, the evaluative degree predicates (mogollón ‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, latira ‘the strip’, etc.) found in EPDCs include a felicity condition such that in-terval opened between Deg1 and Deg2 must be noteworthy, thus receiving theinformative focus of the utterance. The noteworthiness of this interval is depen-dent on the value that the judge (typically the speaker) places on the intervalopened between Deg1 and Deg2 – the distance of the interval is evaluated asconsiderably big according to the speaker’s criteria.

Before explaining the reason why EPDCs force the specific reading of indef-inites, let us assume that the noteworthiness associated with the argument of theevaluative degree predicate percolates through the whole adjectival degree con-struction. Thus, in a DP such as una casa {mogollón/un montón/. . . } de grande(‘a considerably big house’) in (10a) the DP’s referential argument becomessignificant by virtue of being assigned a noteworthy property; in this case theproperty of being big to a degree considerably high (according to the speaker).Having said that, and under the assumption that noteworthiness makes the DPreferential (Ionin 2006; see Note 19), the insertion of an evaluative degree pred-icate (mogollón ‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc.) in an indefi-nite DP such as una casa {mogollón/un montón/. . . } de grande (‘a considerablybig house’) in (10a) makes the DP behave as a referential expression (by virtueof being predicated a noteworthy property), which explains the fact that it is

21. I will return to these examples in Section 5 in dealing with the trigger for the displacement ofdegree predicates in EPDCs.


interpreted out of the scope of an operator. Furthermore, this is also the reasonfor the interference between evaluative degree predicates and a non-specificdeterminer such as cualquier ‘any’ in (11a). On the other hand, when the pred-ication over degrees is done by means of a comparative or a deictic expression,one can easily obtain in (10b) both an interpretation in which ‘there is one samehouse that my brothers bought altogether’, and a reading in which ‘each of mybrothers bought a different house’ (this reading is rejected in (10a)). Moreover,these comparative and deictic predicative expressions are also compatible witha non-specific determiner such as cualquier ‘any’ in (11b), as opposed to eval-uative degree predicates (see (11a)).22

To close this section, even though the different types of expressions appear-ing to the left of the copular element de ‘of’ in PDCs perform the same basicsemantic function (i.e., a predication over degrees), these expressions, nonethe-

22. I have found a high degree of variation in the grammaticality judgments of the native speakersthat I have consulted regarding simili-constructions (como un sapo de feo, like a toad of ugly,‘ugly as a toad’) and resultative clauses (que revienta de gorda, that explodes of fat, ‘so fatthat explodes’) in definite (i) and indefinite environments ((ii)–(iii)):

(i) a. ?Baila con la chica como un sapo de fea.dance with the girl like a toad of ugly‘?Dance with the girl as ugly as a toad.’

b. ?Bailadance

conwith

lathe

chicagirl

quethat

revientaexplodes

deof

gorda.fat

‘?Dance with the girl so fat that she explodes.’

(ii) a. [+Spec]/?[−Spec]Todosall

mismy

amigosfriends

bailarondanced

conwith

[una[a

chicagirl

comolike

una

sapotoad

deof

fea].ugly]

‘All my friends danced with a girl as ugly as a toad.’b. [+Spec]/?[−Spec]Todos

allmismy

amigosfriends

bailarondanced

conwith

[una[a

chicagirl

quethat

revientaexplodes

deof

gorda].fat]

‘All my friends danced with a girl so fat that she explodes.’

(iii) a. ?Bailadance

conwith

cualquierany

chicagirl

comolike

una

sapotoad

deof

fea.ugly

‘?Dance with any girl as ugly as a toad.’b. ?Baila

danceconwith

cualquierany

chicagirl

quethat

revienteexplodes

deof

gorda.fat

‘?Dance with any girl so fat that she explodes.’

It seems that the added extreme degree reading involved in simili-constructions and resultativeclauses (see Note 4) makes these expressions behave in fact as degree evaluative expressions,thus becoming infelicitous to some speakers in definite environments (i) and forcing the spe-cific reading of indefinites ((ii) and (iii)).

54 Alberto Pastor

less, have differences in their nature and basic meaning, and in their relationto their subjects. On the one hand, the degree predicates in IPDCs (i.e., com-parative clauses and the deictic term así) take as their argument the degree(Deg1) to which the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its exter-nal argument, such that Deg1 is identified to another degree Deg 2 that theyintroduce. On the other hand, the degree predicates in EPDCs (i.e., nominalexpressions such as mogollón ‘loads’, un montón ‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’,etc.) take as their argument the interval opened between Deg1 and Deg2 suchthat the distance of this interval is predicated to be considerably big. Basedon these differences in the semantics of EPDCs and IPDCs, the contrastingproperties between these constructions with respect to evaluativity, their com-bination with degree clauses with para ‘for’, their (in)felicity in first-mentiondefinite descriptions, and their behavior in indefinite environments have beenexplained.

5. Syntactic analysis of PDCs

This section develops a syntactic analysis for PDCs ((2)–(4)) that not onlyaccounts for the properties that these constructions have in common, that is,the establishment of a relation of predication mediated by a copular elementde ‘of’; but that also explains the contrasts that EPDCs (24) and IPDCs (25)show regarding their interpretation, their subject-predicate/predicate-subjectword order alternations, their information-structural profile, and their use asa nominal predicate. To perform this task, the syntactic theory of predicationproposed in Den Dikken (2006) will be assumed, whose fundamentals will nextbe briefly presented.

According to Den Dikken (2006) (building upon ideas previously developedin Den Dikken 1995, 1998; and Bennis et al. 1998, among others), the syntacticconfiguration of predication corresponds to an asymmetric structure in whichthe relation between a predicate and its subject is established by means of arelator, a functional head (with no specific lexical and categorial content)that takes the predicate and its subject as its dependents. Den Dikken (2006)offers an extensive empirical argumentation and develops a thoughtful theo-retical discussion with the objective of demonstrating the non-directionality ofpredication, and proposes that there exist two ways in which a predicate can re-late to its subject via a relator: the predicate can either be the complement orthe specifier of the relator, such that the subject occupies the other positioninside the Relator Phrase (RP), as represented in (30):

(30) a. [RP [XP subject] [R’ relator [YP predicate]]](Predicate-complement structure)


b. [RP [XP predicate] [R’ relator [YP subject]]](Predicate-specifier structure)

Den Dikken (2006) first argues in favor of both (30a) and (30b) on the basis ofsubject-predicate relationships in the clause – mostly copular sentences. Thenhe finds instances of (30a) and (30b) in the nominal domain, specifically in“Quantitative Binominal Noun Phrases” (Hence QBNPs) such as those in (31):

(31) a. an idiot of a doctor (Attributive QBNP)‘an idiot in his/her capacity as a doctor’

b. a jewel of a village (Comparative QBNP)‘a village that is similar to a jewel’

In the QBNPs in (31) the first noun phrase ascribes a property to the nounphrase that follows it. In the attributive reading of (31a),23 the referent of thefirst NP is an idiot in his capacity as a doctor, not as an individual (he can bequite knowledgeable otherwise). However, in the comparative QBNP in (31b)the first noun phrase is taken to apply not just to the second noun phrase butto the referent of the entire QBNP qua individual. The village is comparedmetaphorically to a jewel, which stands for a set of properties that jewels typ-ically have (such as being precious, valuable, loved, beautiful, etc.), and anevaluative reading of the whole nominal expression arises. Based on the as-sumption that property ascription is structurally represented in the form of apredication structure, with the ascriber of the property being the predicate andthe ascribee the subject, Den Dikken postulates a syntactic structure underly-ing all QBNPs according to which there is a predicational relationship betweentwo noun phrases (see also Napoli 1989; Suñer 1990; Kayne 1994; Den Dikken1995, 1998; Español-Echeverría 1997, 1998; Hulk & Tellier 2000; and Villalba& Bartra-Kaufmann 2010). In the linear string of both attributive and compar-ative QBNPs the predicate precedes its subject, but in Den Dikken (2006) thetwo are analyzed as having different underlying structures, with the former be-ing base-generated as a predicate-specifier structure (32) while the latter hasa predicate-complement structure (33a) that serves as an input for PredicateInversion (33b).

(32) Attributive QBNP – Predicate-specifier[DP D Ø [RP [XP an idiot] [R’ relator =of [YP a doctor]]]]

(33) Comparative QBNP – Predicate-complement

a. [RP [XP a village] [R’ relator [YP similar a jewel]]]b. [FP [YP similar jewel]j [F’ linker+relatori= of [RP [XP a vil-

lage] [R’ ti tj]]]]

23. The QBNP in (31a) can also have a comparative reading.

56 Alberto Pastor

In the attributive QBNP in (32), the subject is base-generated as a comple-ment of the Relator Phrase. From this syntactic position, the subject restrictsthe predicate’s denotation: ‘someone is an idiot in his/her capacity as a doctor’.The nominal copula “of” serves as the spell out of the relator. On the otherhand, the comparative QBNP a jewel of a village (33) possesses an underly-ing syntactic configuration in which the subject and the predicate occupy theircanonical positions, with the predicate restricting the denotation of the subject.This way, the village is compared metaphorically to a jewel (33a). Den Dikkenassumes this semantic aspect of comparison to be structurally encoded, in theform of an abstract predicate “similar”. Assuming that this empty predicatehead is in need of licensing, and that Predicate Inversion satisfies this need,Den Dikken (2006) provides an answer to the resulting linear order in whichthe predicate precedes the subject (33b). Following Den Dikken (2006: 178),the Predication Inversion operation in (b) goes as follows: the predicate raisesto the specifier position of a small-clause external functional head F that re-ceives the relator-head of the small clause. As a result of the phase-extendingmovement of the relator up to the small-clause external F-head, the predicateis allowed to cross over its subject on its way to a higher A-position because thesubject position of the small clause and the predicate’s prospective landing site([Spec, FP]) have now been rendered equidistant. The small-clause externalF-head is lexicalized by a linker – the nominal copula of.

Den Dikken (2006) argues that the information-structural profile in QBNPsconforms to the standard pattern found in Predicate Inversion constructions,that is, the predicate represents old information and the subject supplies newinformation (focus) (34b). In the canonical copular sentence in (34a), on thecontrary, the focus or new information is my best friend, and Brian is old infor-mation.

(34) a. BrianOld

is my bestNew

friend. (Canonical copular sentence)

b. My bestOld

friend is BrianNew

. (Inverse copular sentence)

(Den Dikken 2006: 231)

Den Dikken then extends the informational pattern in (34b) to French QBNPsand “NP-de-AP” constructions such as those in (35a) and (35b):

(35) a. una

drôlefunny

deof

typeguy

b. unea

pizzapizza

deof

chaudehot

However, Villaba & Bartra-Kaufmann (2010) claim that in Spanish compara-


tive QBNPs (36a) and the “lo-de” construction (36b) do not display the infor-mation-structural profile characteristic of Predicate Inversion, but rather theopposite one:

(36) a. elthe

idiotafocus

idiotdeof

suhis

hijobackground

sonb. lo

locarofocus

expensivedeof

lathe

casabackground

house

Villalba & Bartra-Kaufmann (2010) sustain their proposal with extensive em-pirical evidence showing that (a) neither the subject of the lo-de constructionsnor that of QBNPs behave as focus with respect to standard tests, and (b) thesubject of the lo-de construction and of QBNPs is a background topic. As aresult, they argue that the inverted predicate-subject configuration in the Span-ish comparative QBNPs (36a) and the lo-de construction (36b) is not the resultof Predicate Inversion as originally conceived by Bennis et al. (1998) and DenDikken (2006) for Germanic QBNPs, but rather the consequence of PredicateFronting (A′-movement) of the predicate to a DP-internal FocusP, as illustratedin (37).

(37) a. [FocP [DP el idiota]j [Foc′ Xi +FOC = of [XP [DP su hijo] [X′ ti tj]]]]b. [FocP [DegP op [Deg′ degi [AP car-]]]k [Foc′ DEGi+ Xj +FOC = of

[XP [DP la casa] [X′ ti tk]]]]

Following a long tradition in linguistics studies of exploring the semanticand structural parallelism among the different grammatical categories, Corver(2000) extends the analysis with predicate displacement proposed for QBNPsto some degree adjectival constructions in Rumanian such as extrem de înalt(extreme of tall, ‘extremely tall’) and (cît de frumoasa, how of beautiful, ‘howbeautiful’). I will follow the path initiated by Corver (2000) arguing that Span-ish PDCs provide additional empirical support for the claim that there existpredicational relationships inside the extended projection of gradable adjec-tives that conform to Den Dikken’s (2006) schema of predication. I will alsoassume from Villalba & Bartra-Kaufmann’s (2010) that the displacement of apredicate can also occur as A′-movement (predicate fronting).

To start, note that a parallel can be drawn between IPDCs and attributiveQBNPs on one hand, and EPDCs and comparative QBNPs, on the other hand,with respect to their attributive/comparative interpretation.

(38) a. como yo de alto (IPDCs – Attributive reading)‘someone/something is like me with respect to height’

b. un montón de alto (EPDCs – Comparative reading)‘the interval (set of degrees) from standard to pos is similar to aload’

58 Alberto Pastor

Similarly to attributive QBNPs (see (31a) and (32)), the subject (pos-alto) inthe IPDC in (38a) restricts the denotation of the predicate (como yo): ‘some-one or something is like me with respect to height’ (This idea will be furtherdeveloped in Section 5.2.). On the other hand, the EPDC in (38b) is interpretedin the same fashion as comparative QBNPs (see (31b) and (33)). Recall fromSection 4 that the nominal expression un montón acts as a predicate that takesas its argument the interval (a set of degrees) opened by the degree operatorpos- (Deg1) with respect to a standard degree of height (Deg2) in a given con-text, such that this interval is compared metaphorically to un montón ‘a load’;thus giving rise (via metaphor) to a reading in which the size of that intervalis considerably big (see Note 13). As a result, the entire degree constructionreceives an evaluative interpretation of a high degree (of height): ‘the degree towhich the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its external argumentoccupies a position considerably high on the scale with respect to a relevantstandard’.

Assuming from Den Dikken (2006) that attributive interpretations corre-spond to a Predicate-Specifier predicational structure (see (32)), and that com-parative readings are associated with a Predicate-complement configuration ofpredication (see (33)), I propose in (39) a syntactic analysis of Spanish PDCsin which IPDCs and EPDCs underlie different configurations of predication:a predicate-specifier structure in the former (39a) and a predicate-complementstructure (with Predicate Fronting) in the latter (39b):

(39) a. Predicate-specifierRP

como yo/así R′

DegP

R pos-alto

de︷︸︸︷

restrictorlike me/this of pos-tall


b. Predicate-complementFocP

un montón Foc′

Foc RP

Ri+Foc = de

DegP R′

pos-alto〈x,d〉

Ri DP

un montón〈d〉a load of pos-tall a load

Before discussing some key arguments to support the syntactic representa-tions depicted in (39), the analyses of both IPDCs and EPDCs will next beoutlined. Let us focus first on IPDCs. In the structure in (39a), the compara-tive clause como yo (like I) and the deictic term así ‘this’ are degree predi-cates whose base position is the specifier of a predicative small clause (RelatorPhrase), and their subject is a degree phrase (pos-alto ‘pos-tall’) generated inthe relator’s complement. Mediating between the predicate and its subjectis the copular element de ‘of’ that serves as the lexicalization of the relatorhead.

As for the syntactic analysis of EPDCs in (39b), the nominal expression unmontón ‘a load’ functions as a degree predicate that is base-generated as thecomplement of a predicative small clause (RP), and whose subject is an adjec-tival degree phrase located in the canonical subject position (i.e., the specifierof the relator phrase). From this position ([Spec, RP]), the predicate (un montón‘a load’) undergoes Predicate Fronting to the specifier of an upper functionalphrase (Focus Phrase) internal to the adjectival domain, thus giving rise to areversed subject-predicate word order in which the predicate appears ahead ofthe subject.

5.1. Syntactic analysis of EPDCs

In the syntactic representation (39b) Villalba & Bartra-Kaufmann’s (2010) ana-lysis of Spanish QBNPs has been extended to EPDCs. In doing so, I movedaway to some degree from the original proposal in Den Dikken (2006) for

60 Alberto Pastor

predicate displacement. Specifically, the predicate’s final position to the left ofits subject in the EPDC is reached by means of “Predicate Fronting” (the dis-placement of a predicate to an A-bar position), as opposed to treating EPDCsas instances of Predicate Inversion (A-movement). A Predicate-Fronting ap-proach to the syntax of EPDCs has two advantages over an analysis withPredicate Inversion. First, it successfully accounts for the predicate-subject/subject-predicate word order alternations; and second, it fares better with theinformation-structural profile displayed by EPDCs. These arguments will nowbe developed in more detail.

Under the syntactic theory of predication developed by Den Dikken (2006),the trigger for Predicate Inversion is the need of the predicate to be licensed,which leads Den Dikken to claim that this syntactic operation is an obligatoryone (for purely structural reasons). Therefore, an analysis of Spanish EDPCsin terms of Predicate Inversion would predict that predicate-subject/subject-predicate word order alternations should not to happen, contrary to what thedata indicate. Remember from Section 3.6 that although the order predicate-subject is more frequent (15a), it is also possible to find instances in which thesubject (the adjectival degree phrase) precedes the predicate (the degree mod-ifier) (15b), as is illustrated also by the following examples (found on Internetthrough the search engine Google):

(40) a. Parenstop.you

deof

decirlesay-it

feo,ugly

yoI

leit

llamabacalled

elthe

HotelHotel

California,California,

hayhave

quethat

darlegive-it

una

toquetouch

másmore

Clásico.classic

Mirándololooking-it

bien,well

estáis

[feo[ugly

una

montón]load]

. . .

‘Stop calling it ugly. I called it Hotel California. We have to giveit a more classic touch. Looking at it well, it is considerablyugly . . . ’

b. Esshe.is

[fea[ugly

mogollón].loads]

‘She is considerably ugly.’c. . . . en

inelthe

cualwhat

KKKK

serefl.

marcómarked

una

solazosolo

[guapo[pretty

mazo].pack]‘. . . in which KK performed a considerably nice solo.’

d. Quéwhat

emoción,emotion

quewhat

lindonice

nosus

estáis

quedandolooking

yand

[fácil[easy

mogollón].loads]

‘I am excited, how nice it looks, and considerably easy.’


Regarding the information-structural profile, Den Dikken (2006) argues thatthe standard pattern in Predicate Inversion constructions is one in which thepredicate represents old information and the subject supplies new information(focus) (see (34b)). However, EPDCS do not display the information-structuralprofile characteristic of Predicate Inversion, but rather the reverse one – in thisrespect, showing the same pattern as in Spanish comparative QBNPs (36) (seeVillalba & Bartra-Kaufmann 2010). As we know from Section 3.7, the infor-mative focus falls in EPDCs on the predication over degrees instead of thedimension denoted by the adjective. For instance, in a sentence such as (41)one understands that the cause of the promotion is not exactly “being hard-working”, but rather having that property to a considerably high degree.

(41) Meme

ascendieronpromoted-they

porfor

serto-be

una

montónload

deof

trabajador.hardworking

‘I was promoted for being considerably hardworking.’

Furthermore, in terms of the discourse information structure, in this examplethe denotation of ‘to a considerably high degree’ corresponds to the new in-formation (focus), while the denotation of ‘being hardworking’ is taken as thebackground information. Moreover, the fact that EPDCs are ungrammatical insyntactic environments that force an interpretation in which the informative fo-cus falls onto the subject further supports the focal nature of EPDC predicates.Examples of such ungrammatical constructions were given in (20).

Therefore, there seem to be good reasons to claim that in EPDCs the pred-icate is base-generated in the complement of the relator phrase and undergoesoptional fronting. Specifically, in (39b) the nominal expression un montón (aload) serves as a predicate that is base-generated in the complement position ofa predicative degree clause (RP) and whose subject is a degree phrase (pos-alto)located in the canonical position of subjects (i.e., [Spec, RP]). Under this con-figuration of predication (i.e., Predicate-Complement), the adjective’s degreeargument is compared metaphorically to a load, thus giving rise to an evalua-tive reading in which the adjective’s external argument is ascribed the propertyof being tall to a considerably high degree.24 The subsequent predicate’s dis-

24. There exists a limited set of predicative degree constructions (with colloquial use/slang) inSpanish that a priori seem to fit into a predicate-complement structure of predication:

(i) a. JuanJohn

esis

[feo[ugly

deof

{narices{noses

//

cojonestesticles

//

elthe

copón}].ciborium}]

‘John is bloody ugly.’b. Estoy

am-I[divina[divine

deof

lathe

muerte].death]

‘I look great.’

However, these constructions are different from EPDCs in that the predicate must remain in

62 Alberto Pastor

placement around its subject takes place when the predicate includes a focusfeature in its lexical entry that triggers its fronting to the specifier of an upperfocus phrase internal to the extended projection of gradable adjectives.25 Pre-vious to this movement, the head of RP must raise to Foc – this complex headis lexically realized by the particle de ‘of’, a linker in Den Dikken’s (2006)terms.26

situ (ii) and must combine with the copular element de (iii):

(ii) a. *JuanJohn

esis

[{narices[{noses

//

cojonestesticles

//

elthe

copón}ciborium}

deof

feo].ugly]

b. *Estoyam-I

[la[the

muertedeath

deof

divina].divine]

(iii) a. JuanJohn

esis

[feo[ugly

*(de)*(of)

{narices{noses

//

cojonestesticles

//

elthe

copón}].ciborium}]

b. Estoyam-I

[divina[divine

*(de)*(of)

lathe

muerte].death]

Furthermore, from an interpretation point of view, in (i) the predication takes place over thedimension denoted by the adjective, as opposed to EPDCs, in which there is a predicationover degrees. Thus, (ia) is interpreted as ‘John is ugly in the same way as noses, testiclesor the ciborium are also ugly’. In these examples, the entities denoted by the DPs narices‘noses’, cojones ‘testicles’ and el copón ‘the ciborium’ are taken as prototypes of ugliness,thus giving rise to an extreme degree denotation. Lastly, note that the combination of thesepredicates with the adjective appearing on their right is highly lexicalized, as illustrated bythe awkwardness of the examples in (ivb) and (vb):

(iv) a. JuanJohn

esis

[{feo[{ugly

//

extrañostrange

//

tonto}stupid}

deof

{narices{noses

//

cojonestesticles

//

elthe

copón}].ciborium}]

b. ??JuanJohn

esis

[{guapo[{handsome

//

simpáticofriendly

//

inteligente}intelligent}

deof

{narices{noses

//

cojonestesticles

//

elthe

copón}].ciborium}]

(v) a. Estoyam-I

[divina[divine

deof

lathe

muerte].death]

b. ??Estoyam-I

[alegre[happy

deof

lathe

muerte].death]

The degree expressions illustrated in (i) should be analyzed as elatives; thus belonging to thesame class as other extreme-degree denoting expressions such as feísimo ‘ugly-superlative’,horrendo ‘horrendous’ and extremadamente feo ‘extremely ugly’.

25. The higher frequency of the predicate-subject word order observed in EPDCs (15a) in com-parison to the base order subject-predicate (15b) is explained because the former correspondsto the unmarked option in Spanish.

26. Here I follow Villalba and Bartra-Kaufmann (2010) regarding Spanish QBNPs and the “lo-de” construction. Nevertheless, an anonymous reviewer comments that there is no obvious


5.2. Syntactic analysis of IPDCs

One of the main claims made in this article is that EPDCs and IPDCs under-lie a different predicational structure – “predicate-complement” in the former(39b); “predicate-specifier” in the latter (39a). Before dealing directly with thesyntactic analysis of IPDCs, note that the structure proposed in this work forEPDCs (i.e., a predicate-complement configuration with subsequent PredicateFronting) is not suitable for IPDCs. This claim is based on three arguments.

First, IPDCs have an attributive interpretation (see (38a)). Taking, for in-stance, the IPDC como yo de alto (like me of tall), if a predicate-complementconfiguration were adopted, the clause como yo would be expected to performboth functions, that of the restrictor and that of the predicate. However, a sen-tence such as Juan is como yo de alto (‘John is like me of tall’) is interpreted as‘John is like me with respect to height’, with the subject (pos-alto) restrictingthe denotation of the predicate (como yo) – in exactly the same way as in thecase of attributive QBNPs (31a).

Second, IPDCs do not display subject-predicate/predicate-subject word or-der alternations; at least, not without a change in meaning.27 At this junctureit is important to take up again the arguments against deriving the predicate-subject word order found in IPDCs from an underlying predicate-complementstructure (see Section 3.6). Let us recall that this claim is based on the fact thata sequence such as [alto como yo] (tall like I) has a different interpretation thanthe IPDC [como yo de alto] (like I of tall). The interpretation of a sentence suchas Juan es como yo de alto (John is like I of tall, ‘John is as tall as me’) is that‘John’s degree of height is equal to the speaker’s degree (of height)’. However,in the sentence Juan es alto como yo (John is tall like I, ‘John is tall as wellas me’), where the comparative clause follows the adjective, the comparisonis between properties, not between degrees. Thus, in the latter example, bothindividuals (John and the speaker) are predicated to be tall in a positive degree(above the standard value), with no implication whatsoever that this propertyis applied to those individuals to the same degree (as it is indeed the case inJuan es como yo de alto, John is like I of tall, ‘John is as tall as I’). Additional

need for R-to-F movement given that [Spec, FocP] is not an A-position, as opposed to Predi-cate Inversion (A-movement), which is triggered by purely formal reasons. According to thisreviewer, a Predicate-fronting approach leaves unaddressed the necessity of the copula de ‘of’in EPDCs (and QBNPs and the “lo-de” construction).

27. An anonymous reviewer comments that the lack of evidence for a subject-predicate linearorder plus an information-structural profile in which the subject is focus make IPDCs suitable,a priori, for a predicate-complement structure with Predicate Inversion. However, this ideadoes not account for the fact that IPDCs clearly have an attributive interpretation. On theother hand, the two analyses proposed in this article for the two types of PDCs allow us toaccount for their different interpretations and contrasting syntactic properties.

64 Alberto Pastor

evidence for this claim comes from the fact that one can felicitously utter theexample in (18a) (Juan es alto como yo,pero yo soy incluso un poco más altoque él , ‘John is tall like I, but I am even a bit taller than he’), but not the prag-matically anomalous statement #Juan es como yo de alto, pero yo soy inclusoun poco más alto que él (‘#John is as tall as I, but I am even a bit taller than he’)(see (18b)). Given that it is not expected that the displacement of a predicatewould cause a change in the semantics of the lexical units involved, it can beconcluded that the constructions [como yo de alto] and [alto como yo] cannotbe derived one from another.28 At most, the displacement of a predicate wouldlead to changes in aspects related to focus, but never to the predicate changingits argument altogether. In other words, it is not expected that the degree clausewould turn from predicating over dimensions (alto como yo) to predicatingover degrees (como yo de alto).29 Moreover, as we know from Section 3.6, thedeictic degree predicate así ‘this’ (which is also analyzed according to (39a))does not alternate its position around its subject either, as shown by the un-grammaticality of the example in (19) (*Mi hijo es [alto así], my son is tallthis).

Finally, a third reason that the structure proposed in this work for EPDCsdoes not account for IPDCs is that the subject of IPDCs can be focused. Recallthat the focal nature of the predicate in the former type of construction (see (41)and (20)) supports a Predicate Fronting approach in analyzing EPDCs (39b).However, EPDCs contrast clearly with IPDCs with respect to their information-structural profile, since the latter do not put any restriction for focusing thesubject, as shown by the grammaticality of the data in (21) and (22).

Since a predicate-complement structure (with predicate fronting) has nowbeen ruled out in the syntactic analysis of IPDCs, I propose that IPDCs underliea predicate-specifier structure of predication (see (39a)). In a syntactic config-uration like that one in (39a), the subject (pos-feo ‘pos-ugly’) is base-generatedas the relator’s complement and it is assumed to serve as the restrictor of thepredicate’s denotation ({como yo/así} de alto, {like I/this} of tall). The predi-cate, in turn, occupies a prominent position in the structure, precisely one thatis canonically associated with the subject of a predication relation (i.e., [Spec,

28. For data such as alto como yo (tall like me), in which the comparison relation takes placebetween properties (dimensions), not degrees, one may argue that these cases feature ellipsis:Juan es feo como yo (lo soy) (John is ugly like I (so am))’.

29. An anonymous reviewer notes that in Juan es tan alto como yo (John is as tall as I am), tan ‘as’also involves a comparison among degrees (#Juan es tan alto como yo, pero yo soy inclusomás alto que él, ‘#John is as tall as I, but I am even taller than he’). This fact could suggestthat an IPDC such as como yo de alto (like me of tall) derives from tan alto como yo (as tallas I). However, this does not seem to be the case given that a) the latter example lacks thecharacteristic attributive interpretation of IPDCs (i.e, ‘like me with respect to height); and b)a sequence such as *como yo de tan alto is not attested in Spanish.


RP]).30 In other words, according to the analysis in (39a), IPDCs feature a dis-sociation of the restrictor and predicate functions, which is consistent with thepeculiar meaning characteristic of these constructions. Observe that the inter-pretation of a sentence such as Juan es como yo de alto (John is like me of tall)is composed of two overlapping readings, as indicated in (42):

(42) JuanJohn

esis

comolike

yome

deof

alto.tall

a. ‘John’s degree of height is equal to the speaker’s degree of height’b. ‘John is like the speaker with respect to height’

On the one hand, the comparative clause in (42a) serves as a predicate over de-grees whose subject is the degree to which the property of being tall is appliedto the adjective’s external argument, as indicated by the reading (42a): ‘John’sdegree of height occupies the same point in the scale as the degree (of height)associated with the speaker’. On the other hand, by placing the subject in therelator’s complement position in (39a), one captures the fact that the denota-tion of the clause [como yo] (like I) is restricted by the degree phrase pos-alto(pos-tall), specifically, by providing the dimension associated with the scaleinvolved in this case (“height”). This is how the attributive reading in (42b)emerges, which can be paraphrased as ‘John is similar to the speaker takingheight as the criterion of comparison’. Likewise, in an example such as Juanes así de alto (John is this of tall, ‘John is this tall’), in which the predicatefunction is conveyed lexically by the deictic term así, one understands that ‘thedegree of John’s height is equal to the point in space signaled by the ostensi-ble gesture made by the speaker’ as well as ‘John is like that point in spacewith respect to height’. Therefore, it can be concluded that, contrasting withinstances of canonical predication (see (30a)), where the predicate is generatedin the relator’s complement and performs both the function of predicationover degrees and the function of restricting the phrase’s denotation, in the caseof IPDCs these two functions are distributed between a) the adjectival degreephrase (the subject, which serves as a restrictor from the relator’s comple-ment), and b) the different expressions that can be generated in [Spec, RP] (i.e.,

30. In the following examples, the comparative clause [que tú] can be next to the adjective (igual)that selects it (ia) or it can appear away from its base position, with other material appearingbetween them, as in (ib):

(i) a. MaríaMary

esis

igualsame

queas

túyou

deof

delgada.thin

b. MaríaMary

esis

igualsame

deof

delgadathin

queas

tú.you

I assume that in (ib) the comparative clause [que tú] has undergone right-extraposition fromthe complement position of an adjective phrase headed by igual.

66 Alberto Pastor

comparative clauses and the deictic term así “this”), which function as degreepredicates.31

Furthermore, in the example in (42) the predicative small clause [como yode alto] (like I of tall) is in turn the predicate of another relator phrase (RP)in which the subject is the referent of the proper name Juan, as represented in(43):

(43) RP

Juan R′

R

es RP

como yo R′

DegP

R pos-alto

de︷︸︸︷

restrictorJohn is like me of pos-tall

Note that the denotation of this sentence requires both (a) that the subject of theupper RP (Juan) is projected onto the same degree (of height) associated withthe speaker of the utterance (42a); and (b) that the referent of the proper nounJuan is predicated to have the property denoted by the comparative clause, thatis, ‘to be like the speaker (with respect to being tall)’ (42b). The up and downarrows in (43) are intended to reflect that the degree predicates in IPDCs tar-get both the subject of the upper RP and the subject in the predicative smallclause in which they are generated. The latter subject in turn restricts the pred-icate’s denotation by providing the dimension associated with the degree thatthe predicate introduces.32

31. Regarding the information-structural profile displayed by IPDCs, there is nothing under thisanalysis that prevents the subject from being focused (see (21) and (22)).

32. Corver (2000) proposes that the comparative clause found in Rumanian simili-constructions(ca peria de deasa ‘like a brush of dense’) is a predicate that is generated in the position ofcomplement of a small clause that undergoes subsequent predicate inversion (A-movement) tothe specifier of an upper functional phrase. However, when it comes to studying similar con-structions in Spanish, even though I agree with Corver in treating them as degree predicates,


Moreover, it is the structural base position of the comparative clause como yo(like I) that allows this clause (together with its semantics) to act as a nominalpredicate: Juan es como yo (John is like I) (see also Section 3.5). This occurswhen the information regarding the restriction of the degree involved can beinferred or retrieved by context, as has been attested in example (12). This lineof explanation also holds for the data in (13), where the deictic term así ‘this’also acts as a nominal predicate.33

In sum, this section has developed a syntactic analysis of Spanish PDCs inwhich IPDCs and EPDCs underlie a different configuration of predication: apredicate-specifier structure in the former (39a) and a predicate-complementstructure (with Predicate Fronting) in the latter (39b). This has allowed for usto a) account for the properties that these constructions have in common (the es-tablishment of a relation of predication mediated by a copular element de ‘of’);and b) explain the contrasts that EPDCs and IPDCs show regarding their in-terpretation, their subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alternations,their information-structural profile, and their use as a nominal predicate.34

I differ from him in the syntactic base-positions assigned to the members of the predicationrelation and in the interpretation associated with them.

33. In contrast, the predicative expressions characteristic of EPDCs cannot serve as nominal pred-icates:

(i) *MaríaMary

llegóarrived

conwith

una

señorman

{mogollón{loads

//

una

montónload

//

lathe

tira}strip}

(see (14))

An anonymous reviewer suggests that this example is ungrammatical because the selectionproperties of the evaluative expressions are not met. Recall that mogollón ‘loads’, un montón‘a load’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc. are lexicalized degree expressions that take as their argumentthe interval opened between the degree applied to the adjective’s external argument and an-other degree that serves as a standard (see Section 4).

34. Syntactically, simili-constructions (como un sapo de feo, like a toad of ugly) and resultativeconstructions (que revienta de gordo, that explodes of fat) behave as IPDCs: they can benominal predicates (i), they cannot alternate positions (ii), and they display the same focuspatterns (iii):

(i) a. JuanJohns

esis

comolike

una

sapo.toad

b. JuanJohn

estáis

quethat

revienta.explodes

(ii) a. * (with degree-comparing reading)JuanJohn

esis

feougly

comolike

una

sapo.toad

b. *JuanJohn

estáis

gordofat

quethat

revienta.explodes

(iii) a. JuanJohn

esis

comolike

una

sapotoad

soloonly

deof

feo.ugly

68 Alberto Pastor

6. Conclusion

In this article we have reached to a deeper understanding of a type of adjec-tival degree constructions in Spanish (those vertebrated by a copular elementde ‘of’) which, to the best of our knowledge, have heretofore received littleattention in the existing bibliography on gradability. Upon showing that theseconstructions feature a relation of predication over degrees, a distinction hasbeen made between “Identificative Predicative Degree Constructions” (IPDCs)and “Evaluative Predicative Degree Constructions” (EPDCs). In the former,the predication is done by means of a comparative clause (como yo de gordo,like me of fat, ‘as fat as I’) or a deictic lexical unit (así de alto, this of tall,‘this tall’). In the latter, the predication is done by means of an evaluative nom-inal expression ({mogollón/un montón/la hostia/. . . } de feo, {loads/a load/thehost/. . . } of ugly, ‘considerably ugly’). This distinction is based on a numberof contrasting properties that these two types of predicative degree construc-tions display with respect to evaluativity, combination with degree clauses in-troduced by para ‘for’, (in)felicity in definite descriptions, (in)compatibilitywith non-specific indefinite DPs, functioning as a nominal predicate, subject-predicate/predicate-subject word order alternations, and information structure.The divergent semantic, pragmatic, and formal properties found in IPDCs andEPDCs come as a result from the different nature of the degree predicate in-volved in each type of construction and a dissimilar syntactic configurationof the predication relation (under the syntactic theory of predication in DenDikken 2006). On the one hand, the expressions that function as predicatesin IPDCs (i.e., comparative clauses and the deictic term así ‘this’) introducethe degree (Deg2) that serves as a point of reference for the degree (Deg1) inwhich the property denoted by the adjective is applied to its external argument,such that the Deg1 is identified with (equals to) Deg2. Syntactically, IPDCs’predicates are generated in the specifier of a predicative small clause headedby the relator de ‘of’ and their subject is placed in the relator’s comple-ment. On the other hand, in EPDCs the nominal expressions un montón ‘aload’ mogollón ‘loads’, la tira ‘the strip’, etc. take as their argument the inter-val opened by the degree operator pos- (Deg1) with respect to another degreeDeg2 (a standard value), such that the distance of that interval is predicated to

b. Tengohave-I

una

perrodog

quethat

asustascares

soloonly

deof

grandebig

(no(not

deof

fiero).fierce)

On the other hand, as we know from Note 22, simili-clauses and resultative clauses behave asevaluative degree expressions in definite and indefinite environments. It seems, then, that thepredicative degree constructions including simili-clauses and resultative clauses have mixedproperties: their syntax is the same as in IPDCs, but their added evaluative semantic compo-nent bring them closer to EPDCs.


be considerably high. On syntactic grounds, the EPDCs’ predicates are base-generated in the complement of the predicative small clause (RP) and undergopredicate displacement (“predicate fronting”) to the specifier of an upper focusphrase internal to the extended projection of the graded adjective, crossing thesubject’s position along the way, and thus linearizing to its left.35

Southern Methodist [email protected]

References

Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge (MA): MITPh.D. dissertation.

Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward(eds.), The handbook of pragmatics , 122–149. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bartsch, Renate & Theo Vennemann. 1972. The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison.Linguistische Berichte 20. 19–32.

Bartsch, Renate & Theo Vennemann. 1973. Semantic structures: A study in the relation betweensyntax and semantics. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.

Bennis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Marcel den Dikken. 1998. Predication in nominal phrases. Journalof comparative Germanic linguistics 1. 85–117.

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Manfred Bierwisch & Ewald Lang(eds.), Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation, 71–261. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Bosque, Ignacio. 1996. On specificity and adjective position. In Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach & LuisSilva-Villar, L. (eds.), Perspectives on Spanish linguistics, 1–13. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Bosque, Ignacio. 1999. El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adje-tivo y participio. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de lalengua española, 217–310. Madrid: Espasa.

Bosque, Ignacio. 2001. Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites. In Javier Guitérrez-Rexach & Luis Silva-Villar (eds.). Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics, 17–37.Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Corver, Norbert. 1991. Evidence for DegP. NELS 22. 33–47.Corver, Norbert. 1997a. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic inquiry 28(1). 119–164.Corver, Norbert. 1997b. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural

language and linguistic Theory 15. 289–368.Corver, Norbert. 2000. Degree adverbs as displaced predicates. Italian journal of linguistics 12.

155–191.Corver, Norbert. 2009. Getting the (syntactic) measure of measure phrases. The linguistic review

26. 67–134

35. I leave aside for future research the syntactic study of a set of degree terms (muy ‘very’, bas-tante ‘quite’, algo ‘somewhat’, increíblemente ‘incredibly’, etc.) that also seem to predicateover the interval opened by the positive degree operator pos- or the comparative operatorsmás ‘more’ and menos ‘less’. Assuming that constructions such as {muy/bastante/algo/. . .pos-alto} (very/quite/somewhat/. . . pos-tall) involve a predication relation, they should fitinto the syntactic schema in Den Dikken (2006). If this is the case, then it must be explaineda clear contrast between these constructions and the PDCS studied in this article: the formerlack the copular element de ‘of’ found in the latter.

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

70 Alberto Pastor

Cresswell, Max, J. 1977. The semantics of degree. In Barbara H. Partee (ed.), Montague grammar,261–292. New York: Academic Press.

Dikken. Marcel den. 1995. Copulas. Paper presented at GLOW (Tromsø), Amsterdam/HIL, VrijeUniversiteit.

Dikken. Marcel den. 1998. Predicate inversion in DP. In Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.),Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, 177–214. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Dikken, Marcel. den. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion,and copulas. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press,.

Fodor, Janet, D. & Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics andphilosophy 5. 355–398.

Español-Echeverría, Manuel. 1997. Definiteness pattern in A/N of N constructions and DP-internalXP movement. In Proceedings of the 8th student conference in linguistics, 145–169. MITworking papers in linguistics 31. Cambridge (Ma): MIT Department of linguistics and phi-losophy.

Español-Echeverría, Manuel. 1998. N/A of a N DP’s: Predicate raising and subject licensing. InArmin Schwegler, Bernard Tranel & Myriam Uribe-Echeverría (eds.), Romance linguistics:theoretical perspectives, 67–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hawkins, John. A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Amherst : MA. Uni-

versity of Massachusetts Doctoral Dissertation.Heim, Irene. 1983. On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In Michael Barlow, Daniel

Flickinger, & Michael Westcoat (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual West Coast Con-ference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 114–125. Stanford University.

Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Brendan Jackson & Tanya Matthews (eds.),Semantics and linguistic theory 10, 40–64. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publication.

Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic inquiry 16. 547–593.Hulk, Aafke &. Cristine Tellier. 2000. Mismatches: agreement in qualitative constructions. Probus

12. 33–65.Ionin, Tania. 2006. This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natu-

ral language semantics 14. 175–234.Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press,.Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and

comparison. New York: Garland (1997 UCSC Ph.D thesis).Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute grad-

able adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy (30).1–45Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005a. Scale structure, degree modification, and the

semantics of gradable adjectives. Language 81(2). 345–381.Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005b. The syntax and semantics of multiple degree

modification in English. Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference. Department of Informatics,University of Lisbon. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Klein, Ewan. 1991. Comparatives. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik:ein internationales handbuch der zeitgenossischen forschung, 673–691. Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Lin-guistics & Philosphy 28. 543–686.

Leonetti, Manuel. 1999. El artículo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática de-scriptiva de la lengua española, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa.

Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: predicative noun phrases and the theory of clausestructure. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press.

Napoli, Donna J. 1989. Predication theory: a case study for an indexing theory. Cambridge (Mass):Cambridge University Press,.


Neelman, Ad, Hans van de Koot, and Jenny Doetjes. 2004. Degree Expressions. The LinguisticReview 21. 1–66.

Pastor, Alberto. 2008a. Sobre las construcciones consecutivas con adjetivos. Hispania 91(3). 676–689.

Pastor, Alberto. 2008b. Split analysis of gradable adjectives in Spanish. Probus 20(2). 257–299.Rett, Jessica. 2008. Antonymy and Evaluativity. in M. Gibson &T. Friedman (eds.), Proceedings

of SALT XVII. CLC Publications.Roberts, Craig. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and philosophy 25. 287–

350.Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On Denoting. Mind 66. 479–493.Sánchez, Cristina. 1995. Construcciones concesivas con “para”. Revista española de lingüística

25(1). 99–123.Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste.

Linguistics & Philosophy 30. 487–525.Suñer, Avelina. 1990. La predicación secundaria en español. Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de

Barcelona Ph.D. dissertation.Seuren, Pieter A. 1973. The comparative. In Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), Generative

grammar in Europe, 528–564. Dordrecht: Reidel.Seuren, Pieter A. 1978. The Comparative Revisited. Journal of Semantics 3. 109–141.von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of semantics 3.

1–77.Villalba, Xavier & Anna Bartra-Kaufmann. 2010. Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish deter-

miner phrase. Lingua 120(4). 819–849.Wilson, Dan & Deirdre Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward

(eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Cambridge (MA).Zwarts, Joost. (1992). X′-syntax/X′-semantics: On the interpretation of functional and lexical heads.

Utrecht: Led, OTS.

Predicative degree constructions in Spanishfaculty.smu.edu/apastor/Pastor Probus 2010.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Predicative degree constructions in Spanishfaculty.smu.edu/apastor/Pastor Probus 2010.pdf ·...