Interaction and Grammar: Predicative Adjective Constructions in English Conversation

This article studies the function of Copular Predicate Constructions in everyday English conversation. We compare predicate adjective constructions (PA) and constructions with a predicate nominal containing an adjective (PAN). We ask whether the attributive function of the adjective or the presence of a noun in the PAN leads to a difference in function in the two constructions. We propose that in most cases the adjective determines the function of the construction, leading to many parallels in usage between the PA and PAN constructions. A comparison with predicate nominal constructions (PN), in contrast, shows that not including an adjective in the constructions leads to a different set of meanings and implications. The conversational usage of these constructions provides evidence for a partial correspondence of form to function: Copular Predicate Constructions often constitute a complete turn in conversation, and if not a full turn, form their own prosodic units. Other properties of these constructions—the definiteness of the NP and the presence or absence of a N—correspond to different interactional work. A comparison of all three constructions shows that the adjective plays a determining interactional role, despite differences in syntactic configuration.

Reconsidering the shi…(de) construction in spoken Mandarin

This paper revisits the use of the shi…de construction, based on the analysis of structures with predicative adjectives in a 500,000-character corpus of spoken Mandarin assembled from transcripts of a popular Chinese chat show. Overall, de was omitted more than 40% of the time with a predicative adjective, a significantly higher rate than that found in previous studies. The data reveal a number of factors that may all play a role in determining the likelihood of de omission or retention: the time dependency of the adjective, the particular intensifier chosen to modify the adjective, the discourse function of the utterance and the presence of certain markers of epistemic modality. The findings also lend support to the hypothesis that shi is grammaticalizing to a bound morpheme in some so-called ‘conventionalised forms’ involving epistemic and evidentiality markers.

Formell og semantisk adjektivkongruens i norsk

This article provides an empirically based overview and discussion of types of adjectival agreement in attributive and predicative posisitions in Norwegian. In particular, we focus on two empirical facts that are quite striking: 1) With semantic agreement in predicative position, there are apparently no formal agreement features in the predication subject that trigger agreement on the predicative adjective; 2) Even though there is not alway formal agreement betwen the predication subject and a predicative adjective, there is always strict formal agreement between the head noun and an attributive adjective.

Ranking Dutch intensifiers: a usage-based approach

ABSTRACTThe present approach estimates the strength of intensifiers in Dutch by computing their information values in a language corpus, that is, contextual information content (Cohen Priva, 2008; Piantadosi, Tily, & Gibson, 2011) and Shannon Information (Shannon & Weaver, 1948), to respectively explain the use value and the expressive value of intensifiers when they intensify a predicative adjective. Conflicting strength values help in understanding the high number of intensifiers commonly available in particular languages and the constant need for adding new ones. Our approach underlines the relevance of two measures of information content (IC) for ranking intensifiers: (i) IC in context: the more combinatorial or transitional options an intensifier has, the higher its contextual information content and consequently its use value; and (ii) IC in relation to all alternative intensifiers: the higher the surprisal value that the occurrence of an intensifier evokes, the higher its expressive value. We shall investigate the validity of these two measures by researching a large corpus of Dutch tweets and shall test whether the values of these two measures can predict the stacking order in sequences of intensifiers.

Predicative Adverbs and Adjectives with Infinitival Subjects. A Corpus Investigation

The aim of this paper is to compare two Polish predicative constructions with infinitival subjects, namely those with predicative adverbs and those with predicative adjectives. The latter construction, of the form “predicative adjective + copula + infinitival subject”, has hardly been noticed in Polish literature on predication, copulas, or infinitival subjects. On the basis of corpus data, mainly from the National Corpus of Polish, we demonstrate that this construction is much rarer than the analogous construction with predicative adverbs. We also show that roughly the same predicates may be expressed as either adverbs or as adjectives when the subject is an infinitival phrase – any observed differences are not systematic but rather stem from lexical gaps and differences in the meanings of particular adverbs and adjectives. In particular, certain modal predicates may only be expressed as adjectives because the corresponding adverbs do not express the same non-epistemic modal meanings. Finally, we provide new corpus evidence for an earlier claim that predicative adjectives are much rarer than adverbs when the subject is infinitival because they require this subject to undergo covert nominalisation; as adverbs combine with infinitival subjects directly, they are usually preferred.

The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions

A classical topic in the syntax of the mainland Scandinavian languages is so-called pancake clauses where there seemingly is disagreement between the subject and the predicative adjective, as in Pannekaker er godt ‘Pancakes(f):indf:pl be:prs good:n:sg’; the subject is in the plural, whereas the predicative adjective is in the neuter singular. According to one of the several approaches, these clauses display a type of semantic agreement. Recently, it has also been argued that there are at least four different types of pancake constructions. In this article, the semantic relationship between the different constructions is investigated further. It is argued that, diachronically, pancake agreement started with subjects interpreted as virtual, ungrounded processes, and that the absence of grounding has been reinterpreted as absence of spatial boundedness in the latest kind of pancake construction. The analysis is supported by a diachronic corpus investigation. The emphasis on virtual reference is a new feature with the current paper, and it enables us to set aside an objection against the semantic agreement analysis. The diachronic corpus investigation enables us to revise, empirically, earlier suggestions as to when the pancake constructions originated: They are well attested from the mid-1800s, in both Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk.

’n Korpusondersoek na huidiglik

A corpus exploration of huidiglik. In tandem with Van Huyssteen (2018a), this article examines the current usage of the word huidiglik (‘currently’) (an alleged Anglicism), together with other associated words (e.g. its base, huidig ‘current’). Based on a comprehensive literature review, Van Huyssteen (2018a) concludes that apart from stylistic preferences, none of the linguistic arguments against huidiglik holds water. In this article, a corpus exploration of some of the issues pertaining to huidiglik is undertaken. Based on evidence from a large variety of corpora, we conclude that huidiglik has become well-established in Afrikaans over the past four decades, both in formal texts and informal chat language. Since it does not displace any of its often-prescribed synonyms (like tans, deesdae, or teenswoordig), it confirms that arguments for its status as an Anglicism is rather thin. Although the inflected form huidige is mostly used as prenominal adjective, its uninflected form is also used with noticeable frequency as adverb and predicative adjective. Huidiglik, however, is used almost exclusively as adverb, rarely as inflected attributive adjective, but never as predicative adjective. Lastly, it is shown that adverbialising ⋅lik occurs with high frequency in Afrikaans, but it is not very productive. In addition, it is illustrated that ⋅ig⋅lik is an entrenched suffix pairing.