Transcript Les adjectifs substantivés dits “neutres”: de la conversion à la

Between adjective and noun:
category / function mismatch,
constructional overrides
and coercion
Peter LAUWERS
Ghent University & University of Leuven
[email protected]
Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics
of Nounhood and Adjectivehood
Peter
Lauwers
Barcelona, March, 24-25, 2011
1. Introduction
Peter
Lauwers
Topic of this talk
Nominalized adjectives (NAs): Adj  N
(1) simpleADJ, beauADJ
(1a) le simple et le beau
'the simple and the beautiful'
(1b) Faire du beau avec du simple, ça c'est de l'art.
‘To make beautiful things (stuff) with simple things (stuff), that
is what art is about’
Adjectivized nouns (ANs): N  Adj
(2) théâtreN
des costumes très ‘théâtre’
Peter
Lauwers
'very theater-like costumes'
Structure of the talk
Peter
Lauwers
1.
Introduction
2.
Data: nominalized adjectives (= NAs)
3.
Problematic accounts
4.
A syntactic analysis in terms of categorial
mismatch
5.
Adjectivized nouns (= ANs)
6.
Conclusions
2. The data: nominalized adjectives
(NAs)
Peter
Lauwers
2.1.NAs: introduction
Meaning effects
(I) le beau, le simple:
‘the beautiful’, ‘the simple', '(all) the beautiful (things)'
= GENERIC
[~ le fer 'iron']
(II) Faire du beau avec du simple, ça c'est de l'art.
‘To make beautiful things (stuff) with simple things (stuff), that is
what art is about’
= a (not very precise) portion of le beau, instantiated in a
particular situation
= SPECIFIC, indefinite
[~ du fer 'some iron']
Peter
Lauwers
(III) Le beau [de + NP]: e.g. le beau de l'histoire ('the beaut. thing of
the story')
‘what is beautiful [in NP], the beautiful thing [of NP]
= SPECIFIC, definite
[~ le fer de la pioche 'iron of the pick']
le beau (1)
du beau (2)
le
beau
de NP
(3)
Peter
Lauwers
Remarks


Type 2: in French, not in English, not in Spanish
Type 3: one reading
vs. 2 readings in Spanish
(Lapesa 1984; Bosque & Moreno 1990; Villalba-Bartra-
Kaufmann 2009: 821)
 a 'partitive' / 'individuating' reading
(3) Lo (más / *muy) pequeño de la casa (es el dormitorio)
<the (most / very) small of the house (is the bedroom)>
'The smallest part of the house'
 a degree / qualitative reading
(4) Lo (*más / muy) caro de la casa me impresionó. (la casa =
cara)
<the (most / very) expensive of the house impressed me>
'The high degree of expensiveness'
(5) lo tacaño de Ernesto; lo cariñoso de la niña (Google)
*l’avare d’Ernesto; *le mignon de la fille
Peter
Lauwers
(6) Me sorprendió lo cara que era la casa.
*Je fus surpris par le che(è)r(e) qu’était la maison.
I will not be dealing with ..

[+ human] NAs:
(7) les pauvres ('the poor')

elliptic NPs
 anaphoric NPs
(8a)
• Tu voulais de la colle? Oui, j’en ai acheté de la bonne
[colle].
• You wanted gluei? Yes, I of it
have bought
good [ti].
Peter
Lauwers
 NPs obtained by truncation (based on shared knowledge):
(8b) la (ville) capitale 'the capital'
Productivity

Adj. + HUMAN N
(9) le bavard ‘the talkative [person]’, l’aveugle ‘the blind
[person]’, l’absent ‘the absent [person]’
[+HUMAN] → *du bavard, *de l’aveugle, *de l’absent (*partitive
article)

Adj. + INANIMATE N
(10) le faux ‘the false’, le vrai ‘the truth’
[–ANIMATE] → *les faux, *les vrais (*plural)

Some combine with both:
(11) l’inconnu ‘the unknown’
Peter
Lauwers
2.2. The categorial status of NAs
Are NAs full-fledged nouns?
Criteria:
Peter
Lauwers
(i)
Determiners (+ number)
(ii)
Range of possible modifiers
(I) Determination
Peter
Lauwers

invariably masculine ( hence: 'neuter') singular
Lack of plural: cf. many property nouns (*trois/quelques tristesses
'three/some sadnesses' ) (Riegel et al. 1994: 169)

Determiners
(12)
– definite: le beau / *ce beau (demonstrative) / *son beau
(possessive)
vs la, cette, sa beauté
– indefinite, mass: du beau / [+ negation] de beau / *beaucoup
de/*peu de/*tant de ('a lot of'; 'few'; 'so many') (cf. Leeman 1998: 226)
vs beaucoup de/... beauté
– indefinite, count: *un
vs une beauté
– *Quel beau( !) ('what a...')
vs Quelle beauté!
II. Modification ~ source category [ADJ]
(i) Adverbs (of all kinds, except temporal/locative):
(13) mettre sans cesse le facilement accessible en avant
‘to put incessantly forward what is easily accessible’
(ii) Subcategorized complements of the adjective (which are thus
maintained !)
(14) Construire un trajet de pensées porteuses de l’abolition d’un
ordre établi, pour que l’humanité puisse être en mesure de
s’émanciper, n’est-ce pas non plus fabriquer de l’utile à la société ?
‘To construct a collection of thoughts that support the abolition of the established order, in
order to allow humanity to emancipate itself, isn’t it like producing things that are useful to
society?’
Adverb (i) + subcategorized PP (ii):
Peter
Lauwers
(15) Il ne faut viser que le vraiment utile à la santé publique.
(constructed example)
‘One should only aim at that which is really useful for public health.’
Modification ~ target category [N]
(i) PP introduced by de:
(16) Et le long plan de fin ... souligne le dérisoire de cette histoire en
ramenant les personnages à leur taille minuscule.
‘And the long zoom at the end ... underlines the derisory character of
this story by reducing the characters to their miniscule dimensions.’
(ii) ungrounded restrictive relative clauses:
(17) On n’est plus dans le superficiel qui prétend changer votre vie en
24 heures mais bien dans quelque chose de durable et d'accessible à
tous.
‘This has nothing to do anymore with those superficial things that
pretend to change your life within 24 hours but rather with something
lasting and accessible to anyone.’
Peter
Lauwers
(iii) *Adjectives
(18) la superficialité inouïe de ce blog
de ce blog
/vs/ *le superficiel inouï
‘the incredible superficiality of this blog’
(19) une vulgarité assez insolente
insolent
/vs/ *le vulgaire assez
‘a rather unashamed vulgarity’
BUT: incipient lexicalization
(20) des dialogues souvent drôles sans tomber dans le vulgaire
facile
‘dialogues that are often funny without lapsing into easy vulgarity’
Peter
Lauwers
*Adjectives: semantic explanation?
+ adjective
establishes distinguishable instances of the concept expressed by the
NA on the basis of a particular property
NAs presuppose an instant process of massification or homogenization of
the dissimilar (Leeman 1998).
e.g. things that share the property of being strange
(21) le bizarre can be applied both to attitudes (abstract) and clothes
(concrete):
a. le bizarre dans son comportement
‘the strangeness of his behavior’
Peter
Lauwers
b. le bizarre que l’on peut porter
‘the strange [things] one can wear’
Confirmation 1
Villalba (2009: 9) : NA + PP
no quantization, no comparison:
(22a) *Lo honesto de los políticos aumenta día a día
(22b) *Lo honesto de los políticos es mayor que lo honesto del
gobierno.
< a more general restriction on NAs:
do not accept individualization of the property on the basis of
an internal ( qualitative / quantitative) differentiation.
Peter
Lauwers
 unable to compare different kinds of ‘honesto’, different
degrees of ‘honesto’ (as instantiated in the same of in other
referents).
Confirmation 2
NA + PP: additional restriction on degree modification
(23a) (je n’ai pas raconté) le {plus / ??très / ??assez} beau de
l’histoire
vs.
(23b) le très beau, l’assez beau, le plus beau, ... ; c’est du très beau
Thus: internal comparison (the most ADJ aspect of...) , no
external comparison with other degrees of the same property
(as instantiated in other referents)
Cf. only partitive reading (~ más), no “degree reading” (~ muy)
(Lapesa 1984; Bosque & Moreno 1990; Villalba 2009);
Peter
Lauwers
Confirmation 3: anaphoric uptake
NAs ≠ antecedent of definite anaphoric pronouns
(24)
(24a) Il n’a pas compris le vulgairei de l’histoire. *Celui-cii …
‘He hasn’t understood the vulgari [aspect] of the story. Thisi ...’
/vs/
(24b) la vulgaritéi ... Celle-cii ...
‘the vulgarityi … Thisi …’
Since:
anaphoric pronouns isolate an individual (Leeman 1998 : 228,
following Kleiber 1992), which runs counter to the massification
obtained by transfer.
Peter
Lauwers
Cf. (25) *Il y a du Matisse [= 'paintings of Matisse’] dans toutes les
salles du musée et ce Matisse....
Mixed patterns ~ ADJ/N
(26) [Le plus sublime de cette répétition] était sans doute le
début.
‘The most sublime part of this rehearsal was beyond any
doubt the beginning.’
(27) Les pigeons blasés, perchés sur le marché couvert, guettent
la pourriture et [le trop mûr qu’on balance sur les trottoirs].
‘the blasé pigeons, sitting on the roof of the indoor market
place, on the lookout for rotten and for overripe things that are
thrown on the footpath’
(F. Lasaygues, Vache noire, hannetons, 1985).
Peter
Lauwers
2.3. Summary: maximal template +
extensions (< lexicalization)
LE (Adverb)
NA
DU (Adverb)
(subcat. PP / de PP) (ungrounded relative clause)
NA
(subcat. PP) (ungrounded relative clause)
+ additional 'nominal' elements / features < incipient lexicalization
(28) N’étant pas musicienne comment puis-je analyser cet accord, expliquer
le tragique que j’entends dans ce seul accord.
‘Not being a musician, how can I analyze this chord, explain the tragedy
that I hear in this sole chord.’

loss of adjectival nature : (29) *le vraiment tragique que j'entends
At the upper end of the lexicalization cline (= N) : le sérieux
('seriousness'/'reliability'), le calme (‘peacefulness’/ ‘period of calm’), le vide '
vacuum, empty space’, etc.  idiosyncratic semantic shifts
Peter
Lauwers
(30a) le vide complet, le grand vide, un tel {vide / calme / sérieux}, un calme
très agréable
(30b) son calme, son sérieux ; un peu de calme, beaucoup de sérieux
(30c) *le très sérieux de Paul
3. Problematic accounts
Peter
Lauwers
NAs are problematic for standard
syntactic structure
NAs:
Det + A’’
< - > canonical rewrite rule: N’’  Det + N’ (or DP  Det + N’’)
N’’
A’’
Det
Adv
A’
A°
Sprép
(31) Les plus jeunes de la classe
(Marandin, in Corblin, Marandin et Sleeman 2004: 35)
Peter
Lauwers
(I) Empty head / head deletion
(syntax)
Ia. Deletion of a (pro) nominal head ; a base-generated null head
[DP the [NP richA [NP Ø] ]]]
(Baker 2003: 121)
Cf. Olsen 1988 [German], Kester 1996 [Dutch], Longobardi 1994: 644 ; Chierchia 1998:
394; Borer & Roy (2010)
Ib. Similar analyses
-- though less formalized:
Winther (1982)
Bally (19442)
-- Sleeman (1996: 188):
Peter
Lauwers
“a base-generated empty noun bearing the feature [+abstract] at
the lexical level, which is licensed by partitivity”
Null heads: empirical problems
I. Which (pro)noun?
A Noun?
(32) ?le [truc] vulgaire / ?la [notion (de)] vulgaire / ?le [concept (de)]
vulgaire
‘the vulgar thing’ / ‘the notion (of) vulgar’ / ‘the concept (of) vulgar’
A pronoun? (Winther 1982)
(33) [+Human ANs]: ce + lui/elle + (qui est) malade  ce […]
malade [.... > un malade, les malades]
<this him/her (who is) sick> → ‘this ... sick [person]’
‘a sick [person]’, ‘the sick’
But: What about [inanimate] ANs?
(34) ce (+ ??) + (qui est) beau  *ce + beau (= ungrammatical !)
Peter
Lauwers
II. Why no adjectives allowed?
(II) Accounts based on full lexical
recategorization: overview
IIa. Morphological approaches
"morphological derivation involves the systematic and massive
acquisition of a categorial identity" (Kerleroux 1996: 189)


traditional grammar: dérivation impropre (e.g. Nyrop 1908)
French morphologists: conversion
E.g. Fradin (2003): [le] bleu, [le] rouge, [le] calme, [le] sérieux.
Corbin and Corbin, 1991 : 77; Kerleroux, 1996: 88 (although: Kerleroux,
1996: 204); 2000: 93; Apothéloz, 2002: 101; Fradin, 2003: 157
Peter
Lauwers
IIb. Lexicological approaches: relisting of lexical items (Lieber 2004)
Cf. dictionaries: Entry ADJ., then "masc. noun"
IIIc. (pseudo-)syntactic approaches
 standard treatment in Construction Grammar: a basically lexical
mechanism (Fillmore & Kay 1995: Ch. 3):
feature changing lexical constructions which modify the categorial
specifications and “essentially create a new lexical item” (Fried &
Östman 2004: 38)
E.g. proper noun (Prague) > common noun (The Prague I
remembered was completely different)
Conversion
= morphological operation that creates new lexemes characterized by
a phonological form, a semantic value and a morphosyntactic
category.
Characteristic of conversion is the fact that the phonological form of
both root and derivational product is identical. (Corbin 1987)
"conversions form part of a paradigm of morphological operations
associated with a word construction rule" (Corbin 1987: 241),
Peter
Lauwers
E.g.
(35) Word construction rule for 'Property nouns'
 Categories: Adj. 
Nom
 Semantics: ‘the fact, the quality of being Adj’ (Corbin 1987: 174,
243)
 Formal processes:
- suffix (-eur, -(i)té, -esse, -ise, -titude, ...): vulgaireAdj 
vulgaritéN
- conversion: vulgaire --> (le) vulgaire
Conversion: problems
(a) The intermediate categorial status of the product
(b) NAs ≠ 'out of context, hence out of syntax' (as required by
conversion, Kerleroux, 2000: 95):
determiner = necessary
(c) integration of NAs within a Word Construction Rule is
problematic: (slight )semantic differences compared to
property nouns !
Peter
Lauwers
Semantics: differences
la beauté
the quality of being beautiful in
general (generic use)
le beau
‘tout ce qui est beau’
(generic use)
all those referents that
have this particular quality in
common, construed as a
homogenous mass,
as indistinguishable entities
de la beauté (specific, indefinite)
unspecified quantity of the quality of
‘beauty’ as it is instantiated in a particular
situation
du beau
unspecified quantity (or portion) extracted
from the set of referents having a
particular quality in common, construed as
a homogenous mass, as indistinguishable
entities
la beauté (de X ) (specific, definite)
Le beau (de X)
‘‘ce qu’il y a de beau [dans X]’
a specific instance of the quality of
‘beauty’ as it is instantiated in particular
referents
Peter
Lauwers
a specific instance of a class of referents
having a particular quality in common
construed as a homogenous mass, in
association with a particular referent
Extension?

beauext
= {the Sagrada Familia, the paintings of Van Gogh,
my swimming shorts, etc.}
= all possible referents (objects) that have this
quality in common; that is ‘what is beautiful’

beautéext
= {the beauty of nature, the beauty of la Joconde,
the beauty of the Sagrada Familia, etc.}
Peter
Lauwers
= all possible instantiations of the quality 'beauty' as
instantiated in particular objects (but not the objects
Intension?


Peter
Lauwers
beautéInt: 'the quality of being beautiful'
beauInt: ??  'the things that are beautiful'
Rationale?
Peter
Lauwers
la beauté
le beau
can be defined on the basis of
their intension
focused on the extensional (and
referential) dimension of the
property
'the quality of being beautiful in
general'
'the beautiful’,(all) the beautiful
(things)'
the property itself
the conceptualization of NAs
gives prominence to the
ENTITIES that carry the
property, although they are
conceived as a mass or
aggregate on the basis of a
common property
Confirmation
Verb + concrete object
e.g. to buy, to have, to wear, etc.
(36a) il n’achète que du beau, ils n’ont que du beau, il ne
porte que du beau
‘he only buys beautiful things’ / ‘they only have beautiful
things’ / ‘he only wears beautiful things’
vs.
(36b) *il n’achète que de la beauté; *ils n’ont que de la
beauté; *il ne porte que de la beauté
*‘he only buys beauty’ / *‘they only have beauty’ / *‘he
only wears beauty’
Peter
Lauwers
4. A syntactic analysis
in terms of categorial mismatch
Peter
Lauwers
4.1. Mixed categories and projections
Track 1. A categorially underspecified head: the "indeterminate category
projection theory" (Bresnan 1997)
Cf. Malouf 2000 for the English gerund; cf. other references in
Bresnan (1997).
BUT: phrasal coherence: ordering principles (cf. Bresnan 1997)
 adjectival modifiers = central (adv)
 nominal modifiers = peripheral (det, PP)
Track 2. Conflation of two distinct XPs around a shared head, based on
an intermediate shifting operation
Cf. Lefebvre & Muysken 1988: 57ff; cf. also Lapointe 1993.
- A category-switching projection from a single lexical head at a
certain level within the tree around a single head
Peter
Lauwers
- The “atypical” head exhibits severe restrictions from the point of view
of nominal modification => conflation of two subtrees rather than
superposition
le vraiment drôle de l'histoire ('the really funny thing of the story')
le vraiment utile à la société ('the really useful to society')
N’’
Det
N’
N°
PP / S (relative)
A’’
Adv
A’
A°
Peter
Lauwers
PP
4.2. Towards an explanatory construction-based
account: mismatch and coercion
Towards an account that
(i) offers a more integrated and (cognitively) plausible explanation for the
peculiar configuration of NAs
(ii) better captures the intuition that NAs are marked (non prototypical)
usages of words, pertaining to well-established word classes, that
contextually exhibit some syntactic and semantic properties of
another word class, rather than phrases headed by a hybrid lexical
category (marked morphologically as such).
Peter
Lauwers
4.2.1. Categorial mismatch and coercion
NAs = cases of (categorial) MISMATCH
Cf. Francis (1999) , Francis & Michaelis (2004), Spencer (2005, 2007).
More specifically: category / function mismatch
(I) Distorsion catégorielle (Milner 1989, Kerleroux 1991, 1996, Leeman
1998)
Conflict between:
Y = position (= slot), which specifies a.o. the expected
categories
X = terme (= filler), endowed with a category
restrictions on 'target' modification' (= categorial deficiency)
vs. morphological conversion
(37) l’agir ‘the acting’, le signifier du signe ‘the signifying of the
sign
Constructional dimension  ...
Peter
Lauwers
(II) Construction Grammar (Michaelis 2003): override principle
Y = ‘slot’ within a construction
X = filler
“if lexical and structural meanings conflict, the semantic specifications
of the lexical element conform to those of the grammatical structure
with which that lexical item is combined"
(38) mass noun soup in the plural construction receives the
individuated construal associated with count entities:
They have good soups here (Michaelis 2003)
(39) to begin [to read] a book
object > event
This contextual adaptation of semantic features = coercion
(Pustejovsky, 1995 ; Pustejovsky and Bouillon, 1995) or accommodation
(Goldberg 1995)
Peter
Lauwers
Rem: on the syntactic level: ~ translation (°Tesnière 1959)
But : full nouniness  NAs fall outside the scope of the theory
(Werner, 1993: 143; 190-191 ; Koch - Krefeld, 1993)
A “constructional override” / coercion
triggered by a construction, but ...
Questions :

also INTERCATEGORIAL shifts (A > N and N > A) ?

what about the syntactic effects (e.g. modification) ?
< - > purely semantic concept such as 'coercion'

which target category can serve as a model for the coerced
interpretation?
≠ property nouns
Peter
Lauwers
4.2.2. A specific construction inheriting from the
determiner construction

To prevent our account from overgeneration: a particular type of
override construction specifying all these properties:
a MASS
GROUP IDENTITY NOUN PHRASE
CONSTRUCTION
Cf. Group Identity Noun Phrase construction (Fried & Östman 2004: 74–
75) for cases such as the privileged or the poor

related to the Determination construction, but also differences
 INHERITANCE
“to keep track of properties along which linguistic expressions
resemble each other” (Fried & Östman 2004: 71).
Peter
Lauwers
Formalisme
deNP]
C&G
[Mass group identity
construction
(CxG; ~ Fried & Östman 2004)
Peter
Lauwers
Peter
Lauwers
Concretely...

both the properties of the construction and its component parts:
The head: (predicative) Adj
vs
The construction as a whole: NP
meaning:
‘set of referents defined by the property x (↓1) and construed
as a homogenous mass of indistinguishable entities’.

Inherited features: bold

Exclusive features:
 the determiner slot is restricted to one or two determiners
Peter
Lauwers
 a third, non-obligatory sister
5. Adjectivized nouns
Peter
Lauwers
5.1. Semantic effects
(40) Resemblance: ‘X presents characteristics of Y’
(40a) Ces costumes sont très théâtre.
;
des costumes très théâtre.
(These costumes are very theatre.)
‘These costumes are very ‘theatre-like.’
(40b) Mon frère est très professeur.
(My brother is very teacher)
‘My brother is very ‘teacher-like'
≠ other constructions (cf. Lauwers f.c., Word 60/1):
(41) Inclination, propensity: ‘X is characterized by the fact that X is keen on Y’
Je suis (très) fromage.
(I am very cheese.)
‘I like cheese (very much), I eat cheese very often; I am into cheese’
(42) Content: ‘X is characterized by the fact that X ‘has’ (contains) Y’
Cet été sera (très) {livre/cinéma/sport}.
Peter
Lauwers
(This summer will be (very) book/cinema/sport.)
‘This summer’s focus will be on {literature/film/sports}’
5.2. Categorial status: restrictions on
both sides
1° A full-fledged noun?
1.1. N can only be completed by adjectives, PPs and ungrounded
relative clauses that yield
(i) socio-culturally well-established subtypes of the type denoted by
the noun
(ii) that, in combination with the noun, still satisfy the criterion of
stereotypical property association.
(43) « vous avez été très professeur de morale, M. le procureur
de la République ». (lit. 'very teacher of ethics')
(44) Un parfum à la fois chic, [...], et à la fois très femme qui
s'assume. (lit. 'a very woman-that-takes-responsibility-for -herselflike perfume')
1.2. Adjectives can never be anteposed (with the 'resemblance
reading'):
Peter
Lauwers
(45) */# Il est très piètre / bon professeur 'very bad / good
teacher'
2° A full-fledged adjective?
2.1. N' can only be preceded (and must be preceded) by a limited list
of degree adverb (très 'very', si 'so', assez 'quite', un peu 'somewhat',
peu 'not very'), precluding other types of adverbs:
(46) Ces costumes sont relativement {théâtraux / *théâtre}
'These costumes are relatively {theatrical / theatre}
(47) Il est toujours {pédant / */# professeur}
'He is always {pedantic / teacher}
Note that most of these adverbs can be combined with synonymous
adjectival expressions.
[2.2. AN do not take PP complements: *très professeur à + NP (vs
très utile à + NP).]
Peter
Lauwers
AP
Adv
A
N’
N°
Peter
Lauwers
PP / Adj / ungr. relative clause
Syntax + Lexicalization
Degree Adverb
AN
(A)
subtype
(PP)subtype
(ungrounded relative clause)subtype
= basic syntactic template
+ additional 'adjectival' properties < lexicalization
Peter
Lauwers
Lexicalization: vache, tarte, limite, ... [+ idiosyncratic semantic shifts]
- anteposition of the AN: *le très théâtre film vs. la très vache prof
('the very severe teacher'), une vache bagarre ('a very tough
fight')
- omission of the degree adverb: le budget est limite ('the budget is
borderline')
- other adverbs: une prof relativement vache 'a relatively severe
teacher')
- derivation of adverbs (-ly): vache-ment; bête-ment
- tendency towards agreement: vos questions sont parfois très
tartes. ('Your questions are sometimes very stupid')
Homonymy: un joueur très sport ('fairplay') vs L'arrivee à l'aéroport est
assez sport ('sport-like')
Peter
Lauwers
6. Conclusions
Peter
Lauwers

forms with mixed morphological, semantic and syntactic properties with
regard to the traditional word classes

due to the pressure exerted by a (syntactic) construction typical of
another word class (= mismatch, constructional override)

without specific morphological marking (unlike gerunds, infinitives, etc.)

[in CxG] a formalism based on a specific (shifting?) construction that
inherits features from a default target construction, to capture both
restrictions and meaning effects, in order to prevent overgeneration.

This target construction serves a model (attraction)

the remaining gap to the target category can be bridged through a
gradient process of lexicalization
References
Folia Linguistica (2008) “The nominalization of adjectives in French: from morphological
conversion to categorial mismatch”, p. 135-176.
Word (f.c.) "Copular constructions and adjectival uses of bare nouns in French: a case of
syntactic recategorization? "















Peter
Lauwers
Apothéloz, D., 2002. La construction du lexique français: principes de morphologie dérivationnelle. Ophrys, Gap.
Bally, Ch., 19442. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Francke, Bern.
Borer, H. & Roy, I. 2010. “The name of the adjective”. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (eds). Adjectives.
Formal analyses in syntax and semantics. 85-114.
Bresnan, J., 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In: M. Butt, T. Holloway King, Proceedings of the
LFG97 Conference. CSLI publications.
Corbin, D., 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Corbin, D., Corbin, P., 1991. Un traitement unifié du suffixe –er(e). Lexique 10, 61-145.
Corblin, F., 1995. Les formes de reprise dans le discours. Anaphores et chaînes de référence. Presses universitaires de
Rennes, Rennes.
Corblin, F., 1999. Les références mentionnelles: le premier, le dernier, celui-ci. In: A. Mettouchi, H. Quintin (eds), La
référence. Statut et processus. Travaux linguistiques du CERLICO. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, pp. 107123.
Corblin, F., Marandin, J.-M., Sleeman, P. 2004. Nounless determiners, In: Handbook of French Semantics, CSLI
Publications, pp. 23-41.
Cori, M., Marandin, J.-M., 1997. Un calcul de préférence en syntaxe. Revue Internationale de Systémique 11, 49-67.
Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., 1993. Construction grammar coursebook. Unpublished ms., Department of Linguistics, University
of California, Berkeley.
Fradin, B., 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. P.U.F., Paris.
Francis, E.J., 1999. Variation within lexical categories. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. [UMI Dissertation Abstracts]
Francis, E.J., Michaelis, L.A., 2004. Mismatch. Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. CSLI
Publications, Stanford.
Fried, M., Östman, J.-O., 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In: M. Fried, Östman, J.O. (eds),
Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 11-86.













Peter
Lauwers
Goodman, N., 1951. The structure of appearance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kerleroux, F., 1996. La coupure invisible. Etudes de syntaxe et de morphologie. Presses universitaires du
Septentrion, Paris.
Kerleroux, F., 2000. Identification d’un procédé morphologique: la conversion. Faits de Langue 14, 89-100.
Kester, E.-P. 1996.The Nature of Adjectival Inflection. PhD Dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Kleiber, G., 1992. À propos de du Mozart: une énigme référentielle. In: G. Gréciano, G. Kleiber (eds), Systèmes
interactifs. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean David. Klincksieck, Metz et Paris, pp. 241-256.
Koch, P., Krefeld, T., 1993. Gibt es Translationen?. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 109, 149-166.
Lambertz, T., 1995. Translation et dépendance. In: F. Madray-Lesigne, J. Richard-Zappella (eds), Lucien Tesnière
aujourd'hui, Peeters, Louvain/Paris, pp. 221-228.
Leeman, D., 1998. C’est du joli ! Remarques sur un emploi d’adjectif dit « substantivé ». In: A.Boone, D. Leeman
(eds), Du percevoir au dire. Hommages à André Joly. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 221-234.
Lieber, R., 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. CUP, Cambridge.
Marandin, J.-M., 1997. Pas d’entité sans identité”: l’analyse des groupes nominaux DET + A. In: B. Fradin, J.-M.
Marandin (eds), Mot et grammaires. Didier Erudition, Paris, pp. 129-164.
Michaelis, L.A., 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In: H. Cuyckens – R. Dirven, J.R.
Taylor (eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163-209.
Milner, J.-Cl., 1989. Introduction à une science du langage. Seuil, Paris.
Newmeyer, F., 2004. Theoretical Implications of Grammatical Category – Grammatical Relation Mismatches. In:
Francis, E.J., Michaelis, L.A (eds), Mismatch. Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. CSLI
Publications, Stanford, pp. 149-178.











Villalba, X. 2009. “Definite Adjective Nominalizations in Spanish”. In: M.T. Espinal, M. Leonetti & L. McNally
(eds.), Proceedings of the IV Nereus International Workshop
“Definiteness and DP Structure in Romance Languages”. Arbeitspapier 124. Fachbereich
Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, 139-153.

Villalba, X & Bartra-Kaufmann, A. 2009. "Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner phrase”. Lingua 120.4:
819-849.

Werner, E., 1993. Translationstheorie und Dependenzmodell. Kritik und Reinterpretation des Ansatzes von Lucien
Tesnière. Francke, Tübingen.
Wilmet, M., 2003. Grammaire critique du français. Duculot, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Winther, A., 1982. Un cas de dérivation non-affixale: la substantivation des adjectifs en français. Folia linguistica
16, 345-364.
Winther, A., 1996. Un petit point de morpho-syntaxe: la formation des adjectifs substantivés en français.
L’information grammaticale 68, 42-46.



Peter
Lauwers
Nyrop, K., 1908. Grammaire historique de la langue française. T.III. Gyldendal, Copenhague.
Olsen, S., 1988. Das « substantivierte » Adjektiv im Deutschen und Englischen: Attribuierung vs. syntaktische
« Substantivierung ». Folia Linguistica 22, 337-372.
Pustejovsky, J., 1995. The generative lexicon. MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Pustejovsky, J., Bouillon, P., 1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12(2), 133-162.
Rey-Debove, J., 1997. Le métalangage. Etude linguistique du discours sur le langage. Colin, Paris.
Riegel, M., 1985. L’adjectif attribut. P.U.F, Paris.
Riegel, M., Pellat, Chr., Rioul, R., 1994. Grammaire méthodique du français. P.U.F, Paris.
Sleeman, P. 1996. Licensing Empty Nouns in French. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Spencer, A. 2005. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’. In Orgun & Sells (eds.) Morphology and the Web of
Grammar. CSLI, 95—138.
Tesnière, L., 1959. Elements de linguistique structurale. Klincksieck, Paris.