an analysis of premodifier zones in of-evaluative modifiers

Elnora ten Wolde

University of Vienna

ICLC 13 July 2015 Newcastle upon Tyne

An Analysis of Premodifier Zones in

Evaluative Modifiers

N-of-N

July 2015 ICHL 22 2

Possession Location Head-Qualifier Apposition Evaluative Binominal NP Evaluative Modifier Degree Modifier

e.g. Aarts 1998; Brems 2007, 2011; Brems & Davidse 2010; Davidse 2009; Denison 2002, 2005; Foolen 2004; Keizer 2007; Langacker 2010; Napoli 1989; Traugott 2008; Trousdale 2012

Partitive Pseudo-partitives Sort of/Kind of/Type of

Introduction I

Introduction II

N+PP (Location)

A beast of England

Head Qualifier

A hell of fire

Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrase (EBNP)

A fool of a doctor

Evaluative Modifier (EM)

A beast of a night

(ten Wolde & Keizer forthcoming; all examples come from COCA unless specified)

Introduction II

N+PP

A beast of England

Head Qualifier

A hell of fire


A fool of a doctor

Evaluative Modifier (EM)

A beast of a night


Introduction III

(1) This whale of an institution (COCA)

(2) This oceanic barge of a woman

(3) Another bitchy iceberg of a woman (Aarts 1998: 132-133; Keizer 2007)

Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrase (Trousdale 2012) Expressive Binominal Noun Phrase (Foolan 2004) Binominal Noun Phrase (Aarts 1998; Keizer 2007) Adjective Noun (Ross 1973; McCawley 1987)

a comparison between Noun 1 and

Noun 2.

a property of Noun 1 is ascribed

onto Noun 2.

Noun 1 still syntactically a noun,

semantic functions an adjective.

Introduction III

• [N1 of a] reanalyzed as a modifier.

• Speaker-oriented.

• Qualifies a unspecified feature of N2.

• Requires a context and/or social/ cultural

knowledge to interpret. • Dixon’s Value Adjective (1982)/

Adamson’s Attributive Adjective (2000)

(4) It was a hell of a night for a meeting -- with the storm

going and the river about to blow.

(5) " Y'ever hear what Kennedy said three hours before he

was shot? " he asked, putting on his best Massachusetts

accent. " You know, last night would've been a hell of a

night to kill a President. "

NEGATIVE

POSITIVE

Evaluative Modifiers (EM)


“[…] subjective/objective polarity …modifiers relating to properties which are (relatively) inherent in the head of the noun phrase, visually observable, objectively recognizable or assessable, will tend to be placed nearer to the head and be preceded by modifiers concerned with what is a matter of option, imposed on the head by the observer, not visually observed and only subjectively assessable.” (Quirk et al. 1985: 1341) “A value adjective cannot directly qualify a noun; if it appears in an NP with a noun and no other adjective, then it has manner function with respect to an implicit non-value adjective.” (Dixon 1982: 30) “A much simpler explanation for the data Dixon reviews can be achieved by positing a semantic split within the adjective group, such that adjectives in categories 2-7 are descriptive or referent-orientated while adjective in category 1 – the VALUE class – are affective or speaker-oriented. Their function is not to describe properties in the referent but to express speaker-response to it.” (Adamson 2000: 44)


[[Det1] [MP N1 of a] [N2]]


A bomb of a gift

one bitch of a car

[[Det1] [MP N1 of a] [N2]]

Det1


[[Det1] [MP N1 of a] [N2]]

Det1 [ N1 of a]

Decategorized

Noun 1 singular

A beast of a game

A hell of __ job


[[Det1] [MP N1 of a] [N2]]

Det1 [ N1 of a]

[hell of a] helluva hella

(Trousdale 2012)

[beast of a] beastuva

(ten Wolde & Keizer forthc.)


[[Det1] [MP N1 of a] [N2]]

Det1 N2 [ N1 of a]

Head

Countable, Singular

Non-degree Ns

Introduction IV

Research Question:

If you assume the existence of premodification zones, do the distribution

patterns of EM premodification provide evidence that the EM has integrated

into these zones?

REINFORCER EPITHET DESCRIPTOR CLASSIFIER NOUN

Function

Reinforce a sense of noun

Expressive scalar des. meaning

Perceptual descriptive meaning

Sub-classify the referent

Referential Meaning

X

X

X

Denotes groups specific entities

Descriptive Meaning

X

Abstract qualities, gradable

Denotes quality or state, not gradable

X

Expressive Meaning

Context dependent

Emotive meaning X

X

Social Meaning Context dependent

Yes

Rarely

X

Grammatical Meaning

Intensifies, minimizes, limits N or another modifier

Modifies head Modifies head Relates an entity to head

Feist (2012) Premodifier Zone Categories

Det Reinforcer Epithet Descriptor Classifier Head

a - smart blue [silk] bonnet

Methods II


a - - smart Viking’s son


The [sophisticated] [new] American smart bomb


The sheer desperate - - necessity

( Feist 2009: 305)

Example of the different zones

( Feist 2009: 306)

Methods III

Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA ) 1990 – 2012

450 million words ~ 20 million words each year

N of a

Methods III

Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA ) 1990 – 2012

450 million words ~ 20 million words each year

premod w/o premod N Types

EBNP 619 491 1110 115

EM 78 1001 1079 13

697 1492 2189

Methods IV

Coded:

Construction type

N1 and N2 modification zones

Zone a la Feist 2009

Selector of modifier

In the distribution of EM premodification patterns ,

is there evidence that the EM has been integrated

into the premodification zones?

Methods IV

Analysis: A veritable angel of a man.

REIN1 n1

a hell of a tennis player

CL2 n2

a fabulous bear of an old man

EP1 amb DES2 n2

REIN – Reinforcer EP – Epithet DES – Descriptor CL – Classifier

Predictions

Evaluative Modifier

Det REIN EP DES CL Noun2

EM EM

Det REIN1 EP1 DES1 CL1 Noun 1 of a REIN2 EP2 DES2 CL2 Noun 2


Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrase

N+PP

Predictions I

1) Less premodification in EM than earlier constructions (compared with

EBNP).


EM EM


Predictions I

1) Less premodification than earlier constructions (compared to EBNP).

R

Rise in numbers of premodifiers, decrease in N. If EM is syntactically

analyzed as a modifier, there would be overall less EM examples with

premodification.

Loss of N1‘s noun status, loss of N1 premodifier zones, decrease in

modifiers.


EM EM


Predictions II


2) A significant shift of modifiers to the second premodifier zone.


EM EM

Det REIN1 EP1 DES1 CL1 Noun 1 of a REIN 2 EP2 DES2 CL2 Noun 2

Predictions III


2) A significant shift of modifiers to the second premodifier zones.

3) Premodification should be selected by N2.


EM EM


Predictions IV




4) Loss of zones.


EM EM


Predictions IV




4) Loss of zones. a) No Classifiers before N1.


EM EM


Predictions IV





b) No Descriptors before N1.


EM EM


Predictions IV






c) No Reinforcers before N2.


EM EM


Results I

Does the Evaluative Modifier receive less premodification than the EBNP?

premodification w/o premodification

Total

EBNP 619 491 1110

EM 78 1001 1079

697 1492

Without Modification Modification

EM

EBNP

To

ke

ns

02

00

40

06

00

80

01

00

01

20

01

40

0

x2 =591.6909 df=1 p-value< 2.2e -16 coefficient = 0.52

Figure 1: Premodification in EBNP and EM

• A significant reduction in

premodification in comparison with the

EBNP.

• Premodification is an important feature

for distinguishing the EM from the

EBNP.

Results II

Figure 2: Distribution of premodification before N1 for

each construction (normalized frequencies). Figure 3: Distribution of premodification before N2

for each construction (normalized frequencies).

REIN1 EP1 DES1 CL1 REIN1 EP1 DES1 CL1

Premodification in front of Noun 1

EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

0

2.5

41.3

30.8

8.7

2.4

11

1.2 0

x2 = 200.9748 df=1 p-value< 2.2e -16

coefficient = 0.4505605



EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

05

0

0 0.4

4.8

11.3

0 0

28

56.6

What is the distribution of modifiers between Noun 1 and Noun 2?

Results II






EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

0

2.5

41.3

30.8

8.7

2.4

11

1.2 0

x2 = 200.97 df=1 p-value< 2.2e -16

coefficient = 0.45

EBNP: modifiers cluster in the Noun 1 zones.



EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

05

0

0 0.4

4.8

11.3

0 0

28

56.6


Results II






EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

0

2.5

41.3

30.8

8.7

2.4

11

1.2 0

x2 = 200.97 df=1 p-value< 2.2e -16

coefficient = 0.45

EM: modifiers cluster in the Noun 2 zones.



EBNP EM

No

rma

lize

d fre

qu

en

cie

s

01

02

03

04

05

0

0 0.4

4.8

11.3

0 0

28

56.6


Individual Conx Features

Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (Hilpert 2013)

Gries (2009): HCFA 3.2

(95% confidence levels)


Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis

Gries 2009: HCFA 3.2


Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrase & Evaluative Modifier


Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis

Gries 2009: HCFA 3.2


Evaluative Binominal Noun Phrase & Evaluative Modifier

Type Placement Selector

Results III

Significant patterns for Evaluative Modifier: Selection

• Modifiers selected by Noun 2 exceeds expected frequency.

• Noun 1 was significant in its absence.

Conx Type Selector Freq Exp Freq Contrib x2

p-value Q

EM N2 72 30.89 54.69 6.63 e-10 0.04

EM N1 0 11.76 11.76 5.81 e-05 0.01

Results II

N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A N1 N2 A

EM Premodification in front of Noun 1 and Noun 2

Reinforcer1 Epithet1 Descriptor1 Classifier1 Reinforcer2 Epithet2 Descriptor2 Classifier2

Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0

Figure 4: Distribution and selection of premodification before N1 and N2 for the EM.

Results II




Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0


a) No Classifiers before N1. p-value = .0225 Q = 0.007

Results II




Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0


a) No Classifiers before N1.


Results I




Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0


EM-Descriptor 1 p-value= 2.35 e-08

Q=0.02

EM-Epithet 1 p-value= 2.36 e-05

Q=0.02

Results II




Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0







Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0

Results II




c) No Reinforcers before N2. Not Significant

Results I




Ra

w fr

eq

ue

nci

es

01

02

03

04

0


EM-Classifier 2 p-value= 4.92 e-13

Q= 0.05 EM-Descriptor 2 p-value= 3.53 e-07

Q = 0.02

Discussion

Det REIN EP DES CL Noun

EM EM

• Decrease in premodification.

• Shift from zones in front of Noun 1 to Noun 2.

• Adjective selection is predominantly by Noun 2.

• Premodification in Classifier 2 and Descriptor 2 zones is a distinctive feature.

Discussion

Det REIN EP DES CL Noun

EM EM

• Decrease in premodification.

• Shift from zones in front of Noun 1 to Noun 2.

• Adjective selection is predominantly by Noun 2.

• Premodification in Classifier 2 and Descriptor 2 zones is a distinctive feature

• Premodification distribution would point

to a second construction.

• Loss of plural form and now the loss of

Classifier 1 modification would indicate

the loss of‘nounhood’ in Noun 1.

• Loss of Reinforcer 2 zone can be found

in earlier constructions.

• There seems to be evidence for the EM’s

integration into the pre-existing

premodifier zones.

Discussion

Premodifier Zones Affective, Value

Adjectives

N of N

(sort of/ kind of/

type of)

Evaluative

Modifier

[hell of a] helluva hella (Trousdale 2012)

[beast of a] beastuva

(ten Wolde & Keizer forthc.)

Further steps

• Feist makes categorical distinctions that are problematic. Further work can still

be conducted in this area.

• Other variables such as register, genre, and time may also play a role and need

to be factored into the analysis.

• Include earlier constructions in the analysis.

Sources

Aarts, Bas. 1998. English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society 96, 117- 158. Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-66. Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35, 293-324. Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brems, Lieselotte & Kristin Davidse. 2010. The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change. English Studies 91, 180-202. Davidse, Kristin. 2009. Complete and sort of: From identifying to intensifying? Transactions of the Philological Society Volume 107(3), 262–292. Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at ICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki. Denison, David. 2005. The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago de Compostela. Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Feist, Jim 2009. Premodifier order in English nominal phrases: A semantic account. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2), 301-340. Feist, Jim. 2012. Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: CUP.

Sources

Foolen, Ad., 2004. Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75-100. Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Statistics for Linguists with R: A practical introduction. Hague: de Gruyter Mouton. Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Cambridge: CUP. Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCawley, James. 1987. A case of syntactic mimicry. In René Dirven & Vilém Fried (eds), Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 459-470. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1989. Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R.; Greenbaum, S. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Ross, John R. 1973. Nouniness. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC, 137-257. ten Wolde, Elnora; Keizer, Evelien. Forthc. Structure and substance in Functional Discourse Grammar : The case of the Binominal Noun Phrase. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 194) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 23-45. Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, Kristen, Tina Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmons (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167-194.

Thank You!

Problem Zones

Epithet Descriptor Classifier Noun

a fat old pig

an fat, (very) old pig

Feist (2012: 56)

Feist (2012: 47)

Descriptor Classifier Noun

permanent red alert

Why Premodification?

1) Premodification patterns have been used other studies of ‘N of N’ as

evidence for separate categorization (e.g. Brems 2011) and no research

has as of yet been conducted on the premodification patterns of

evaluative modifiers.

2) It would also provide evidence of the ‘nouniness’ of N1 (Langacker

2010); a distinguishing feature of the EM from the EBNP (ten Wolde &

Keizer forthcoming.).

3) If the evaluative modifier does function as a modifier, then it would be

logical that, particularly in this case, this construction has been integrated

into the already existing premodification zones.

TYPE SELECT ZONE Freq Exp Cont.chisq Obs-exp P.adj.bin Q EBNP . CL2 103 137.5758 8.6897 < 0.0095166548643365 0.041 EBNP . EP1 375 352.1939 1.4768 > 1.11690528927601 0.036 EM . CL2 47 12.4242 96.2224 > 4.9196823956223e-13 0.035 EBNP . DES1 280 257.7253 1.9252 > 0.933306921982171 0.03 EM . EP1 9 31.8061 16.3528 < 2.35929579093928e-05 0.024 EM . DES1 1 23.2747 21.3177 < 2.34625924219273e-08 0.023 EBNP . DES2 44 61.4505 4.9555 < 0.162100859360481 0.019 EM . DES2 23 5.5495 54.8734 > 3.52619026734756e-07 0.018 EBNP . CL1 79 72.4566 0.5909 > 3.64789741927986 0.007 EM . CL1 0 6.5434 6.5434 < 0.0225376982756671 0.007 EBNP . EP2 4 3.6687 0.0299 > 7.99284013440947 0 EM . EP2 0 0.3313 0.3313 < 11.4870480020938 0 EBNP . REIN1 23 22.9293 2e-04 > 8.36434673865178 0 EM . REIN1 2 2.0707 0.0024 < 10.5204159896753 0 EBNP . REIN2 0 0 0 = 16 0 EM . REIN2 0 0 0 = 16 ns 0 ------------------------------------- chi-square = 213.312 G-square = 180.264 df = 7 p for chi-square = 0 p for G-square = 0


Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (Hilpert 2013)

Gries (2009): HCFA 3.2


“HCFA is usually applied with the aim of detecting ‘types’ in a population of subjects…one open-ended question that a HCFA can answer is whether the tokens of a grammatical construction can be characterized in terms of one or more types.” (Hilpert 2013: 56-57)

an analysis of premodifier zones in of-evaluative modifiers

Documents