

Grammar


Tenses


Present

Present Simple

Present Continuous

Present Perfect

Present Perfect Continuous


Past

Past Simple

Past Continuous

Past Perfect

Past Perfect Continuous


Future

Future Simple

Future Continuous

Future Perfect

Future Perfect Continuous


Parts Of Speech


Nouns

Countable and uncountable nouns

Verbal nouns

Singular and Plural nouns

Proper nouns

Nouns gender

Nouns definition

Concrete nouns

Abstract nouns

Common nouns

Collective nouns

Definition Of Nouns

Animate and Inanimate nouns

Nouns


Verbs

Stative and dynamic verbs

Finite and nonfinite verbs

To be verbs

Transitive and intransitive verbs

Auxiliary verbs

Modal verbs

Regular and irregular verbs

Action verbs

Verbs


Adverbs

Relative adverbs

Interrogative adverbs

Adverbs of time

Adverbs of place

Adverbs of reason

Adverbs of quantity

Adverbs of manner

Adverbs of frequency

Adverbs of affirmation

Adverbs


Adjectives

Quantitative adjective

Proper adjective

Possessive adjective

Numeral adjective

Interrogative adjective

Distributive adjective

Descriptive adjective

Demonstrative adjective


Pronouns

Subject pronoun

Relative pronoun

Reflexive pronoun

Reciprocal pronoun

Possessive pronoun

Personal pronoun

Interrogative pronoun

Indefinite pronoun

Emphatic pronoun

Distributive pronoun

Demonstrative pronoun

Pronouns


Pre Position


Preposition by function

Time preposition

Reason preposition

Possession preposition

Place preposition

Phrases preposition

Origin preposition

Measure preposition

Direction preposition

Contrast preposition

Agent preposition


Preposition by construction

Simple preposition

Phrase preposition

Double preposition

Compound preposition

prepositions


Conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction

Correlative conjunction

Coordinating conjunction

Conjunctive adverbs

conjunctions


Interjections

Express calling interjection

Phrases

Sentences


Grammar Rules

Passive and Active

Preference

Requests and offers

wishes

Be used to

Some and any

Could have done

Describing people

Giving advices

Possession

Comparative and superlative

Giving Reason

Making Suggestions

Apologizing

Forming questions

Since and for

Directions

Obligation

Adverbials

invitation

Articles

Imaginary condition

Zero conditional

First conditional

Second conditional

Third conditional

Reported speech

Demonstratives

Determiners


Linguistics

Phonetics

Phonology

Linguistics fields

Syntax

Morphology

Semantics

pragmatics

History

Writing

Grammar

Phonetics and Phonology

Semiotics


Reading Comprehension

Elementary

Intermediate

Advanced


Teaching Methods

Teaching Strategies

Assessment
Expressive predicate modification
المؤلف:
MARCIN MORZYCKI
المصدر:
Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse
الجزء والصفحة:
P116-C5
2025-04-16
816
Expressive predicate modification
The problem remains, however, of building up the interpretations in the previous section compositionally, and of doing so in a way that captures the syntactic constraints on where such nonrestrictive readings are available.
The rule Since this is a two-dimensional semantics, with distinct dimensions of meaning being computed and distinct composition rules assembling them, perhaps rules that introduce expressive meaning may look quite different in principle from ones that do not. Specifically, maybe rules that introduce expressive meaning can be directly sensitive to precedence in a way ordinary non-expressive meaning is not. This would accord naturally with the intuition that nonrestrictive modifiers are in some sense secondary or additional, extra comments on the current utterance that happen to be interleaved with it.
In view of this, we can adopt the rule in (1). Potts’ framework already has a rough counterpart to standard function application that operates in the expressive-meaning dimension – namely, the rule of Conventional Implicature Function Application mentioned earlier. Adopting (1) would maintain the parallelism by adding an expressive counterpart to a rule of intersective modifier interpretation.1

This rule can be understood to do three things:
_ The sup operator picks out the largest plural individual in the extension of the modified expression (ᵝ).
_ The denotation of the modifier (α) is predicated of this plural individual. Crucially, this happens in the expressive dimension of interpretation.
_ The ordinary descriptive meaning of the modified expression is simply passed up as the ordinary descriptive meaning of the whole.
How this works This rule will give rise to interpretations such as (2) and (3).2

This mirrors the Larson and Marušiˇc (2004) paraphrase. We obtain similar results for the adverbial cases:

It bears pointing out here that I am assuming that C is interpreted on the head noun rather than on the determiner. This is crucial. It is this that ensures that the extension of the NP is whittled down appropriately before the nonrestrictive modifier applies to it.
How is this intersective? In what sense is this a rule of intersective modifier
interpretation? True, nothing is conjoined. But this does capture the same intuitive content of such a rule, and shares some of its essential properties. The expressions it combines must both be of the same semantic type, for example. As with predicate modification, they must in fact both denote properties. Moreover, because sup(ᵝ) must satisfy both α and ᵝ (the latter by definition), the conjunctive character of such a rule is implicitly captured.
In fact, the way (3) is formulated requires that it target only intersective modifiers. This makes a substantive prediction: that nonrestrictive readings of the relevant kind should be possible only for intersective modifiers. This seems to be the case. Certainly, it is difficult to see how the modifiers in (4) could get nonrestrictive interpretations:

This may actually serve as a useful diagnostic for intersective modification in cases which remain unclear, such as subsective adjectives generally (Siegel 1976b; Landman 2001; Larson 1998).
1 This is slightly simplified, in that strictly speaking, it should reflect that the daughters can themselves have expressive meaning. This makes no substantive difference in this framework.
2 I am adopting the conventions that events (or, as would ultimately be necessary, situations) are of type s and that (i) holds:
الاكثر قراءة في Linguistics fields
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
الآخبار الصحية

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يصدر كتاباً يوثق تاريخ السدانة في العتبة العباسية المقدسة
"المهمة".. إصدار قصصي يوثّق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة فتوى الدفاع المقدسة للقصة القصيرة
(نوافذ).. إصدار أدبي يوثق القصص الفائزة في مسابقة الإمام العسكري (عليه السلام)