University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building adjectival meaning without adjectives

(USC Thesis Other)

Building adjectival meaning without adjectives

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content BUILDING ADJECTIVAL MEANING WITHOUT ADJECTIVES A Dissertation Presented by MYTHILI MENON Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Southern California in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY LINGUISTICS AUGUST 2016 ii © Copyright by Mythili Menon 2016 All rights reserved iii BUILDING ADJECTIVAL MEANING WITHOUT ADJECTIVES A Dissertation Presented by MYTHILI MENON Approved as to style and content by: Roumyana Pancheva, Chair Andrew Simpson, Member/ Head of the Department, Linguistics Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, Member Mario Saltarelli, Member Rajesh Bhatt, Member iv എനി$% പറ$ാൻ ചിറകുകൾ ത/ മു123 For Muthassan who gave me wings to fly v Acknowledgments Many things, many people, many circumstances have conspired this moment in time. It begins one summer in the foothills of the Himalayas where I was fortunate to attend a workshop conducted by Hagit Borer on the morphology/syntax interface. Hagit and Andrew Simpson were instrumental in getting me to USC and I was lucky to start the program with Roumi Pancheva whose papers had informed and inspired much of my thinking. This is the holy trinity. Roumi, of course, is much more than that. Six years ago when I walked into her office to ask her if she would be my advisor, she jokingly said, “Mythili, you know this is like getting into a long, committed relationship”. After all these years, it may as well be the best relationship I’ve been in. Roumi’s perseverance and enthusiasm is infectious and I hope I have lived up to at least half of her expectations and standard. Apart from being an incredible advisor and mentor, she has generously given me so much of her valuable time in meetings and going over abstracts, handouts, and drafts of papers. Her sharp insight combined with intricate attention to detail has improved my writing style and my professional identity as a linguist. In Pico Iyer’s book Abandon, the protagonist John MacMillan comes in search of the poet Rumi to California. My journey has been similar and I have been lucky enough to find Roumi and have her as my advisor. Andrew Simpson is the reason I joined the program. Right from the beginning, Andrew’s support and encouragement has motivated and guided me over the years. His teaching style is impeccable and as his teaching assistant for several semesters, I have improved and learnt from the experience. He is also one of the kindest people I know, from offering money just as I moved to the country to feeding squirrels around campus. Maria Luisa Zubizarreta has challenged much of my thinking with her vivacious questions. She has always strived to make me see the big picture and think beyond the narrow scope of the inquiry. I consider myself very lucky to have her on my committee. My first encounter with Rajesh Bhatt was in Mysore in 2006. The lively conversation he had with me post my conference talk is still vivid in my memory. We have continued to have lively vi conversations since and I must say it reminds me of conversations with Roumi, thought provoking, insightful, but most of all delightful. I am lucky to have been one of Mario Saltarelli’s last advisees before his retirement this summer. He has provided valuable comments and suggestions, including crucial comparisons with Romance languages which has improved this work. I am grateful to the faculty in the department who have encouraged and supported me throughout the course of my graduate studies. I would like to thank Hagit Borer for being the catalyst, Hajime Hoji for making me think out of the box, Audrey Li for her insights, Rachel Walker for her time and advice, Khalil Iskarous for shaping my thinking, and Barry Schein for his enthusiasm. A special thanks to Elsi Kaiser for giving me useful skill sets, helping with experimental methodology, and providing valuable comments and suggestions on my experimental work. This dissertation could have easily been one on language and music, shaped by her thoughts and ideas. K.A Jayaseelan and R. Amritavalli have been my mentors for the longest period of time. This story really begins with them. It was Amrit’s syntax class that changed everything way back in 2004. Amrit has been instrumental in so many ways for getting me interested in many diverse areas of Linguistics. Jay’s faith in me is staggering and he shares equal responsibility with Andrew for getting me to USC. I cannot thank Jay and Amrit enough for all the things they have done for me. P. Madhavan or Mash is my other advisor but also my second father. His relentless patience and advice has served me well, not only in academia. He and his family, Geetechi and Jithu have encouraged me to reach for the stars, while eating dosas. I owe the inspiration behind this work to Itamar Francez and Andrew Koontz-Garboden. Their paper on Ulwa was published the year I started this program and it proved to be the perfect time and place to start this inquiry. I also thank them for many fruitful discussions and comments. vii This work has benefitted from discussions with many people including Elena Anagnostapolou, Rebekah Baglini, Rahul Balusu, Chris Barker, David Beaver, Veneeta Dayal, Ashwini Deo, Martin Hackl, K.A Jayaseelan, Chris Kennedy, Mamoru Saito, Philippe Schlenker, Akira Watanabe. I thank them for their comments and suggestions that has improved many parts of this dissertation. Srinivas Sampath has been a constant support over many years. Apart from the fact that he is highly qualified, having two doctoral degrees under his belt, he is also extremely generous with his time and words. He has offered linguistics judgments even at very short notice. I am very lucky to have him as a friend and colleague. I have been part of a wonderful cohort- Syed Saurov, Emily Fedele, Brian Hsu. Saurov, of course, is part of the story from way before and his journey follows a similar trajectory. From Hyderabad to Los Angeles, we have indeed come a long way in the pursuit of knowledge, among other things. Emily Fedele has been a brilliant partner in crime. We have been each other’s buffer and I hope we will continue to remain so. A special shout out to Assaf Israel, who continues to provide encouragement all the way from Israel. Xiao He has been the reason why I have loved my stay in Los Angeles the most. He gives me perspective and constructive criticism, and now a reason to come back and visit. Thank you for being you. There have been so many amazing people who I have had the fortune of working and interacting with in the department. These include- Ana Besserman, Priyanka Biswas, Reed Blaylock, Thomas Borer, Mary Byram Washburn, Arunima Choudhury, Bhamati Dash, Monica Do, Huilin Fang, Alfredo Garcia Pardo, Samantha Gordon, Peter Guekguezian, Jessica Harmon, Canan Ipek, Chorong Kang, Lucy Kim, Cynthia Lee, David Li, Katy McKinney-Bock, NhaBinh Ngo, Ellen O’Connor, Charlie O’Hara, Iris Ouyang, Sarah Ouwayda, Alif Silpachai, Caitlin Smith, Ulrike Steindl, Jesse Storbeck, Barbara Tomaszewicz, Erika Varis, Hector Velasquez. viii Katy McKinney-Bock and I first met at the summer school in the Himalayas and never would we have thought then of becoming colleagues in the same department and such good friends. I owe a great deal to her friendship. David Li is someone I have always looked up to. His advice coupled with practicality and wisdom has helped me make many good decisions over the years. Ulrike Steindl and Thomas Borer have been much more than just colleagues. They played a huge role in making my stay here a fabulous one, especially by being part of the awesome Normandie house. Dileep M.K, Nachikethas A.J, Aditya Sundar, Albin James, Harsha Honnappa are the best boys from back home. They have contributed to many great debates, made me think beyond linguistics and into engineering and other fields, and provided entertainment through playing tennis and poker nights. I am thankful to have had the good fortune to meet and become friends with so many smart people including, Rebekah Baglini, Sakshi Bhatia, Ksenia Bogomolets, Lisa Bylinina, Kathryn Davidson, Luca Ducchesi, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Antonio Fabregas, Lelia Glass, Berit Gherke, Patrick Grosz, Jesse Harris, Samar Husain, Peter Jurgec, Itamar Kastner, Stefan Keine, Pritty Patel-Grosz, Ethan Poole, Rajiv Ranjan, Paroma Sanyal, and Felix Hao Wang. Beyond linguists, I thank my friends who have supported me throughout this journey- Satarupa Bhattacharya, Benny Yanthan, Sananda Mukherjee, Aravind Venugopal, Raghavendra Thota, Vipin Nair, Ani Gopal, Sheena Mathew, Vivek George, Chacko Cherian, Roshna Ashraf, Ranjisha Kumar, Sujith Shenoy, Karan Khandpur, Nithya Hariharan, Shyna Sageer, Shirish Jose, Deepak Haridas, and most of all Mhadeno Jamio. Finally, I couldn’t have done this without all the love and support of my family. My parents, Vijayalakshmi and Sankarankutty have gone above and beyond in helping me get to this stage. My aunt and uncle, Usha and Venugopal share equal responsibility with my parents in helping me realize this dream. My grandparents have been my biggest support, especially my grandfather P. Balagangadhara Menon. This dissertation is dedicated to him. I also thank my parents-in-law, Viju Southekal and Umesh Southekal, as well as my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Sid and Mihika Southekal for all their support. Lastly, Sandip without whom where would I be. ix Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….xiii List of glossing conventions…………………………………………………………………… xiv 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Variations in Meaning…………………………………………….......................... 4 1.1.1 Adjective as a Language Universal……………………………………… 6 1.1.2 Forms of Variations……………………………………………………… 8 1.1.2.1 Locating Variation in the Syntax-Semantics Interface…………... 9 1.2 The Lexical Semantic Variation Hypothesis…………………………………….. 10 1.2.1 Possessive Strategies of Predication……………………………………. 13 1.3 A Brief Note on Dravidian………………………………………………………. 18 1.4 Aims of the Dissertation and Main Claims………………………………………. 20 1.4.1 Empirical Scope………………………………………………………… 20 1.4.2 Analytical Claims………………………………………………………. 21 1.5 Syntactic and Semantic Preliminaries……………………………………...……. 21 1.6 Outline of the Dissertation………………………………………………..……... 22 2. Absence of Lexical Adjectives in Dravidian……………............................................. 24 2.1 Missing Adjectives in Japanese and other languages………………………… 24 2.1.1 Some Languages without attributive adjectives, others without predicative25 2.1.2 Languages without Attributive and Predicative Adjectives………………. 28 2.1.3 The Role of Agreement in Missing Adjectives…………………………… 31 2.2 The Basic Data………………………………………………………………….. 34 2.2.1 Are there Adjectives in Dravidian?.............................................................. 35 2.2.1.1 Class 1 and Class 2 Property Concept Roots…………………… 35 2.2.2 The Syntax and Semantics of Property Concept Roots………………… 39 2.2.2.1 Syntax and Semantics of Class 1 Roots………………………… 41 2.2.2.2 Class 1 Roots in other Dravidian Languages…………………… 49 2.2.2.3 Predication of Class 1 Roots……………………………………. 52 2.2.2.4 Lack of Secondary Predications………………………………… 55 2.2.2.5 Lack of Adjectival Ordering Restrictions………………………. 56 2.2.3 Intermediate Summary…………………………………………………… 57 2.2.3.1 Nature of the v_poss head……………………………………… 58 2.3 Introducing Degrees…………………………………………………………….. 59 2.3.1 The Vague Predicate Analysis…………………………………………… 60 2.3.2 The Scalar Analysis……………………………………………………… 61 2.3.3 Revisiting Class 1 Roots………………………………………………… 62 2.4 Class 2 Roots in Malayalam and Tamil………………………………………… 63 2.4.1 On the Nominal Suffix –am……………………………………. 64 2.4.2 Decomposing Class 2 Roots……………………………………. 65 2.4.2.1 v head with Class 1, v_poss with Class 2?........................ 73 2.4.2.2 Intermediate Summary………………………………….. 74 x 2.5 Residual Issues…………………………………………………………….…… 76 2.5.1 Former-type Adjectives………………………………………………… 76 2.5.2 Roots ending in –i………………………………………………………. 78 2.5.3 Roots in Class 1 without the nominal marker in the predicative position 80 2.6 Intermediary Conclusion……………………………………………………… 81 2.7 Possession, Existentials, Locatives…………………………………………… 81 2.7.1 Tamil and Malayalam Copulas………………………………………. 86 2.7.2 ‘Alienable’ and ‘Inalienable’ Possession……………………………. 87 2.8 A Note on the Two Copulas………………………………………………… 90 2.8.1 Properties of the Malayalam Copulas………………………………… 92 2.8.2 Uses of the Copulas…………………………………………………… 94 2.8.3 A Closer Look at the Copulas ………………………………………… 95 2.8.3.1 uɳʈə - the Existential Copula………………………………… 95 2.8.4 The Multiple Faces of aaɳə…………………………………………….. 97 2.8.4.1 aaɳə - the Predicative Copula………………………………… 97 2.8.4.2 aaɳə - the Equative Copula……………………………………. 98 2.8.5 Interaction between the Two Copulas…………………………………... 99 2.8.6 Equative versus Predicative…………………………………………… 100 2.8.7 Distribution of the Two Copulas……………………………………… 101 2.8.8 Occurrence of uɳʈə and the Use of the Dative………………………… 103 2.8.8.1 Occurences of uɳʈə……………………………………………. 103 2.8.8.2 The Dative…………………………………………………….. 104 2.8.9 A Continuum of Properties……………………………………………… 105 2.8.9.1 Summary…………………………………………………… 110 2.9 Summary of the Chapter………………………………………………………. 111 3. The Expression of Color…………………................................................................... 112 3.1 Quick Recap of Chapter 2…………………………………………………… 112 3.2 Issues in Color Research………………………………………………………. 113 3.2.1 Linguistics of Color: Context Dependency Theories………………….. 115 3.2.2 Linguistics of Color: Lexical Ambiguity……………………………… 117 3.3 Aims of this chapter…………………………………………………………… 120 3.4 Color Expressions in Malayalam……………………………………………… 120 3.4.1 Syntactic and Semantic Behavior of Color Expressions………………. 122 3.4.1.1 Simple Color Terms…………………………………………… 122 3.4.1.2 Simple Color Terms in Attributive Modification…………… 124 3.4.1.3 Nature of the Covert Color Term……………………………… 126 3.4.1.4 Nature of the Possessive Linker……………………………….. 127 3.4.1.5 Simple Color Terms in Predicative Position…………………... 129 3.5 Complex Color Terms…………………………………………………………. 133 3.5.1 An Analysis for Complex Color Terms……………………………….. 135 3.5.2 What is the –utt/ann morpheme?............................................................ 138 3.6 Implications for Comparatives………………………………………………… 139 3.7 Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………. 140 3.8 Why are Colors Special?......................................................................................142 3.9 Color Terms in Dravidian……...……………………………………………….142 xi 3.9.1 Cross-Linguistic Import: Arabic Data………………………………… 143 3.9.2 A Brief Note on Subjectivity…………………………………………. 145 3.9.3 Summary and Look Ahead……………………………………………. 148 4. Comparison without Adjectives……………………………………………………...149 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..149 4.2 The Nature of Comparison……………………………………………………..150 4.2.1 The Syntax of Comparatives in Malayalam………………………………150 4.2.1.1 Malayalam Comparatives: Clausal or Phrasal………………….153 4.2.1.2 Comparison as Implicit or Explicit……………………………..155 4.2.1.3 Kennedy’s (2007) Diagnostics………………………………….156 4.3 Analyzing the il-um Comparatives……………………………………………..158 4.3.1 Adverbial versus Determiner ‘more’………………………………….. 161 4.3.2 Structural Considerations……………………………………………….162 4.4 Recapping the Standard Analysis of Gradable Predicates……………………...166 4.4.1 Recapping the Basic Comparative Data in Malayalam………………...167 4.5 Distribution of the Comparative Marker more…………………………………169 4.5.1 NP Comparatives are Conditioned by Possession……………………...169 4.5.2 Verbal Comparatives: Obligatory more………………………………...170 4.5.3 Class 1 Property Concept Expressions prohibit the comparative maker.170 4.5.4 Class 2 Property Concept Expressions optionally allow more…………171 4.6 Distribution of the Standard Marker than………………………………………172 4.6.1 Than is always Obligatory in Malayalam………………………………172 4.6.2 Hebrew Bare Comparatives…………………………………………….173 4.6.3 Malayalam differentials……………………………………………….. 174 4.7 Toward An Analysis……………………………………………………………175 4.7.1 Is the more actually more?.......................................................................176 4.7.2 A Semantic Role for than: A First Take………………………………..177 4.7.2.1 Class 1 Forms…………………………………………………...178 4.7.2.2 Class 2 Forms…………………………………………………..178 4.7.2.3 NP Comparatives……………………………………………….179 4.7.3 A New Semantics for Than……………………………………………..180 4.7.3.1 Than is not Semantically Vacuous and Encodes Comparison….180 4.7.3.2 Than alone Encodes Comparison- Class 1…………………...…181 4.7.3.3 Than alone Encodes Comparison- Class 2……………………...184 4.7.3.4 Than Encodes Comparison with more- Class 2, NP/VP Comparatives………………………………………….. 186 4.7.3.5 Interim Conclusion…………………………………………….. 188 4.8 Color Comparatives…………………………………………………………….189 4.8.1 Quick Recap…………………………………………………………….189 4.8.2 An Analysis for Color Comparatives…………………………………...189 4.8.3 Summary of the Distribution of the Color Nominal and the Comparative Marker……………………………………………………193 4.8.4 Than Encodes Comparative Semantics in Color Comparatives………..194 4.8.4.1 Than alone Encodes Comparison- Complex Color…………… 194 4.8.4.2 Than alone Encodes Comparison- Simple Color……………… 198 xii 4.8.4.3 Than Encodes Comparison with the more- Simple Color……...199 4.8.5 Differentials: Further Evidence…………………………………………200 4.8.6 Comparatives in Other Dravidian Languages…………………………..201 4.9 A Note on Superlatives…………………………………………………………201 4.9.1 Malayalam Superlatives……………………………………………….. 203 4.9.2 Chapter Summary………………………………………………………204 5. Prospects and Look Ahead………………………………………………………….. 205 5.1 The Grammatical Life of Property Concept Roots……………………………..207 5.2 Extensions to Related Domains………………………………………………...208 5.3 Cross-Linguistic Implications for the Role of Possession……………………...213 5.4 Languages and Learning………………………………………………………..213 5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...214 References………………………………………………………………………………………216 xiii Abstract This dissertation is fundamentally about the expression of adjectival meaning without lexical adjectives. Adjectives are often treated as lexical primitives, a fundamental building block of language. They can participate in a variety of grammatical functions, such as attributive modification (directly modifying noun phrases), predication (of individuals, events, or propositions), and comparison (orderings between two objects or individuals with respect to the amount to which they possess a property). I contribute to the understanding of these grammatical structures, by an investigation of the way adjectival meaning is built in Malayalam and related Dravidian languages that do not have a lexical category of adjectives, thus contributing to the growing body of literature looking at under-studied languages to inform us on the nature of cross-linguistic variation in the meaning component of grammar. The analysis I pursue, by a detailed investigation of property concept expressions, expressions often lexicalized as adjectives in languages that have them, shows that variation is encoded structurally such that a variety of functional heads with different semantics helps in structure building. On this view, an adjective is not a primitive category and their meaning, often lexicalized in standard accounts of adjectives in English-type languages, is build up compositionally in morpho-syntax. The crucial factor for the expression of adjectival meaning in languages without adjectives is possession, either covert or overt. This investigation covers a wide range of property concept expressions. In Chapter 2, I examine in detail two kinds of property concept expressions, which show distinct grammatical life. Building on work published as Menon and Pancheva (to appear), in Chapter 3 the analysis is then extended to other expressions, such as color expressions, offering morphological evidence for two types of color expressions-gradable and non-gradable. In Chapter 4, an alternative account for comparative constructions is proposed. Unlike the standard view, evidence is provided that the comparative semantics is encoded in the standard marker than. On this view, the comparative marker in adjectiveless languages does not play the same role as a traditional more. Finally, some extensions to the analysis are also discussed, including building superlatives, subjective predicates, and property concept expressions in related languages. xiv List of Glossing Conventions ACC- Accusative AGR- Agreement COP- Copula DAT- Dative EQ- Equative EX- Existential F.SG- Feminine singular GEN- Genitive LOC- Locative M.SG- Masculine singular NOM- Nominative NOML- Nominalizer PART- Partitive PL- Plural PRES- Present PST- Past REL- Relativizer SG- Singular UM- The Malayalam marker -um xv so much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens. -William Carlos Williams, The Red Wheelbarrow 1 Chapter 1 Introduction This dissertation is about predication, attribution, and comparison as expressed in languages without lexical adjectives. Traditionally, these syntactic and semantic processes are taken to involve adjectives, such as tall or intelligent as in (1). Syntactically, they can act as modifiers and combine with noun phrases (1b), or they can be predicates and take DPs as arguments (1a). Semantically, they introduce properties. Adjectives can also be used to compare the gradable extent or the degree to which individuals instantiate the properties expressed (1c). (1) a. Predication Anil is tall. b. Attribution Tall girl c. Comparison Anil is taller/ more intelligent than Komalan. Following Dixon’s (1982) seminal work on adjectives, property concepts are notions that are consistently lexicalized as adjectives in languages with this lexical category (as in English). This particular terminology is used by Thompson (1989) for concepts refering to properties, qualities, or characteristics of referents. Dixon’s typology followed from the observation that not all languages have a large open class of adjectives. His typological survey of nineteen languages yields the conclusion that certain meanings are likely to be named by words belonging to the class of adjectives, no matter how small the class is. They belong to seven identifiable categories. Even languages that have a small set of adjectives are likely to lexicalize dimension, age, value, and color. The next class likely to be represented as adjectives is physical property, followed by speed and human propensity. 2 (2) dimension big, small, long, tall, short, wide, deep, etc. age new, young, old, etc. value good, bad, lovely, atrocious, perfect, proper, etc. color black, white, red, etc. physical hard, soft, heavy, wet, rough, strong, hot, sour, etc. speed fast, quick, slow, etc. human propensity jealous, happy, kind, clever, generous, cruel, proud, etc. Each semantic type has particular syntactic and morphological properties. These seven types of concepts, which express properties of entities, are taken to be “property concepts” (Thompson 1989). These property concepts, lexicalized as adjectives in the English examples in (2) can participate in the expression of predication, attribution, and comparison and their syntax and semantics have been very well studied (Bolinger 1967, Wheeler 1972, Kamp 1975, Cresswell 1976, Klein 1980, von Stechow 1984, Heim 1985, Bierwisch 1989, Kennedy 1999, Dixon and Aikenvald 2004, Moltmann 2009, Cinque 2010, Husband 2010 a.o). Standard versions of the syntax and semantics of property concept constructions assume that gradable adjectives, such as tall, good, denote relations between more abstract representations of measurements, such as degrees and individuals (Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1976, von Stechow1984). Degrees are representations of measures along various dimensions 1 , such as height, intelligence, and beauty. Under this view, the denotation of tall incorporates the measure function height, which when applied to an individual, yields the degree d of height of that individual. (3) ⟦tall⟧ = λd λx. height (x) ≥ d Given this semantics, gradable adjectives denote functions from degrees to functions f from individuals to truth values, such that for any degree d, f (x) is true if and only if x’s degree on the scale encoded by the adjective is greater than or equal to d, further assuming monotonicity. 1 Note that dimension scales in English are represented by nominalizations of the respective adjectives (i.e. height as the dimension scale of tall), these nominalizations are not “property concepts”, only the corresponding adjective is. 3 Under the degree analysis of adjectives, a host of functional morphology can be employed to saturate the degree argument, including measure phrases (‘two feet’), positive morphemes (POS), or the comparative morpheme more which contribute to the overall grammar of gradability. On standard accounts, these comparative morphemes express relations between degrees, we can say one degree is greater than the other (1c). Thus, the truth conditions of the English comparative in (1c) can be stated as: (4) The maximal degree to which Anil is tall is greater than the maximal degree to which Komalan is tall. On the standard account, in (4), the degree predicate tall maps individuals to scales that are total orders on sets of degrees, here degrees-of-tallness. Contrasting alternative approaches such as the vagueness-based approaches (McConnell-Ginet 1973, Kamp 1975, Klein 1980, 1991, Larson 1988) differ in that the denotation of gradable and non-gradable adjectives remains the same. Both the adjectives denote functions from objects to truth-values and there are no degrees. The meaning of a gradable adjective is a contextually-determined set of individuals, based on a comparison class. Vague predicates denote partial functions. (5) ⟦tall⟧ c = λ x.tall(x) in c Under this view, gradable predicates denote a predicate of individuals without the help of additional degree morphology. Non-gradable predicates denote total functions with unordered domains. Since their interpretation does not depend on context, degree operations are infelicitous with these predicates. Although we know a great deal about the syntax and semantics of predication, attribution, and comparison in languages, which have a lexical category of adjectives, such as English, we know very little about languages with no lexical category of adjectives. This has been particularly difficult since the question remains whether there are indeed languages without even a very small subset of adjectives (cf. Baker 2003). My inquiry in this thesis spans an investigation of such a language family- Dravidian, in which the question whether there are adjectives in this language family has been controversial. I will claim that indeed there is no 4 lexical adjectives in the Dravidian language family and explicate how PC constructions are done. This investigation shows that there is more intricate cross-linguistic variation that manifests itself in the meaning and structure component of grammar, which yields to a deeper understanding of Universal Grammar, in general. This investigation will also touch on a topic that has generated great research interest for a number of years- possession. I will claim that in the absence of a lexical category of adjectives, PC predication is always possessive and employs either overt or covert possession. This claim has crucial implications for gradability. Covert possession is tied to possessing a degree and these forms are gradable. When possession is encoded overtly, gradability is encoded from outside using overt measure functions. Thus, gradability is directly tied to property possession. 1.1 Variations in Meaning An issue central to the current enterprise of linguistics is the question of how linguistic forms map onto specific meanings? Most of the studies concentrating on this question have been concerned with data from well-studied languages like English and other Indo-European languages. It is only in the last 25 years or so that research in formal semantics has begun to investigate the central issue at hand with data from under represented languages (cf. von Fintel and Matthewson 2008). This dissertation contributes to the growing body of literature investigating this question that is beginning to fill this gap (Francez and Koontz-Garboden 2015, Bochnak 2013, Baglini 2014, Bogal-Allbritten 2014). These recent works have shown that property concept expressions are amenable to cross- linguistic variation. Thus, it seems natural to ask whether the meanings derived from these forms can also vary. Specifically, the main research question in this dissertation is to ascertain the extent to which we find variation in the semantic component of property concepts expressing adjectival meaning by considering the interpretation of predication, attribution, and comparative constructions in languages with no lexical category of adjectives. This question will be addressed by investigating the syntax and semantics of modification, predication, and comparative constructions in Dravidian languages such as Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Tulu. 5 In this dissertation, I explore the question of variation in semantics and morphosyntax by considering the interpretation of predication, modification and comparative constructions in Dravidian languages as expressed in (6) and (7). Examples are from Malayalam 2 . (6) a. Modification nalla kuppayam good dress ‘good dress’ b. Predication kuppayam nalla-tə aaɳə dress good-NOML EQ ‘The dress is good.’ c. Comparison1 Anil Komalan-e kaaɭ-um nalla-van aaɳə Anil Komalan-ACC than-UM good-NOML EQ ‘Anil is more good than Komalan.’ d. Comparison2 Anil Komalan-il-um nalla-van aaɳə Anil Komalan-LOC-UM good-NOML EQ ‘Anil is more good than Komalan.’ (7) a. Modification santosham uɭɭa Anil happiness having Anil ‘happy Anil’ b. Predication Anil-inə santosham uɳʈə Anil-DAT happiness EX ‘Anil is happy.’ c. Comparison1 Anil-inə Komalan-e kaaɭ-um santosham uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM good-NOML EX ‘Anil is happier than Komalan.’ 2 For a detailed note on the differences and distribution between the two copulas- aaɳə (the equative copula) and uɳʈə (the existential copula), please refer to Section 2.8 of Chapter 2. 6 d. Comparison2 Anil-inə Komalan-il-um kuuʈuttal santosham uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-LOC-UM more happiness EX ‘Anil is happier than Komalan.’ Morphosyntactically, the property concept lexeme nalla ‘good’ varies in form in (6). There is also morphosyntactic variation and multiple ways to express comparison as shown by (6c) and (6d). There is no equivalent to an overt grammatical morpheme marking gradability, compared to the English –er. On the contrary, the property concept lexeme in (7) does not vary in form across these constructions. Are there systematic differences between these property concept expressions? Further, it would be useful to know if the semantics of comparison in these languages works along the lines of (3) and (4), especially given that these languages differ from English type languages in three ways: a) They lack lexical adjectives; b) They have no equivalent overt grammatical morpheme to mark gradability; and c) They exhibit much morphosyntactic variation across syntactic and semantic processes normally involving adjectives such as predication, modification, and comparison. 1.1.1 Adjective as a language universal The existence of linguistic universalisms has been a vexed question in linguistic theory from its inception, whether in the field of typology or in the field of generative grammar. Typological research has shown that there is much variation in linguistic form (Dryer and Haspelmath 2011). One such universalism is the presence of basic, ontologically primitive lexical categories in human cognition, such as noun, verb, adjective, and preposition. Whether all human languages are constructed with these same building blocks has been a very hard and unresolved question for linguistic theory. Related to this, the nature of lexical categoryhood has been a vexed issue in linguistics (Givón 1984, Baker 2003 a.o). From a typological perspective, it is crucial to have certain linguistic criteria to help distinguish these primitive categories from one another. However, identifying these categories cross linguistically has proven to be a difficult undertaking. The adjective especially has remained the most elusive. Early work in this field maintained that almost all languages have concepts that are lexicalized as adjectives, but not all languages do so (Dixon 1982, Schachter 1985: 13-20). More recent work, however, has shown 7 that an adjective class can be identified in all languages (Baker 2003, 2005; Dixon 2004, Chung 2012). The ontology of the adjective as an independent lexical class remains thus as a controversial and unresolved topic in linguistics. The ontological existence of a lexical class of adjectives is crucial for the topic of comparatives, where the existing literature has largely comprised of explorations regarding the syntax and semantics of adjectival comparatives. Very little work exists on comparatives in languages, which presumably do not have a lexical category of adjectives. For languages that do lexicalize adjectives, the consensus that exists in the literature ever since Boas (1911: 43) statement, ‘in a discussion of the characteristics of various languages different fundamental categories will be found’ has been that lexical categories are not semantically defined, rather, they are structural categories distinguished by inflectional and, derivational patterns and their syntactic distribution (Chung 2012). Staunch universalists claim that many of the languages that have unusual category systems (often understudied and indigeneous languages) have also been claimed to have many multifunctional content words. Universalists believe that these two claims are linked. Thus, if multifunctionality is a result of conversion or, derivation from a common root, then the evidence that the language lacks the familiar lexical categories may no longer exist. Further, the central question whether all languages have the same broad set of lexical primitives lends itself to a strong and weak hypothesis. The weak hypothesis contends the existence of a small set of categories (eg. noun, adjective, adverb, verb) defined on independent structural grounds. These categories are independent and languages can choose a subset of categories (some languages only have nouns and verbs, others have nouns, verbs, and adjectives). This hypothesis is amenable to variation and all languages can be said to have the “same system” with minor variations. The strong hypothesis, however, suggests the existence of a lexicon where there is at least one word each of the lexical categories, noun, verb, and adjective. This lexicon is built on common structural grounds, independent of any particular language. This does seem to be what the prominent universalists intent when they claim that lexical categories or some particular lexical category is universal (Koontz-Garboden 2012). 8 Thus, for proponents of the strong hypothesis (Baker 2003, Dixon 2004, Chung 2012), the important question is whether particular classes are attested across all languages or not, independent of whether they are attested by a class with even a single member. The question of universality of lexical categories is important because it bears light on whether the link between meaning and category is a universal one or not. Resolving this issue is thus pertinent to linguistic theories that connect form with meaning. New insights from detailed explorations of understudied and underrepresented languages will foster our understanding of how human cognition represents these so-called building blocks of language. The question about the link between possible denotations in the context of model-theoretic semantics and the morphosyntactic variation can be informed through this investigation. 1.1.2 Forms of Variations Variation at the level of mapping meaning to linguistic forms can be said to vary at two different levels. At the level of semantics, the variation can be said to be lexical 3 . Another form of variation happens at the level of the syntax-semantics interface in the specific mechanisms used to build complex meaning. Current theories of adjectives assume the presence of an ontological lexical category of adjectives. The issues pertaining to these theories are analyzed in terms of the precise lexical denotation and meaning of adjectives, and the correct way of combining adjectives with comparative morphemes or noun phrases. These theories do not address the issue of how meaning is expressed in languages that do not lexicalize adjectival meaning in a particular form. Thus, existing theories can be said to explain variation at the lexical level. This dissertation will be contributing to filling this gap by showing that the variation in the 3 There is also a, controversial, claim about variation in lexical semantics being at the level of logical semantics, where truth conditions (and therefore sentential semantics) are the primary point of interest. For an overview of the contributions of logical semantics to lexical semantics, see Chierchia and MacConnell-Ginet (1990). 9 exploration of different syntactic phenomena in Dravidian languages requires a morphosyntactic explanation, rooted at processes at the syntax-semantics interface. (8) Is variation lexical? Are lexical variation and the syntax-semantics interface interdependent? Yes Yes Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2010), Baglini (2014), Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) Bochnak (2013), this dissertation Table 1: Loci of Variation The main reason for arguing for a syntax-semantics interface view of variation comes from the different ways in which meaning is built (decomposed, rather) in Dravidian property concept expressions. A purely lexical variation account fails to capture the ways in which variation can have an effect on how more complex meanings are built. The language family is agglutinative and has complex morphology. The resulting data are more nuanced in its composition from the root till the word level and beyond. The discussion in the following chapters will look at several empirical arguments for positing for a morpho-syntactic account of variation. This data will come from expression of property concepts, expression of color terms, and the role of property concept expressions in forming comparatives of superiority. 1.1.2.1 Locating variation in the syntax-semantics interface Two contrasting hypotheses have been proposed by Matthewson (2001) for dealing with variation at the level of the syntax-semantics interface. (9) No Variation Hypothesis: 10 There is no cross-linguistic variation in semantics despite variation in surface syntax. (10) Transparent-Mapping Hypothesis: Semantics transparently reflects surface syntax. If we maintain the hypothesis in (9), this suggests that property concept expressions cross-linguistically have the semantics as in (3). The variation on the surface is merely a matter of how different languages lexicalize words. Mathewson (2001) indeed argues in favor of this hypothesis thereby claiming that all languages should share fundamental semantic structures or properties. Her discussion crucially revolves around the analysis of quantificational structures in St’át’imcets, where it differs from English in terms of the semantic type of the first argument of the quantificational element. This is also seen in a difference in the syntactic structures. In English, a quantifier such as ‘every’ combines directly with an NP, whereas in St’át’imcets, the NP combines with an overt determiner before it combines with the quantifier. Along the lines of the No-Variation Hypothesis, she assumes a uniform semantics for quantifiers cross- linguistically, they are of type ⟨e, ⟨⟨e,t ⟩, t⟩⟩. Thus, across languages quantificational elements are generalized quantifiers created using a two-step process, one seen overtly in St’át’imcets. The NP first combines with a determiner to create a plural individual, which can now combine with a quantifier to create a generalized quantifier. The domain restriction seen overtly in St’át’imcets happens covertly in English. 1.2 The Lexical Semantic Variation Hypothesis Analyzing a series of pattern variation in property concept constructions cross linguistically, Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) puts forth the lexical semantic variation hypothesis (pg 4: 7). (11) The Lexical Semantic Variation Hypothesis: Substance denoting PC lexemes require possessive semantics to achieve the truth conditions of PC constructions. Adjectivally denoting PC lexemes do not. Possessive morphosyntax contributes possessive semantics, and hence surfaces only with PC constructions built on substance denoting PC lexemes. 11 Their main claim regarding the variation found in property concept constructions can be summarized in the existence of two kinds of predicative property concept constructions, which they call canonical and possessive. These constructions differ in whether they employ a canonical strategy of predication employed also with predicate nominals (such as a copular construction) or whether they employ a strategy of predication based on possessive morphosyntax. According to (11), only substance denoting property concept lexemes can employ a possessive strategy. Adjectival denoting property concept lexemes must use the canonical strategy of predication seen with predicate nominals. This contrast is shown in the example from Hausa (Chadic). Adjectival denoting lexemes predicate similar to canonical predicate nominal constructions (12a-b), whereas substance-denoting lexemes such as ‘strength’ uses a possessive strategy of predicating (13a-b). Examples are from Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015). (12) Hausa a. Audu` d ̄og ̄o nŹe. Audu tall cop ‘Audu is tall.’ (Jaggar 2001: 457) b. Audu` daŹ ̃raktaŹ n ̄e. Audu director cop ‘Audu is/was the director.’ (Jaggar 2001: 457) (13) a. MunaŹ daŹ Îarf ̄ı. we.cont with strength ‘We are strong.’ (Newman 2000: 224) b. Y ̄arinyaŹ tanaŹ daŹ z ̄obŹe. girl she.cont with ring ‘The girl has a ring.’ (Newman 2000: 222) 12 This distinction lies at the basis of the lexical semantic variation hypothesis. The different morphosyntactic patterns exhibited by property concept lexemes are a consequence of the different denotational semantics of the lexemes. The first class of lexemes is substance denoting whereas the second class is adjectival denoting. The denotation for substance denoting lexemes is mass denotations similar to English abstract mass nouns such as beauty and strength. Adjectival denoting lexemes have denotations similar to (3). The role of possessive morphology in substance denoting lexemes is to yield the correct truth conditions, by contributing a semantic relation between individuals and substances. In contrast, adjectival denoting lexemes already have the semantics to appear in a canonical predication structure. Thus, they do not need possessive morphology to arrive at the correct truth conditions. Property concept lexemes also differ in their behavior in comparative constructions. In Hausa, the canonical comparative construction uses an ‘exceed’ verb whereas adjectival property concept lexemes cannot appear as the complement of the exceed verb. (14) Jirg ̄ı y ̄afi m ̄otaŹgirm ̄a. plane it exceed car largeness ‘A plane is bigger than a car.’ (Newman 2000:93) (15) * Jirg ̄ı y ̄a fi m ̄otaŹ b`abba. plane it exceed car big ‘A plane is bigger than a car.’ (intended; Newman 2000:93) I will evaluate the lexical semantics variation hypothesis against new data from Dravidian languages. In Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) theory, possessive morphology is a means for substance denoting nominals to achieve the proper truth conditions. This doesn’t explain, however, why possessive predication is pervasive and common crosslinguistically. We will extend their proposed distinction namely, that possessive predication (John has intelligence/#John is intelligence) is an indication of substance denoting roots 4 . The data from Dravidian reveals that possession is more generally available as a mechanism for all property 4 Although, the account argued for in this dissertation is not a lexical variation account. 13 concept roots. Hence, “x possesses y” (where x is an individual, and y is a property) seems to be the most common paraphrase for a sentence such as ‘John is tall’. The already existing account leaves out compositions below the word level, which will be dealt with in Chapter 2. Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) generalization regarding the different semantic denotations for property concept roots is evaluated on the basis of the possession marker –ka in Ulwa (a Misumalpan language), which appears with property concept roots. This is explained further in the next section. 1.2.1 Possessive strategies of predication Crosslinguistically, many languages use a possessive strategy of predication. This could vary from using a copula or having dedicated morphosyntactic machinery to encode possession. Many Germanic and Romance languages use the canonical form of predication by using the copula like predicate nominals. Examples (16) and (17) are from Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (8a-d). The other possessive strategies include the usage of nominal possession, similar to the Misumalpan language Ulwa. (16) Non-possessive predicating PC a. Kim es alto. Kim is tall. b. Kim es un profesor. Kim is a professor. (17) Possessive predicating PC c. Kim tiene suen ̃o. Kim has tiredness. d. Kim tiene un carro. Kim has a car. 14 Ulwa, interestingly displays a pattern of nominal possessive possession. The words that translate to English adjectives are nominals in Ulwa. They are derived from their roots by attaching the possessive morpheme, -ka 5 . (18) Yang as-ki-na minisih-ka. 1sing shirt-1sing dirty-ka ‘My shirt is dirty.’ (Green 2004:asna) Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) propose a substance like denotation for these property concept roots. This is common in philosophical work, which talks about things as “having” substances, seen in the following example: (19) Mia is intelligent. ≈ Mia has intelligence. These sentences are truth conditionally equivalent. Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) proposal is to model the semantics of these substance denoting property concept roots on the denotation of mass nouns as in Link (2002). Similar to the idea that mass nouns like milk are predicates over a domain that is mereologically ordered, a substance is a predicate over a domain that is mereologically ordered. Take a substance like intelligence. If an individual is a portion of intelligence, then any part of it is also a portion of intelligence. Moreover, parts can be fused together and both parts would still be a part of intelligence. They take ⍲ to be a non-empty set of portions. Substances can be thought of as subsets of ⍲ that have the structure of a joined semilattice with the join operation ⊔ . This join operator induces an ordering relation ⪯ on ⍲, which can be thought of as a ‘part-of’ relation: (20) For any p, q ∈ A, p ⪯ q ⇔ p ⊔ q = q Substances are closed under ⊔ . Thus, two portions of any substance have a “fusion” that is also a portion of the substance. These substance denoting property concept roots cannot directly 5 This example comes to us through Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015). 15 participate in predication. The most natural way of yielding this relation is with the help of possessive predication. This is explicated in their semantics for substance possession, which informally reads, an individual a has a substance P if and only if a has a portion of P. π stands for possession. (21) For any individual a and substance P, a has P iff ∃ p [P(p) & π (a,p)] With this theory in place, the Ulwa possessive predicate involves a nominalization of a substance root, which has the denotation of a substance constant. The role of the possessive morpheme –ka is to take a substance P and an individual a and return a context-dependent proposition (a function from sets of portions to truth values). Thus, for (18) above, the following semantics holds: (22) ⟦minisih⟧ = dirtiness ⊆ ⍲ (23) ⟦−ka⟧ = λP λx λD.∃ D z[P (z) & π(x, z)] The denotation of an Ulwa word like minisihka ‘dirty’ is derived from functional application of (22) and (23). (24) ⟦minisihka⟧ = λx λD.∃ z D [dirtiness (z) & π(x, z)] Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) theory makes a strong prediction. Languages which only lexicalize property concept lexemes as adjectives cannot have property possession. Moreover, if a property concept lexeme is not adjective denoting, then it has to be substance denoting and hence needs possessive semantics to achieve the correct truth condition. One counterexample, which has been under discussion, is property concept nouns in Basaá (Jenks et al, under review). In this language, nouns do not always trigger possession, and therefore falsifies Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s claim that substance denoting PCs always need possessive semantics. 16 The question I would like to pursue, in this dissertation, is whether all semantic variation that is found in languages is rooted in denotational semantics. Put in other words, how much of morpho-syntax guides this semantic variation. This exploration will open up new ways of looking at property concept roots cross-linguistically. Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) theory to account for the variation in predication is a purely semantics one, namely the Lexical Semantics Variation Hypothesis. Thus, the apparent differences in surface morphosyntax reduce to the level of semantic denotations. Property concept lexemes for them start out with different denotations. Some expressionss are adjectival denoting and hence these lexemes are lexicalized as adjectives. Some other expressionss are non-adjectival denoting and these are the property concepts lexicalized as nominals. These property concept lexemes are given a substance denotation, akin to mass nouns. Meaning, in this theory, is prebuilt into the system. Thus, possessive predication is reduced merely to a semantic requirement for substance denoting PC lexemes to achieve the correct truth conditions. Morphosyntactic variation can then be said to be a reflex of the lexical semantic source. Although the lexical semantic variation hypothesis is appealing in its account of tying up possessive predication with nominals, it misses the more general correlation about why possession is so pervasive in natural language. Possessive predication is common cross linguistically and it surfaces even in paraphrases of the denotation of adjectives in English ([|tall|] = λd λx. height (x) ≥ d ) and other languages which have lexical adjectives, suggesting then that it may be empirically more appealing to think of “possession” as a platform for the morphosyntactic variation. This alternative theory attributes the morphosyntactic variation to the grammatical life of PC lexemes. This theory makes the following claims: (25) A. PC lexemes are category less roots that can be lexicalized into different syntactic categories in different languages (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). 17 B. The means to categorize these lexemes depend on the morphosyntactic mechanisms available in that language. C. Variation is rooted in syntax and mediated through functional heads which participate in word formation processes. My (A) conjecture is appealing for many reasons. First, it provides a direct link between cognition and lexicalization of property concept roots. Universally, Dixon (1982)’s property concept roots are available in human cognition; it is language specific constraints, which determine how the property concept root must be lexicalized. Secondly, this may explain why in child language acquisition data adjective acquisition happens after nouns and verbs have been acquired. Some languages are considered to be noun-advantage (English, French), whereas some others are considered to be verb-advantaged (Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Hindi), however, there are no languages where adjectives are learnt before at least 24 months (Gleitman et al., 2005; Waxman & Lidz, 2006). This learnability problem or developmental delay may be related to the fact that adjectives do not start out as primitive lexical categories; they are always a derived category. This syntactic complexity may induce a learning load for a child, and hence adjectival acquisition happens at a later stage in child language acquisition. With regards to (B), different morphosyntactic operations are readily available language internally, such as, possessive have, existential constructions, prepositions, possession marking on nominals etc. In Dravidian, relativization and nominalization are the two means to derive the meanings associated with the PC lexemes. In English, Hausa, use of the two copulas- be and have mediates the difference between PCs lexicalized as adjectives (~wise) and PCs lexicalized as nouns (~wisdom). This theory, in the spirit of distributed morphology, assumes word formation happens in the syntax. Thus functional heads such as little ns and little vs are readily available in every language and need not be stipulated. These heads also encode the necessary semantics for composition. Crucially, in this theory, possession is the means and end all for predication. Possession can be encoded covertly (as is seen in Class 1 roots in Dravidian), or expressed overtly (as is seen in Class 2 roots in Dravidian), which will be taken up in detail in Chapter 2. 18 1.3 A brief note about Dravidian The Dravidian language family comprises of languages spoken mainly in Southern India, parts of Central and Eastern India. The four major Dravidian languages are- Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam. Tamil is also spoken in parts of Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia. Apart from the major languages, there are lesser-known languages such as Tulu and tribal languages such as Gondi, Kui, Kuvi. Two lesser known Dravidian languages, namely Brahui and Dhangar are spoken exclusively in Pakistan and Nepal, respectively. The languages can be traced back to a Proto-Dravidian language. See below a classification of the different branches through which the modern languages evolved (Krishnamurti 2003). (26) The focus of this dissertation will be on languages from the Proto-South Dravidian branch. All the languages under the Proto-Central Dravidian (Kolami, Naikri, Naiki, Parji, Ollari, Gadaba) and the Proto-North Dravidian (Kurux, Malto, Brahui) branches do not have a literary heritage and are mostly spoken by pre-literate, tribal populations. Very little documentation work exists on these languages, and some of them are facing extinction (Badaga, Kolami, and Malto). The languages under the Proto-South Dravidian branch is illustrated below: (27) 19 Proto-South Dravidian I Tamil Malayalam Badaga Kannada Tulu (28) Among the literary languages, Tamil is the oldest, the first known work being a treatise on grammar and poetics, Tolkappiyam. Both Kannada and Telugu have inscriptions dating back to 450-500 AD, and the first known works can be traced back to ninth century (Kavirajamaarga, in Kannada) and to eleventh century (a poetic translation of the Mahabharata, in Telugu). Malayalam was called the west-coast dialect of Tamil till about the ninth century AD and it is therefore the youngest of the literary languages. The first literary work Raamacaritam is from twelfth century AD. Malayalam also borrowed the most and quite liberally from Sanskrit, compared to the other literary languages. This resulted in the creation of a new called Manipravalam, a blend of Malayalam and Sanskrit. All four languages have different scripts. Dravidian languages have the Subject-Object-Verb head final order, show agglutinating morphology, and uses suffixes to construct inflected forms. The word order is relatively free and scrambling is pervasive. 20 1.4 Aims of the Dissertation and Main Claims The question of whether the Dravidian language family has a separate category of adjective has been a long withstanding question in Dravidian linguistics to which there has been no consensus (Jayaseelan 2007). The difficulty in answering this question ties up again with the universal nature of crosslinguistic categories. Dravidian linguists have been shy of claiming that the language does not conform to the otherwise attested universal preamble. The broad theoretical goal of this dissertation is to establish that Dravidian does not lexicalize adjectives. All adjective-like expressions in the language family are morphologically complex. Thus, I provide empirical evidence suggesting that the strong hypothesis for a universal system cannot be correct. As a corollary to this, I demonstrate how a language without a lexical class of adjectives does modification, predication, and comparison. A more general goal of this dissertation is to explain the variation in lexicalization of property concepts, concepts which are lexicalized as adjectives in languages that have them, exhibiting adjectival meaning. We will suggest that as opposed to theories of lexical semantic variation (cf. Francez and Koontz- Garboden 2015), variation is due to the morpho-syntax of the property concept roots. All theoretical claims are evaluated against empirical evidence drawn from data in under- represented languages. I base the discussion mostly on data from Malayalam, and supplement it by data from other major Dravidian languages. Thus, this dissertation contributes to the growing need for bringing data from under-represented languages to test semantic and syntactic theories against a broader range of languages. My main claims are explicated below. 1.4.1 Empirical Scope This dissertation presents the first detailed analysis of the syntactic and semantic processes underlying property concept constructions in Dravidian. In addition, it also provides a detailed analysis of how predication, attribution, and comparison work in a language family with no lexical category of adjectives. The locus of the variation in meaning is located at the syntax- semantics interface, at the level of morphosyntax and morphosemantics. Although predication 21 and modification share many semantic and syntactic properties similar to English type languages, comparison behaves quite differently. 1.4.2. Analytical Claims Dravidian property concept expressions are listed as category less roots with a mass denotation. These roots then merge with different functional heads that determine their grammatical life. These functional heads are available in a distributive morphology framework. Relativization and nominalization are the two syntactic routes to express attributive modification and predication. Depending on their syntactic category, these property concept expressions systematically behave differently in their composition in comparatives. Comparatives can be both phrasal and clausal in Malayalam. The difference is in the semantic role of the standard phrase (than). Comparative morphemes such as more, restrict the domain of the standard phrase. Similar to English, semantically, comparatives make use of degrees. These degrees are introduced as part of the functional morphemes that combine with the property concept roots. 1.5 Syntactic and semantic preliminaries The basic framework used in this dissertation is that of distributed morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). The Y-type grammar utilizes three properties: Late Insertion, Underspecification, and Syntactic hierarchical structure all the way down (see figure below). The notion of a lexicon is different, unlike previous grammatical theories such as Government and Binding or Minimalism which use a full fledged and morphologically rich lexicon. In distributed morphology, the lexicon consists of a list, without generative properties. Late insertion refers to the process in which vocabulary items (phonological expressions) are inserted after Spell-out. Underspecification of Vocabulary Items is the process when phonological expressions need not be fully specified for the syntactic positions where they can be inserted and the last property, Syntactical structure all the way down refers to the idea that elements within syntax and elements within morphology enter into the same types of constituent structures. 22 The term morpheme, in distributed morphology, refers to the syntactic terminal node and not the contents of the node. Morphemes are the atoms of morphosyntactic representation. These morphemes come in two different kinds: f-morphemes and l-morphemes. F-morphemes contents define a unique phonological expression, on the contrary l-morphemes contents have a choice at Spell-out, i.e. their vocabulary item may denote a language-specific concept. Specifically, a noun or a nominalization is a root, which is an l-morpheme, whose nearest c-commanding f- morpheme is a determiner. Thus, in this framework, word formation is purely syntactic. A schematic view of the overall model is given below (Harley 2008: Figure 1). (29) Roots in this framework are a-categorical and must merge with a categorizing f-morpheme. The categorizing morpheme provides a syntactic category to the root to which it attaches with. All roots must occur with at least one suchcategorizer, and the encyclopedia provides the root with a fixed interpretation in the context of particular categorizers. Thus, roots are a-categorial and achieves interpretable status only through composition with v°, n° and a° heads. 1.6 Outline of the Dissertation The dissertation is organized as follows. In Chapter 2, I begin by showing that Malayalam does not have adjectives in either the attributive position or the predicative position, neither does it have a little a head that can derive adjectives. I analyze in detail property concept expressions, 23 looking at their morphosyntax as well as their behavior in syntactic constructions. I provide a morphosemantic explanation of the difference in grammatical life between two different classes of property concept roots. This explanation is rooted in different functional heads available for the roots to merge with. The main claim is regarding possession, as a tool to express adjectival meaning, in the absence of lexical adjectives. In Chapter 3, I reanalyze a particular subset of property concept expressions, namely color terms. These property concept roots, although morphogically ending in the Proto-Dravidian relative clause marker, show varied and complex syntactic and semantic behavior. I provide evidence for one of the functional heads proposed in Chapter 2, namely the v_poss head, by looking at complex color expressions. These expressions are gradable, unlike simple color expressions. Thus, color expressions in Malayalam provide evidence lexically for a gradable versus non-gradable distinction. In Chapter 4, I discuss comparatives and how they are formed using the results from property concept expressions in Chapter 2 and color expressions in Chapter 3. Unlike the standard theory of comparison, the standard marker than is not semantically vacuous in Malayalam and encodes comparative semantics. Concluding in Chapter 5, I raise some of the issues brought about by the theoretical claims outlined in the preceding chapters. 24 Chapter 2 Absence of Lexical Adjectives in Dravidian This chapter introduces the basic data from the Dravidian language family 6 . The data comprises of forms that superficially look as contenders for lexical adjectives. I first outline the starting empirical observation: a certain set of Dravidian languages does not allow adjectives in attributive positions or predicative positions. Next, I will motivate and provide the data as preliminary evidence for the lack of an adjectival category. These forms belong to two different classes- Class 1 and Class 2. Their membership into these classes is solely on the basis of whether the form is part of the native vocabulary or borrowed. The two classes behave distinctly syntactically and semantically. The basic composition of these forms and their syntactic and semantic behavior will be looked at in detail in this chapter. From the basis of the discussion, I will argue that property concept predication is always encoded through property possession, either overtly or covertly. This chapter is organized as follows. I start with a sample of languages that have a missing adjective in either the attributive or predicative position and show that Dravidian languages lack adjectives in both these positions. In Section 2.2, I introduce the basic data- Class 1 and Class 2 property concept roots. These differ in their morphology, as well as syntactic and semantic behavior. I give a decompositional account of how these property concept expressions are complex, both word internally and externally. I then address some residual issues left open by the analysis and conclude the chapter by discussing the role of possession in expressing adjectival meaning in languages without a lexical category of adjectives. 2.1 Missing adjectives in Japanese and other languages One of the canonical positions in which an adjective can appear is the attributive position. It is well known that in some languages, attributive adjectives are missing. Japanese, Korean, Slave, 6 This chapter builds on results found in Menon 2013 and Menon and Pancheva 2014. 25 Ika, and other Bantu languages belong to this category. In Japanese, which we turn to presently, the status of adjectives is as controversial as it is in the Dravidian literature. Korean attributive adjectives have also been argued to be concealed relative clauses (Kim 2002). In Slave, adjectives appear predicatively but not in the attributive position unless relativized. In Ika, the use of a copular verbal element mediates the presence of the adjective in the attributive positions. 2.1.1 Some languages without attributive adjectives, others without predicative The status of Japanese adjectives is controversial. There are two kinds of adjectives discussed in the literature. The first one is called the true adjective (Miyagawa 1987, Murasagi 1990) and in Chomsky’s (1970) terms is categorized as [+N, +V]. The other category comprises of the “verbal adjective” which is categorized as +V. (30) True Adjective Verbal Adjective a. Kirei ‘beautiful’ b. Utsukushi ‘beautiful’ It is often assumed that the adjectives belonging to (30a) can appear as attributive modifiers without the help of any additional morphology. Verbal adjectives, on the other hand, can appear only with the help of a copula in the attributive position. (31) utsukushi-*(i) onna beautiful-PRES woman Baker (2003) notes that the presence of the copular element makes the predicate in (31) a relative clause structure and –i does not signal an attributive modifier. However, he wishes to maintain the view that (30b) type verbal adjectives in fact behave like attributive modifiers and they are not similar to the characteristic functions of verbs. The diagnostics include resultative secondary predications (RSPs), the complement position of a degree word such as ‘too’, ‘as’, and unaccusativity predicates. In English, only adjectives can appear in RSPs. Nouns and verbs are unable to do so as seen in (32). (32) a. I beat the metal flat. (AP) b. *I beat the metal broke. (VP) 26 c. *I beat the metal (a) sword. (NP) Utsukushi-type adjectives can appear in RSPs suggesting they are adjective-like in their behavior and unlike verbs in that sense (Ohkado 1991, Washio 1997). (33) a. Taroo-ga kami-o mizika-ku kit-ta. Taro-NOM hair-ACC short-AFF cut-PST ‘Taro cut the hair short.’ b. #Taroo-ga kami-o ochi(-te) kit-ta. Taro-NOM hair-ACC fall-AFF cut-PST ‘Taro cut the hair so that it fell.’ In English, the complement position of dedicated degree words such as ‘too’ and ‘as’ are usually occupied by an adjective. Similarly, Utsukushi-type adjectives can appear in the complement position of a degree word suggesting their behavior is unlike that of verbs. (34) a. Mary is too smart (to make such a mistake). b. *Mary is too (a) genius (to make such a mistake). (35) a. Hanako-ga totemo utsukushi-i. (A) Hanako-NOM very beautiful-PRES ‘Hanako is very beautiful.’ b. *Hanako-ga totemo sensei-da. (N) Hanako-NOM very teacher-COP ‘Hanako is very (much a) teacher.’ c. *Hanako-ga totemo okasi-o tabe-ru. (V) Hanako-NOM very sweets-ACC eat-PRES ‘Hanako very (much) eats sweets.’ 27 A point however which Baker (2003) does not mention is the fact that even (35a) needs the presence of a particle (in traditional grammar this could be called a copula 7 ) to obligatorily be present in order for the adjective to attributively modify a noun. Thus, for our purposes it is important to note that without the mediation of an extra particle, attributive modification is not possible for either type of adjective in Japanese. (36) Kirei-*(na) onna beautiful-PRT woman ‘Beautiful woman’ Similar to the claims for Japanese, Korean too admits only a relative clause structure in the attributive position (Kim 2002). Traditionally, however, Korean has been analyzed as having adjectives but as seen in (37) the adjective is realized as a participial form and the relative clause marker attaches to the entire constituent. (37) Ce [ e 1 yeppu-ess]-ten 1 yeca that [ pretty-PRT]-REL woman 'that woman who used to be/was pretty' Slave and Ika (belonging to the Athapaskan language family) also admit adjectives in the attributive position only if there is an obligatory copula present on the adjective. (38) a. Yenene (be-gho) sho hili Slave woman 3-of proud/happy 3-is ‘The woman is happy/proud (of him/her).’ b. *Yenene sho woman proud/happy ‘A proud/happy woman’ c. aná?nuga [awΛn? *(kawa)] guákΛ-ža Ika 7 Hajime Hoji p.c. 28 animal big seem kill-MED ‘It kills big animals.’ So far we have seen cases of attributive adjectival modification being absent in certain languages. There are also languages with no predicative adjectives. Hua and Yagaria, languages from the Eastern Highland district of New Guinea have a dozen descriptive adjectives that occur only in attributive position. West African languages such as Vata and Gbadi also allow only attributive adjectives (Koopman 1984: 64-66). (39) a. kO! Kad-O Vata ‘a big man, an old man’ b. *Wa (IE) kad-Ua they pred old 2.1.2 Languages without attributive and predicative adjectives The starting empirical observation in this chapter is that Dravidian does not allow adjectives in the attributive position or in the predicative position. The data will come from the four major Dravidian languages- Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam and also other lesser-known Dravidian languages, although Malayalam data will be used to illustrate the general pattern. These languages are divided into two sets: (40) A. South Dravidian- Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Tulu B. South-Central Dravidian- Telugu, Gondi, Kui, Kuvi In South Dravidian, adjectives cannot occur attributively or predicatively (data from Krishnamurthi 2003). In the attributive position for Tamil, Kannada there is an obligatory particle suggesting these are actually participial clauses. In Malayalam, either there is a copula used to host the relative clause marker or the adjective has to be a participial clause. 29 Attributive: (41) a. azhak-*(aɳa) poɳɳu Tamil beauty-PART woman ‘The woman who has beauty’ b. ganam *(uɭɭ-a) kaɳɳati Tamil heavy COP-REL mirror ‘The mirror that has heaviness’ c. bhaŋŋi *(uɭɭ-a) sthri Malayalam beauty COP-REL woman ‘The woman who has beauty’ d. sundaram-*(aaya) rathri-kaɭ Malayalam beauty-PART night-PL ‘The nights that are beautiful’ In the predicative position, the adjective appears with a nominalizing morpheme which is actually dependent on the Person Number and Gender features (PNG) of the subject. Predicative: (42) a. avan periy-a-van Tamil he big-REL-AGR ‘He is a big man.’ b. avan viʈu peri-cu Tamil he house big-AGR ‘His house is big.’ c. kuʈʈi nall-a-van aaɳə Malayalam 30 boy good-REL-AGR COP ‘The boy is a good one.’ d. avanu cikk-a-vanu Kannada he small-REL-AGR ‘He is a small man. ’ In South-Central Dravidian, adjectives cannot appear attributively without the obligatory presence of a particle similar to that used in South-Dravidian but they can appear predicatively without being nominalized (examples are from Krishnamurti 2003). Attributive: (43) a. andam-*(ayna) pilla Telugu beauty-PART girl ‘A girl who has beauty’ b. kas-*(ta) eer Gondi hot-PART water ‘Water that is hot’ Predicative: (44) a. atanu cala podugu Telugu he a lot tall ‘He is quite tall’ b. negi-k-a Gondi good-1SG-COP ‘I am a good person’ 31 The South-Central Dravidian languages allow adjectives to appear in the predicative position without an overt nominal marker presumably because the semantics of the property concepts in Telugu and other South-Central Dravidian languages may be different since (43a) is not grammatical without the degree modifier. We will come back to this point in Sec 2.2.2.2. 2.1.3 The role of agreement in missing adjectives Among the Dravidian languages, Malayalam is the only language which does not have overt verbal agreement. This is particularly relevant to the theory put forward by Baker (2003, 2005) to account for why adjectives cannot appear in the attributive position in some languages. Baker (2003) appeals to phi-feature agreement. Consider the Romance sentences below where the nominal modifiers show agreement with phi-features (number, gender) and case 8 : (45) a. este libro; estas mesas (Demonstratives, Spanish) this(M.SG) book(M.SG); these(F.PL) tables(F.PL) b. el libro rojo; las mesas rojas (Adjectives) the(M.SG) book(M.SG) red(M.SG); the(F.PL) tables(F.PL) red(F.PL) Baker (2003) accounts for the lack of attributive adjectives in Japanese-type languages 9 by assuming that Romance languages have phi-feature agreement but not Japanese-type languages, which he states in a formal statement, reproduced below (Baker (2003) pg. 14). (46) Modifiers can be adjoined to N x only if they agree with N x in phi-features. Crucially for Baker, English type languages do allow adjectives in the attributive position and there is covert agreement morphology for English-type languages. Where does Dravidian 8 Most languages do not show agreement with person. This is independently interesting but out of the scope of our discussion here. 9 I will use Japanese-type languages as an umbrella term for Japanese, Korean, Slave, Ika and the Bantu languages that do not allow adjectives in the attributive position. 32 stand in this respect? Recall that Malayalam is the only outlier among the Dravidian subset of languages we considered with respect to agreement. However, all the other languages considered do not have adjectives in the attributive position either despite showing overt agreement. Thus, Dravidian is similar to Japanese-type languages. Baker (2003) assumes Japanese type languages to lack adjectives in the attributive position since Japanese adjectives lack phi-features. Supposing then that Dravidian languages are similar to Japanese type languages in lacking phi- features, then we should also expect Dravidian to behave similar to Japanese-type languages in the placement of measure phrases. I will argue against Baker’s phi-feature agreement theory showing that it produces conflicting results in Dravidian and agreement cannot be used as an indication of whether adjectives can appear in the attributive position or not. Another recent theory relying on agreement is Watanabe (2013). Unlike Baker (2003), he analyzes dimensional adjectives in the predicative position. In looking at placement of measure phrases (MP) in dimensional adjectives, Watanabe crucially assumes English and Dutch to be similar to Japanese type languages in that they show no overt agreement in predicative dimensional adjectives as opposed to Romance where there is overt phi-feature morphology as discussed above (45). Thus, in Romance, the dimensional adjective precedes the MP, this is seen as predicate inversion preempted by phi- feature agreement. In English, Dutch which lack phi-features, the adjective follows the MP. (47) a. La voiture est longue de deux me`tres. French the car is long of two meters (Corver 2009:(33a)) b. Gianni e` alto due metri. Italian Gianni is tall two meters (Corver 2009:(89)) (48) a. John is six feet tall. English b. Dit brood is drie dagen oud. Dutch this bread is three days old (Corver 2009:(42a)) 33 For Baker (2003), thus, it is necessary to posit phi-feature agreement (abstractly) in English because attributive modification is possible in English-type languages. For Watanabe (2013), both English and Japanese type languages do not have phi-feature agreement. The difference is only in the MP placement. The prediction of Watanabe’s (2013) parametric typology for the placement of MP and the adjective would put Dravidian type languages without phi-feature inflection to behave like Japanese (Watanabe’s (22b.ii). (49) OK [GP AP G [FP MP F t AP ]] (e.g., Japanese) The above configuration predicts that in Dravidian the AP should precede the MP. This is so because we established Dravidian behaves similar to Japanese in not allowing adjectives to appear in the attributive position. Baker (2003) relates this to the fact that Japanese adjectives do not have phi-features that are needed to establish agreement relations with the noun in the attributive modification, or in other terms, to allow attributive modification. However, this prediction is not borne out. In Dravidian, the MP precedes the dimensional adjective. (50) a. Anil-inə aɲʤə aʈi pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT five feet tall EX ‘Anil is five feet tall.’ (Lit: To Anil, 5 feet tallness is) b. [GP AP G [FP MP aɲʤə aʈi F AP pokkam]] What indeed Dravidian displays is the parametric option which is true of English and Dutch where the MP precedes the AP. (51) OK [GP G [FP MP F AP]] (e.g., Dutch, English) Note that this is potentially problematic for Baker (2003). The two theories (Baker 2003, Watanabe 2013) crucially rest on very different assumptions, namely the presence and absence 34 of phi-features, whether overt or covert 10 . For Baker, Japanese does not allow attributive modification because Japanese adjectives do not have phi-features. Crucially then he needs to assume English has covert phi-features, since English does allow adjectives in attributive positions. On the contrary, for Watanabe, English has no phi-features either covertly or overtly. In fact, the only languages that do have phi-features are Romance type languages. Japanese and Dravidian would thus behave similar to English and Dutch in having no phi-features. I will later (in Section 2.2.2.1) reevaluate the role and nature of agreement overall for attributive and predicative positions arguing that agreement in the sense of Baker (2003) indeed can not be the forerunner in determining whether an adjective can appear in the attributive position. The syntactic role of AGREE, however, is necessary in evaluating the predicative position where it interacts with the feature sharing mechanism. For the current purposes of the study, a closer look at the Malayalam data will give us a clue regarding what may be going on. South-Dravidian, on the whole, behaves similar to Malayalam with minor differences. Tamil, and Kannada resisted borrowing from Sanskrit unlike Malayalam, hence there are some lexical differences between Tamil, Kannada on the one hand and Malayalam on the other. If Dravidian does not have either attributive or predicative adjectives, then what are those forms that participate in these constructions? How does the language family encode attribution, predication, and comparison? In the next section, I will take a detailed look at these forms and provide further evidence suggesting these forms encode adjectival meaning albeit in different ways. 2.2 The Basic data In this section, I introduce Class 1 and Class 2 forms and show that Dravidian does not have lexical adjectives. The consequences of this will then be evaluated for PC constructions that use adjectives, such as attribution, predication, and comparison. 10 Note, however, that Baker looks at attributive adjectives whereas Watanabe looks at adjectives in the predicative position. 35 2.2.1. Are there adjectives in Dravidian? The question of whether or not the Dravidian language family has a separate lexical class of adjectives is a controversial one (Sridhar 1990: 248, Prabhakara Variar 1979: 22-23 and Asher 1982: 186-187, on Kannada, Malayalam, and Tamil respectively). Two primary reasons have compelled many Dravidianists to suggest the lack of an adjectival category: a) Adjectives appear as nominals in predicative position, b) The adjectives that can appear in the attributive position before a noun is small. This question of whether or not the language family indeed lexicalizes adjectives is actually part of a larger debate (cf. Baker, 2003), specifically whether there exist words that function as adjectives even when an adjectival category is missing. In works defending the existence of adjectives, even a very small subset of six words (eg. Chichewa) that function as adjectives is suggestive that adjectives are indeed a universal category. Among the early proponents of a plea for adjectives in Dravidian, Caldwell (1956: 308- 18), Steever (1998) are the most prominent. Andronov (1972:170) claims adjectives do form a part of Modern Tamil, but not in Old Tamil. More recently, Bhat (1994) has argued from a functional perspective that Dravidian does lexicalize an adjective. Krishnamurti (2003) in his descriptive grammar on Dravidian languages also claims for a set of lexical adjectives in Dravidian (pp 390) on the basis of thirty roots which are always lexicalized as adjectives. On the contrary, from a generative perspective, Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2003), Jayaseelan (2007) argue in a Lexical Relational Structure (LRS) approach (Hale and Keyser 1993) for an incorporation account of adjectives. For them universally, adjectives are created with the incorporation of a noun into a preposition or a Case head. These prepositions arise as a result of the destabilization of case systems. Their proposal will be reviewed in Section 2.7. 2.2.1.1. Class 1 and Class 2 property concept roots In the descriptive grammar of Malayalam, Asher and Kumari (1997:116-117, 350) notes the existence of pure, morphologically simple adjectives such as (52) 11 and (53). I will call these as 11 Although some of these “adjectives” are discussed in Asher and Kumari (1997), the terminology “Class 1” and “Class 2” is the author’s terminology. 36 Class 1 and Class 2. Class 1 will be further subdivided into Class 1 Non-Color (which will be discussed in this chapter), and Class 1 Color (to be discussed in Chapter 3). (52) Class 1 Non-Color (-a ending relativized roots) waliya having bigness, čeriya having smallness, puthiya having newness nalla having goodness, čiita having badness, duʃta having evilness kuriya having shortness, eliya having humbleness iɭaya having youngness pazhaya having oldness, iɖungiya having narrowness, neriya having little uɳɳagiya having dryness (53) Class 1 Color (-a ending relativized roots) pačča having greenness, niila having blueness, veɭɭa having whiteness kaɾutta having blackness, maɲɲa having yellowness, čuvanna having redness Pure adjectives of this sort form a very small set and they are mostly very common forms. They have a small range of endings, all of them having a final vowel –a: -iya, -aya, or, -a 12 . We 12 An immediate question that may come to the reader’s mind is regarding an even smaller set of true adjectives such as former, fake, alleged, potential, possible. This set of adjectives is called non-predicating adjectives or intensional adjectives. These adjectives do not select a subset of the things denoted by the noun they modify. In Malayalam, these words are translated as mun ‘former’, vyaja ‘fake’, and pattum ‘possible’. Alleged and potential are complex predicates and hence we will not consider them here. The word for fake belongs to Class 1 and the word for possible is a deverbal root, hence the only real candidate for a “true” adjective is mun ‘former’. The etymology of the word suggests that ‘mun’ is an anterior locative form meaning ‘before/front’. It is also found in the words for locating time and space such as ‘munpe’, ‘munpil’ ‘before/in front of’. Given this it is not very difficult to see why ‘mun’ gets the meaning ‘former’. The evaluation of the predicate is with respect to some time which has already gone by, or in other words, the meaning of ‘mun’ is evaluated in the past time and space. ‘mun’ is at best a clitic attaching to the head noun. ‘mun’ also starts out as a root and it establishes a dependency relation with the host. ‘mun’ represents an affixal clitic phonologically attaching to the host by the process of affixation. Therefore, there are truly no true adjectives in Malayalam. 37 shall refer to this small class as ‘Class 1 Non Color’ or –a ending relativized roots. Apart from this small set of adjectives, there is also a bigger set of adjectives based on nouns. These we shall call ‘Class 2’ or –am ending nominalized roots. (54) Class 2 (-am ending nominalized roots) santoʃam happiness, sankaʈam sadness, madhuram sweetness prayaasam difficulty, pokkam tallness, mridulam softness neeɭam length, dukkam sadness, sukham happiness waɳɳam weight, uyaram tallness, sundaram beauty khanam weight, wegam fast, saamarthyam clever ahankaaram ego, swakaryam secret, prasiddham famous kaʈuppam thick, dhairyam courage, aazham depth waʈʈam circular, rasam taste, eɭuppam easy There is a small set of roots, also of Sanskrit origin, that take the ending –i, e.g. bhaŋŋi ‘beauty’, vrithi ‘cleanliness’, buddhi ‘intelligence’. They behave like the Class 2 forms, i.e. they are nominals. Their syntactic distribution is similar to Class 2 roots. I will classify them as a subset of Class 2. (55) Class 2 (-i ending nominalized roots) bhaŋŋi beauty, writhi cleanliness, buddhi intelligence wiiti width, kaʈʈi thickness, shakti strength A brief look into the history of these roots suggests that Class 1 roots had a verbal origin (see Jayaseelan 2007) and could be deverbal (as suggested in Anandan 1985). Class 2 roots are borrowed roots, mostly from Sanskrit. Class 1 roots are native roots. Among the other Dravidian languages, Tamil patterns like Malayalam. In Tamil 13 , as well, the two classes of roots end in –a and –am. (56) Tamil 13 Tamil data was collected from Srinivas. S and Aditya Sundar. 38 Class 1 (-a ending relativized roots) periya having bigness pudiya having newness pazhaya having oldness cinna having smallness (57) Tamil Class 2 (-am ending nominalized roots) uyaram tallness dukkam sadness kaɖinam difficultness Kannada 14 , Telugu 15 , Tulu 16 , however, do not have two different classes like Malayalam and Tamil. They only have Class 1 or –a ending relativized roots. (58) Kannada Class 1 (-a ending relativized roots) doɖɖa having bigness hosa having newness haleya having oldness saɳɳa having smallness yettara having tallness dukka having sadness santosha having happiness kaʈina having difficultness (59) Telugu Class 1 (-a ending relativized roots) pedda having bigness kotta having newness paata having oldness cinna having smallness poɖuga having tallness bhaada having sadness santosha having happiness kashʈa having difficultness (60) Tulu Class 1 (-a ending relativized roots) malla having bigness posa having newness para having oldness elliya having smallness udda having tallness bhejaara having sadness santhosha having happiness kashʈa having difficultness 14 Kannada data was collected from Harsha Honappa and Viju Southekal. 15 Telugu data was collected from Sudheer Kolachina. 16 Tulu data was collected from Vineet Hegde and Viju Southekal. 39 As seen above, unlike Malayalam and Tamil, the distinction between Class 1 and Class 2 roots disappears in Kannada, Telugu and Tulu. However, in all these languages, the forms based on Class1 roots all end in –a which is also the Proto-Dravidian relative clause marker derived from a shortening of the distal determiner aa ‘that’. (61) a. pazhay-a ‘that which is old’ Tamil, Malayalam b. p-a ‘that which is old’ Kodagu, Todi c. par-a ‘that which is old’ Tulu d. hos-a ‘that which is new’ Kannada, Tulu e. pedd-a ‘that which is great’ Telugu I will argue in this chapter that these so-called ‘pure adjectives’ in Class 1 can be given an analysis of relative forms, -a being the Proto-Dravidian relative verbal marker. Thus, property concepts in Dravidian are lexicalized as morphologically complex forms. Furthermore, Dravidian does not lexicalize an adjective nor creates an adjective in the syntax (e.g. with the help of a a head). These morphologically complex, “adjective-like” structures are attributive and predicative complex expressions created with the help of nominal and verbal heads- a relativization structure for attributive modification and a nominalization structure for predication. 2.2.2 The syntax and semantics of property concept roots Class 1 and Class 2 property concept denoting roots in Dravidian have interesting syntactic and semantic properties. The distinction between the two classes per se is not conditioned by semantic considerations. They are purely based on morpho-syntax and etymology, Class 1 being native roots and Class 2 are borrowed roots. This morphosyntactic property also determines the type of structures the roots can participate in. The analysis I put forth for these classes is as follows. Both Class 1 and Class 2 start out as roots denoting property concepts. (62) a. [[ ]] = the property of goodness (Class 1) b. [[ ]] = the property of happiness (Class 2) 40 I follow Chierchia and Turner (1988) in treating PCs as sorts of the type of entities. A covert possessive v categorizes Class 1 roots. Class 2 roots are categorized with a covert v with no possessive semantics, and they enter further PC predication as complements of possessive predicates, as in Francez & Koontz-Garboden (2015). Correspondingly, all PC predication in Dravidian is possession-based, either covertly with Class 1 or overtly with the existential copula as in Class 2. My core proposal is that Dravidian never lexicalizes an adjective, in other words, an A does not exist in the lexicon of Dravidian nor does the language derive one in the syntax. Only categoryless roots exist, categorized by n and v heads. As and Ps are always derived in the syntax-morphology interface, and a priori does not constitute a primitive class. I assume the lexicon contains only roots (similar to Halle and Marantz 1993, Marantz 2004, Borer 2003) as in the Distributed Morphology tradition. These roots are prototypical ‘property concepts’ and refer to sorts of the type of entities. An adjectival meaning is expressed by either a reduced relative clause structure (in the attributive position) or as a nominalization (in the predicative position). The two routes to the adjectival meaning are mediated by a possessive semantics. My core assumptions of the lexicon are as follows. I will assume a functional lexicon consisting of featural specifications such as ɸ-features, tense features, case features and √ (roots) which are place holders for content words to be inserted post syntactically. This is illustrated for the example below: (63) a. John slept b. Functional Lexicon: [+R] [{P:3, N:sg, G:m}] [+Past] √ √ c. Syntax: [ CP C [ TP [ DP [+R] [ NUMP [ NUM {P:3, N:sg, G:m} [ NP √ ]]] [ T [ + Past]] [ VP √ ]]]] d. After post syntactic lexical insertion [ CP C [ TP [ DP John ] T° [ VP slept ]]]] 41 Keeping the lexicon devoid of any inflectional morphology, i.e. the morphological particles exist in the functional lexicon but they are not attached to the roots, allows many one- to-many mismatches to surface only in the morpho-syntactic module. Derivations are syntactic and can be seen in additional functional structure which contribute to interpretation. The Class1 and Class2 roots start out as category-neutral expressions. In the morpho-syntactic module they undergo complex derivational processes that enable them to function as words, thus word formation is always in the syntax. 2.2.2.1 Syntax and semantics of Class 1 roots Keeping aside scalarity considerations, my initial proposal is that Class 1 roots are reduced relative clauses, formed with the addition of the –a marker, the independently attested relative verbal morpheme in Dravidian. The “__” in the examples below shows the position that has been relativized; as can be seen in (64-66), -a marks the verb in the highest clause that hosts the null relative operator. (64) [ __ aʈutta pariiksaykkə varunn-a] coodyaŋŋaɭ (Asher & Kumari 1997: 54) next examination.DAT come.PRES.RP question.PL ‘the questions that come in the next examination’ (65) njaan [Anil Komalanə __ koʈutt-a] pustakam vayiccu I Anil Komalan-DAT gave-REL book read-past ‘I read the book that Anil gave to Komalan.’ (66) [[ɲaan ___ kaɳʈ-u ennə] niŋŋal paɾayunn-a] kuʈʈi I see-PAST COMP you say-REL child ‘The child that you say that I saw.’ Class 1 roots must be verbalized first, before the addition of the relative marker -a, since –a only merges with verbs, as seen above. My proposal is that Class 1 roots are turned into non- finite verbal expressions by the addition of a null v, with possessive semantics. This is not surprising, since in traditional grammar, most of Class 1 roots can be traced back to having verbal origins. I use P as a meta-variable over property-concept-denoting expressions, following 42 Koontz-Garboden and Francez (2010). The null v_poss head takes a property and predicates the property over an individual. (67) [[ Æ v_poss ] ] = lP. lx. [x has P ] (to be modified) There is an alternate analysis as explicated in Balusu (2014) where the –a ending is analyzed as the genitive marker in similar Telugu Class 1 forms. (68) a. pillalu ‘children’ ~ pillal-a ‘children’s’ b. pustakaalu ‘books’ ~ pustakaal-a ‘books’ In Malayalam, however, unlike in Telugu, the only genitive marker is –inte/-uʈe and it can suffix to the –a ending forms after they are turned into light headed relatives, such as in (69), shown attaching to a Class 1 property concept expression, and in (70), the counterpart of the Telugu examples in (68), where there is no –a marker. (69) a. nalla-van-te ‘good man’s’ b. nalla-vaɭ-te ‘good woman’s’ c. nalla-t-inte ‘goodness’s’ (70) a. kuʈʈi-kaɭ ‘child-pl’ ~ kuʈʈi-kaɭ-uʈe ‘children’s’ b. pustakaŋ-ŋaɭ ‘book-pl’ ~ pustakaŋ-ŋaɭ-uʈe ‘books’ If indeed –a is a genitive marker in Malayalam, the –a ending form in (61a) should be able to appear predicatively without the help of pronominalization, which does not happen. Note that the counterpart forms of Telugu can appear in the predicative position without being turned into nominals (see Sec 2.2.2.2). The possessive genitive forms can appear as a complement to a copula directly as seen in (70) 17 . (71) itə kaɭɭan-ʈe aaɳə this robber-GEN EQ-COP 17 For a detailed discussion on the two copulas in Malayalam, see Section 2.8 of this chapter. 43 ‘This is the robber’s.’ Thus, I maintain this analysis that –a in Malayalam is a relativizer and not a genitive marker. A further piece of evidence suggesting this comes from Judeo-Malayalam, the traditional language of the Cochin Jews in Kerala, now spoken primarily in Israel. As shown in Gamliel 2013, in Judeo-Malayalam the participial form is -e instead of -a, and, as we predict if the two are the same morpheme, so is the suffix on Class 1 roots. Thus, in Judeo-Malayalam, the word for ‘good’ is nall-e rather than nall-a (Itamar Francez p.c). The vPs, denoting predicates of individuals, are further relativized by the verbal relative marker –a. This changes the syntactic category, as the structure is now participial; the semantic type remains unchanged. I illustrate the derivations below for the Malayalam root for ‘good’. (72) a. [[ + Æ v_poss ] v (Class 1, to be modified) Lit. ‘have (the property of) goodness’ b. [[ + Æ v_poss ] v + -a ] rel = nalla Lit. ‘having (the property of) goodness’ c. [[ nalla ]] = lx. [x has (the property of) goodness] These participial a-forms can now be used in attributive position as they have the appropriate participial syntax and <e,t>-type semantics: (73) Malayalam a. nalla kuʈʈi having-goodness child ‘a good child’ Lit. ‘having goodness child’ Tamil a. cinna kozhandai having-smallness child 44 ‘ a small child’ Lit. ‘having smallness child’ Kannada a. chikka magu having-smallness child ‘a small child’ Lit. ‘having smallness child’ Tulu a. elliya bale having-smallness child ‘ a small child’ Lit. ‘having smallness child’ In Malayalam, these participial a-forms can also be used in predicative position, after they are turned into light-headed relatives, i.e., DPs, through the merge of bound pronouns (similar to the analysis in Jayaseelan and Amritavalli 2004, for whom these are free relatives). These bound pronouns are remnant agreement morphemes- van (3M.SG), vaɭ (3F.SG) tə (3N.SG), var (3H.PL) 18 . 18 There are some roots belonging to Class 1 Non-Color that need not appear with the nominalization morphemes van, vaɭ, and tə. These roots, similar to the Class 1 Non-Color roots, relativize using the –a marker and they appear in the attributive position without the help of the non-finite copula. (i) a. čiita ‘bad’ b. pokkavali čiita aaɳə cigarette smoking bad COP ‘Cigarette smoking is bad for health.’ Interestingly, these can alternate with the dative counterpart only with the addition of an overt nominal. (ii) a. kutti-kkə čiita swabhavam uɳʈə 45 (74) a. nalla-vaɭ b. nalla-van (Class 1) having-goodness-F.SG having-goodness- M.SG ‘one who has goodness’ ‘one who has goodness’ Lit. ‘she having goodness’ Lit. ‘he having goodness’ Note that the relative marker does not change the semantic type of the predicate, but allows for syntactic function as an attributive modifier. A verb cannot function as such on its own. The composition is represented as a tree diagram below: (75) Step 1: Combination with the null verbalizer v_possP v_ poss’ v_poss √nall lP. lx. [x has P ] Step 2: Combine with the relative clause marker RC λx. [x has goodness ] vP -a v_poss lP. lx. [x has P ] child-DAT bad character EX ‘The child has a bad character.’ This suggests that ‘čiita’ cannot appear in the predicative position without a nominal and still trigger dative case on the subject. When the Class 1 Non-Color root can appear in the predicative position without the nominal ‘swabhavam’, ‘niram’, only the nominative case can appear in the subject position. The subset of Class 1 Non-Color roots that can appear in the predicative position without the nominalizing morpheme is restricted to some adjectives relating to human propensity such as čiita ‘bad’. 46 √nall The predicative position, I noted, also requires a nominal. The verbalized roots cannot appear in this position without the help of additional nominal morphology – and as relative clauses they cannot appear there either. This nominalization is sensitive to the number and gender of the subject (cf. (74)). Baker (2003), in analyzing predicative adjectives assume they check selectional features of the PRED head. Similarly, the predicative head [+PRED] in Dravidian is marked for nominal features and these features have to be checked off by the operation [AGREE]. The appearance of the nominal features is only a reflex of the checking operations. It is plausible for the –a marked root to appear in the predicative position since it is already a predicate however, syntactically relative clauses are not stand-alone predicates. Moreover, the clause structure of Dravidian is very restricted (see Jayaseelan 2011 for a recent discussion of this idea). Supposing that what I have said is on the right track and there are indeed no adjectives in Dravidian, then we expect only a nominal element as the complement of the copula. The inability of the –a marked root to appear as the complement of the verb suggests that only a nominal can appear in the complement position of the verb. If this theory is correct, it makes two predications that are indeed borne out in Dravidian a point to which I will come back to in Chapter 4. A. Comparative constructions formed with Class 1 property concept expressions are always nominal. Presumably, verbal comparatives should also be allowed. Adjectival comparatives should be missing. B. Secondary predications of the kind found in English should not be possible. I have established why the Class1 roots have to appear with nominal morphology in the predicative position. I will now proceed to my assumptions on AGREE and the presence of the nominalization morpheme. The model, I assume is closest to recent modifications of Chomsky’s original AGREE model proposed in Frampton and Gutmann (2006) and Pesetsky and Torrego 47 (2007). They propose a feature-sharing model where the probe can evaluate and check features of the goal by multiple AGREE. By looking at Icelandic data, which show agreement on the pronoun as well as the matrix participle, their analysis would entail the feature sharing mechanism whereby the participle first agrees with the pronoun and then subsequently the matrix v can check and assign case to the pronoun and this case is shared with the participle. The pronoun is in some sense linked to the participle. For Dravidian, the Class 1 roots are realized as participials in that they are reduced relative clauses. I already noted the requirement of the Dravidian verbal predicate to have a nominal in its complement position. Adopting Frampton and Gutmann’s feature sharing approach enables us to explain why the Class 1 root in the predicative position always appears with a nominal marker sensitive to gender and number. I will assume a [+PRED] head that has {N, G} features. The probe on the [+PRED] head is looking for some element to saturate its feature. The reduced relative clause cannot saturate this without the help of the nominalization morpheme- van, vaɭ, and tə. These rudimentary agreement markers have phi-features that can saturate the [+PRED] head. (76) a. [ PRED nalla [ vP COP ]] b. PredP Pred’ Pred nalla {P: 3 rd , N:SG, G:M} {P: 3 rd , N:SG, G:M} The [PRED] head’s features have to be satisfied by the element in the complement position. This is done by the feature sharing mechanism since this is reflected in the case assignment patterns as well. The nominative case is a feature assigned as a result of the feature sharing by the probe and goal. Thus, the subject in the case of the Class 1 predicative constructions is assigned nominative case (which is always null marked). The feature sharing mechanism sketched here is different from Baker’s agreement checking story for the lack of adjectives in the attributive position in Japanese. Baker’s (2003) story relies on feature checking 48 where the adjective has to be specified for uninterpretable features in order for the feature checking to happen. In this case, it is not about checking off uninterpretable features, rather the need to share features in connection with the fact that only a nominal can appear in the complement position of the predicative head that triggers the feature checking mechanism. In the absence of a lexical category of adjectives, the fact that the complement of the [PRED] head is a nominal is indeed not surprising. The derivation is below: (77) a. [ CP [ TP Anil-ø [ PRED [ PRED’ nalla-van [ COP aaɳə]]]] b. The Class 1 root first combines with the null verbalizer which then combines with the relative clause head. This is then merged into the Spec of the VP. The probe on the [PRED] head sends out the probe which then agrees with the complex property concept expression. The movement of the root from lower down in this projection to the Spec of vP is motivated precisely because of this AGREE relation. Only the edge of the projection is visible to the probe. Depending on the PNG features, the inflection on the relativized root changes. This thus creates a nominal predicate. 49 2.2.2.2 Class 1 roots in other Dravidian languages In Tamil, the same pronominalizing suffixes as Malayalam are used, with the addition of cu (3N.SG). Class 1 roots in Kannada also require addition of pronominal suffixes in the predicative position (Sridhar 1990: 248-50) 19 . (78) Tamil a. periya-vaɭ b. periya-van (Class 1) having-bigness-F.SG having-bigness-M.SG ‘one who has bigness’ ‘one who has bigness’ Lit. ‘she having bigness’ Lit. ‘she having bigness’ Kannada a. cikka-vaɭu b. cikka-vanu (Class 1) having-smallness-F.SG having-smallness-M.SG ‘one who has smallness’ ‘one who has smallness’ Lit. ‘she having smallness’ Lit. ‘she having smallness’ However, Telugu does not require these pronominalizing suffixes in the predicative position (Krishnamurti 2003: 399). There are two major differences from the other Dravidian languages: a) Telugu predicative sentences require an overt degree marker/intensifier (79a). These sentences are verbless, unlike the sentences in (77a), which have to be existentially closed with a copula. The lack of the overt verb signals the presence of a marker that is glossed as “quite”. These facts are reminiscent of Mandarin Chinese (see Grano and Kennedy 2012). Under 19 Jayaseelan (2007) notes that Kannada uses the dative case in the predicative position. (i) raama udda-kke iddane Rama tall-DAT be-3SG.M ‘Rama is tall.’ However, none of my informants seem to attest this structure in their everyday speech. They do seem to agree that the sentence is grammatical though. We suspect it could be a generational dialect difference. 50 some conditions, gradable adjectives must co-occur with overt degree morphology (such as hen ‘very’). The meaning of the degree morphology itself is semantically bleached. This may be similar to what is happening in Telugu. (79) Telugu a. atanu cala podugu Class 1 he quite tall ‘He is quite tall.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) b. naaku iiuru kotta Class 1 to-me town new ‘This town is new.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) Even though the descriptive grammar of Telugu explicates some instances of PC roots appearing without pronominalization in the predicative position, there seems to be some independently attested forms 20 . (80) a. ii abbayi podugaina-waaɖu this boy tall-M.SG ‘This boy is tall.’ b. ii prashna kashʈamaina-di this question difficult-NOML ‘This question is difficult.’ -di and –waaɖu are pronouns that act as nominalizers in these sentences. -di is the non- masculine form unspecified for location (proximal idi versus distal adi). -waaɖu is the singular masculine pronoun. This suggests Telugu also uses nominalization as a strategy to express predicative modification. The data in Krishnamurti (2003) shows that a Class 1 root can appear in the predicative position when modified by an overt degree head, such as very. These facts are similar to some Chinese gradable adjectives which obligatorily co-occur with overt degree morphology. 20 These data were collected from Sudheer Kolachina. 51 (81) zhangsan hen gao. Zhangsan very tall ‘Zhangsan is tall.’ (Sybesma 1999: 27) In Chinese, without the overt degree morphology ‘hen’ very, the utterance is felicitous only in a context where there is a salient standard of comparison. (82) zhangsan gao. Zhangsan tall ‘Zhangsan is taller (than someone known from the context).’ NOT: Zhangsan is tall. In the Telugu examples below, the overt degree morpheme ‘cala’ quite is licit in the absence of nominalizing morphemes and the overt copula. (83) Telugu a. atanu cala podugu 21 Class 1 he quite tall ‘He is quite tall.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) b. naaku iiuru kotta Class 1 to-me town new ‘This town is new.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) There seems to be optionality in the usage of the degree morphology as well, since (83b) does not have an overt degree morpheme. Additional elicitation from another Telugu speaker also suggests that the overt degree morpheme in (83a) can be optional when the copula completing the predication is overt. (84) atanu podugu unnavu Class 1 he tall is 21 Two of my informants said the degree morphology in this sentence is not bleached. It still encodes the meaning “very”. 52 ‘He is tall.’ The paradigm in Telugu is much more complicated than what happens in the other Dravidian language. This could be due to influences from other languages (Hindi-Urdu, Dakkhini etc.) The following table summarizes the observations. Telugu Form Meaning NP deg PC atanu cala podugu ‘He is quite tall’ NP PC cop atanu podugu unnavu ‘He is tall’ NP1 NP2 PC naaku iiuru kotta ‘This town is new’ NP1 PC-Nomlz atanu podugaina-waadu ‘He is tall’ Table 2.0 Variation in Telugu predication 2.2.2.3 Predication of Class 1 roots The Class 1 roots combine with the so-called equative (EQ) copula in the predicative position. This strategy is similar to the canonical predication strategy, although these PCs are not adjectival denoting (unlike Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s (2015) conjecture). The examples below are from Malayalam. I should note at this point that in Malayalam cases, the equative copula is obligatory. Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Tulu allow a copula drop in these instances. (85) a. avaɭ nalla-vaɭ aaɳə (Class 1) she having-goodness- F.SG EQ ‘She is good.’ Lit. ‘She is one having goodness.’ b. avan nalla-van aaɳə he having-goodness-M.SG EQ ‘He is good.’ Lit. ‘He is one having goodness.’ (86) a. avan kolayali aaɳə he murderer EQ ‘He is a murderer.’ 53 b. avaɭ keɭkkun-a-vaɭ aaɳə she hear-REL-F.SG EQ ‘She is one who can hear.’ Lit. ‘She is one hearing’ Adjectives inside an English relative clause in displaying only the intersective reading. This lends support to the reduced relative clause analysis. Semantically, the null verbalizer converts the root into a predicate of type <e,t>. The role of the –a is only to make the predicate into a reduced relative clause. The syntax of the reduced relative clause is sketched below: (87) Reduced relative clause the [boy i [ vP boy i being good] LF: the [[λx [boy, x]] [being good]] (combine the two predicates by Predicate Modification) ɩ(λx[boy (x) ^ p (x, good)]) Most adjectives in English exhibit the intersective/non-intersective ambiguity. In the intersective reading, the adjective is applied to the subject of the verb, whereas in the non- intersective reading, the adjective is applied to the subject in the capacity of the predicate nominal. On the first reading, “beautiful” applies to Olga and refers to Olga’s beauty even though her dancing is awkward. In the non-intersective reading, “beautiful” is applied to Olga’s dancing, even though she herself is unattractive. This ambiguity can be seen in many adjectives in English (Larson 1998: 2a-e): (88) a. Kathrin is an intelligent student. b. George is a skillful manager. c. Yo-yo is a good cellist. d. Bill is a diligent president. e. Peter is an old friend. 54 There are two prominent analyses to account for the ambiguity in the sentences above. The first is called the A-analysis (Siegel 1976 a.o), and the other analysis is called N-analysis (Larson 1983, 1985). The A-analysis assumes this ambiguity is rooted in the adjective, whereas the N-analysis assumes this ambiguity arises from the semantic structure of N and not of A. The specifics of the analysis are not important to our concerns here. It suffices to say that for this ambiguity to come about, the presence of an “adjectival” category is important. When the adjectives in (88) are replaced with relative clauses, this distinction seems to disappear, thereby providing a diagnostic for testing whether a lexical item is actually a “relative clause” or an “adjective”. (89) Olga is a dancer who is beautiful. Only intersective Similar to the English relative clause cases, Malayalam Class 1 and Class 2 roots exhibit only the intersective reading: (90) a. Anil oru pazhaya kuutukaaran aaɳǝ Class 1 Anil a new friend EQ ‘Anil is an old friend.’ Only reading: Anil is a friend who is old. Only intersective b. Anil oru nalla vidhyarthi aaɳǝ Class 1 Anil a good student EQ ‘Anil is a good student.’ Only reading: Anil is a student who is good. Only intersective Thus, this diagnostic provides evidence for our analysis of Class 1 roots as reduced relative clauses. The availability of the intersective reading is similar to the English examples in (89). Notice, however, that these English adjectives do not preserve this ambiguity in the predicative positions (Larson 1988). Malayalam light headed relative clauses in predicative positions also only display intersective readings. 55 (91) The dancer is beautiful Only intersective (92) a. nrithakkari nalla-vaɭ aaɳǝ Class 1 Dancer good-3.F.SG EQ ‘The dancer is good.’ Only reading: The dancer is a good one (not that she dances good) Only intersective b. nrithakkari saundaryam uɭɭa-vaɭ aaɳǝ Class 2 Dancer beauty EX-3.FSG EQ ‘The dancer is beautiful.’ Only reading: The dancer is a beautiful one (not that she dances beautifully) Only intersective 2.2.2.4 Lack of secondary predications Resultative secondary predications are normally taken to be an indication of an adjective position. If the theory is correct in that Dravidian lacks an adjectival category then resultative secondary predications should be missing from the syntax. Indeed this prediction is borne out, illustrated with Malayalam examples. Similar examples hold in other Dravidian languages. (93) a. Anil meʃa writthi-*(aaki) tuɖacc-u Anil table clean-PART wipe-PAST ‘Anil wiped the table clean.’ b. Komalan muɖi ceruta-*(aaki) muricc-u Komalan hair small-PART cut-PAST ‘Komalan cut his hair short.’ These resultative secondary predictions can appear only with the obligatory participial marker suggesting again that Class1 roots actually can combine only with a null verbal head in 56 order to participate in attributive modification, ‘aaki’ being the past participle form of the be verb. 2.2.2.5 Lack of adjectival ordering restrictions If there are no lexical adjectives, then we do not expect the word order restrictions exhibited by English-type adjectives below. (94) a. The small square house b. *The square small house This is similar to relative clause modification since relative clauses can be stacked in any order in English and Japanese (Sproat and Shih 1991). (95) a. The house that’s small that’s square b. The house that’s square that’s small (96) a. maru-i aka-i e round red picture b. aka-i maru-i e red round picture Similarly, in Dravidian there are no adjectival ordering restrictions which is an immediate consequence if the Class1 roots are reduced relative clauses. Examples from Malayalam, similar examples hold of the other Dravidian languages. (97) a. cuvanna valiya vahanam red big vehicle ‘The red big vehicle’ b. valiya cuvanna vahanam 57 big red vehicle ‘The big red vehicle’ There might be ordering restrictions between Class 1 and Class 2 roots which I will not consider at this point but the crucial point to note is that within the classes there are no restrictions between the different property concept expressions. 2.2.3 Intermediate Summary In this section, we have seen that Class 1 roots in Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Tulu, start out as uncategorized roots with a sortal type of properties. These roots have participated historically in verbal formation. They combine with a null functional head having possessive semantics. They are then converted into reduced relative clauses by the addition of the proto-Dravidian relative clause marker –a. They participate in attributive modification since they have the correct <e,t> semantics. They also participate in predicative modification after they are turned into light headed relatives with the addition of pronominalizing suffixes. We thus see that Class 1 property concept roots participate in canonical predication, with the equative copula, even though they do not have adjectival denoting semantics, but also that they use a covert possessive strategy. An alternative account where the -a affix of Class 1 forms is a marker of adjectival category and thus different from the verbal relative affix -a, would additionally also have to posit that adjectives too, not just relative participles, need to be nominalized before becoming the complement to the equative copula – a complication to the grammar. Treating the Class 1 expressions as verbs that have been relativized to become syntactically good predicates, not only gives a uniform treatment to the -a affix, but also readily explains why the relative participles need to become light headed relatives in order to combine with the equative copula. We see that Class 1 property concept roots participate in canonical predication – with the equative copula – just as predicted by the analysis of Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015). But we also see that there is an analytical advantage in treating Class 1 forms as being verbal rather than adjectival – no two different morphemes -a need to be posited, and expressions incorporating pronouns are treating alike. If this analysis is indeed correct, then the null verb that 58 is the input to -a-affixation needs to have possessive semantics. Thus, Class 1 property concept denoting roots use a covert possessive strategy. 2.2.3.1 Nature of the v_poss head In a distributed morphology framework (Halle and Marantz 1993, Noyer 1997 a.o), the morphology linearizes and spells out an input syntactic structure. In the earlier section, we saw that the property concepts in Dravidian, in this framework, start out as category-less roots, which correspond to the part that does not arise from the spell out of morphosyntactic features on functional heads (Marantz 1997). Thus, in this analysis, these property concepts start out as ‘run’. These category-less roots combine with category-assigning heads (Marantz 2001, Embick and Noyer 2007, Embick and Marantz 2008), for example [n] and [v] which are syntactic functional heads whose grammatical content defines a nominal and verbal domain, for example, in our analysis of Class 2 roots, we took –am to be a spell out of a nominal head thereby giving the following derivation + n] = ooʈam ‘the run’. The derivation of a verb proceeds with a functional head [v], + v] = ooʈ-uka ‘to run’. In languages which do not lexicalize an adjective, for example, Dravidian languages, our claim is that there could be a functional head, similar to the [v] head which also encodes possessive semantics and can be used to derive verbal complexes to which the relativizer (-a) can attach, namely the [v poss ] head. This head has two roles. It makes the root verbal and encodes possession covertly. The evidence for this comes from Class 1 predication structures. These Class 1 relativized forms exhibit canonical predication using the equative copulaand not possessive predication unlike Class 2 nominalized roots (which uses the existential copula). Unlike the Class 2 roots which can be said to be deverbal, Class 1 roots are not derived forms. They are native roots and they seem to be highly special and comprise of a very small set of roots that do not combine with [v] to form a verb. We have no evidence for the presence of verbs derived from these roots. We do, however, have independent evidence for the nature of the relativizer. It only attaches to verbs. Hence for semantic composition, the Class 1 roots need to be verbalized. For lack of evidence that they combine with a [v] head, we suggest they combine 59 with the covert [v poss ] head. The head turns the Class 1 roots into the appropriate type <e,t> which the relativizer can attach to. The postulation of the covert [v poss ] head indeed makes new and testable predictions. In languages which do not lexicalize adjectives, it remains to be seen if the same functional head plays a role in deriving relativized structures from property concepts which can then be used in attributive modification and predication. This predication can be empirically tested against a broad set of languages known to have no lexical adjectives, for examples, Korean and Japanese. In Korean, the “adjective” combines with a relative clause marker ‘n’ (Kim 2002). This maybe indicative of the same strategy of relativization we see in Dravidian property concepts. We leave a detailed inquiry into this relation for future work. One further evidence for the postulation of the covert v_poss head will be seen in Chapter 3, in the decomposition of color expressions. 2.3 Introducing degrees The predicative and modification uses of the property concept roots in Dravidian have been sketched above. There is one other pervasive construction in which property concept roots participate- the comparative constructions, to which we turn to presently. Gradable adjectives are known to have two defining characteristics distributionally (Klein 1980: 6). They can be modified using degree adverbials very, quite, and fairly. This diagnostic differentiates gradable predicates such as tall, good, big, from non-gradable predicates such as dead, orthogonal, former. The second characteristic allows gradable adjectives to appear in a set of complex syntactic environments, called degree constructions. These constructions are formed with an adjective and a degree morpheme (such as –er, more, less, as, too, so, enough). These degree constructions include comparatives, equatives, how questions, too and enough constructions etc. The syntactic and semantic complexity of degree constructions, especially comparatives is a very well-studied area of research (Bresnan 1973, McConnell-Ginet 1973, Klein 1980, Cresswell 1976, von Stechow 1984, Heim 2000, Kennedy 1999, a.o). Gradable adjectives participate in comparatives due to the ability of their domains to be partially ordered. For example, the gradable adjective tall can be ordered according to a measure of height. Degree constructions provide an empirical foundation for investigating syntactic and semantic 60 characteristics of gradable adjectives and the expression of ordering relations in natural language. There are two competing analyses for the semantics of gradable predicates- the vague predicate and the scalar analysis. 2.3.1 The vague predicate analysis Under the vague predicate analysis (McConnell-Ginet 1973, Kamp 1975, Klein 1980, 1991, Larson 1988), the denotation of a gradable adjective is the same as the denotation of a non- gradable adjective. Both the adjectives denote functions from objects to truth values. This observation is due to the fact that many adjectival sentences can be judged true in one context, judged false in another. (98) The Mars Pathfinder mission is expensive. (Kennedy 1999: 10) If the context in which (98) is uttered includes the normal cost of things (such as cat food, milk, statistics software), then (98) would be true since the cost of sending a mission to outer space far exceeds that of the individual objects. On the other hand, if the context includes only missions to outer space, then the sentence would be false as one of the salient characteristics of the Pathfinder was its relatively low cost compared to other missions that aimed to explore outer space. Under the vague predicate analysis, gradable adjectives differ from other predicative expressions on the basis of domains of ordering. The domains of gradable adjectives are partially ordered with respect to some property that permits grading, such as height for tall. Klein (1980) analyzes gradable adjectives as partial functions, they induce a partition on a partially ordered set. Depending on where the objects are ordered in this set, either true or false obtains. This approach thus gives a way in which adjectival domains are ordered and partitioned in a particular context. 61 2.3.2 The scalar analysis A competing approach to the semantics of adjectives is the scalar or the degree analysis (Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1976, Hellan 1981, Hoeksma 1983, von Stechow 1984, Heim 1985, Rullmann 1995, Kennedy 1999 a.o). Under this analysis, an abstract measurement called a scale is introduced. A scale is a set of points ordered by a relation ≤ where each point measures a degree. The semantic function of adjectives is to establish a relation between objects in its domain and degrees on the scale. In the vague predicate analysis, ordering was an inherent property of the adjective. The difference from the vague predicate analysis is that the domain of the adjective is unordered. A ordering, however, can be established as a relation between the objects and the degree scale. Under this analysis, the above sentence (98) can be paraphrased as: (99) The Mars Pathfinder is at least as expensive as a standard of expensiveness. (Kennedy 1999:18) This sentence is judged true only if the degree of expensiveness of the Mars Pathfinder mission is at least as great as the standard value. A standard denoting degree is a value that provides a means of separating objects that are true from objects which are false in some context. Given that we have made a plea for the absence of lexical adjectives in Dravidian, it is a natural question to ask if any of the competing analyses above captures the meaning of the PC roots in Dravidian. We believe the scalar analysis provides a better explanation than the vague predicate analysis. We thus follow the degree analysis of gradable predicates. Earlier in this chapter, I sketched an account of the syntax and semantics of Class 1 and Class 2 property concept denoting roots does not capture scalarity yet. We need to introduce degrees as arguments to the functional heads that combine with the property concept denoting roots. 62 2.3.3 Revisiting Class 1 roots Recall that Class 1 roots combine with a null verbal function head, which encodes possessive semantics. The meaning of the null possessive v below is modified as below. I use a measure function, µ that measures the instance of P to the degree argument of the null v. (100) [[ Æ v_poss ]] = lP. ld. lx. $y [y is an instance of P and x has y and µ(y) ³ d] (revised) The degree argument can be bound by a positive operator POS, commonly assumed for gradable adjectives, (101) 22 , or by a measure phrase. (101) [[ POS ]] = lg <d, <e,t>> . lx. $d [g(d)(x) and d > d s ] (102) aaɳə mupattu kilo valiy-a-tə aaɳə (Class 1) elephant thirty kilo big-REL-NEUT EQ-COP ‘The elephant weighs 30 kilos.’ Lit. ‘The elephant is one having thirty kilos bigness’ (103) pustakam eʈʈə maasam puthiy-a-tə aaɳə (Class 1) book eight months new-REL-NEUT EQ-COP ‘The book is eight months new.’ Lit. ‘The book is one having eight months newness’ The rest of the analysis of Class 1 forms is modified accordingly. The forms in those in (104) is norm-related – they are interpreted as making reference to a standard, as would be expected if POS is binding the degree variable rather than a regular existential degree quantifier. The meaning given in (104b) is similar to the meaning assigned to positive gradable adjectives such as good in English by many semantic accounts. (104) a. [[[ + Æ v_poss ] v + POS] v -a] rel = nalla (Class 1, revised) Lit. ‘having an instance of goodness measuring to a degree that exceeds the standard’ 22 I put aside complications about comparison classes in the semantics of certain verbal expressions (those corresponding to relative adjectives in English). 63 b.[[ nalla ]] = lx. $d $y [y is an instance of goodness and x has y and µ(y) ³ d and d > d s ] » lx. $d [x’s goodness ³ d and d > d s ] c. RC λx. ∃d [x’s goodness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] These forms can now participate in comparative constructions, as we will see in Chapter 4. 2.4 Class 2 roots in Malayalam and Tamil Class 2 roots are only found in Malayalam and Tamil. This should not be surprising because Class 2 roots are mostly borrowed roots and both Malayalam and Tamil borrowed from Sanskrit, Malayalam more liberally of course, Tamil borrowings are found very early on (5 th century B.C). In fact, Malayalam was called the west coast dialect of Tamil till about 9 th century A.D (Krishnamurti 2003). Class 2 am-forms are nominals, -am being a quasi-productive nominal marker. Malayalam examples illustrate this point. (105) a. chaaʈ-uka ‘to jump’ chaaʈ-am ‘a jump’ b. ooʈ-uka ‘to run’ ooʈ-am ‘a run’ c. sneh-ikk-uka ‘to love’ sneh-am ‘love’ -am categorizes the root as a nominal. However, since -am can appear in non- gradable object nouns and nominalizations such as (105), I do not take –am to be the nominal head with which Class 2 property concept expressions compose with. Unlike Class 1 property concept expressions, Class 2 property concept expressions are not gradable. The gradability is introduced by a overt measure function or the comparative marker as we will see in Chapter 4. So which functional head do Class 2 roots merge with? One option is to assume both Class 1 and Class 2 compose with the v_poss head. However, unlike Class 1, Class 2 predication has an overt possessive counterpart- namely the existential copula. Class 2 roots compose with a covert v 64 head without possessive semantics. There are implications to this analysis. Since the covert v head doesn’t have possessive semantics, it does not have a degree argument. Only the covert v_poss has a degree argument. Crucially, this suggests that only Class 1 expressions are gradable. We will provide evidence for this when we look at how Class 1 and Class 2 expressions encode comparatives in Chapter 4. As possession is expressed overtly in Class 2 using the existential copula, gradability, is tied directly to property possession. 2.4.1 On the nominal suffix –am 23 The nominal, formative suffix -am is one of the few Proto Dravidian derivational suffixes which are reconstructible (Krishnamurti 2003). The suffix can be added to an intransitive or a transitive verb stem in Tamil cooʈ-am ‘boat, Malayalam ooʈ-am ‘the run’, Kannada sool-am ‘defeat’, and Tulu ooɖ-am ‘the run’. Telugu uses this suffix too with an optional drop of the ‘m’ (ooɖ-a ‘the run’). Many Sanskrit loans in Tamil and Malayalam are made native using –am (satyam ‘truth’, kramam ‘order’, aavashyam ‘need’, nishabdam ‘silence’). Native words in Malayalam and Tamil use this suffix pervasively (paʐam ‘banana’, weɭɭam ‘water’, kaɭɭam ‘theft’). This suffix can also be used to derive nouns from Class 1, relativized property concepts expressions (waliya ‘big’ >> walippam ‘bigness/size’, čeriya ‘small’ >> čeruppam ‘smallness/youth’). Some Class 1 forms can be created from a noun, and then again be made a nominal using the –am suffix. This last nominal form can be used in predicative positions (Asher and Kumari 1997: 390). (106) a. muulam ‘root’ maulika ‘fundamental’ maulikam ‘fundamentalness’ b. maanasam ‘ mind’ maanasika ‘mental’ maanasikam ‘mentalness’ This suffix can also be used to derive nouns from verbs. Though this use of –am maybe the least productive among the other cases notes here (Prabhodhachandran Nayar 1972: 129-134). 23 On a lighter note, the 2012 Bollywood movie Aiyaa depicts a Marathi girl falling in love with a Tamil boy and sings a song for him which she thinks is Tamil. The song is titled ‘dream-am wakeup-am critical condition-am’, mimicking the fact that the addition of the –am suffix to any word make it sound more like Tamil. 65 (107) a. uraŋŋ-uka ‘to sleep’ urakk-am ‘sleep’ b. kuuʈʈ-uka ‘to count’ kuuʈʈ-am ‘crowd’ 2.4.2 Decomposing Class 2 roots On first brush, we could postulate that the particular functional head that Class 2 roots combine with is a nominalizing head. This is plausible due to the presence of the nominalizing suffix –am. As seen by the composition of Class 1 Color expressions in Chapter 4, we will see the existence of the functional head Class 2 roots combine with, namely a v head, without possessive semantics. This is suggestive that Class 2 forms too are made verbal first and are then nominalized. The Class 2 property concept roots first compose with the null v head without possessive semantics. The nominal marker –am then nominalizes this expression. Unlike the previous account, the null v head does not incorporate a degree argument. The existential copula then turns the nominal into a gradable predicate. The particular verbal head that combines with Class 2 roots has the semantics in (108), i.e. it turns the abstract property concept into a predicate of individuals that are instances of the property 24 . (108) a. [[[√pokk + ∅ v ] + am n ] n (Class 2) b. ⟦ ∅ v ⟧ = λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] c. ⟦ pokkam ⟧ = λx. [x is an instance of tallness] Since Class 2 expressions are now fully formed words, a degree argument needs to be introduced by an overt possessive non finite copula. An existential degree quantifier, without norm-related semantics (unlike the case of Class 1 forms, where POS binds the degree argument), binds the degree argument introduced with possessive predication 25 . These Class 2 24 The notion of instances is similar to Francez and Koontz-Garboden’s use of ‘portions’. 25 However, this existential could be pos-related, since the semantics of “have tallness” after the existential quantifies over the variable is norm related. 66 expressions are not gradable. They are made gradable optionally overtly using the comparative marker or a measure phrase. After the null v head composes with the Class 2 root and turns it into a verbal element, one could ask why the relative marker –a does not turn these forms into reduced relative clauses. I am aware that this is an issue, but I do not have a good answer to this question. One could say that the functional head in (108b) that turns property concept roots into predicates is not verbal but nominal in category. This would explain why the –a does not attach to it; recall that –a only attaches to verbs. However, as we will soon see, we need a null verbal head with the same semantics as in (108b) to account for the form and meaning of certain color expressions. Once that head is available in the inventory of Malayalam, we will have to stipulate that it does not apply to Class 2 roots. Now we have to stipulate that Class 2 verbal forms have to be nominalized. At least in the color expressions (next chapter), we will see that the same root can compose with a verbal head (with different semantics) to form a verb (e.g., the two forms of ‘white’). This suggests to us that Class 2 forms too are made verbal first and are then nominalized. Additionally, one can ask why the Class 2 roots do not combine with the null v_poss and then with –a 26 . In fact, in other related Dravidian language this is indeed what happens. In Kannada, Class 2 borrowed roots are turned into reduced relatives using –a. The semantics of these forms suggests that they incorporate a null v-poss before the addition of –a. (109) a. santosha ‘being happy’ i.e., ‘having happiness’ b. dukka ‘being sad’ i.e., ‘having sadness’ 26 There is one exception in Class 2 that potentially combines with the null v_poss and then with –a. i. uyar-am ‘tall’ ~ uyar-nn-a ‘tall’ ii. [√uyar + ∅ v_poss ] –a] = uyarnna (where –ann is a spell-out of the v_poss) The behavior of this form is now like Class 1. It can attributively modify an NP and appear in the predicative position after being nominalized. 67 Alternatively, the Kannada forms in (109) can be –am ending nominal forms truncated to –a phonologically. We acknowledge that this may indeed be true given forms such as (110a), where ‘santosha’ behaves similar to ‘happiness’ with the help of the past participial form of the “be” verb, namely ‘agi’. However, forms such as (110b) are also attested. These are similar to the pronominalization seen with Class 1 –a ending forms in Malayalam, suggesting that the forms in (109) are not just adjectival properties. (110) a. ii huɖuga santosha-agi idd-ane this boy happiness-BE.PST BE-3P.SG ‘This boy is happy.’ b. huɖuga santosha-vanu/ huɖugi santosha-vaɭu boy happy-3M.SG/ girl happy-3F.SG ‘The boy is happy.’ ‘The girl is happy.’ In Malayalam, as well as in Tamil, however, forms such as the ones in (109) do not occur. This could be a language-internal morphological fact: Class 2 roots can only combine with the non-possessive v just like Class 1 forms in that language only combine with the possessive v. This is a stipulation, but we think that the insight into the link between possession and gradability that a compositional analysis of these forms allows us, makes the stipulation worthwhile. Note that an alternative lexicalist account similarly involves a stipulation: adjectival lexemes are based on native roots and borrowed roots are lexicalized as nominals. As we saw earlier, a Class 2 root in Malayalam or Tamil can combine with the verbal head to instantiate a predicate of individuals which are instances of that particular property concept. Illustration with Malayalam example repeated here from (107). (111) a. [ +Æ v ] am] n = pokkam (Class 2) Lit. ‘being an instance of (the property of) tallness’ b. [[ pokkam ]] = lx. [x is an instance of (the property of) tallness] 68 The alternative account could ask why –am cannot combine with Class 1 forms, if its role is to syntactically nominalize them. Indeed there are some attested cases where –am can combine with Class 1 forms, but judging by the extra morphology, it does not apply to the root directly. (112) a. waliya ‘having bigness’, walippam ‘bigness’, walippǝ ‘big space/drawer’ b. čeriya ‘having smallness’, čeruppam ‘youth’, čeruppǝ ‘young age’ These forms suggest that –am can indeed be used to syntactically nominalize a Class 1 form, however, it cannot directly combine with the Class 1 form which has been relativized. On the contrary, what we see if an overt spell-out of the v_poss as a morpheme “ipp” which is the causative morpheme and here can be taken to be playing a transitivising role, i.e. čeruppam being ‘the state of having youthfulness’. In Malayalam, Class 2 am-forms can participate in predication over individuals with the help of the possessive (called existential, EX) copula. Existential quantification over the individual variable is supplied in ways similar to that in regular existential/possessive predication. (113) avaɭkkə pokkam uɳʈə (Class 2) she.DAT tallness EX-COP ‘She is tall.’ Lit. ‘To her there is tallness.’ (114) avaɭkkə mookutthi uɳʈə she.DAT nose-pin EX-COP ‘She has a nose pin.’ Lit. ‘To her there is a nose pin.’ The syntactic derivations are shown below: (115) Step 1: Combination with the null verbalizer 69 vP vP’ v √pokk λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] Step 2: Combine with the nominalizer –am NP vP -am vP’ v √pokk λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] In the predicative position, unlike the Class 1 roots, there are two strategies that Class 2 roots employ. Either the derivation can proceed similar to the Class 1 roots, whereby the possessor gets nominative case and the Class 2 predicate can be the complement of a non-finite possessive copula and this expression can now be relativized and then nominalized or the Class 2 root can stay as in Step 1 of (115) and the possessor can receive dative case. I will appeal to the feature sharing mechanism and show that this much-discussed “dative experiencer” construction receives a simple explanation under this theory. It is a by product of feature sharing as well as the semantics of the possession which I have discussed under the rubric of what it means to be in an attributive or predicative position. When the Class 2 root remains as a relative clause ‘pokkam uɭɭa’ (as seen below in (116)), it has to appear with the nominalizing morphemes pertaining to person, number, and gender. This is similar to the predicative position in a Class 1 root. The [PRED] head is marked for features and there has to be obligatory feature sharing between the head and the Class 2 root. The entire relative clause is nominalized. This would seem a strange strategy considering that the 70 Class 2 root was a nominal after the first morphological merge unlike the Class 1 root (which ends up verbal). However, there is an option to use the nominal first created after the morphological merge as well which is the experiencer dative construction. In the case of the first strategy, the [PRED] head sends down the probe which then agrees with the relative clause upon the affixation of the nominal morpheme. The AGREE relation shares the features on the subject NP and the relative clause which gets the nominalized forms. (116) a. [ CP [ TP Anil-ø [ PRED [ PRED’ pokkam uɭɭa-van [ COP aaɳə]]]] b. In the second strategy, the possessive non-finite VP combines with the nominal belonging to Class 2. The PRED head then sends the probe to check the features on the nominal. Since it is already a nominal there is no further nominalization required and hence no addition of the nominalizing morphemes. This feature sharing results in the case assignment as well. Nominative case is assigned to the predicate. And thus, the “subject” cannot be assigned nominative case and the only other option is to assign dative. 71 (117) a. Anil-inə pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT tallness EX ‘Anil has tallness.’ b. In Tamil, we do not find the appearance of the existential copula. This could be because Tamil Class 2 forms exhibits agreement with the subject. The appearance of the copula in Malayalam could be related to the fact that modern Malayalam lost agreement. (118) Tamil a. inda payyan uyaram-aana-van (Class 2) this boy tall-become-3.M.SG ‘This boy is tall.’ b. inda keeɭvi kaɖinam-aana-də this question difficult-become-3.N.SG ‘This question is difficult.’ 72 In Malayalam, further relativized by –a, non-finite predicative structures with Class 2 forms can occupy attributive positions as well, where uɭɭ- is the non-finite EX copula. (119) [[[[ + Æ v ] am] n + uɭɭ-] v + -a] rel = pokkam uɭɭa (Class 2) Lit. ‘tallness having’ (120) pokkam uɭɭa kutti (Class 2) tallness having child ‘tall child’ Lit. ‘tallness having child’ This relative structure in (120) can be turned into a light-headed relative, as in (121), similar to Class 1 forms. (121) a. pokkam uɭɭa-vaɭ b. pokkam uɭɭa-van (Class 2) tallness having.F.SG tallness having-M.SG ‘tall one’ ‘tall one’ Lit. ‘she having tallness’ Lit. ‘he having tallness’ The EQ-copula can then combine with these light-headed relatives, for canonical predication, similarly to Class 1 forms. (122) Malayalam a. avaɭ pokkam uɭɭa-vaɭ aaɳə (Class 2) she tallness having-F.SG EQ-COP ‘She is tall.’ Lit. ‘She is one having tallness.’ b. avan pokkam uɭɭa-van aaɳə (Class 2) he tallness having-M.SG EQ-COP ‘He is tall.’ Lit. ‘He is one having tallness.’ 73 In Tamil, the equative copula is used to form the attributive modification structure. (123) Tamil a. uyaram-aana payyan tallness-become boy ‘The boy who is tall’ b. kaɖinam-aana prashnam difficultness-become question ‘The questions which is difficult’ Thus, Class 2 property concept roots participate in overt possessive predication, as is to be expected from nominalizations on the account of Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015). But we also see that with the help of the same syntactic mechanisms available to Class 1 forms, namely the relativization with –a, and the creation of a light-headed relative with the help of pronouns- Class 2 forms can also participate in canonical predication. The structural similarity between (77) and (121) further supports the analysis of Class 1 forms as including a covert possessive verb. The type of copula – possessive or canonical – is determined by the category of the copula’s complement, but the complement can vary in complexity itself, and include both covert and overt possessive predicates. The intricacy of syntactic structure and semantic composition that are behind property concept expressions in Dravidian highlight the link between property concept predication and possession. 2.4.2.1 Æ v with Class 1, Æ v_poss with Class 2? A natural question to ask is can these functional heads particular to Class 1 and Class 2 roots occur with the other class? The relative clause marker -a never combines with Class 2 roots. There is no evidence that the null possessive v ever does either. The nominal marker -am similarly is restricted to Class 2 roots, and when it does appear with Class 1 it only does so with the help of additional morphological support. The strategy to nominalize a Class 1 root is to use 74 the light-headed relative strategy, with a NEUT.SG pronoun (the same strategy illustrated with F.SG and M.SG in (124)): (124) Malayalam a. valiy-a-tə b. čeriy-a-tə c. nall-a-tə having-bigness-REL-NEUT having-smallness-REL-NEUT having-goodness-REL-NEUT ‘big thing’ ‘small thing’ ‘good thing’ Lit. ‘that having bigness’ Lit. ‘that having smallness’ Lit. ‘that having goodness’ Tamil a. periy-a-du b. cinn-a-du c. pudiy-a-du having-bigness-REL-NEUT having-smallness-REL-NEUT having-newness-REL-NEUT ‘big thing’ ‘small thing’ ‘new thing’ Lit. ‘that having bigness’ Lit. ‘that having smallness’ Lit. ‘that having newness’ This pattern of distribution suggests that Class 1 roots are morphologically special, marked ones – they can only be categorized with the null possessive v. Indeed, the limited number of such forms (Asher & Kumari 1997:116-117, 350), and their Old-Dravidian origin (Menon 2013) is consistent with such a characterization. 27 -am nominalization, on the other hand, is productive. The reason it does not apply to Class 1 roots, is because they have to combine with the null v. Thus the default categorization of property concept roots in Malayalam is as nouns. 2.4.2.2 Intermediate summary Two classes of property concept roots were identified in Dravidian. One class, namely, the Class 2 roots are found only in Malayalam and Tamil. Class 1 roots have the same form across Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, and Tulu. They start out as uncategorized roots, combine with a null possessive v head, and then they are turned into reduced relative clauses with the addition of the proto-Dravidian relative clause marker –a. Class 2 roots are uncategorized roots that combine with a null verbal head v, without possessive semantics. Thus, we see that the two 27 Furthermore, the null possessive v itself can only combine further with the relative marker –a. 75 classes of PC roots undergo different syntactic derivations, but start with, and end with, the same meaning. The possessive relation is expressed at the level of the word, through a covert possessive verbal morpheme, with Class 1 roots, and at the phrasal level with Class 2 roots. (125) CLASS 1NON-COLOR : NATIVE ROOTS Attributive [[[ vP √1+ ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] ‘having an instance of Π that exceeds the standard’ Predicative (Malayalam) Predicative (excluding Malayalam) [ vP [ DP [[[ vP √1 + ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] pron ] EQ.COP ] ‘be someone having an instance of Π that exceeds the standard’ [ vP [ DP [[[ vP √1 + ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] pron ]] ‘be someone having an instance of Π that exceeds the standard’ (126) CLASS 2: BORROWED ROOTS Attributive (Malayalam) Attributive (Tamil) [[ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP non-finite ] + a rel ] ‘having an instance of Π’ [[ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EQ.COP] + a rel ] ‘being an instance of Π’ Predicative (Malayalam) Predicative (Tamil) [ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP ] ‘have an instance of Π’ [ vP [ DP [[ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP non-finite ] + a rel ] pron ] EQ.COP ] ‘be someone having an instance of Π’ [ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EQ.COP + AGR ] ‘have an instance of P ’ Class 1 and Class 2 compose with different functional head. Class 1 composes with a covert v head with possessive semantics whereas Class 2 roots compose with a covert v head 76 without possessive semantics. There are several implications to this analysis. Since the covert v head doesn’t have possessive semantics, it does not introduce a degree argument. Only the covert v_poss has a degree argument. Crucially, this suggests that only Class 1 expressions are gradable. We will provide evidence for this when we look at how Class 1 and Class 2 expressions encode comparatives in Chapter 4. This account is desirable since possession is expressed overtly in Class 2 expressions using the existential copula, and gradability can be encoded in the relation of possession of a property concept nominal. Thus, gradability, in our revised account, is tied directly to property possession, with both Class 1 and Class expressions. Finally, there is no need to posit two nominal –am morphemes in the language. 2.5 Residual Issues The current theory runs into potentially three major problems. I will address these issues here. 2.5.1 Former-type adjectives The first problem that theories positing a lack of a lexical category of adjectives run into is that posed by adjectives such as ‘former’. This small set of adjectives is retained as “true” adjectives even in languages that do not lexicalize an adjective. (127) Set of true adjectives Former, fake, possible, alleged, potential This set of adjectives are called non-predicating adjectives or intensional adjectives. These adjectives do not select a subset of the things denoted by the noun they modify. Extensional adjectives like ‘red’ on the other hand can be interpreted as sets of things that are ‘red’. The denotation of an intensional adjective manipulates the temporal and modal parameter since being a ‘former President’ denotes an individual who was a President in a previous term. (128) a. John is a former President. b. *John is former c. John is a President d. John was a President 77 (128a) doesn’t entail (128b) or (128c) but only entails (128d). Looking at this set of adjectives in Malayalam yields the following set 28 . (129) a. mun ‘former’ b. vyaja ‘fake’ c. pattum ‘possible’ Out of the three possible candidates ‘fake’ is realized as a Class 1 root and hence appears as a relativized structure. (129c) is again composed of a deverbal root √patt and the modal element ‘um’. Hence the only real candidate for a true adjective position is the adjective ‘former’. ‘Former’ as in (130a) is neither a Class 1 root nor a Class 2 root. It behaves like an intensional adjective in that the denotation of the noun that it modifies is an individual who no longer possesses that property. (130) a. Anil oru mun pradhanamantri aaɳə Anil a former Prime minister COP ‘Anil is a former Prime minister.’ b. Anil oru mun pradhanamantri aa-ir-unnu Anil a former Prime minister COP-PRES ‘Anil was a former Prime minister’ The above sentences presupposes that Anil is no longer a Prime Minister. Although ‘mun’ looks like a candidate for a true lexical category of adjective, I will argue that ‘mun’ is in fact a clitic that attaches to the NP. In order to do so it will be fruitful to look at the history of the word. ‘mun’is an anterior locative form meaning ‘before/front’. It is also found in the words for locating time and space such as ‘munpe’, ‘munpil’ ‘before/in front of’. Given this it is not very 28 ‘Alleged’ and ‘Potential’ are complex predicates in Malayalam and hence I will not consider them here. 78 difficult to see why ‘mun’ in (130) gets the meaning ‘former’. The evaluation of the predicate is with respect to some time which has already gone by, or in other words, the meaning of ‘mun’ is evaluated in the past time and space which can be seen in its compatibility with the imperfective aspect in (130b). Thus, in (130) ‘mun’ is at best a clitic attaching to the head noun, similar to ex in English. ‘mun’ also starts out as a root and it establishes a dependency relation with the host. ‘mun’ represents an affixal clitic phonologically attaching to the host by the process of affixation. (131) a. ɸ[…w[affixal clitic w[host ] ] ... ] b. ɸ[…w[√mun w[pradhanamantri] ] ... ] The conclusion derived from this is that former-type adjectives are derived through morpho-phonological processes and are not candidates for a set of ‘true adjectives’ in Dravidian. 2.5.2 Roots ending in –i There is a small set of words that express adjective-like meaning and they are neither –a (Class 1, relativized) ending or –am (Class 2, nominalized) ending. They are –i ending. A representative list is given below. (132) –i ending roots bhaŋŋi ‘beauty’, buddhi ‘intelligence’, writthi ‘cleanliness’ puli ‘sourness’, maravi ‘forgetfulness’, ruchi ‘tastiness’ thadi ‘fatness’, katti ‘thickness’ The distribution of the –i ending roots is similar to Class 2 (-am ending nominalized roots) in the attributive position. (133) a. bhaŋŋi uɭɭ-a sthri beauty COP-REL woman ‘Beautiful woman’ 79 b. writthi uɭɭ-a mesa clean COP-REL table ‘The clean table’ In the predicative position the –i ending roots appear without the nominalizing morpheme similar to Class 2 roots. This is so because the existential copula is possessive in nature. (134) a. ii sthri-kkə bhaŋŋi uɳʈə this woman-DAT beauty COP ‘This woman is beautiful’ b. ii mesa-kkə writthi uɳʈə this table-DAT clean COP ‘This table is clean’ Thus, distribution wise the –i ending roots are similar to Class 2 roots. I will analyze the –i ending roots as a subset of the –am ending Class 2 property concept roots. They start out as property concept roots and combine with a null verbal head, after which they are affixed by the nominal marker –i. (135) a. [[[√writth + ∅ v ] + i n ] n (Class 2, -i ending ) b. ⟦ ∅ v ⟧ = λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] c. ⟦ writthi ⟧ = λx. [x is an instance of cleanliness] (136) Step 1: Combination with the null verbalizer vP vP’ v √writth λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] 80 Step 2: Combine with the nominalizer –i NP vP -i vP’ v √writth λΠ. λx [x is an instance of Π] The remaining morphological processes proceeds much in the same way as the Class2 roots. In the attributive position, the nominal has to combine with the non-finite copula and then undergo relativization. In the predicative position, there is the appearance of the dative case due to feature sharing with the nominative case on the predicate nominal and the type of copula. 2.5.3 Roots in Class 1 without the nominal marker in the predicative position Class1, I noted, had to be nominalized in the predicative position. However, there are some roots belonging to Class1 that need not appear with the nominalization morphemes van, vaɭ, and tə. These roots, similar to the Class1 roots, relativize using the –a marker and they appear in the attributive position without the help of the non-finite copula. (137) a. čiita ‘bad’ b. pokkavali čiita aaɳə cigarette smoking bad COP ‘Cigarette smoking is bad for health’ c. pačča ‘green’ d. ela pačča aaɳə leaf green COP ‘Leaf is green in color.’ 81 Interestingly, these can alternate with the dative counterpart only with the addition of an overt nominal. This suggests they are not nominals themselves. (138) a. kutti-kkə čiita swabhavam uɳʈə child-DAT bad character EX ‘The child has a bad character’ b. ela-kkə pacca niram uɳʈə leaf-DAT green colour EX ‘The leaf is green in colour’ This suggests that ‘čiita’ and ‘pačča’ cannot appear in the predicative position without a nominal and still trigger dative case on the subject. When the Class 1 root can appear in the predicative position without the nominal ‘swabhavam’, ‘niram’, only the nominative case can appear in the subject position. The subset of Class 1 roots that can appear in the predicative position without the nominalizing morpheme is restricted to color terms and some adjectives relating to human propensity such as čiita ‘bad’. 2.6 Intermediary Conclusion In this chapter, I have shown that Dravidian does not have an adjective category either lexically or derivationally in the syntax. The two routes taken to derive adjectival-like meaning are relativization and nominalization. I assume the lexicon comprises of roots, which combine with different v heads in the syntax to derive the relevant structures. 2.7 Possession, existentials and locatives In the earlier section, I showed that possession can be used either covertly or overtly in property concept expressions. This section expands on the link between possession and other constructions such as existentials and locatives. 82 The intricate link between the two auxiliary verbs ‘to be’ and ‘to have’ was first noted by Benveniste (1966), “avoir n’est rien autre qu’un être-à inverse” (‘avoir is nothing other than an inverted être-à’) (Benveniste 1966:197, here cited from den Dikken 1997:141). (139) a. Le livre est à Jean. être + à the book is to John b. Jean a le livre. avoir John has the book ‘John has the book.’ This derivational link based on his observations on the French verb avoir ‘to have’ and être ‘to be’ have since then been formally postulated by a number of researchers (Bach 1967, Szabolsci 1981, 1983; Freeze 1992; Kayne 1993; Dechaine, Hoekstra, Rooryck 1994; den Dikken 1995, 1997, 2006; Muromatsu 1997; Postma 1997, Bhatt 1998, Harley 2002, a.o). This approach is now called the ‘decompositional approach’ since it decomposes ‘have’ to BE + P. This analysis has been extended crosslinguistically to account for the fact that the existential, locative, and possessive constructions seem to be related. Formalizing this observation, Freeze (1992) proposes that the underlying structure of the locatives and the existential differ only in the ordering of the theme and location. This can be illustrated in Russian, where the locative is expressed by stating the theme, kniga, followed by location, na stole, with the copula in between. Conversely, an existential statement in Russian is expressed by stating the location, na stole, before the theme, kniga, with the intervening copula. For most languages, the underlying structure of an existential statement is one where the locative argument is the subject of the sentence whereas the underlying structure of a locative statement has the theme as the subject 29 . 29 English which has a proform ‘there’ in the subject position of existential sentences are treated as deviations to the crosslinguistically observable generalization. 83 (140) Russian (Freeze 1992:553-4) a. Kniga byla na stole. locative book NOM was on table ‘The book is on the table.’ b. Na stole byla kniga. existential on table was book NOM ‘There was a book on the table.’ c. U menja byla kniga. possessive at me was book NOM ‘I had a book.’ Freeze further observes, for languages such as Finnish, Tagalog, Hindi, the possessive ‘have’ construction share the same structure as existential constructions. (141) Finnish a. pöydä-llä on kynä. existential table-ADE COP pencil. ‘There was a pencil on the table.’ b. Liisa-lla on mies. possessive Lisa-ADE COP man.’ ‘Lisa has a husband. Languages such as English, which lexicalize ‘have’, imposes a restriction on the locative subject in having a [+human] feature (142a). In cases where the subject of ‘have’ is [-human], the theme must be inalienably possessed (142b). (142) a. The man has a car. b. The table has three legs. 84 The standard analysis ( Hoekstra &Mulder 1990; Freeze 1992; den Dikken 1995, 1997, 2006; Moro 1997; cf. also Witkoś 1998, 2000; Harves 2001; Borschev & Partee 2002 a.o) assumes that the existential, locative, and possessive derives from an underlying structure in (143). (143) BE [ SC NP THEME PP LOCATION ] The different types of constructions arise as the result of moving either the NP THEME (locative sentences) (144a) or the PP LOC (existential/possessive sentences) (144b) into a sentence-initial position (mostly understood as [Spec,IP]). (144) a. NP THEME BE [t NP PP LOCATION ] locative b. PP LOCATION BE [NP THEME t PP ] existential/possessive BE and HAVE are not regarded as lexical verbs, but rather as spell-outs of (various) functional heads in syntax (see den Dikken 2006 for a recent discussion). The difference between English-type and Russian-type possessive constructions (HAVE vs. BE, nominal vs. prepositional possessor; cf. (140c) vs. (144a)) is a result of syntactic incorporation of a (n abstract) prepositional locative head into BE, giving HAVE and the NP possessor in the former case. (145) a. HAVE = BE +P =HAVE b. “NP” P+BE [NP THEME t PP ] possessive 85 In the Dravidian language family, Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2003), Jayaseelan (2007) have argued for a similar incorporation account based on observations regarding the similarity in syntactic constructions between experiencer constructions (which in Dravidian are expressed as dative) and the possessive constructions. In the spirit of Szabolcsi (1983), Kayne (1993), Jayaseelan (2007) proposes that, universally, the functional category Case Phrase (KP) headed by K dat (which plays the function of P in Kayne’s or Freeze’s analysis) can incorporate the complement N (which picks up the intervening P 0 head on its way) and be realized as an adjective. (146) BE [ KP Spec K 0 dat [ PP DP poss [P 0 [ NP N 0 ]]] Thus, there are different permutations and combinations possible which yields the following results: (147) a. When the K dat remains independent, the experiencer DP (most often the possessor) moves to the Spec KP and gets dative case (148a). b. Alternatively, K dat can be incorporated into the N (148b) or into the “BE” verb (148c), then, the possessor must move up to IP and get nominative case. (148) a. to-DP be NP ‘to-me happiness is.’ b. DP (nom.) be AdjP ‘He is wealthy.’ c. DP (nom.) have NP ‘He has wealth.’ The incorporation account predicts the distribution between nouns and adjectives. Absorption of the case head into an NP yields an adjective. Now, a question one could ask at this point is whether Dravidian shows a difference between ‘have’ and ‘be’? Even though prima facie, one could think of the two copulas in Malayalam- aaɳǝ ‘EQ’ and uɳʈǝ ‘EX’ as signaling a difference between ‘have’ and ‘be’, the fact that they can be used interchangeably in many contexts has made a characteristic generalization difficult. Mohanan (1999) has shown that the differences between the two copulas reduces to an abstract notion of experience, location, and possession in the case of the existential copula (uɳʈǝ = [x EXIST( LOC Y)]), whereas the equative 86 copula can signal identity and can also function as a cleft marker (aaɳǝ = [x BE y]). The descriptive grammar of Malayalam (Asher and Kumari 1998) also describes the two copular verbs as “verbs of being”. Jayaseelan (2007) also argues that in Dravidian, the K dat cannot incorporate into the ‘be’ verb and hence Dravidian does not show a distinction between ‘have’ and ‘be’. This is also true of the other Dravidian languages, they show no distinction between ‘be’ and have’ (Krishnamurti 2003). 2.7.1 Tamil and Malayalam copulas There is a seeming relation between the appearance of the dative case on the subject and the copula. In the spirit of Szabolsci (1983) and Kayne (1993), Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2003) has analyzed this dative case (in experiencer constructions) as being assigned in the head of a Case phrase (KP) and not a DP. The KP is the single complement of an abstract verb ‘BE’. The difference in the surface realization of the dative case or the nominative case is in terms of the movement of the subject (NP possessor ) to the Spec of KP. When the subject moves to the Spec KP, dative case is assigned. Nominative case (unmarked on the subject) may be realized differently, possibly by means of a probe, without actual movement into the Spec of KP. This could be what is happening in terms of the differences between Tamil and Malayalam. In ex (148), the subject moves into the Spec KP and hence is assigned dative case. In ex (148), the subject doesn’t move into Spec KP and hence is assigned the unmarked nominative case. Even though Amritavalli and Jayaseelan (2003) do not speculate on the overt versus covert nature of the copula in these cases, one could speculate that there is indeed a link between the copula and the case marking. Suppose, realizing the copula overtly triggers the movement of the subject to the Spec of KP, this movement then triggers the dative case. On the contrary, when the copula is realized covertly, especially since Tamil is a copula drop language, there is no trigger for the subject to move and hence the probe assigns nominative case. The role of the verb “aana” in Tamil, is the equative copula (aa) with the addition of the past tense (n). The equative copula is generally taken to signal identity, and in these examples have the meaning of “became”. This could suggest a change-of-state reading. However, more research needs to be done before saying anything conclusive about this. 87 2.7.2 ‘Alienable’ and ‘inalienable’ possession There are two ways of encoding possession in Malayalam: a) by using a locative or a postpositional phrase for the possessor, which we will call the possessive locative construction (PLC), and b) by using a dative subject construction, which we will call the possessive dative construction (PDC). In PLC, the complex noun phrase comprises of an NP marked genitive (anita-yuʈe) and another NP marked locative (kayy-il) 30 as in (149). In PDC, the NP is marked with dative case, as in (149) 31 . (149) anita-yuʈe kayy-il /aʈuttə/pakkal kaarə uɳʈə (PLC) Anita-GEN hand-LOC/near car EX ‘Anita has a car.’ (Lit: In Anita’s hand’s is a car) (150) anita-kkə kaarə uɳʈə Anita-DAT car EX (PDC) ‘Anita has a car.’ (Lit. To Anita is a car) These two possessive constructions differ in the way they express possession. Asher and Kumari (1997) notes that PLC expresses temporary possession whereas PDC expresses permanent possession. However, I will show that the contrast between (149) and (150) cannot be expressed in terms of temporary possession versus permanent possession. This is seen by the ambiguity expressed by the PLC. (151) can be ambiguous between an ownership reading and a custodial reading. On the contrary, the PDC is not ambiguous between these two readings. It only expresses the ownership reading. 30 The choice between kayy-il, aʈuttə, and pakkal seems to be a dialectal one. We use kayy-il as representative of the whole group. 31 The same possessive construction is used for Class 2 roots in the predicative possession. Thus, possession is expressed overtly, using the PDC, while Class 1 uses a covert form of expressing possession. Hence, both roots involve possessive semantics and syntax. 88 (151) anita-yuʈe kayy-il /aʈuttə/pakkal kaarə uɳʈə (PLC) Anita-GEN hand-LOC/near car EX ‘Anita has a car.’ (Lit: In Anita’s hand’s is a car) Ownership reading: Anita owns a car. Custodial reading: Anita has a car in her custody. (152) anita-kkə kaarə uɳʈə Anita-DAT car EX (PDC) ‘Anita has a car.’ (Lit. To Anita is a car) Ownership reading: Anita owns a car. No custodial reading: * The PLC and PDC cannot license a definite NP in the complement position of the copula. The definite NP blocks the ownership reading. Thus, PDC is ungrammatical with a definite NP and PLC unambiguously has the custodial reading, i.e. possession exhibits the definiteness effect. (153) anita-yuʈe kayy-il aa kaarə uɳʈə (PLC) Anita-GEN hand-LOC that car EX ‘Anita has that car.’ (¹ Anita owns the car) Only custodial reading: Anita has a car in her custody right now. (154) *anita-kkə aa kaarə (PDC) Anita-DAT that car EX ‘Anita has that car.’ (¹ Anita owns the car) The definiteness effect also can be seen in the fact that the PDCs do not allow the possessed NP to be preposed, unlike the PLCs. The bare singular kaarə ‘car’ gets interpreted as definite when it is preposed as in (155), and the sentence only has a custodial reading. 89 (155) kaarə anita-yute kayy-il uɳʈə (PLC) car Anita-GEN hand-LOC EX ‘Anita has the car in her custody right now.’ (156) *kaarə anita-kkə uɳʈə (PDC) car Anita-DAT EX Intended: ‘Anita has the car.’ So far, we have seen that the PLC and PDC have distinct syntactic behavior. The PLC is ambiguous between an ownership reading and a custodial reading, whereas the PDC only has the ownership reading. The PLC and PDC exhibit the definiteness effect, but the custodial reading remains intact in PLC. Why does the PLC exhibit custodial possession and not PDC? How is possession, namely ‘have’ encoded in the language? A question we can ask is whether the copula ‘uɳʈə’ encodes the possession, since it occurs in both PLC and PDC. Our claim is that PLC has a custodial have (following, Iatridou 1996). The definiteness effect is suggestive of this characterization. A question that we could ask at this point is whether the PLC and PDC distinction corresponds to the difference between alienable and inalienable possession. Before we answer this question, we will turn to a brief discussion on how possession in encoded in Hindi-Urdu, a language with an alienable/inalienable split. Alienable possession is expressed in this language with a distinct postposition paas ‘near’ that is not available to express inalienable possession (Chandra and Kumar 2012). (157) a. Johnke paas ek gaaRi he (Chandra and Kumar 2012: 15-18) John's P one car be b. ?Johnki ek gaaRi he John's one car be 'John has a car.' 90 c. *Johnke paas ek bhaai he John's P one brother be d. John kaa ek bhaai he John's P one brother be 'John has a brother.' Chandra and Kumar (2012) notes that similar postpositions are used in Bengali, Marathi and other Indo-Aryan languages. 2.8 A note on the two copulas Languages across the world vary in the number of lexical items they use as copula. Hindi and English use a single lexical form of ‘be’ for syntactic structures such as NP cop NP/Adj and NP cop PP (loc)/ Adverb. (158) a. siitaa raam ki patni hain Sita Ram of wife COP ‘Sita is Ram’s wife.’ b. Raam ghar main hain Ram house at COP ‘Ram is at home.’ c. Raam yahaan hain Ram here COP ‘Ram is here.’ In (158a) the verb ‘be’ occurs with an adjectival predicate, in (158b) it occurs with a locative predicate whereas in (158c) it occurs with an adverbial predicate. Other languages such 91 as Bambara and Oriya distinguish as many as three or four copulas based on the category the predicate belongs to. Consider the Oriya examples below: (159) a. siitaa raamaa-ra strii aʈ-e Sita Rama-of wife COP ‘Sita is Rama’s wife.’ b. raamaa taa-ra deha rakkhi ach-i Rama he-of body guard COP-AGR ‘(Presently) Rama is his body guard.’ c. saaɖhi-ʈaa odaa-th-il-aa sari-CL wet-COP-PAST-AGR ‘The sari was wet.’ d. sandhyaa taaraa he-l-aa sukra-taaraa evening star COP-PAST-AGR venus ‘The evening star is Venus.’ Malayalam, similar to Marathi, Spanish and Portuguese, distinguish between two- uɳʈə ‘the existential copula’ and aaɳə ‘the equative copula’ as shown below: (160) a. pustakam mesapurattə uɳʈə book table-top EX ‘The book is on the table.’ b. raaman budhimaan aaɳə Raman intelligent EQ ‘Raman is intelligent.’ 92 (160a) contains the existential copula and has the structure NP PP (loc) cop while (160b) has the equative copula and the structure NP Adj cop. On the surface, this looks similar to the two copulas in Spanish- ser and estar illustrated in (161) below (from Arche 2006): (161) a. pablo es guapo/ moreno/ gracioso pablo ser-PRES-3SG handsome/dark-skinned/ funny ‘Pablo is handsome/ dark skinned/ funny.’ b. pablo está guapo/ moreno/ gracioso pablo estar-PRES-3SG handsome/ dark-skinned/ funny ‘Pablo looks handsome/ got tanned/ is being funny.’ 2.8.1 Properties of the copulas In this section, I will look at some of the properties of the two copulas in Malayalam vis-à-vis other languages. Unlike other Indian languages such as Tamil, Kannada or Bangla, Malayalam cannot delete the copula. Compare the Kannada example in (162a) with the Malayalam examples in (162b) and (162c). (162) a. iddu pustakam ∅ this book ‘This is a book.’ b. itu pustakam aaɳə this book EQ.COP ‘This is a book.’ c. *itu pustakam this book (162a) is grammatical in Kannada, whereas the same example in Malayalam is 93 ungrammatical as in (162c). This behaviour of Kannada is similar to the notion of “zero copula” in Hebrew, Russian and Hungarian. The two copulas in Malayalam also display some interesting properties with respect to tense and aspect. In present tense, word order variations are possible yielding difference in meaning and interpretation. Consider (163) below: (163) a. kaaʈʈ-il simham uɳʈə forest-LOC lion EX.COP ‘There is a lion in the forest.’ b. simham kaaʈʈ-il uɳʈə lion forest-LOC COP ‘The lion is in the forest.’ (163a), on the surface, looks like the existential there construction since it makes a general statement about lions. On the other hand, (163b) makes a more definite claim. The statement can be understood only as referring to a particular lion, already identifiable from the discourse context. In the past tense, the equative copula is inflected with another ‘be’ verb ir and the aspect morpheme unnu, whereas the existential copula is inflected with the reduced form of the equative copula aa, the ‘be’ verb ir and the aspect unnu. (164) a. raam skooɭ-il aa-ir-unnu Ram school-LOC BE-PRES ‘Ram was in the school.’ b. bukkə mešappuɾattə uɳʈ-aa-ir-unnu book table-top EX.COP-BE-PRES 94 ‘The book was on the table.’ The future tense form of the copula is made up of the reduced form of the equative copula aa and the ‘be’ verb ir and a modal um. (165) a. naaɭe avadhi aa-ir-ikk-um tomorrow holiday BE-LINKER-UM ‘Tomorrow will be a holiday.’ b. bukkə mešappuɾattə uɳʈ-aa-ir-ikk-um book table-top EX.COP-BE-LINKER.UM ‘The book will be on the table.’ The reduced equative copula aa is ambiguous between be/become. In the present tense aaɳə is ‘be’ and aakunnu is ‘be/become’. While in the past tense, aayi is ‘become’ and aayirunnu is ‘be’. The future aakum is ambiguous between ‘be/ become’. 2.8.2 Uses of the copulas Traditionally, the copula is associated with different functions of identity, existence, predication etc. These are explicated below: (166) a. raaman budhimaan aaɳə raman intelligent EQ.COP ‘Raman is intelligent.’ b. mumbai oru valiya nagaram aaɳə mumbai a big city EQ.COP ‘Mumbai is a big city.’ 95 c. raaman oru doctor aaɳə raman a doctor EQ.COP ‘Raman is a doctor.’ These functions are inherently dependent on the ‘word’ itself, i.e., on the lexical entry of the copula. In Malayalam, the two copulas are said to be associated with the properties of ‘equative’ and ‘existential’. Equational refers to identity or quality of a thing or person and are generally associated with the structure NP COP NP/Adjective. The existential shows existence or location of a thing or person, i.e., the structure NP COP PP (LOC). We will see however, in the next section, how this distributional patterning in fact yields the wrong results and how it fails to have enough explanatory power to unfold the real nature of the two copulas. 2.8.3 A closer look at the copulas 2.8.3.1 uɳʈə- the existential copula The existential copula uɳʈə occurs in existentials (locatives) and in dative constructions as illustrated below: (167) a. maan puuntooʈʈatt-il uɳʈə deer garden-LOC EX ‘The deer is in the garden.’ b. puuntooʈʈatt-il maan uɳʈə garden-LOC deer EX ‘There is a deer in the garden.’ c. eni-kkə višappə uɳʈə I-DAT hunger EX ‘I am hungry.’ 96 Interestingly, (167a)/(167b) can alternate with the equative copula aaɳə giving a contrastive focus reading as in (168a). (167c) cannot alternate with aaɳə. (168) a. maan puuntooʈʈatt-il aaɳə deer garden-LOC EQ ‘The deer is in the garden.’ b.*eni-kkə višappə aaɳə I-DAT hunger EQ ‘I am hungry.’ (169) a. veedana kaal-il aaɳə pain leg-LOC EQ ‘There is pain in the leg.’ b. *veedana kaal-il uɳʈə pain leg-LOC EX ‘There is pain in the leg.’ This alternation illustrates that the distinction between the two copulas is very narrow and subtle. We note that in dative copular constructions, the existential copula is obligatory. However, with locatives, there are two possibilities: one is a more existential reading, which uses uɳʈə, and the other a contrastive focus reading with aaɳə. Word order seems to play a major role in determining interpretation of meaning as already seen earlier. Consider the example below: (170) kaal-il veedana uɳʈə/ *aaɳə leg-LOC pain EX.COP/EQ.COP ‘There is pain in the legs.’ 97 We had earlier seen examples where a word order alternation is possible within the same copula (cf. (167a), (167b)). In (169) above, I note that interestingly, a word order change with uɳʈə makes the sentence ungrammatical as in (170). However, the sentence remains grammatical if we alter the copula to aaɳə as in (170a). Why should this be so? I believe it could be mediated by the presence of a FocP to the left of the vP as proposed by Jayaseelan (2001). 2.8.4 The multiple faces of aaɳə Although literature contends aaɳə to be the ‘equative’ copula, I will look at two different behavior of the copula, namely the ‘predicative’ usage and the ‘equative’ usage. 2.8.4.1 aaɳə- The predicative copula The predicative copula aaɳə is used to indicate ‘states’ and ‘events’ as illustrated below: (171) a. avan sundaran aaɳə State he beautiful EX ‘He is beautiful.’ b. malsaram aaɾu maɳi-kkə aaɳə Event match six time-DAT EX ‘The match is at six o’clock.’ The above examples cannot alternate with uɳʈə as shown below: (172) a. *avan sundaran uɳʈə he beautiful EX ‘He is beautiful.’ b. *malsaram aaru maɳi-kkə uɳʈə match six time-DAT EX 98 ‘The match is at six o’clock.’ However, as shown above, aaɳə can also occur with locatives. As noted above in (171a), statives cannot occur with uɳʈə. When the subject NP is marked dative, a stative predicate can occur with uɳʈə as seen below: (173) avan-ə pokkam uɳʈə him-DAT tall EX.COP ‘He is tall.’ The distinction between ‘equative’ and ‘existential’ is therefore not explanatorily adequate to tease out the actual meaning of the two copulas. There is more to it as shall be shown in the coming sections. 2.8.4.2 aaɳə- The equative copula The equative ‘be’, is the true copula, in the Latin sense of the word helping in the conjoining of two syntactic positions i.e. a subject and a complement as in (174) below: (174) deivam satyam aaɳə god truth EQ.COP ‘God is truth.’ The above utterrance literally means God “is equal to” truth. Another example is illustrated below: (175) meri enṯe aniyatti aaɳə mary my sister EQ.COP ‘Mary is my younger sister.’ (174) and (175) above are examples of typical equative copular constructions. The sections 99 above have made it necessary to reanalyze the role of aaɳə, which, in literature has been acknowledged as the ‘equative’ copula. Somehow, the predicative sense of the copula seems to be the one, which is used more often than the equative sense. We also saw that on the predicative usage of the copula, an alternation with uɳʈə is not possible. aaɳə seems to alternate freely with uɳʈə in those instances in which a location is specified. Let us now look at the interaction between the two copulas. 2.8.5 Interaction between the two copulas Although we have seen in the previous sections that the two copulas have distinct usages, we also note some instances where they can alternate freely. Along with the constructions already mentioned, ‘possession’ and ‘experience’ can alternate with the two copulas such as shown below: (176) a. eni-kkə kaaɾə uɳʈə/ aaɳə I-DAT car EX.COP/EQ-COP ‘I have a car.’ b. eni-kkə pani uɳʈə/aaɳə I-DAT fever EX.COP/EQ.COP ‘I have fever.’ I shall leave aside the matter of whether the equative copula induces a contrastive focus reading for a later section. Note that (176b) is very similar to (168b) (cf. (167c)) repeated here below: (177) *eni-kkə višappə aaɳə I-DAT hunger EQ.COP ‘I am hungry.’ A question that arises when comparing (168b) with (177) is why aaɳə should be 100 unacceptable with višappə ‘hunger’ but acceptable with other experiences such as pani ‘fever’. This particular facet of ‘experiences’ could be because pani ‘fever’ is one among the numerable diseases, which can be said to constitute a set. višappə ‘hunger’ does not, however, seem to yield easily to such a classification. 2.8.6 Equative versus Predicative Although, traditionally, in Indian languages there have been distinctions between ‘existential’ and ‘equative’ uses of the copulas, English and other languages distinguish the ‘equational’ usage of a copula from its ‘predicational’ usage. This is not motivated by the choice of the lexical forms but whether the NPs in the copular sentences are referential or not (Higginbotham 1987, Rapoport 1987, Lorie Heggie 1988). An ‘equative’ sentence is one in which both the NPs are definite. A sentence, which has any other configuration, is ‘predicative’ as illustrated by the English examples below: (178) a. Mary is my sister. b. John is a doctor. I already noted that aaɳə can function as the predicative copula. However, this distinction between the ‘equative’ usage or the ‘predicative usage’ and the ‘existential’ usage also does not aid in unraveling the meaning differences between the two copulas in Malayalam. Consider (179) below: (179) a. siitaa ramanṯ-e bhaarya aaɳə sita raama-ACC wife EQ-COP ‘Sita is Rama’s wife.’ b. raaman vaɭare budhimaan aaɳə raman a lot intelligent EQ.COP ‘Rama is very intelligent.’ 101 Why should the equative sentence in (179a) select the same copula as the predicative sentence in (179b)? I note that a similar case holds for English as explicated in (178). However, a question which we would like to ask at this point and leave unanswered is why does Malayalam use aaɳə for the usages of predication and equation when, unlike English, the language already has two copulas. Why didn’t the language choose a third one to lexically distinguish the two usages since it would not have violated any minimality requirements? 2.8.7 Distribution of the two copulas In the previous sections, we looked at the different construction types the two copulas can occur with. We further need to make a distinction between the types of predicates with which the copulas can occur such as adjectival predicates versus nominal and verbal predicates. It is noted that there is no relation between the lexically different forms of the copula and different syntactic structure types. Consider some examples of adjectival and nominal predicates. (180) a. Anil-inə buddhi uɳʈə john-DAT intelligence EX.COP ‘Anil has intelligence.’ b. Anil buddhi-maan aaɳə Anil intelligent-AGR EQ.COP ‘John is intelligent.’ c. Anil-inə sneham uɳʈə Anil-DAT love EX.COP ‘John is loving.’ (180a) and (180b) are two alternative ways of expressing the same idea. (a) is cast in the existential frame, literally meaning ‘to John intelligence exists’. This may also be read as a case of possession, i.e., John possesses intelligence. In the (b) version, it is given in the predicative frame. The property of intelligence is predicated on the individual John. 102 As traditionally observed, when the predicate is an NP, the copular verb is aaɳə (Asher and Kumari 1997). When the predicate is a PP, the copula used can be either uɳʈə or aaɳə. uɳʈə is used to ask whether the entity is where it is expected to be while aaɳə is used while asking about the entity’s location. (181) a. Anil viiʈʈ-il uɳʈə/ aaɳə Anil house-LOC EX.COP/EQ.COP ‘Anil is in the house.’ b. kuʈʈi tooʈʈatt-il aaɳə child garden-LOC EQ.COP ‘The child is in the garden.’ The form of the property concept expressions vary in their attributive and predicative uses when used as complements in copular sentences, they are first nominalised, and the nominalising suffix shows gender and number. A distinction should still be made with pure nominals as the nominalised adjectives still take adverbial modifiers such as vaɭare ‘very’. This is so because any nominal can take a property concept expression modifier, but only property concept expressions can be modified by adverbials. (182) *avaɭ vaɭare doktor aaɳə she very doctor EQ.COP ‘She is a doctor.’ Things are simpler in English, since all NPs post-verbally, i.e., in the subject position, are marked nominative. Things are not all that simple in Indian languages. Malayalam, as do most other Indian languages, mark dative case on NPs as in (183) below: (183) raadha-kkə raɳʈə kuʈʈi-kaɭ uɳʈə radha-DAT two child-PL EX.COP ‘Radha has two children.’ 103 I shall look at this phenomenon in more detail in the next section § 2.8.8. 2.8.8 Occurrence of uɳʈə and the use of the dative Mohanan and Mohanan (1999) explicate the use of the two copulas by showing that the crucial differences between the two hinges on the difference in “form” and “meaning”. They claim, in the configuration NP-DAT COP NP-NOM, the use of uɳʈə gives a neutral meaning while aaɳə gives the non-neutral meaning. 2.8.8.1 Occurences of uɳʈə I note that the existential copula uɳʈə can occur in the following constructions: a) When it occurs with the Dative and an Indefinite Theme, it gets either the Possession or the Experiencer realization. b) When it occurs with the Locative and an Indefinite Theme, it gets the Existential reading. c) When it occurs with the Locative and a Definite Theme, it gets the Custodial reading. The Theme in the Possessive Dative Construction cannot be a definite NP/argument and the custodial reading is barred. These are illustrated below: (184) a. eni-kkə talaveedana uɳʈə EXPERIENCER I- DAT headache EX.COP ‘I have a headache.’ b. anita-kkə kaaɾə uɳʈə POSSESSION Anita-DAT car EX.COP ‘Anita has a car.’ c. meša purattə pustakam uɳʈə EXISTENTIAL table on book EX.COP 104 ‘There is a book on the table.’ d. anita-uʈe kayy-il kaaɾə uɳʈə CUSTODIAL Anita-GEN hand-LOC car EX.COP ‘Anita has a car.’ 2.8.8.2 The dative As noted in the above sections, there is a preference to use the existential copula uɳʈə when the subject is dative. (185) raadha-kkə raɳʈə kuʈʈi-kaɭ uɳʈə radha-DAT two child-PL EX.COP ‘Radha has two children.’ We find that (185) can alternate with aaɳə to give a cleft reading below: (186) raadha-kkə raɳʈə kuʈʈi-kaɭ aaɳə radha-DAT two child-PL EQ.COP ‘Radha has two children.’ Contrast this with (187 a-b) of which (187 b) is ungrammatical. (187) a. raadha-kkə kuʈʈi-kaɭ uɳʈə radha-DAT child-PL EX.COP ‘Radha has two children.’ b. *raadha-kkə kuʈʈi-kaɭ aaɳə radha-DAT child-PL EQ.COP ‘Radha has two children.’ 105 The overt presence of a numeral like raɳʈə ‘two’ allows a cleft reading with aaɳə. Leaving the discussion of the copulas aside, we shall move on to explicating a conceptual space of dividing ‘properties’, for example, depending on the nature of the predicate a particular copula occurs with, as noted in the previous sections. This will enable us to arrive at some generalizations regarding the nature of the two copulas and the kind of ‘properties’ they can be predicated of. 2.8.9 A continuum of properties Cross linguistically, languages can be divided on the basis of the conceptual space they choose to construe with a particular copula, in the case of Malayalam with either the existential or the equative copula. This is borne out by the fact that languages have grammaticized distinctions between “temporary” versus “permanent” properties. Although notions of permanence and temporariness are related to objects and entities in the world and not of linguistic predicates per se, the distinction marked in languages is grammatical in that the “temporary” versus “permanent” meaning of predicates is a semantic property of the construction in which the predicates occur in. In English, the copula occurs with the syntactic categories of N, A and P. Becker (2000) defines a space for the properties ranging from “more permanent” types to “more temporary” types, which we illustrate in Table 2.0 below: (188) NP’s AP’s PP’s 106 species/kind ( a human) gender/type (a woman) nationality (an American) professions (a doctor) stage of life ( a young /old woman) neighbour/fugitive/contestant species/kind (human) gender/type (woman) nationality (American) shape/colour/ size (round, red, small) stage of life (young/old) energy levels/ emotions (tired, happy) necessary locations ( in the known universe) locations of events (the party is in the garden) locations of immobile things (cities/islands) locations of mobile things (people/objects) Table 2.0 Continuum of properties ranging from “Permanent” to “Temporary” Languages differ cross linguistically in terms of where exactly they draw the line between the properties and most differences stem out in predicative (copular) constructions. In English, only the ‘energy levels/emotions’ are construed differently. English divides its conceptual space based on the sentences where NPs are marked nominative. Malayalam differs with respect to NPs marked nominative and those marked dative. When the NP is dative, the preferred copula is uɳʈə. The existential copula somehow induces the dative case on the subject NP. Let us look more closely at how Malayalam marks the above list of NPs, APs and PPs with respect to uɳʈə and aaɳə. As stated above, nominal predicates seem to prefer aaɳə. They can never alternate with the existential copula. Therefore, the “permanent” to “temporary” space of NPs are construed with the copula aaɳə. As seen in this chapter, Dravidian does not have an AP category. We notice that the property concept expressions prefer aaɳə as opposed to uɳʈə, with the exception of ‘energy levels/ emotions’. These occur only with uɳʈə as illustrated below: (189) a. eni-kkə santoošam uɳʈə/ *aaɳə I-DAT happiness EX.COP/ *EQ.COP ‘I am happy.’ b. eni-kkə šeeɳam uɳʈə/ aaɳə 107 I-DAT tiredness EX.COP/EQ.COP ‘I am tired.’ However, as noted in (189a), an alternation with aaɳə is not possible. For the time being, we shall construe “energy levels/emotions” with uɳʈə. The construal of PPs, however, seems to be trickier. Earlier, I noted that the existential copula occurs with locatives. Consider the following example: (190) maan puuntooʈʈatt-il uɳʈə deer garden-LOC EX.COP ‘The deer is in the garden.’ We also saw for the above that an alternation with the equative copula is possible. Now, in Table 2.0, the first set of PPs is “necessary locations” (in the known universe). Look at the examples below: (191) a. mumbai indaiy-il aaɳə/ *uɳʈə mumbai india-LOC EQ.COP/*EX.COP ‘Mumbai is in India.’ b. EFLU hyderabad-il aaɳə/ * uɳʈə EFLU hyderabad-LOC EQ.COP/*EX.COP ‘EFLU is in Hyderabad.’ Interestingly, animacy seems to play a role in determining the copula. Let us change the subject mumbai ‘Mumbai’ to an animate one, say, jon ‘John’. (192) jon indaiy-il uɳʈə / aaɳə john india-LOC EX.COP/EQ.COP ‘John is in India.’ 108 The use of uɳʈə gives the reading, “John exists in India”, whereas aaɳə signals a cleft reading, “It is in India that John is”. We also note the impossibility of a word order variation with aaɳə, as illustrated: (193) a.*indaiy-il jon aaɳə india-LOC john EQ.COP ‘John is in India.’ b. indaiy-il jon uɳʈə india-LOC john EX.COP ‘John is in India.’ Therefore, when the subject is inanimate, only aaɳə is possible as in (192). When the subject is animate, there are two possibilities, aaɳə is used when the subject is out of the existential closure of the locative and uɳʈə is used when the subject is within the existential closure of the locative. Malayalam draws a distinction between locations of mobile things on the one hand and locations of immobile things and events on the other. aaɳə is used for both locations of immobile objects as well as events. uɳʈə can alternate with aaɳə for locations of mobile things. Examples below: (194) a. mumbai indaiy-il aaɳə/ *uɳʈə mumbai india-LOC EQ.COP/*EX.COP ‘Mumbai is in India.’ b. parti ente viiʈʈ-il aaɳə/ *uɳʈə party my house-LOC ‘The party is in my house.’ c. puuca ente viiʈʈ-il uɳʈə/aaɳə cat my house-LOC EX.COP/EQ.COP 109 ‘The cat is in my house.’ In Spanish, estar is used to express the location of an object (mobile or not) while ser is used to express location of an event. One significant point of departure from Spanish with respect to construal of locations with ser and estar is that, in Malayalam, uɳʈə is used only for locations of mobile things. Sera (1992) accounts for the Spanish facts by arguing that there is an ontological split between events and objects in their relationship with spatial and temporal locations. The location of an event is an “essential” property of the event; if it happens in any other location, then it would be construed as a different event, whereas a location does not constitute an essential property of an object, because an object can, in principle, exist in various locations and yet retain its identity. In Malayalam, location of an event is an “essential” property just as in Spanish. However, the construal of mobile versus immobile objects are different. There seems to be a split between the choices of the copula. We believe this has to do with the notion of animacy discussed above. If a majority of the categories in PPs prefer the equative copula over the existential copula, then how can the existential copula be called existential at all? PPs are the most common way of expressing an existential construction in Malayalam. This seems to be an empirical question for which we offer no answer since a discussion pertaining to that will go beyond the scope of the thesis. Based on the foregoing discussion, Malayalam seems to divide the conceptual space as in Table 3.0 32 . (195) 32 Note here that “APs” are only used as a category for convenience, there is obviously nothing called an AP in Malayalam a priori. 110 Table 3.0 Conceptual space of Malayalam As we can see from Table 3.0, only “energy levels/emotions” and “locations of mobile things” seem to have an exclusive preference for the existential copula uɳʈə. These two categories are in some sense “more temporary” than the categories at the top of the table. 2.8.9.1 Summary In this section, I looked closely at the distributional patterning of the two copulas in Malayalam and noted that the existential copula uɳʈə occurs with existentials (locatives), and with constructions that have a dative subject. The copula aaɳə has multiple avatars and can occur both as the predicative copula and the equative copula. It occurs with states and events. Nominals seem to prefer aaɳə, as do most property concept expressions. I also attempted to trace their occurrence with different kinds of constructions, such as, possession, experience etc. I noted that the existential copula when it occurs with: (i) Dative + Indefinite Theme = Possession (ii) Experiencer Locative + Indefinite Theme = Existential 111 (iii) Locative + Definite Theme = Custodial I also looked at the distribution of the two copulas based on a conceptual space where NPs, APs and PPs are divided on the basis of “permanent” to more “temporary” properties. On the surface, aaɳə seems to be the preferred copula for “permanent” properties and uɳʈə seems to occur with the more “temporary” ones. 2.9 Summary of this chapter In this chapter, I introduced the basic data from Malayalam property concept expressions, namely Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions. These expressions differ in their grammatical life. I proposed that these expressions compose with different functional heads in the syntax. These functional heads have different semantics. The property concept expressions start out as roots with the same semantics. The functional head they compose with determines their grammatical life. I discussed how the analysis handles attributive modification and prediction. The crucial claim was regarding the role of possession. Gradability is a by-product of possession. Only Class 1 expressions are gradable, since they covertly encode possession in the semantics of the functional head they compose with. Class 2 expressions are not gradable in and of themselves, however they can be made gradable using the existential copula. This analysis was then extended to data from other Dravidian languages. In the next chapter, I will analyze a sub section of Class 1 property concept expression, namely color terms. These expressions, although morphologically belong to Class 1, exhibit varied behavior and provides further evidence for possession as playing a role in gradability. 112 Chapter 3 The Expression of Color 33 In this chapter, I address the question of how color is represented in Dravidian 34 . I provide evidence for different representations constructed by morphosyntax above and below the word level. Building on results from Chapter 2, this chapter argues for a further nuanced analysis of Class 1 and Class 2 expressions on the basis of certain intricacies found in color expressions. Color expressions morphologically belong to Class 1 expressions, since they are –a ending. However, their behavior syntactically differs from Class 1. I further argue for a more complex internal structure for color expressions. I begin with the basic data showing the complexity of color expressions and provide to give an analysis. I then talk about certain cross-linguistic implications of the analysis and I end with a note on color expressions in Modern Standard Arabic, and a note on subjective predicates. 3.1 Quick recap of Chapter 2 There are two classes of property concept expressions- Class 1 (-a ending relativized roots) and Class 2 (-am ending nominalized roots). The two classes of property concept roots undergo different syntactic derivations, but crucially start with, and end with, the same meaning. The possessive relation is expressed at the level of the word, through a covert possessive verbal 33 Parts of this chapter has been published as Menon and Pancheva (to appear). 34 Visual illusions, such as the blue and black dress that took the Internet by storm, illustrate that color perception is a cognitive construct- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/28/science/white-or-blue-dress.html?_r=0 113 morpheme, with Class 1 roots, and at the phrasal level, through an overt possessive verb, with Class 2 roots. Gradability is directly related to property possession. Only Class 1 lexemes are gradable, Class 2 expressions become gradable at the phrasal level, through combination with a copula expressing possessive semantics. (196) Class 1: native roots, non-color a. [[[ vP √1+ ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] (attributive) ‘having an instance of Π that exceeds the standard’ b. [ vP [ DP [[[ vP √1 + ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] pron ] EQ.COP ] (predicative) ‘be someone having an instance of Π that exceeds the standard’ (197) Class 2: borrowed roots a. [[ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP non-finite ] + a rel ] (attributive) ‘having an instance of Π’ b. [ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP ] (predicative) ‘have an instance of Π’ c. [ vP [ DP [[ vP [ DP [ vP √2 + ∅ v ] + am n ] EX.COP non-finite ] + a rel ] pron ] EQ.COP ] ‘be someone having an instance of Π’ (predicative) 3.2 Issues in research on color Although the area of adjectival structure and meaning is a widely studied field 35 , there have been very few formal investigations into the meaning and morphosyntax of color (Kennedy & McNally 2010, McNally 2011, McNally & de Swart 2011, Alexiadou 2013, Moltmann 2013). Color has been extensively studied in philosophy and has sparked many philosophical debates (Travis 1985, 1994, 1997; Rothschild and Segal 2009; Szabó 2001, Hansen 2011). The difficulty 35 For typological studies on color, see Berlin and Kay 1969, Kay and McDaniel 1978, Kay et al 1997, and Wierzbicka 1990. For psycholinguistics studies on color, see Heider 1972, Heider and Olivier 1972, Hansen and Chemla 2013. 114 of analysis of color expressions has partly been due to shifting truth-values from context to context, and the issue of compositionality. Color adjectives 36 have been challenging for truth conditional semantics, as their truth conditions seem to depend on pragmatic contextualism (Travis 1985, 1997). Often context-shifting arguments are used in generating evidence for such contexualism. The following story, from Travis (1997), illustrates this for color expressions. The story involves leaves of a Japanese maple tree that have been painted green. A story. Pia’s Japanese maple is full of russet leaves. Believing that green is the colour of leaves, she paints them. Returning, she reports, ‘That’s better. The leaves are green now.’ She speaks truth. A botanist friend then phones, seeking green leaves for a study of green-leaf chemistry. ‘The leaves (on my tree) are green,’ Pia says. ‘You can have those.’ But now Pia speaks falsehood. (Travis 1997, p. 89) The story involves two contexts, Pia decorating the russet leaves (C1) and a botanist who is looking for green leaves for a study of green-leaf chemistry (C2). In both contexts, there is an utterance of “The leaves are green”. Travis’s intuitions about the painted leaves scenario is that in C1, the decorator (Pia) is uttering the truth, while in C2, the utterance is false. Given that the sentence in (198) has underlyingly one LF, the painted leaves scenario calls into question the compositional nature of semantics. (198) The leaves are green. In formal semantics, two different approaches have tried to solve this issue. The first approach hypothesizes that one of the constituents is context-dependent and derives truth- conditional variability via normal mechanisms (Szabó 2001; Rothschild & Segal 2009). The other, more recent approach, posits an underlying ambiguity in the truth conditional semantics of color adjectives (Kennedy & McNally 2010). 36 Many expressions in natural language shift their content in different contexts, such as first person pronouns (“I”), and adverbs (“here” and “now”). 115 3.2.1. Linguistics of color: Context-dependency theories Two kinds of context-dependency theories have been advanced in accounting for Travis’s arguments- hidden variables (Szabó 2001) and indexical predicates (Rothschild & Segal 2009). In the first view, Szabó 2001 analyzes color adjectives similar to analysis of adjectives like skillfull and talented. Beyond the standardly assumed comparison class variable for gradable predicates, these adjectives have a parameter that specifies the way in which an object is considered to be skillfull or talented. This can be seen overtly with an as-phrase, such as skillfull/talented as a chef vs. as a pianist. The logical form proposed by Szabó 2001 for color adjectives is in (199), where C is a comparison class and P is a variable that picks out the property of green represented by x. (199) (green (C, P)) (x) The value of P is fixed by the context, therefore green is true of an object if and only if a contextually determined portion of the object is green. This rightfully accounts for Travis’s intuitions in the following way. In the first utterance of (198), Pia fixes the value of P to refer to the surface area of the leaves. In this case, green refers to the superficial greenness of the leaves, and (198) is true in this context. In the second utterance of (198), when the botanist asks for some green leaves, the value of P is fixed in such a way that the entirety of the objects being green is picked out. Thus, this renders (198) as being false, since the leaves are merely “painted green”. However, there are problems to this analysis, as suggested by Kennedy and McNally (2010). In the context of Pia immersing these russet leaves in green dye, the botanist can still maintain that Pia was lying while uttering (198), even though now the entire leaf is green in color. The other prominent view, as spelled out in Rothschild and Segal, treat color adjectives as indexical predicates. The indexed property and its semantics are given in (200). (200) a. T (green) = green i (from Kennedy & McNally 2010, 4a/b) 116 b. For any x, green i (x) is true in a context C i iff x is green according to the standard for greenness in C i Rothschild and Segal’s proposal differs crucially in the indices on green. This context dependency can account for the different truth conditions for the utterance in (198). Assume that the representation of (198) as uttered by Pia is given in (201a), and the representation of (198) as interpreted by the botanist is in (201b), and further i ≠ j. (201) a. green i (the leaves) b. green j (the leaves) Although, this analysis can account for the different truth conditional requirements of Travis’s story without postulating hidden variables, it suffers from a significant cost, namely the constraints on evaluating the different denotations of an adjective in different contexts. Rothschild and Segal leave this to psychology but do not offer a fully worked out account. Kennedy and McNally (2010) offer two problems to this account. The first problem comes from ellipsis. In a context where leaf A has been painted to look green, while leaf B is naturally green, consider the following utterance. (202) Leaf A is green i , but leaf B isn’t. Resolving the ellipsis in (202) should result in the same material from the higher conjunct being copied into the lower conjunct. Thus, if leaf A is painted green, then the following utterance should also be true. (203) Leaf A is painted green i , but leaf B isn’t. However, recall that leaf B is naturally green. So given this context (202) is truthful but (203) is not. This can be attributed to the fact that the indexical account can over generate as can also be seen with so-anaphora. The example given by Kennedy and McNally (2010) is that of the following context of a traffic signal. 117 Consider, for example, a context involving two traffic signals, A and B. The uppermost light of A is illuminated and glowing red (indicating “stop”), but the body of the signal is painted black. In contrast, the lowermost light of B is illuminated and glowing green, and the body of the signal is painted red. Given this context, the following sentence is felicitous. (204) Traffic signal A is red in one of the senses that the term is used, and so is traffic signal B. Assume that the denotation of the color adjective red in these cases is “is color in any of the senses that the term is ever used”, and denoted as red g . The utterance in (204) suggests that it is the same property of red g attributed to the two lights. However, the possibility of so-anaphora where identity is required between the antecedent and the anaphora suggests that it cannot be the same red g in the first and second conjuncts. (205) Traffic signal A is red, and so is traffic signal B. In this utterance, either red is true of the first conjunct and false in the second conjunct, or vice versa. Therefore, Kennedy and McNally contend that natural language never lexicalizes a meaning such as red g with the help of an indexical predicate. Instead, they propose an alternative answer to Travis’s problem. The ambiguity in truth conditional semantics falls out from a lexical ambiguity inherent in color adjectives. Thus, there are multiple ways of “being green” or “being red”. Depending on which lexical semantics is chosen, the difference in interpretation and meaning follows. In the next section, I discuss Kennedy and McNally’s (2010) solution to this problem. 3.2.2. Linguistics of color: Lexical Ambiguity An examination of color expressions is warranted because they differ from other adjectives in at least two ways. First, color adjectives have both gradable and non-gradable meanings (as in 118 (206)-(207)). Gradable adjectives are compatible with overt degree modifiers, without a meaning change to the adjective itself (cf. the two uses of green in (211) vs. (212)). (206) Gradable: The leaves are green but they aren’t green enough. (207) Non-gradable: The traffic light is green. # It is greener than the traffic light on that corner. Other adjectives do not show this pattern. Relative (tall, expensive) and absolute (full, clean) adjectives only have gradable meanings (putting aside idiomatic expressions such as high tea). Non-gradable adjectives such as Czech, chemical, female need to be coerced to a new meaning in order to be used with degree modifiers, and can do so with varying success (e.g., Mary is more Czech than Susana vs. # Mary is more female than Susana). Second, color adjectives can appear in nominal positions, unlike other adjectives, as seen in (208)-(209) and discussed in McNally and de Swart (2011), Alexiadou (2013), a.o. (208) Green suits you (209) *{Big/short/expensive/wet} suits you A third observation regarding the special status of color expressions come from the ability of other adjectives to modify color terms. This seems to be a special fact of color. Other adjectives, such as dimension, age, physical propensity does not seem to allow this. (210) a. light blue, dark grey, bright purple b. *old new, *new sad, *wide broad These terms can be coerced into a special, idiomatic meaning, such as ‘fat lie’ or ‘tall tale’. However, these meanings are fixed. 119 Rooting the ambiguity in lexical semantics, Kennedy and McNally (2010) posit three ways of being a color adjective. A gradable color adjective denotes a measure function that maps an object onto a degree that represents how it manifests the color named by the noun, relative to quantity of color (211a) or quality of color (211b). Gradable color adjectives form properties by combining with degree morphology, like POS, very, -er. A nongradable color adjective denotes the property of manifesting some property which is correlated with the color in question (212). (211) Gradable (Kennedy & McNally 2010) ⟦ green quant ⟧ <e,d> = λx. quant (green) (x) ⟦ green qual ⟧ <e,d> = λx. qual (green) (x) (212) Non gradable (Kennedy & McNally 2010) ⟦ green nongr ⟧ <e,t> = λx. P i (x) & cor (P i , green) As a gradable color adjective, the measure functions can map onto the quality (eg. Van Gogh’s Irises are too blue) or the quantity (eg. Furrytail is ¼ white and a ¼ black) of the color possessed by the object. As a nongradable color adjective, having one property correlates with another property, for eg. at a traffic signal, red signals stop and green indicates cars can go. These correlations are not a matter of degree, they either obtain or not. The difference in gradability can be shown by using overt degree modifiers. Only gradable adjectives allow degree modifiers. (213) a. Whiskey bottles are very brown. b. # This signal is very green. Color adjectives are also ambiguous between an adjective category and a nominal category. Other non-color adjectives do not show this ambiguity. (214) a. Color adjective: a [green A ] AP dress [the [green A ] AP Δ ] DP suits you b. Color nominalization: the [[green A ]-ness N ] NP of the city c. Noun: [green N ] DP suits you 120 (215) a. Size adjective: a [big A ] AP building b. Size nominalization: the [[big A ]-ness N ] NP of the building c. Noun: * [big N ] DP suits you 3.3 Aims of this chapter This chapter contributes to our understanding of the grammar of color terms in Malayalam in comparison to other expressions used for predications, attributive modification and comparison in this language. In particular, some color expressions show mixed properties, behaving like non- color expressions of one class in attributive position but like non-color expressions of the second class in predicative position. I analyze some color and non-color expressions in Malayalam as inherently non-gradable; further composition with possessive predicates contributes gradability. More generally, the chapter provides support for a gradable/non-gradable ambiguity in color expressions (Kennedy & McNally 2010, McNally 2011), although I do not analyze the different meanings as a case of a lexical ambiguity but as the result of different representations constructed by syntax below and above the word level. I also show evidence that color terms in Malayalam can behave as nominals, which is attributed to their combination with a null noun COLOR. Thus, Malayalam color expressions show similar behavior with respect to the phenomena illustrated in (206)-(207), and the analysis I offer in this chapter contributes to the understanding of the cross-linguistic patterns. 3.4 Color expressions in Malayalam In Chapter 2, color expressions were subsumed under Class 1, since they are –a ending terms. In this section, we will look in detail at color expressions in Malayalam suggesting that they exhibit both Class 1 and Class 2 properties, even though morphologically they belong to Class 1 property-concept expressions. Color terms are –a ending, like Class 1 expressions. However, they exhibit two different forms with different syntactic behavior. I will refer to these forms as Simple and Complex. The 121 term Simple is meant simply in opposition to Complex, the Simple form has internal morphological composition, similar to Class 1 expressions (except with a non-possessive v, as we will see shortly). The Complex form, although –a ending too, differs from Class 1 expressions in that it is overtly more complex. An exhaustive list of color terms in Malayalam is given in (216) below. (216) Table 4.0: Color expressions in Malayalam ROOT SIMPLE COMPLEX NOMINALIZATION MEANING √weɭ weɭɭa weɭɭutta weɭɭuppə ‘white’ 37 √kaɾ -- kaɾutta kaɾuppə ‘black’ √kem -- čuvanna 38 čuvappə ‘red’ √pačč pačča -- paččappə 39 ‘green’ √niil niila -- -- ‘blue’ √maɲ maɲɲa -- -- ‘yellow’ √čaar čaara -- -- ‘ash grey’ √uut √nar uuta nara -- naračča -- -- ‘violet’ ‘grey’ Among the color roots, the roots for ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘red’, and ‘green’ (√weɭ, √kaɾ, √kem, √pačč) can be identified as having Proto-Dravidian origins. These roots have cognates in other Dravidian languages. The roots for ‘blue’ and ‘violet’ are borrowings from Hindi-Urdu, and the root for ‘yellow’ is derived from the Tamil word for turmeric ‘maɲɲal’. Apart from these, 37 Only the root for ‘white’ exhibits both simple and complex forms. We have to say that the lack of one form or the other for the remaining color roots is an accidental gap. However, we do note that there exist words for ‘red’ and ‘black’ that look simple but semantically mean different things, such as kaɾa ‘stain’ and čuva ‘taste’. These two terms are nouns and not reduced relatives as seen by the presence of overt case marking. 38 There is some variation in the pronunciation of this term. The alternate, which is quite prevalent, is “čukanna” 39 Note, however, that paččappə means ‘greenery’. All the other nominalizations refer to the color itself. 122 English terms for colors such as ‘cream’, ‘rose’, ‘pink’, ‘orange’ have been borrowed into the Dravidian lexicon and they are pronounced with regular morphology used while borrowing, such as the epenthetic vowel (ə in Malayalam, u in Telugu etc) at the end of the final syllable. Apart from appearing in Simple and Complex forms, some color terms also have nominalization patterns. In addition, color terms that show both the forms are white, black, red, and grey. The color term green also has a nominalized form. This term, however, has a specialized meaning. All the other nominalized terms refer to the color term itself. The other color terms do not have a nominalized counterpart. The nominalized form is different from the morpheme found in Class 1 predicative forms. The form used here –ipp is the causative morpheme. 3.4.1 Syntactic and semantic behavior of color expressions In this section, I will look at the syntactic and semantic behavior of the two color expressions. I will start by looking at the Simple color terms, noting that their morphosyntactic behavior is similar to Class 2 expressions. I will proceed to analyze them similar to Class 2. In the next section, I will look at Complex color expressions, noting that their morphosyntactic behavior is similar to Class 1 expressions. 3.4.1.1 Simple color terms Simple color terms morphologically resemble Class 1 expressions, in that they end in -a. However, they depart in their syntactic behavior exhibiting similarities with both Class 1 and Class 2 expressions. (217) ROOT SIMPLE MEANING √weɭ weɭɭa ‘white’ √kaɾ -- ‘black’ 123 In the attributive position, the Simple color terms behave similar to Class 1 expressions. They can attributively combine with a nominal, without the help of additional morphology. (218) a. weɭɭa kuppayam white dress ‘the white dress’ b. pačča ela green leaf ‘the green leaf’ However, in the predicative position can appear without overt nominalization. Recall that Class 1 expressions, on the other hand, had to be nominalized with the –tə in order to appear in the predicative position. (219) a. kuppayam weɭɭa aaɳə dress white EQ-COP ‘The dress is white.’ b. ela pačča aaɳə leaf green EQ-COP ‘The leaf is green.’ There is one main difference between Simple color expressions and Class 2 expressions in the predicative position- the use of the copula. Class 2 expressions regularly show up with the existential copula in predication. They could show up with the equative copula, when they expressed canonical predication. √kem -- ‘red’ √pačč pačča ‘green’ √niil niila ‘blue’ √maɲ maɲɲa ‘yellow’ √čaar čaara ‘ash grey’ √uut uuta ‘violet’ 124 (220) a. Anil-inə pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT tallness EX-COP ‘Anil is tall.’ b. Anil pokkam uɭɭ-a-van aaɳə Anil tallness EXNONFIN-REL-NOML EQ-COP ‘Anil is tall.’ Thus, this suggests that when the Simple color term appears in the predicative position, there is some additional covert structure which allows the composition to work. 3.4.1.2 Simple color terms in attributive modification My proposal is to treat the Simple color terms similar to Class 2 forms up to a point. They compose with a v head with no possessive semantics and no degree argument. This is intact with our earlier observation about the composition of –a, the Proto Dravidian relative clause marker, with verbal elements. Thus, Simple color terms are turned into participial verbal expressions by the addition of a null v as in (221), the same null v that derives Class 2 expressions. Recall that for Class 2 forms, positing the null non-possessive v was stipulative, at least as far as the syntactic category of the functional element is concerned. For Simple color terms though, the v is justified on the ground that the relative marker –a attaches next. (221) ⟦∅ v ⟧= λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] The vPs that are created by the merge of the null non-possessive v are further relativized by the verbal relative marker –a, see (222). This changes the syntactic category, as the structure is now participial; the semantic type remains unchanged. Note that the Simple color term weɭɭa means ‘being an instance of whiteness’, which is a predicate of individuals but of semantically different sortal type than the NP kuppayam ‘dress’ with which the color expression seemingly combines in (223a). This sortal mismatch disallows a Simple color form as in (223c) to combine with a noun phrase in the attributive position directly. 125 (222) a. [[√weɭ+ ∅ v ] v (Simple color) Lit. ‘be an instance of whiteness’ b. [[√weɭ + ∅ v ] v + -a ] rel Lit. ‘being an instance of whiteness’ c. ⟦weɭɭa ⟧ = λx. [x is an instance of whiteness] My proposal is to posit a null covert color expression, COLOR (à la Kayne 2005), which the Simple color terms modify, and a null expression of possession, (224a). Note that both null elements posited in the attributive structure (224b), which surfaces as (224a), can be seen overtly in (224B): the nominal niram ‘color’ and the possessive non-finite copula uɭɭ-a, the same strategy employed in attributive modification in Class 2 expressions. The null possessive element POSS plays the role of linking together the Simple color nominal expression ‘white color’ with the noun phrase it modifies. (223) a. weɭɭ-a kuppayam (Simple color) being-whiteness dress ‘a white dress’ (lit. #‘being an instance of whiteness dress’) b. [[[√weɭ + ∅ v ] v + -a ] rel ] COLOR being an instance of whiteness COLOR ‘being a color and being an instance of whiteness’ ~ ‘being a white color’ At this point, unless there is something special about the semantics of the null color term, there needs to be an additional linker, which allows the attributive modification with a nominal. A covert possession marker POSS achieves this function. As is seen, both the covert color nominal and the possession marker can have overt counterparts. 126 (224) a. [[[√weɭ + ∅ v ] v + -a ] rel ] COLOR POSS kuppayam being-whiteness color having dress ‘a white dress’ (lit. ‘being a white color having dress’) b. weɭɭ-a niram uɭɭ-a kuppayam being-whiteness color having-REL dress ‘a white dress’ (lit. ‘being a white color having dress’) 3.4.1.3 Nature of the covert color term The overt counterpart of COLOR is the nominal term ‘niram’. As can be seen from the morphology, the –am ending suggests it is a regular nominal. Thus the claim is that default property concept expressions of Simple color terms in Malayalam have an ellipsis of the color term. (225) a. {weɭɭa, pačča, niila, maɲɲa, čaara, uuta} niram white, green, blue, yellow, grey, purple color This is similar to the role a variety of null words play in the decompositional approach of Kayne 2005. He proposes that color adjectives always modify a silent head noun COLOR in the absence of the covert color. Thus, (226a) is derived from (226b). (226) a. a green car. b. a green COLOR car. A crucial point to note here is the presence of the article. In English, syntactically, Kayne (2006) claims that green’s adjectival status is supported by examples like (227), where the adjective green in the surface form (227a) must modify a null nominal head, hence the source form of (227b), where green modifies COLOR. (227) a. John’s car is a bright green. 127 b. John’s car is a bright green COLOR. The presence of the indefinite article a here can only be plausibly licensed by the silent COLOR, but in the context of a plural noun, COLOR/color does not license a, as in (228a) and (228b) respectively. (228) a. *John has a green cars. b. They bought (*a) different color cars 3.4.1.4 Nature of the possessive linker The presence of the possessive linker is reminiscent of den Dikken’s (1995) work on predicate inversion, within the nominal domain 40 . His claim is that predication is prevalent inside noun phrases, and it can be seen especially in the relationship between adjectival modifiers and the nominal heads of complex noun phrases. As an illustration, see (229) below: (229) a jewel of an island (den Dikken and Singhapreecha 2004: 17-18) (230) a. [ SC [an island] [jewel]] b. [ DP a [jewel i [ of [ SC [an island] [t i ]]]]] den Dikken (1995, 1998, 2003) note that the property denoted by a jewel is predicated of island (i.e. the island is like a jewel). This motivates the underlying analysis in (230b), where jewel and island start out as predicates in a small clause and the predicate is then inverted around the subject, which causes the linker to emerge, in other words the DP-internal counterpart of be in English. Crucially in den Dikken’s analysis, the linker (English of, French de, Thai thˆıi) is semantically vacuous. The only purpose of these linkers is to accommodate the inversion of a predicate around its subject, a process that is pervasive in the syntax of noun phrases and beyond. 40 For more details on predicate inversion, see Moro (1997). 128 Initially, it is tempting to think of the null possessive linker surfacing in the color terms as a counterpart of this. We already noted, however, that the linker performs the attributive modification function and therefore its semantics cannot be vacuous. I assume that the non-finite copula “ull” is the overt spell out of the null v_poss head 41 . (231) 〚ull 〛= λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] (232) a. ([[[√weɭ + ∅ v ] v + -a ] rel ] niram ] ) 〚ull 〛 being an instance of whiteness color ‘being a color and being an instance of whiteness’ ~ ‘being a white color’ b. [[ ([[[√weɭ + ∅ v ] v + -a ] rel ] niram ] ) 〚ull 〛] –a ] rel ‘being a white color having dress’ As can be been seen from the semantics, “weɭɭa” white cannot combine directly with “uɭɭa” having, as they are both relativized participials. It first combines with a nominal ‘color’. However, they are semantically of a different type. Moreover, “weɭɭa” white cannot also combine directly with a nominal as they are semantically of a different sortal type 42 . Thus, Simple color terms first combine with a covert nominal COLOR, and then a possessive linker which is the spell- out of the null v_poss head helps in attributive modification. As can be seen, possession plays a crucial role in allowing a non-gradable predicate to combine attributively with a nominal phrase. Therefore, although the term “Simple” in itself could be misleading, there is much more that is not visible underlying the decomposition of this color expression. 41 Even though semantically the non-finite copula ull is the overt spell out of the null v_poss head, syntactically it takes an NP as a complement whereas the null v_poss head takes a property concept root as its complement. 42 Note that when Simple color terms combine with the non-finite possessive copula ulla, the color nominal niram is always overt. 129 3.4.1.5 Simple color terms in predicative position Simple color terms can appear in the predicative position with the EQ copula without the help of a bound pronominal morpheme, see (233a). This suggests that in this structure too, just like in the case of the attributive structure, Simple color terms combine with a null nominal COLOR; the presence of this nominal makes the pronominal forms unavailable. The structure behind the surface predication in (233a) is as in (233b). Note that the posited covert nominal COLOR can also be overt (234). The presence of the covert nominal makes the use of bound pronouns with the EQ copula (as in Class 1 predication) unnecessary, by providing the EQ copula with a nominal complement. (233) a. kuppayam weɭɭa aaɳə dress being-whiteness EQ-COP ‘The dress is white.’ b. kuppayam weɭɭa COLOR aaɳə dress being-whiteness color EQ-COP ‘The dress is white.’ (234) a. kuppayam weɭɭa niram aaɳə dress being-whiteness color EQ-COP ‘The dress is of a white color.’ b. kuppayat-inə weɭɭa niram uɳʈə dress-DAT being-whiteness color EX-COP ‘The dress has white color.’ A question arises as to whether there is a possession-encoding linker in (233a/b and 234a) in addition to the null COLOR, as the translations suggest. We would expect that to be the case, given the discussion concerning the attributive use of Simple color terms as in (234). The EQ 130 copula can also take PPs, given its use in locatives, so a complement like ‘of a white color’ could be possible in (233a/b). However, (234a), with overt niram ‘color’ shows no such linking element. In fact, unlike (234b), there is no overt or covert possession; hence this construction should be ungrammatical, yet it isn’t so. What is the difference between (234a) and (234b)? Other than the obvious point that (234b) has an overt possession structure, the difference lies in interpretation. The structure in (234a) has contrastive focus as can be seen by the following completion. (235) kuppayam weɭɭa niram aaɳə, niila niram alla dress being-whiteness color EQ-COP blue color NEG ‘The dress is of a white color, not of a blue color.’ This contrastive focus interpretation is unavailable for the construction embedded under an existential verb of possession. Moreover, these constructions can actually have an overt possessive after the nominal ‘color’. (236) kuppayam weɭɭa niram uɭɭ-a-tə aaɳə dress being-whiteness color EX-COP-NOML EQ-COP ‘The dress is of a white color.’ Thus, similar to Class 1 expressions, Simple color terms can also appear in the predicative position with an overt nominal with a pronominalized form –tə. Recall that Class 2 property concept expressions can also appear in a similar kind of construction with the possessive verb and the pronominalized form. This suggests that our analysis of Simple color terms as composing with a null v head, without possessive semantics, is on the right track. (237) a. Anil-inə pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT tallness EX-COP ‘ Anil is tall.’ 131 b. Anil pokkam uɭɭ-a-van aaɳə Anil tallness having-REL-NOML EQ-COP ‘Anil is tall.’ Crucially, similar to attributive modification, predicative modification also has the same null elements, namely a null covert color and a null possessive linker. We see that Simple color terms morphologically belong to Class 1 property concept expressions but exhibit peculiar syntactic behavior in predicative position. I suggested that Simple color terms start out as roots that are made verbal using the non-possessive v head (the same head we suggested combines with Class 2 non-color roots); then they are relativized by -a. In attributive position, Simple color terms modify a null covert nominal COLOR. They also combine with additional structure which encodes possession, enabling modification between the Simple color term and the NP. Simple color terms also exhibit canonical predication with the help of the equative copula, however, unlike Class 1 expressions, they do not require a pronominal element. I capture this by positing the same null covert nominal COLOR in the predicative position as in the attributive position, which the Simple color term composes with. This covert nominal plays a similar role to the bound pronominal in Class 1 predication, converting the participial –a form into a nominal expression. This null nominal is likely behind the ability of color terms in languages like English to appear in nominal positions. Importantly, Simple color terms are non-gradable (as shown in (238)). Gradability is introduced by the overt existential copula in predicative position, just as is the case with Class 2 property concept expressions. (238) a. traffic light pačča COLOR aaɳə traffic light green color EQ-COP ‘The traffic light is green.’ b. # traffic light-inə pačča niram uɳʈə traffic light-DAT green color EX-COP ‘The traffic light is green.’ (Lit. ‘The traffic light has green color’) 132 c. traffic light pačča niram uɭɭ-a-tə aaɳə traffic light green color having-REL-NOML EQ-COP ‘The traffic light is green.’ (Lit. ‘The traffic light has green color’) As Kennedy and McNally (2010) note, it is the traffic light’s classificatory property to be green in color; the property either obtains or it does not. Thus, as we can see in the Malayalam examples, when the Simple color term is used in (238a), only a non-gradable, classificatory reading is available. Gradability cannot be overtly introduced here, using the possessive copula, as in (238b), which results in infelicity. The comparative is also disallowed (similar to # more female). (239) # ii traffic light aa traffic lightin-e kaaɭ-um kuuʈuttal pačča COLOR aaɳə this traffic light that traffic light-ACC than more green color EQ-COP ‘This traffic light is greener than that traffic light.’ Moreover, Simple color terms can be used as classificatory modifiers, as in (240), which are non-gradable (Kennedy and McNally 2010). (240) a. pačča weɭɭam green water (lit. ‘fresh water’) b. weɭɭa wine white wine (in fact, yellow in color) In the next section, we will see that Complex color terms syntactically and morphologically behave differently from Simple color terms. 133 3.5 Complex color terms Complex color terms also morphologically resemble Class 1 expressions, in that they are –a ending, but they depart from Class 1 non-color and Simple color expressions in exhibiting more complex overt morphology. Only three color terms have complex morphology- √weɭ ‘white’, √kaɾ ‘black’, √kem ‘red’. (241) ROOT COMPLEX MEANING √weɭ weɭɭutta ‘white’ √kaɾ kaɾutta ‘black’ √kem čuvanna ‘red’ √pačč -- ‘green’ √niil -- ‘blue’ √maɲ -- ‘yellow’ √čaar -- ‘ash grey’ √uut -- ‘violet’ Why do only three color terms show an alternation between Simple and Complex color terms? 43 (Other Dravidian languages do not show this distinction at all, see Section 3.9.) For one, these three colors are the most basic colors found across languages (Berlin and Kay 1969). All these color roots are native Proto-Dravidian roots. Moreover, only ‘white’ has both Simple and Complex forms. √kaɾ ‘black’ and √kem ‘red’ only exhibit the Complex morphology. These color terms are complex word internally. Instead of the relative marker –a attaching to the functional head where these roots merge, there is an additional morpheme in between the root 43 In ancient Hindu scriptures (Bhagavad Gita), all creation is made up of three gunas ‘qualities’, symbolized by the colors white, black, and red. Sattva, harmony and purity, is symbolized by white. Rajas, energy and passion are symbolized by red, and Tamas, inertia and ignorance, is symbolized by black. 134 and the –a. Despite their overt morphological complexity, they pattern similar to Class 1 non- color expressions in their syntactic behavior. In the attributive position, the Complex color terms behave similar to Class 1 expressions. They can attributively combine with a nominal, without the help of additional morphology. (242) a. weɭɭutta kuppayam white dress ‘the white dress’ b. čuvanna kuppayam red dress ‘the red dress’ In the predicative position as well, these Complex color terms behave similar to Class 1 expressions. They can predicatively appear only with overt nominalization. Recall that Class 1 expressions had to be pronominalized with the –tə in order to appear in the predicative position. (243) a. kuppayam weɭɭutta-tə aaɳə dress white-NOML EQ-COP ‘The dress is white.’ b. kuppayam čuvanna- tə aaɳə 44 dress red-NOML EQ-COP ‘The dress is red.’ Similar again to Class 1 property concept expressions, Complex color expressions show up with the equative copula in the predicative position (as seen in (243)). If the Complex color 44 Note that there is some variation in the way “čuvanna- tə” is pronounced. The alternate way of saying is “čukanna- tə”. 135 expressions have to cooccur with the existential copula, they have to resort to the nominalization patterns, repeated here below. (244) ROOT COMPLEX NOMINALIZATION MEANING √weɭ weɭɭutta weɭɭuppə ‘white’ √kaɾ kaɾutta kaɾuppə ‘black’ √kem čuvanna čuvappə ‘red’ √pačč -- paččappə ‘green’ The nominalizations for white, black, and red can appear with the existential copula, as they are nominals to begin with and they are made gradable using the possessive copula. (245) a. kuppayatt-inə weɭɭuppə niram uɳʈə dress-DAT white-CAUS color EQ-COP ‘The dress is white.’ b. kuppayatt-inə čuvappə niram uɳʈə dress-DAT red-CAUS color EX-COP ‘The dress is red.’ However, note that even with these nominalizations, “color” has to be made overt. Thus, this suggests that when the Complex color term appears in the predicative position, there is some additional covert structure which allows the composition to work. In the next section, I will propose my analysis for Complex color terms. 3.5.1 An analysis for Complex color terms Complex color terms start out as roots that compose with a null v_poss with possessive semantics (246). I analyze the –utt morpheme as a spell-out of the v_poss, it is the overt 136 morpheme counterpart of the null possessive v head 45 (the possessive copula, as we discussed earlier, is another overt possessive verbal form, morphologically free rather than bound). (246) 〚∅ v_poss 〛= λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] A criticism against the proposal of such a functional head can be found in Francez and Koontz- Garboden (to appear). The Complex color terms provides evidence for an overt spell-out of the v_poss functional head. The meaning of Complex color forms is norm-related – they are interpreted as making reference to a standard, as would be expected if POS is binding the degree variable rather than a regular existential degree quantifier. The meaning given in (247b) is similar to the meaning assigned to positive gradable adjectives such as ‘good’ in English by many semantic accounts. (247) a. [[[√weɭ + -utt v_poss ] v + POS] v -a] rel (Complex color) Lit. ‘having an instance of whiteness measuring to a degree that exceeds the standard’ b. ⟦weɭɭ-utt-a⟧ = λx. ∃d ∃y [y is an instance of whiteness and x has y and µ(y) ≥ d and d > d s ] ≈ λx. ∃d [x’s whiteness ≥ d and d > d s ] The participial -a-forms can be used in attributive position – they have the appropriate participial syntax as well as semantics to be interpreted through predicate modification with nominals such as dress. Unlike Simple color expressions, there is no null COLOR in attributive position in the case of Complex color expressions. 45 There is some variability in the phonological realization of this morpheme. As seen, complex ‘black’ and ‘white’ have the –utt morpheme, whereas complex ‘red’ has an -ann morpheme. We take this to be a phonological fact depending on the coda position of the root, lateral ending for – utt and nasal for –ann. They are both spell-outs of the null v_poss head. 137 (248) a. weɭɭ-utt-a kuppayam (Complex color) having-whiteness dress ‘a white dress’ (lit. ‘having whiteness dress’) b. not: weɭɭ-utt-a COLOR kuppayam having-whiteness color dress The participial -a-forms can also be used in predicative position, after they are turned into light-headed relatives, i.e., DPs, through the merge of bound pronouns. Given the absence of the null nominal COLOR with Complex color terms, the obligatory presence of the pronominal is expected. The same derivation, where a pronominal is added directly to the –a form is not available in the case of Class 1 color or Class 1 non-color. (249) kuppayam weɭɭ-utt-a-tə aaɳə dress having-whiteness-neut EQ-COP ‘dress which has whiteness’ (lit. ‘dress having whiteness’) The Complex color expressions are gradable, unlike Simple color terms, as they merge with the v_poss head with possessive semantics. This can be seen in the following context: At a dinner table, two people order two different rice dishes. Anil has ordered plain basmati rice and Komalan has ordered a dessert made with Arborio rice. Talking about the “whiteness” of the rice, Anil says: (250) a. ente čoɾə ninte čoɾ-ine kaaɭ-um weɭɭ-utt-a-tə aaɳə my rice your rice-ACC than-um having whiteness-neut EQ-COP ‘My rice is whiter than yours.’ b. #ente čoɾə ninte čoɾ-ine kaaɭ-um kuuʈuttal weɭɭa aaɳə my rice your rice-ACC than-um more white EQ-COP ‘My rice is whiter than yours.’ 138 The only factor affecting the utterances in (250) above is gradability. Even with the overt color nominal which the color term modifies, the sentence is still infelicitous in the given context. Complex color expressions morphologically and syntactically behave like Class 1 non-color expressions. They use a covert possessive strategy and display canonical predication using the equative copula. They also show overt evidence for the existence of a possessive v head, which spells out as the –utt/-ann morpheme. 3.5.2 What is the –utt/ann morpheme? In the earlier section, I analyzed the –utt/ann morpheme in Complex color expressions as the spell-out of the v_poss functional head that the Complex color expressions merge with. Upon closer inspection of the Complex color expressions and the nominalization patterns, it can be seen that the additional morphology in the Complex color terms corresponds to the additional morphology in the nominalization patterns. (251) a. weɭ + utt + a = weɭɭutta ‘white’ b. weɭ + ipp + ə = weɭɭuppə ‘whiteness’ When tracing back the origins of the three-color expressions that show a Simple versus Complex distinction, we can see that these color expressions have a verbal origin. (252) a. weɭɭ-ukk-uka ‘to whiten’ b. kaɾ-akk-uka ‘to blacken’ c. čuv-akk-uka ‘to redden’ As can be seen from the morphological decomposition of their verbal counterparts, these color terms encode a ‘change of state’ meaning. Some evidence suggesting that these morphemes correspond to a change of state meaning comes from the obligatory need to overtly express the patient argument, i.e. the entity undergoing the change of state, as a direct object. (253) a. *Anil weɭɭuppičč-u 139 Anil whitened ‘*Anil whitened’ b. Anil paathram weɭɭuppičč-u Anil vessel whitened ‘Anil whitened the vessel.’ 3.6. Implications for comparatives The analysis we have sketched out predicts an asymmetry in comparison. Simple color terms should behave similar to Class 2 expressions in allowing the comparative marker ‘more’ in structures with the possessive predicate needed to introduce gradability. Complex color terms should behave similar to Class 1 non-color expressions in disallowing an overt comparative marker, as the degree variable introduced by the possessive v, with which –a combines, is closed off by POS. The color terms behave exactly as predicted by the analysis. In both predicative and attributive forms, kuuʈuttal ‘more’ (a form that only appears in comparatives) is optionally allowed with Simple color terms and disallowed with Complex color terms. In the case of Simple color terms, the attributive form provides further evidence for our covert nominal COLOR. It has to be overtly pronounced. (254) a. Simple color: predicative ii kuppayam aa kuppayathin-e kaaɭum (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa aaɳə this dress that dress-acc than more white EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is white color more (so) than that dress.’) b. Simple color: attributive Anil Komalan-e kaaɭum (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa niram uɭɭa kuppayam iʈʈu 140 Anil Komalan-acc than more white color having dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than the dress Komalan was wearing.’) c. Complex color: predicative ii kuppayam aa kuppayathin-e kaaɭum (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta-tə aaɳə this dress that dress-acc than more white-pron EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is having whiteness more than that dress.’) d. Complex color: attributive Anil Komalan-e kaaɭum (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta kuppayam iʈʈu Anil Komalan-acc than more white dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than Komalan.’) In the comparatives in (254), the semantics of comparison is encoded in the standard marker than. We leave a detailed analysis of these comparatives for the next chapter. 3.7 Summary and conclusions I give below a summary of the structure for Simple color, and Complex color forms. The two classes of property concept roots participate in different structures, but both start with, and end with, the same meaning. Simple color terms are similar to Class 2 forms in that they are non- gradable and do not have a v_poss in their composition; Complex color terms are similar to Class 1 expressions in that they are formed with v_poss and are thus gradable. (255) Simple color a. [[ vP √SC + ∅ v ] + a rel ] (attributive to COLOR) ‘being an instance of Π_color’ b. [ DP [[ vP √SC + ∅ v ] + a rel ] COLOR ] (attributive to nouns) 141 ‘being a Π_color’ c. [ vP [ DP [[ vP √SC + ∅ v ] + a rel ] COLOR ] EQ.COP ] (predicative) ‘be an instance of Π_color’ d. [ vP [ DP [[ vP [ DP [[ vP √SC + ∅ v ] + a rel ] COLOR] EX.COP non-finite ] + a rel pron] EQ.COP] (predicative) ‘be someone having an instance of Π_color’ (256) Complex color a. [[[ vP √CC+ ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] (attributive) ‘having an instance of Π_color that exceeds the standard’ b. [ vP [ DP [[[ vP √CC + ∅ v_poss ] + POS ] + a rel ] pron ] EQ.COP ] (predicative) ‘be someone having an instance of Π_color that exceeds the standard’ In this chapter, I demonstrated that in Malayalam, a language that does not have a category of adjectives, adjective-like meanings for attributive modification and predication involving color terms are expressed by complex structures built from roots denoting property concepts. An analysis of color expressions was provided. I argued that possession, either covert or overt is the basis for encoding property concept predication, including with color terms. Variation in property concept predication is rooted in the morphosyntax and semantics of the functional vocabulary that categorizes property concept roots. Color expressions come in two avatars, a simple form that needs overt possessive predication to be gradable and a complex form, which encodes possession covertly, is gradable, and exhibits canonical predication. I thus provided evidence from Malayalam for a distinction between gradable and non-gradable color expressions, posited by Kennedy & McNally (2010) and McNally (2011) as a lexical ambiguity, and argued here to be a distinction rooted in the morphology rather than the lexical semantics of the color terms. An alternative analysis such as the semantic variation hypothesis, in Francez and Koontz- Garboden (2015), also needs to stipulate why Class 1 roots end up behaving like adjectives and Class 2 roots end up as nominals. Our analysis hinges on possession both below and above the 142 word level. Below the word level, possession is introduced by a functional head that also introduces a degree argument. This head turns out to be a verbal head in Malayalam, although cross-linguistically this functional head could have a different category. Above the word level, possession is encoded using the possessive copula, which also contributes gradability. This account posits that the source of variability in the behavior of property-concept expressions, within Malayalam, and likely cross-linguistically as well, is morpho-syntactic variation, a consequence of structure building processes, and not variability encoded in the lexicon. 3.8 Why are colors special? Among the different adjectival categories, color adjectives behave distinctly exhibiting noun-like syntactic patterning. Reconstruction of certain color terms to their Proto-Indo European roots suggest that they were derived from verbs. For example, the adjective ‘black’, in PIE was derived from *bhleg, the verb for ‘to burn, gleam, shine, flash’. This became *blakaz ‘burned’ in Proto-Germanic, which later became blæc ‘dark’ in Old English. Most of the other colors, such as white, green, red, yellow also have deverbal origins. Other adjectives, such as dimension adjectives, did not have a similar deverbal origin. Take for example ‘tall’, with its first attested use in the 1520s in Middle English tal ‘handsome, good looking’, probably derived from the Old English getæl ‘prompt, active’. 3.9 Color terms in Dravidian How do color terms fare in other Dravidian languages? First off, all the other Dravidian languages only have one term for color, i.e. they do not show an overt morphological distinction between Simple and Complex expressions. However, there are remnants of Complex morphology in certain languages, which I will address below. A comprehensive list of color expressions in Dravidian languages is given in the table below. (257) Root Tamil Kannada Telugu Tulu Meaning 143 √weɭ weɭɭai bela telupu boli ‘White’ √kaɾ karuppu kappu kari kariya ‘Black’ √kem civappu kempu erupu 46 kenca ‘Red’ √pačč paccai pacce pacca pacca ‘Green’ √niil niila niili niila niili ‘Blue’ √maɲ mancal haladi pasupu ‘Yellow’ √čaar caampal buudu buudida ‘Grey’ √uut uuta neerale uuda ‘Purple’ The remnants of Complex morphological patterns can be seen in the terms for black (karuppu, kappu) and red (civappu, kempu) in Tamil and in Kannada. Note that even in Malayalam, these terms only had a Complex pattern. Thus, this seems to hold across other Dravidian languages as well. Telugu, in addition, seems to show the Complex morphological pattern for the white (telupu) 47 . None of these languages have any Complex morphological patterns for any other color term, other than white, red, and black. 3.9.1 Cross-linguistic import: Arabic data 48 Modern Standard Arabic uses elative morphology for a small class of roots, denoting colors and physical defects. The language shows no distinction between comparative and superlative morphology. Majority of the roots (Class 1) show both the adjectival pattern and the elative pattern. The class denoting colors and physical defects (Class 2) can only occur in the elative form, as well as in nominal and verbal patterns. (258) 46 This form could be from a different root only found in Proto South Dravidian √et. Only Tamil (er-uzh), Gondi (erra), Konda (era), Kolami (erori) have forms related to this root, apart from Telugu. 47 The w à t at the beginning of the syllable can be reconstructed across the Proto South Central group which has Telugu, Gondi, Kui, and Kuvi. 48 This section relies on data from Itamar Kastner (p.c). 144 Class 1 Class 2 Roots √kbr ‘big’ √sɣr ‘small’ √zrq ‘blue’ √ħwl ‘cross-eyed’ ADJ M.SG kabi:r saɣi:r -- -- F.SG kabi:r-a saɣi:r-a -- -- M.PL kiba:r/kubara:ʔ siɣa:r/ suɣara:ʔ -- -- F.PL kabir-a:-t saɣir-a:-t -- -- ELAT M.SG ʔakbar ʔasɣar ʔazraq ʔaħwal F.SG kubra suɣra zarqa:ʔ ħawla:ʔ M.PL ʔaka:bir/ʔakbar- un ʔasa:ɣir zurq ħu:l F.PL kubra-ja:t suɣra-ja:t zurq ħu:l As can be seen from the table, color expressions do not exhibit the adjectival pattern. Similarly, they also do not have a simple verbal pattern, unlike Class 1 roots. They have a different template for inchoative verbs. (259) Class 1 pattern 1 (Simple) Kabura ‘big’ b. Class 2 pattern 9 (Inchoative) ʔizraqqa ‘blue’ There are systematic differences between the two classes of adjectives. Although Class 1 Arabic roots may be derived from an adjectivizer, Class 2 Arabic roots provide evidence for non- gradable uses of color expressions, similar to Malayalam Simple color terms. Suppose, these roots are also derived by merge in Spec v? (260) ⟦∅ v ⟧= λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] 145 (261) Deriving Class 1 Arabic roots a. [[√zrq+ ∅ v ] v (Class 2 Arabic) Lit. ‘be an instance of blueness’ b. ⟦ ʔazraq ⟧ = λx. [x is an instance of blueness] These forms can appear in the attributive position, modifying nominals as well as in the predicative position. (262) a. beit ʔazraq house blue ‘The blue house’ b. l-beit ʔazraq M.SG house blue ‘The blue house’ These forms can be used in the comparatives without the comparative marker. (263) l-siyyarah ʔazraq men el-beit the car blue than the house ‘The car is bluer than the house.’ 3.9.2 A note on Subjectivity Faultless disagreement patterns are a common diagnostic for subjectivity as shown by the examples below. In the conversations below, sentences involving adjectives such as tasty, vegetarian, can give rise to different truch conditions. (264) A: Baingan bartha is tasty. K: Baingan bartha is not tasty. 146 (265) A: Proscuitto is vegetarian. K: Proscuitto is not vegetarian. However, subjective attitude verbs such as find, think, require the predicate that heads the small clause complement of such verbs to be subjective. (266) a. Komalan finds baingan bartha tasty. b. ?? Anil finds prosciutto to be vegetarian. In the above example, the subject of the verb find is the judge of the embedded predicate (Baingan bartha is tasty to Komalan). Similar faultless disagreement holds for other vague predicates, such as tall. (267) a. A: Mia is tall. b. K: No, Mia is not tall. In comparatives, tasty predicates and vague predicates such as tall behave differently (Kennedy 2013). (268) tastier: faultless disagreement A: The baingan bartha is tastier than the paneer tikka masala. K: No, the baingan bartha is not tastier than the paneer tikka masala. b. taller: no faultless disagreement A: Anil is taller than Komalan. K: No, Anil is not taller than Komalan. Subjectivity associated with vagueness (subjectivity about whether or not an object meets the standard for satisfaction of the predicate) is different from subjectivity associated with evaluativity (subjectivity about an assessment of an object’s qualities). Adjectives of tastes 147 (different from adjectives of personal taste) have both qualitative and quantitative readings similar to color adjectives. (269) This dish is saltier than that one. a. This dish contains more salt than that one. b. This dish has a (subjectively) more salty quality than that one. These adjectives, similar to color adjectives, are derived from nouns. Property concept expressions of taste in Malayalam belong to Class 2. They combine with the relativized version of the non-finite copula. (270) a. uppə rasam uɭɭa ‘salty’ b. panchasarapol uɭɭa /madhuram uɭɭa ‘sugary’ c. swadə uɭɭa ‘tasty’ Similar to the English subjective predicates, these expressions give rise to faultless disagreements. (271) a. A: ii kootaaninu uppə rasam uɳʈə this curry-DAT salt taste EX-COP ‘This curry is tasty.’ b. K: ii kootaaninu uppə rasam illa this curry-DAT salt taste NEG ‘This curry is not tasty.’ They occur in comparatives similar to Class 2 property concept expressions. They combine with the existential copula and optionally allow the comparative marker. (272) ii kooʈaaninə aa kooʈaanin-e kaaɭ-um uppə rasam uɳʈə this curry-DAT that curry-ACC than salt taste EX-COP ‘This curry is saltier than that curry.’ 148 (273) ii kooʈaaninə aa kooʈaanil-um kuuʈuttal uppə rasam uɳʈə this curry-DAT that curry-LOC-UM more salt taste EX-COP ‘This curry is saltier than that curry.’ In the above comparatives, (272) is evaluative and subjective whereas (273) is quantitive. I leave a detailed analysis of subjective predicates to future work. 3.9.3 Chapter summary and look ahead In this chapter, I examined a sub set of Class 1 property concept expressions, namely color expressions. Although morphologically they belong to Class 1, they exhibit varied behavior. Morphologically, there are two kinds of color terms- Simple color terms and Complex color terms. They differ in their syntactic and semantic behavior. I provided evidence for a gradable and non-gradable distinction from color terms. The same functional heads available for Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions are available for these color terms. In addition, they also provide evidence for a null, nominal color expression. This theory was then extended to other Dravidian languages and Modern Standard Arabic data. Towards the end of the chapter, I briefly discussed how subjective predicates fare in this language. In the next chapter, I take up a detailed look at how comparatives are formed. Building on results from Chapters 2 and 3, I show that unlike the standard view of comparison, the standard phrase is not semantically vacuous. It encodes comparative semantics and the comparative marker denotes the degree in excess. 149 Chapter 4 Comparison without Adjectives 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will offer a detailed look at the two different kind of comparative constructions in Malayalam, namely the kaaɭ-um comparative and the il-um comparative. The kaaɭ-um comparative is a particle comparative, found only in Malayalam among other Dravidian languages. The il-um comparative, the standard strategy used across all other Dravidian languages, is a postposition or a locative comparative, -il being the locative case marker in the language. The two comparatives also allow a comparative marker though the usage of this marker is restrictive. This chapter looks at the morphosyntax and semantics of these comparative constructions based on the morphosyntactic and semantic composition of property concept expressions, which was explained in the previous chapters. In the absence of lexical adjectives, the comparatives formed using these complex morphosyntactic expressions are nominal, verbal, or adverbial comparatives. The standard analysis of comparative constructions admits the existence of a degree variable in the ontology of types, which comes from the lexical semantics of adjectival expressions. I will show that in the absence of standard adjectival semantics, the semantics of comparison is achieved through the standard marker kaaɭ ‘than’ either working alone or working together as a domain adverbial with the comparative marker kuuʈuttal ‘more’. Thus, as is commonly assumed the standard marker is not semantically vacuous. I will first illustrate the two comparative constructions and then proceed to analyze the behavior of Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions in these forms of comparison. I 150 will show that these comparatives encode explicit comparison and provide an analysis, where the standard marker encodes comparative semantics. 4.2 The nature of comparison Comparatives have been a particularly interesting and fruitful area of research as measurement and comparison are fundamental components of human cognition. All human languages have a way of establishing ordering between two entities and some means of comparing these entities on a comparison scale or degree. Adjectives have a special affinity to comparative constructions due to their dedicated morphology (comparative marker, superlative marker). The question I will explore is how a language without lexical adjectives does comparison. The goal of this chapter is to show that Dravidian only has nominal, verbal, or adverbial comparatives. Although, there has been much interest in comparatives (Bresnan 1973, Cresswell 1977, von Stechow 1984, Heim 1986), the focus has been on adjectival comparatives, i.e. comparatives formed using gradable predicates. Theories built on understanding how comparison works have assumed the adjectival category to be a primitive. Let us begin with some terminology. In the English comparative construction (274), Anil is the TARGET OF COMPARISON and Komalan is the STANDARD OF COMPARISON. More is the COMPARATIVE MORPHEME, intelligent is the GRADABLE PREDICATE, and than is the STANDARD MARKER. The standard marker plus the standard of comparison constitute the STANDARD PHRASE, bracketed in (274). (274) Anil is more intelligent [than Komalan]. target of comparative gradable standard standard of comparison morpheme predicate marker comparison standard phrase 151 4.2.1 The syntax of comparatives in Malayalam There are two ways of forming comparatives in Malayalam as shown in (275). I will call this, the kaaɭ-um comparative and the il-um comparative. On the surface, the kaaɭ-um/ kaaʈ-il- um 49 comparative takes a DP complement [Komalan-e ‘me-ACC’]. However, kaaɭ does not occur anywhere else in the language as a postposition. This way of forming comparatives is found only in Malayalam among the Dravidian languages. In the il-um comparative, the DP standard of comparison is marked locative by the locative case marker il. This way of forming comparatives is the standard strategy used among the Dravidian languages. (275) a. the kaaɭ-um comparative Anil-inə Komalan-e kaaʈ-il-um/(kaaɭ-um) (kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT komalan-ACC than-LOC-UM/than-UM more tall COP ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ b. the il-um comparative 50 49 kaaʈ-il-um is a colloquial variant of kaaɭ-um, usually the colloquial form is the reduced one. 50 I note that there is a micro-parametric variation in the distribution of the comparative morpheme. In data collected from a small sample of 5 native speakers, the comparative morpheme seems to be optional with the ilum comparative. i) Anilin-ə Komalan-il-um (kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Class 2 Anil-DAT Komalan-LOC-UM more height EX ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ This set of people also showed an optionality for comparative morpheme in the Class 1 comparative. All the speakers were in their twentys. The difference can be associated with their hometown in Kerala. Speakers who need an obligatory comparative morpheme in Class 1 are from South and Central Kerala, I shall refer to this Malayalam as Malayalam1. Speakers who have an optional comparative morpheme in Class 1 are from North Kerala, we shall refer to this 152 Anil-inə Komalan-il-um *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT komalan-LOC-UM more tall COP ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ The difference between (275a) and (275b) can be seen in the case marker on the standard phrase. In (275a) the standard phrase is marked accusative whereas in (275b) the standard phrase is marked locative. The comparative marker is optional with the kaaɭ-um construction and obligatory with the il-um construction (with the use of Class 2 roots). This two-way distinction in marking standards in comparatives is typically seen as a difference between a phrasal comparative and a clausal comparative. A clausal comparative has clausal syntax for the object of the standard marker. (276) a. Anil is taller than Komalan is. b. Anil is more intelligent than Komalan is. The widely-accepted analysis of clausal comparatives is comparative deletion, where the complement to the standard marker is a clausal CP complement containing a degree operator. This operator (Op), in the Spec CP position, binds a degree variable (d) in the gradable predicate. Upon identity with the antecedent material, some portion of the clause is then deleted (Bresnan 1973, Heim 2000). This is shown in (277a-b). (277) a. Anil is taller [than [ CP Op i [ Komalan is d i -tall]]] b. Anil is more intelligent [than [ CP Op i [Komalan is d i -intelligent]]] On the contrary, in a phrasal comparative, the object of the standard marker is a phrase. (278) a. Anil is taller than Komalan. b. Anil is more intelligent than Komalan. Malayalam as Malayalam2. Unless otherwise noted, our discussion will revolve around Malayalam1, which is also the Malayalam used in news channels and standard daily newspapers. 153 There are many competing analyses for the phrasal comparative. In the direct analysis, the object of the standard marker is a DP (Hoeksma 1983, Bhatt and Takahashi 2011 a.o). (279) Anil is taller [than [ DP Komalan]] The second approach is a reduced clause analysis (Bresnan 1973, Heim 1985, Pancheva 2006, 2009, Merchant 2009 a.o). In this approach, similar to clausal comparatives, phrasal comparatives have covert clausal structure. This clausal structure is further reduced by ellipsis. (280) Anil is taller [than [ CP Op i [ Komalan is d i -tall]]] The last approach to phrasal comparatives is the implicit comparison approach (Kennedy 2007 a.o). Here, comparison is expressed indirectly unlike explicit comparison, which requires specialized comparative morphosyntax to express the ordering relation. In implicit comparison the context is specified in which an inherently context-sensitive gradable predicate is evaluated. In English, this is achieved with the help of the “compared to” expression. (281) a. Anil is taller than Komalan. Explicit comparison b. Anil is taller, compared to Komalan. Implicit comparison With this theoretical background, it is very tempting to assume that the two forms of Malayalam comparatives exhibit a clausal versus phrasal distinction. In the following section, I will argue that the Malayalam comparatives can both express phrasal and clausal syntax, thereby exhibiting explicit comparison. 4.2.1.1 Malayalam comparatives: clausal or phrasal? On first look, it is very tempting to analyze kaaɭ-um and il-um as instantiating the clausal and phrasal distinction since they are two different markers. For instance, Slavic languages 154 distinguish this difference with two different markers. In Polish, the markers are niż (clausal) and od (phrasal) (examples from Pancheva 2009). (282) a. Jan wazy wizcej niż Agnieszka (wazy). (Polish niż) Jan weighs more than Agnieszka-NOM (weighs) b. Jan wazy wizcej od Agnieszki. (Polish od) Jan weighs more from Agnieszka-GEN ‘Jan weighs more than Agnieszka (does).’ In Malayalam however, each of the kaaɭ-um and il-um comparatives can be clausal or phrasal. When a clause appears as the standard, the clause appears with nominal properties. This nominalization is a typical property of Dravidian languages and is an embedding strategy 51 . (283) a. njaan nii kazhi-cc-at-ine kaaɭ-um kuuʈuttal pazham kazhi-ccu I you eat-PAST-NOML-ACC than-UM more banana eat-PAST ‘I ate more bananas than you ate. ’ b. njaan nii kazhi-cc-at-il-um kuuʈuttal pazham kazhi-ccu I you eat-PAST-NOML-LOC-UM more banana eat-PAST ‘I ate more bananas than you ate. ’ Moreover in (284) which can only be expressed as a clausal comparative, the clause appears nominalized. The nominalization is also seen in correlative constructions below. (284) a. Anil-inə njaan vicaaric-at-ine kaaɭ-um pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT I think-NOML-LOC-UM more tall COP ‘Anil is taller than I expected.’ b. Anil-inə njaan vicaaric-at-il-um kuuʈuttal pokkam uɳʈə 51 Many thanks to Rajesh Bhatt for bringing this to my notice. 155 Anil-DAT I think-NOML-LOC-UM more tall COP ‘Anil is taller than I expected.’ (285) a. [Komalan-ə ethrə pokkam uɳʈə] [Anil-inə atin-e kaaɭ-um pokkam uɳʈə] Komalan-DAT how much tall COP Anil-DAT that much-ACC than-UM tall COP ‘John is taller than Mary.’ b. [Komalan-ə ethrə pokkam uɳʈə] [Anil-inə ati-il-um kuuʈuttal pokkam uɳʈə] Komalan-DAT how much tall COP Anil-DAT that much-LOC-UM more tall COP ‘John is taller than Mary.’ Thus, the kaaɭ-um comparative and the il-um comparative can both express clausal and phrasal comparison and the difference in the markers cannot be taken as an indication of the different syntactic and semantic strategies. If the distinction is not between that of a phrasal versus clausal comparison, a question arises whether kaaɭ-um or il-um are equivalent to than phrases (explicit comparison) or are they more closely related to instances of “contextual” or “implicit” comparison in English as argued by Beck et al (2004) for Japanese, (see also Kennedy 2007). 4.2.1.2 Comparison as implicit or contextual Kennedy (2007) argues for a distinction between comparatives in Japanese and in English by appealing to inherent context dependence and implicit ordering properties of the unmarked positive form. The positive form is semantically context dependent and lacks overt degree morphology. Thus, implicit comparison is an ordering between objects x and y with respect to a gradable property g such that the positive form is true of x and false of y. The semantics of implicit comparison can be seen by looking at English constructions involving the positive form of the adjective and adverbial modifications such as compared to, and with respect to. “Compared to” can appear with both the positive and comparative version of an adjective. 156 (286) a. Compared to John, Mary is tall. b. Compared to John, Mary is taller. If A is the positive form of a gradable adjective then compared to constructions have the following truth conditions (Kennedy 2007, 49): (287) [|compared to y]] ([[A]]) is true of x in a context c iff [[A]] is true of x in any context c′ just like c except that the domain includes just x and y. The semantics of implicit comparison thus construed entails that when x is A compared to y, y is not A or in other words, when John is tall compared to Mary implies that Mary is not tall. To test this, we will use diagnostics from Kennedy (2007) and show that the difference between kaaɭ-um and il-um comparatives is not that of implicit versus explicit comparison. 4.2.1.3 Kennedy’s (2007) diagnostics for implicit and explicit comparison Explicit comparison requires only an asymmetric ordering between degrees to which the object possesses that property. On the contrary, in implicit comparison “Compared to x, y is A” commits the speaker to the truth of “x is A” and the falsity of “y is A”. Kennedy (2007) calls this ‘crisp judgments’. In (288), the implicit comparison forces long to be true of both the 600-word essay and the 597-word essay. This is infelicitous since the non-trivial partitioning of the domain is violated. (288) Context: a 600-word essay and a 200 word essay a’. This essay is longer than that one. b’. Compared to that essay, this essay is long. (289) Context: a 600-word essay and a 597 word essay a’. This essay is longer than that essay. b’. #Compared to that essay, this essay is long. 157 If kaaɭ-um and il-um are similar to compared to, we expect the equivalent of (289b’) to be infelicitous. The comparable construction in Malayalam (290) is acceptable in the described context with kaaɭ-um and without an overt ‘more’ 52 . (290) Context: a 600 word essay and a 597 word essay a’. ii upanyaasam aa upanyaasattin-e kaaɭum valiy-atə aaɳə this essay that essay-ACC than-UM big-NOML COP ‘This essay is longer than that essay.’ Secondly, compared to in English has a wide distribution and it can occur with superlatives. This is not true for kaaɭ-um or il-um. (291) a. *avar-e kaaɭ-um, John-inə aaɳə ettavum pokkam uɭɭ-atə they-ACC than-UM John-DAT COP most tall COP-NOML ‘Compared to them, John is the tallest.’ b. *avar-il-um, John-inə aaɳə ettavum pokkam uɭɭ-atə they-LOC-UM John-DAT COP most tall COP-NOML ‘Compared to them, John is the tallest.’ The last diagnostic looks at measure phrases and their interaction with the positive form. Differential Measure phrases cannot appear in compared to constructions without ‘more’. In explicit comparison, measure phrases denote the difference between two degrees on a scale. The composition of the measure phrase and a gradable adjective results in a predicate that is not context dependent and implicit comparisons should be rendered infelicitous. This prediction is again not borne out in Malayalam. 52 Because il-um always needs an obligatory ‘more’, this test cannot be used for il-um comparatives in one dialect of Malayalam. 158 (292) a. ninakkə enn-e kaaɭ-um pathə centimeter pokkam uɳʈə you-DAT me-ACC than-UM ten centimeter tall COP ‘You are 10 cms taller than me.’ b. ninakkə enn-il-um pathə centimeter kuuʈuttal pokkam uɳʈə you-DAT me-LOC-UM ten centimeter more tall COP ‘You are 10 cms taller than me.’ The diagnostics above show that the kaaɭ-um and il-um constructions behave like comparatives with than phrases and not compared to constructions. Thus, they must involve explicit comparison. Moreover, there is another “compared to” construction, which can be used for implicit construction. (293) a. ninn-e vaccə nokk-um-poɭ eni-kkə pokkam uɳʈə you-ACC keep look-UM-WHEN I-DAT tall COP ‘Compared to you, I am tall.’ (lit:‘When I compare myself to you, I am taller’) b. ningaɭ ellavarey-um vaccə nokk-um-poɭ eni-kkə ettavum pokkam uɳʈə you-PL everyone keep look-UM-WHEN I-DAT most tall COP ‘Compared to all of you, I am the tallest.’ (lit: ‘When I compare myself to you all, I am tallest’) I have shown that the distinction between the two comparatives is not syntactic- a phrasal comparative versus clausal comparative, nor is it context dependence- implicit versus explicit. First, I will proceed to give an analysis of how comparison works with il-um comparatives and then show how comparison works with the kaaɭ-um comparatives. 4.3 Analysing the il-um comparative As noted earlier in the chapter, il-um comparatives have an obligatory more irrespective of the NP/property concept it combines with. My claim is that the il-um comparative is always an adverbial comparative and thus express meanings similar to (294). I follow Nakanishi (2004) 159 who proposes a measure function following Hackl’s (2001) MANY that associates degrees with events. Crucially, these are defined for domains that may be non-trivially ordered and their measurements are monotonic. (294) a. John is tall [more than Mary is]. b. John ate apples [more than Mary did]. To illustrate, consider the following scenario describing John and Mary’s banana-eating habits. (295) Context: John and Mary love eating bananas. John eats a banana every day. Mary only eats bananas three times a week, and she eats 3 bananas on those days. Thus, in a given week, John eats 7 bananas total and Mary eats 9. (296) #John mary-e kaaɭ-um kuuʈuttal pazham kazhi-ccu john mary-ACC than-UM more banana eat-PAST ‘John ate more bananas than Mary.’ (False: John did not eat more bananas than Mary) (297) John mary-il-um kuuʈuttal pazham kazhi-ccu John mary-LOC-UM more banana eat-PAST ‘John ate bananas more (often) than Mary.’ (True: Since, there were more events of John eating bananas than Mary eating bananas) Given the context in (295), the kaaɭ-um comparative is infelicitous since John ate only 7 bananas whereas Mary ate 9 bananas. There are, however, more events of John eating bananas than Mary since he ate a banana every day which makes the il-um comparative felicitous. Here, the VP is taken to denote a plurality of events and John and Mary are taken to satisfy the predicate more than once. This suggests that monotonicity constrains the adverbial ‘more’ the same way as it does in the nominal ‘more’. Following Hackl (2000, 2001), we assume that the nominal determiner ‘more’ decomposes into a measure function ‘MUCH/MANY’ and the 160 comparative quantifier –er. MANY involves a non-trivial, orderly mapping of individual sums to degrees of cardinality and –er compares the maximum degrees of NPs. The semantics for the determiners are given below, where µ is a measurement along a non-cardinal scale, e.g., amount, temporal/spatial length. (298) a. [|much|] = λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d (determiner ‘much’) b. [|many|] = λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . |x| = d (determiner ‘many’, from Hackl 2001) c. [|much|] = λd ∈D d . λe ∈ D v . µ (e) = d (adverbial ‘much’) d. [|many|] = λd ∈D d . λe ∈ D v . |e| = d (adverbial ‘many’, from Nakanishi 2004) e. [|-er|] = λD ∈ D <d,t> . λD′ ∈ D <d,t> . max(D′) > max(D) In the absence of an English type, -er, the Malayalam kuuʈuttal ‘more’ is the overt instantiation of ‘much/many + POS’, the comparative form of kuree which means ‘a lot’. Similarly, kuravu ‘less’ is also formed from the same root ‘kur’. In an adverbial comparative therefore the ‘more’ always has to be obligatorily present. In kaaɭ-um comparatives the ‘more’ is not obligatory and the nominal ‘more’ is obligatory while doing nominal comparisons, in order to introduce the measure function. (299) a. John ate more bananas than Mary. b. [ λd. John ate d-MANY bananas] [pos [than [ λd. Mary ate d-MANY bananas]] c. The number of bananas that John ate exceeds the number of bananas that Mary ate. d. John ate bananas more than Mary e. [ λd. John ate bananas d-MANY (times)] [pos [than [ λd. Mary ate bananas d-MANY(times)] f. The number of events of John eating bananas exceeds the number of events of Mary eating bananas. Thus, there is a plurality of events in (299d) ranging over degrees of cardinality. The measure function incorporated into ‘more’ maps all the individual denotations to the degree one. 161 4.3.1 Adverbial vs Determiner ‘more’ The verbal domain has been shown to be similar in respects to the nominal domain. The count/mass distinction has been said to parallel telicity in the verbal domain (Krifka 1989, Rothstein 2004). To further show that there is indeed a semantic difference between the two comparatives, we will use three diagnostics from Wellwood et al (2012). The first diagnostic comes from telicity. Perfective telic predicates like ‘reach the top’ and ‘climb the mountain’ cannot combine with adverbial ‘more’ because they denote singular events. This is paralleling the ungrammaticality of the nominal determiner ‘more’ in the nominal domain. Our prediction that il-um comparative should not combine with perfective telic predicates is borne out. (300) a. *Yesterday, John climbed the mountain more than Mary did. b. *raaman sitay-il-um kuuʈuttal malay-ute mukalil ethi-iʈʈ-uɳʈə raman sita-LOC-UM more hill-GEN top reach-PERF-COP ‘Raman reached the top of the mountain more than Mary’ The scale for comparison of perfective and progressive marked atelic predicates is variable and constrained by monotonicity. Thus, in (301) the comparative measure maybe by cardinality, temporal duration, or length of spatial path. (301) Last Monday, John ran in the park more than Mary b. raaman sitay-il-um kuuʈuttal ooʈ-iʈʈ-uɳʈə/ooʈ-uka-aaɳə raman sita-LOC-UM more run-PERF-COP/run-INF-COP ‘Raman ran more than Sita.’ The last diagnostic, tests the scale for comparison of VPs with IMPF-HAB morphology in terms of cardinality. 162 (302) a. In those days John ran in the park more than Mary did (John ran in the park more often/more times than Mary did) b. raaman sitay-il-um kuuʈuttal ii cinema kaaɳ-um (Habitual) raman sita-LOC-UM more this cinema see-UM ‘Raman watches the film more than Sita’ (Raman watches the film more often/more times than Sita’) In (302b), the only reading available is in terms of cardinality, i.e. there were more events of Raman watching the film than Sita. 4.3.2 Structural Considerations I have shown in the previous sections that the il-um comparative behaves like an adverbial comparative. In this section, I will consider some structural differences between the il-um and the kaaɭum comparative suggesting that they behave syntactically different. Malayalam is a language with scrambling. When the than-phrase and the standard of comparison are scrambled in the kaaɭ-um comparative, they can be done so separately. (303) a. vidhyaarthi-kaɭ professor-maar-e kaaɭum kuuʈuttal nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu student-PL professor-PL-ACC than-UM more city-PL visit-PAST ‘Students visited more cities than professors.’ (Literally: Students visited more cities than professors visited cities) b. vidhyaarthi-kaɭ professor-maar-il-um kuuʈuttal nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu student-PL professor-PL-LOC-UM more city-PL visit-PAST ‘Students visited more cities than professors.’ (Literally: Students visited cities more than professors visited cities) 163 In il-um comparatives, on the contrary, scrambling is allowed only if the standard of comparison is moved along with the than-phrase. (304) a. [professor-maar-e kaaɭ-um kuuʈuttal]vidhyaarthi-kaɭ nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu professor-PL-ACC than-UM more student-PL city-PL visit-PAST ‘More students than professors visited the cities.’ b. [professor-maar-e kaaɭ-um] vidhyaarthi-kaɭ kuuʈuttal nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu professor-PL-ACC than-UM student-PL more city-PL visit-PAST ‘Students visited more cities than professors.’ c. [professor-maar-il-um kuuʈuttal] vidhyaarthi-kaɭ nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu professor-PL-LOC-UM more student-PL city-PL visit-PAST ‘Students visited more cities than professors.’ d. *[professor-maar-il-um] vidhyaarthi-kaɭ kuuʈuttal nagaraŋŋal sandarshi-ccu professor-PL-LOC-UM student-PL more city-PL visit-PAST This suggests that in il-um comparatives the ‘more’ and the standard phrase form a constituent unlike in kaaɭ-um comparatives. The second structural test is pied piping which is allowed with kaaɭ-um, and not with il-um. (305) a. innale aar-e kaaɭ-um nallavaɳam mary guitar vayi-ccu? yesterday who-ACC than-UM better mary guitar read-PAST ‘Yesterday, who did Mary play the guitar better than?’ b. *innale aar-il-um kuuʈuttal john pazham kazhi-ccu yesterday who-LOC-UM more john banana eat-PAST Intended: ‘Yesterday, more than whom did John eat bananas?’ 164 This suggests that in (305a) extraction is possible since the than-clause is a PP. However, in (305b) an adverbial is an island for extraction and thus pied piping is not allowed. (306) a. Yesterday, John ate more bananas [ PP than Mary] (nominal) b. Yesterday, who did John eat more bananas than? (307) a. Yesterday, John ate bananas [ ∆ more than Mary] (adverbial) b* Yesterday, who did John eat bananas more than? The last diagnostic comes from reflexives and their inability to be standards with adverbials. This is borne out by the il-um comparative. (308) a. aar-kk-um tann-e kaaɭ-um pokkam illa who-DAT-UM himself-ACC than-UM tall NEG ‘No one is taller than himself.’ b. *aar-kk-um tann-il-um kuuʈuttal pokkam illa who-DAT-UM himself-LOC-UM more tall NEG I have explored the two different comparative constructions in Malayalam arguing that the distinction between the two comparatives is not a phrasal versus clausal distinction, or an implicit versus explicit comparison. The il-um comparative is always an adverbial comparative requiring an obligatory ‘more’ which decomposes into ‘MUCH/MANY’ and –er. The il-um – ‘more’ + standard quantifies over the degree argument introduced by a ‘MUCH/MANY’ measure function relating events and degrees. 165 So far in this chapter, I have only explored the syntax of kaaɭ-um and ilum comparative with Class 2 property concept roots. I will now look at the distribution of the comparative morpheme with the ilum comparative when it occurs with Class 1 roots. Recall that ilum comparative always had an obligatory comparative morpheme with kaaɭ-um Class 2 comparatives. This does not seem to be the case for Class 1. The comparative morpheme seems to be disallowed for Class 1. This ties up for the distribution of comparative morpheme in Class 1- it is always disallowed. (309) a. Anil Komalan-ilum (*kuuʈuttal) nalla-van aaɳə (Class 1) Anil Komalan-LOC-UM more good-M.SG EQ.COP ‘Anil is better than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘Anil is one having goodness than Komalan.’ b. … (*kuuʈuttal) valiya-van ‘… more big’ c. … (*kuuʈuttal) ceriya-van ‘… more small’ (310) Anil Komalan-ilum (*kuuʈuttal ) nalla vidhyarthi aaɳə (Class 1) Anil Komalan-LOC-UM more good student EQ-COP ‘Anil is a better student than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘Anil is a student having goodness than Komalan.’ A similar pattern for il-um obtains for NP comparative and Class 2 comparatives. For NP comparatives, the comparative morpheme is always obligatory and it is optional for Class 2 comparatives. (311) a. Anil Komalan-ilum *(kuuʈuttal) pazham kazhicc-u (NP comparative) Anil Komalan-LOC-UM more bananas eat-PAST ‘Anil ate more bananas than Komalan.’ b. …*(kuuʈuttal) veɭɭam kuʈiccu ‘… drank more water’ c. …*(kuuʈuttal) kaatu vizhingi ‘… swallowed more air’ 166 d. ... *(kuuʈuttal) sneham labhičču ‘… got more love’ (312) a. Anil-inə Komalan-ilum *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə (Class 2) Anil-DAT Komalan-LOC-UM more tallness EX.COP ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘To Anil there is (more) tallness than to Komalan.’ b. ... (kuuʈuttal) madhuram uɳʈə ‘… more sweetness’ c. ... (kuuʈuttal) santhosham uɳʈə ‘… more happiness’ (313) a. Anil Komalan-ilum *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɭɭa-van aaɳə (Class 2) Anil Komalan-LOC-UM more tallness having.M.SG EQ.COP ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘To Anil there is more tallness than to Komalan.’ b. ... (kuuʈuttal) madhuram uɭɭa-van aaɳə ‘… more sweetness’ c. ... (kuuʈuttal) santhosham uɭɭa-van aaɳə ‘… more happiness’ (314) Anil Komalan-ilum *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɭɭa vidhyarthi aaɳə (Class 2) Anil Komalan-LOC-UM more tallness having student EQ.COP ‘Anil is a taller student than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘To Anil there is more tallness having student than Komalan.’ In the next sections, I proceed to give a formal analysis of the kaaɭ-um comparative, found exclusively in Malayalam among the other Dravidian languages. 4.4 Recapping the standard analysis of gradable predicates Under the standard analysis, gradable adjectives denote relations between individuals and degrees (Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1979 a.o). A gradable predicate, such as tall, incorporates the 167 measure function height, which when applied to an individual, yields the degree d of height of that individual. (315) ⟦tall⟧ = λd λx. height (x) ≥ d In the degree analysis of adjectives, functional morphology such as, measure phrases (‘two feet’), positive morphemes (POS), or the comparative morpheme more saturate the degree argument. In comparatives, such as (316) the semantics of comparison is encoded in the comparative morpheme (317) and the standard marker than is taken to be semantically vacuous. The degree morpheme is a quantifier that undergoes quantifier raising along with the standard phrase. (316) a. John is taller than Bill (is). b. John is [ AP [ DegP -er than Bill] tall] c. [ DegP -er than Bill] 1 John is [ AP t 1 tall] (317) ⟦-er/more⟧ = λD. λD’. max D’ > max D (Heim 2000) In the absence of lexical adjectives, Malayalam uses property concept expressions (often lexicalized as adjectives in languages that have them). The semantics of these expressions differ considerably from the standard semantics. 4.4.1. Recapping the basic comparative data in Malayalam There are two types of comparatives in Malayalam, depending on the standard marker: kaaɭ- um and il-um (318)-(319). They both show clausal comparison and phrasal comparison, as we saw earlier. The kaaɭ-um is similar to a particle comparative (like English) and is unique to Malayalam among other Dravidian languages. kaaɭ is a dedicated than morpheme found only in comparatives. The comparative marker kuuʈuttal is optional with kaaɭ-um comparatives. 168 (318) a. the kaaɭ-um comparative: phrasal 53 Anil-inə [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] (kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM more tallness POSS V ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘To Anil there is (more) tallness than Komalan.’) b. the kaaɭ-um comparative: clausal Anil-inə [Komalanə pokkam uɭɭa-t-ine] kaaɭ-um (kuuʈuttal) Anil-DAT Komalan-DAT tallness EX.COP nonfinite -REL-NOML-ACC than-UM more pokkam uɳʈə tallness POSS V ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘To Anil there is (more) tallness than Komalan has tallness.’) The second type of comparison, called the il-um comparative is the common strategy employed by all other Dravidian languages. It uses a locative postposition il, which is attached directly to the standard. Thus, there is a case marking difference between the two comparatives. The standard in the kaaɭ-um comparative is accusative case marked while the standard in the il-um comparative is locative case marked. (319) a. the il-um comparative: phrasal Anil-inə [Komalan-il-um] *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-LOC-UM more tallness POSS V ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘To Anil from Komalan there is tallness.’) b. the il-um comparative: clausal Anil-inə [Komalanə pokkam uɭɭa-t-il-um] *(kuuʈuttal) Anil-DAT Komalan-DAT tallness EX.COP nonfinite -REL-NOML-LOC-UM more pokkam uɳʈə tallness POSS V 53 In the literature and in previous chapters, the PossV uɳʈə (318a) is called existential copula and the PredV aaɳə (318b) is called the equative copula. 169 ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘To Anil from Komalan there is tallness.’) There are two generalizations from the above data. The comparative marker behaves differently in kaaɭ-um and il-um comparatives. In the case of il-um comparatives, the comparative marker kuuʈuttal is obligatory. 4.5. Distribution of the comparative marker more The comparative marker in Malayalam kuuʈuttal has a peculiar distribution. In this section, I note an asymmetry in the distribution by looking at different expressions it can combine with. 4.5.1. NP comparatives are conditioned by possession The comparative marker is obligatory when the NP is encoded in a non-possessive construction (320). When the NP is encoded in a possessive construction (the existential copula), the comparative marker is optional (cf. (321)). (320) NP comparative: obligatory more outside of possession a. Anil [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] *(kuuʈuttal) pazham kazhicc-u Anil Komalan-ACC than-UM more bananas eat-PAST ‘Anil ate more bananas than Komalan.’ b. *(kuuʈuttal) veɭɭam kuʈiccu ‘drank more water’ c. *(kuuʈuttal) kaatu vizhingi ‘ate more air’ (321) NP comparative: optional more with possession a. Anilinə [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭam uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM more water POSS V ‘Anil has more water than Komalan.’ 170 b. (kuuʈuttal) paɳam uɳʈə ‘ has more money’ Crucially, possession plays a role in determining the presence of the comparative marker. In the case of il-um comparative, as I noted in the previous sections, the comparative marker is always obligatory. 4.5.2. Verbal comparatives: obligatory more In the case of verbal comparatives, the comparative marker seems to be obligatorily required. (322) a. Anil [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] *(kuuʈuttal) ooʈi Anil Komalan-ACC than-UM more ran ‘Anil ran more than Komalan. b. *(kuuʈuttal) nadannu ‘walked more’ c. *(kuuʈuttal) mala keɾI ‘climbed more hills’ The same obligatory requirement holds of verbal comparatives formed using the il-um comparative. 4.5.3. Class 1 property concept expressions prohibit the comparative marker Recall from Chapter 2 that Class 1 property concept expressions encode covert possession and they are gradable. These Class 1 property concept expressions such as big, good, new never appear with the comparative marker. (323) Class 1 property concept comparatives: more is prohibited a. Anil [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] (*kuuʈuttal) nalla-van aaɳə Anil Komalan-ACC than-UM more good-M.SG PRED V ‘Anil is good than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘Anil is one having goodness than Komalan’) b. (*kuuʈuttal) pazhayatə ‘more old’ 171 c. (*kuuʈuttal) valippam ‘more big’ Class 1 property concept expressions therefore only appear with kaaɭ-um comparative due to the prohibition against the comparative marker. 4.5.4. Class 2 property concept expressions optionally allow the comparative marker Recall that, Class 2 property concept roots are non-gradable and they are categorized using a non possessive verbal head. The possessive relation is expressed at the level of the word, through a covert possessive verbal morpheme, with Class 1 roots, and at the phrasal level, through an overt possessive verb, with Class 2 roots. Gradability is directly related to property possession. Only Class 1 roots are gradable. Class 2 property concept expressions such as happiness, tallness, smartness optionally appears with the comparative marker. (324) Class 2 property concept comparatives: more is optional a. Anil-inə [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] (kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM more tallness POSS V ‘Anil is taller than Komalan.’ (Lit. ‘Anil has more tallness than Komalan.’) b. (kuuʈuttal) santosham ‘more happiness’ c. (kuuʈuttal) dukkam ‘more sadness’ A question regarding the comparative marker emerges at this point. Why is more obligatory with NP comparatives outside of possession, optional with possessive predicates including those appearing with Class 2 expressions, and disallowed with Class 1 expressions? The answer lies rooted in the semantics of the standard marker, often assumed semantically vacuous in standard analyses. (325) Table 5.0: Summary of the behavior of the comparative marker kuuʈuttal kaaɭ-um comparative il-um comparative 172 a. NP comparative (outside possession) obligatory more obligatory more b. NP comparative (with possession) optional more obligatory more c.Verbal comparative obligatory more obligatory more d. Class 1 prohibited more ------- e. Class 2 optional more obligatory more In this section, we have seen that the behavior of more is quite distinct from the English – er/more. It has a varied distribution depending on the standard marker and the kind of expression it combines with. The next section examines the distribution of the standard marker than. 4.6. Distribution of than It is well known that in English, the standard phrase in a comparative construction can be optionally omitted. These type of constructions are called incomplete comparatives. (326) {Come out onto the porch.} It’s cooler here. (Sheldon 1945) (327) a. John has 3 pens. I have more. b. John is 6 ft tall. I am taller. 4.6.1. Than is always obligatory in Malayalam Unlike English comparatives, the standard marker in Malayalam comparatives can never be omitted and these comparatives are disallowed. (328) a. Anil-inə muunə pena uɳʈə. enikkə [atin-e kaaɭum] kuuʈuttal uɳʈə. Anil-DAT three pens EX COP I-DAT that-ACC than more POSS V ‘Anil has three pens. I have more than that. b. *Anil-inə muunə pena uɳʈə. enikkə kuuʈuttal uɳʈə. 173 Anil-DAT three pens EX COP I-DAT more POSS V ‘Anil has three pens. I have more than that. c. Anil-inə aarə aʈi pokkam uɳʈə. enikkə [atin-e kaaɭum] kuuʈuttal uɳʈə. Anil-DAT three feet tallness EX COP I-DAT that-ACC than more POSSV ‘Anil is 6 feet tall. I have more than that. d. Anil-inə aarə aʈi pokkam uɳʈə. enikkə kuuʈuttal uɳʈə. Anil-DAT three feet tallness EX COP I-DAT more POSSV ‘Anil is 6 feet tall. I have more than that. Thus, another generalization that comes forth from this data is regarding the nature of the comparative marker more in Malayalam, it behaves differently from English more. 4.6.2 Hebrew bare comparatives Schwarzschild (2014) analyses Hebrew as having a semantically meaningful than, based on the way the language forms differentials. Malayalam differs from English and Hebrew in forming comparatives from property concept expressions. Hebrew and Malayalam allow bare comparatives, formed only using the standard phrase headed by than. English and Hebrew, to the exclusion of Malayalam, allow an incomplete comparative where the standard phrase is omitted. Thus, the Malayalam than is special and the behavior of than and more in Malayalam is different from that of English or Hebrew. Hebrew bare comparatives have been analyzed in Schwarzschild (2014) as having a semantically meaningful than. (329) Miri xazaka mi-Yoni (Schwarzschild 2014: 17) Miri strong[3sg.fem] SM-Yoni ‘Miri is stronger than Yoni.’ 174 The standard marker mi appears in (329) without the comparative marker yoter. Hebrew bare comparatives do not have a null more since differentials cannot combine with bare comparatives. (330) *harbe xazak mi-Yoni (Schwarzschild 2014: 24) a lot strong SM-Yoni ‘a lot stronger than Yoni.’ Hebrew allows differentials to be expressed as a prepositional phrase following the comparative adjective. (331) hu (yoter) xazak mi-Yoni bə-harbe (Schwarzschild 2014: 24) he CM strong SM-Yoni P – a lot ‘he’s stronger than Yoni by alot’ 4.6.3. Malayalam differentials Measure phrases can combine with comparatives without the presence of the comparative marker (similar to English), though speakers prefer the presence of the comparative marker. (332) Anilin-ə [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] ranʈu inch (kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM two inch more tallness POSS V ‘Anil is two inches taller than Komalan.’ (333) Anil [Komalan-e kaaɭ-um] orupaaʈə pazham (kuuʈuttal) kazhiccu Anil Komalan-ACC than-UM a lot bananas more ate ‘Anil ate a lot of bananas than Komalan.’ However, in the il-um comparatives the more is obligatory. This is similar to the Hebrew differential comparatives in (334). (334) a. Anilin-ə Komalan-il-um ranʈu inch *(kuuʈuttal) pokkam uɳʈə 175 Anil-DAT Komalan-LOC-UM two inch more tallness POSS V ‘Anil is two inches taller than Komalan.’ b. Anil Komalan-il-um orupaaʈə *(kuuʈuttal) pazham kazhiccu Anil Komalan-LOC-UM a lot more bananas ate ‘Anil ate a lot more bananas than Komalan.’ Below is a summary of the distribution of the comparative marker and the standard marker given the data from English, Hebrew, and Malayalam. As seen, all languages have ways of forming comparative and allowing differentials in comparative but they do so differently. Malayalam differs from English and Hebrew in forming comparatives from property concept expressions. Hebrew and Malayalam allow bare comparatives, formed only using the standard phrase headed by than. English and Hebrew, to the exclusion of Malayalam, allow an incomplete comparative where the standard phrase is omitted. Thus, the Malayalam than is special and the behavior of than and more in Malayalam is different from that of English or Hebrew. (335) Table 6.0: Summary of the distribution of more and than in English, Hebrew, Malayalam English Hebrew Malayalam Comparative John is taller than Bill John is taller than Bill John is taller than Bill Bare comparative *John is tall than Bill John is tall than Bill John is tall than Bill Incomplete comparative It is cooler over here It is cooler over here *It is cooler over here Differential John is 2 inches taller than Bill John is taller than Bill by 2 inches John is 2 inches taller than Bill/ John is taller than Bill by 2 inches 4.7. Toward an analysis There are three viable options for accounting for the variable behavior of the comparative marker. I will show that only one of these options is tenable for the data presented from the Malayalam comparatives. The first option is to assume the standard semantics for the comparative marker as in the standard literature. In this case, the comparative marker more 176 encodes the comparative semantics. However, this analysis will provide no explanation for the varied distribution of the comparative marker. Why is it that the more is disallowed with Class 1 property concept expressions, optional with Class 2 property concept expressions, and obligatory with NP and VP comparatives, if indeed the comparative marker encodes comparative semantics uniformly? The second option is to assume a silent degree head as is seen postulated for Hindi (Bhatt and Takahashi 2011). However, if indeed there was a silent head mediating the semantics, we expect to see systematic distinctions between the degree head –er and the comparative marker, yet we don’t. The final option is to assume that the standard phrase is not semantically vacuous and in addition to the comparative marker encodes the comparative marker. This is the analysis I will be pursuing in the following sections. 4.7.1. Is the more actually more? Before laying out the analysis, looking at the nature of the comparative marker, one could ask whether it is indeed a comparative marker. I will offer a morphological decomposition account suggesting that the comparative marker is a dedicated morpheme seen only in comparative uses. √kur is the root for quantity predicates. The same root can be seen in comparatives of superiority (more) as well as comparatives of inferiority (less). Moreover, kuuʈuttal ‘more’ is only used in comparatives. (336) a. √kur + -ee = kuree ‘a lot, many, much’ b. √kur + -avə= kuravə ‘less c. √kur + -uka = kuuʈuka ‘to increase’ d. √kur + uʈ + -al = kuuʈuttal ‘many/much + er’ ~ ‘more’ However, the meaning of the comparative marker is very different from that of comparative markers in well-studied languages, such as English. The role of the comparative 177 marker is a quantifier over degrees. As we saw earlier, the nature of the property concept expressions in Malayalam requires a different analysis of comparison. 4.7.2 A semantic role for kaaɭ-um ‘than’: A first take It is not altogether implausible to assume a semantics for the standard marker. Cross- linguistically, it has been shown that the standard marker determines the semantics of comparison by selecting for a phrasal vs. clausal standard of comparison (Kennedy 2007). As seen in Schwarszschild (2014) for Hebrew and earlier in this chapter, comparative marker is not always necessary in comparative constructions. Comparative markers are also cross- linguistically rarer than standard markers (Stassen 1985). My proposal is that kaaɭ-um ‘than’ isn’t semantically vacuous but in fact encodes a comparative meaning, working in tandem with kuuʈuttal ‘ more’ when it is overtly present. (cf. Alrenga, Kennedy & Merchant 2012, and Schwarzschild to appear, on attributing a role to than). Let us take a first stab in figuring out the semantics of the standard marker. The semantics of the two markers is in (337) (adapted from Schwarzschild (2014)) assuming further the presence of NOT in the than phrase. This null, variable scope negation is motivated by the interpretation of modals and other quantifiers in the comparative clause (Schwarzschild 2008). (337) a. than: [[ kaaɭ-um ]] = lD. lD’. $d [ d ∈ D ∧ d ∈ D’] b. more: [[ kuuʈuttal ⟧ = lD. lD’. "d [ d ∈ D → d ∈ D’] The than phrase can bind the degree argument in the matrix clause in the absence of more or can act as a quantifier domain adverbial in the presence of more. Thus, it assumes there is a degree which the target of comparison has which the standard of comparison does not. The standard marker originates inside the standard phrase and selects for a NegP. If this is indeed the semantics of the markers, then the distribution of the comparative marker can be analyzed as follows: 178 4.7.2.1 Class 1 forms One possible analysis is that Class 1 forms are relative clauses in attributive position and light headed relatives in predicative position, and thus cannot combine with kuuʈuttal, whether it is nominal (‘excess’) or adverbial ‘more’, ‘in excess’. (338) a. * more {more/ (in) excess} [being good] b. * {more/ (in) excess} [one who is good] However, the acceptability of kuuʈuttal with Class 2 in the presence of the possessive verb, e.g., suggests that there must be another position for kuuʈuttal to merge, so this is not the correct explanation. A more likely line of explanation is that Class 1 forms allow only POS and measure phrases to saturate the degree variable. Indeed, Class 1 comparatives are norm-related. With kuuʈuttal ‘more’ not possible, the than-phrase alone contributes the semantics of comparison and acts as a domain restrictor on the POS. On this analysis, the LF and interpretation, without kuuʈuttal is in (339): (339) a. Anil is good to d [than Komalan is NOT good to d'] b. $d [Anil is good to d and Komalan is not good to d] As the interpretation shows, there is a potential problem with this analysis. The property concept expressions do not have the same standard semantics as adjectives in languages that have them. Thus, in these cases the d variable is already saturated by the presence of the POS. 4.7.2.2 Class 2 forms Class 2 roots create derived nominals, which, unlike regular NPs, have a degree argument. The degree variable can be saturated by an optional more or by POS (either can apply in either attributive or predicative position). Unlike Class 1 comparatives, Class 2 comparatives are not norm-related. The LF and interpretation for (340a) with kuuʈuttal ‘more’: 179 (340) a. more C [Anil is tall to d] [than C Komalan is NOT tall to d'] b. domain variable C = a set of degrees containing at least one degree that Komalan does not have. c. $d' [d' ∈ C & Komalan is not tall to d' and "d [d ∈ C → Anil is tall to d]] Here, the degree d' is the degree that Komalan does not possess and Anil does. The LF and interpretation for (341a) without kuuʈuttal ‘more’: (341) a. Anil is tall to d [than Komalan is NOT tall to d'] b. $d [Anil is tall to d & Komalan is not tall to d] 4.7.2.3 NP comparatives NPs do not have degree arguments (unlike Class 2 nouns). A degree-introducing determiner is needed. kuuʈuttal, which contains a ‘many’/‘much’ measure determiner, fulfils this role. Thus, kuuʈuttal is always necessary with NP comparatives. The than-phrase is a quantifier domain adverbial, (342a). The LF and interpretation is given below: (342) a. more C [Anil ate d-many bananas] [than C Komalan did NOT eat d-many bananas] b. domain variable C = a set of degrees containing at least one degree such that Komalan did not eat that many bananas. c. $d' [d' ∈ C & Komalan did not eat d'-many bananas and "d [d ∈ C → Anil ate d-many bananas]] However, this analysis is a direct application of Schwarzschild’s semantics for Malayalam. Upon closer inspection, this analysis will fail in direct semantic composition since Schwarzschild assumes the standard analysis of adjectival semantics, where gradable predicates come with a degree head. On the analysis, sketched in Chapters 2 and 3, property concept expressions do not always have a degree variable. Thus, I revise this analysis below. 180 4.7.3. A new semantics for than 4.7.3.1 Than is not semantically vacuous and encodes comparison My main proposal is regarding the semantic content of the standard marker than. The standard marker is not semantically vacuous and acts as a context setter. The semantics for the standard marker is given in (343). It takes two individuals and gives an ordering between the property possessed by the individual x and the property possessed by the individual y. Thus, the standard marker establishes an ordering relation and also compares the property possession. However, there needs to be a notion of maximality, which is given by the characteristic function supremum sup. This function gives the least upper bound reading. The sup function is adapted from Alrenga et al (2013). Π is a meta variable on property concept expressions. (343) than: [[ kaaɭ-um ]] = lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] Than first takes the standard clause as its argument and relates the target of comparison with the standard of comparison. One evidence pertaining to the claim that the standard marker is not a degree quantifier comes from the inability of the than phrase to host a degree denoting expression such as a measure phrase or degree descriptions such as ‘more than three’. (344) a. * Anilinə aaɾə aʈi-e kaaɭum pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT six feet-ACC than tallness EX COP ‘Anil is more than 6 feet tall.’ b. Anilinə aaɾə aʈi-il-um pokkam uɳʈə Anil-DAT six feet-LOC-UM tallness EX COP ‘Anil is more than 6 feet tall.’ (345) a. *Anilinə muun-ine kaaɭum kuuʈuttal pustakam uɳʈə Anil-dat six-DAT than more books EX COP ‘Anil has more than three books.’ 181 Given this semantics, in the next sections I develop how comparatives are formed in the different classes of property concept expressions in Malayalam. 4.7.3.2. Than alone encodes comparison- Class 1 Class 1 property concept expressions are –a ending relativized property concept expressions and they never allow an overt comparative marker more. The internal composition of these Class 1 expressions encode covert possession, through merge in the Spec of a functional head ∅ v_poss . The positive morpheme (POS) can saturate the degree argument and the –a, which is the relative clause marker in Proto-Dravidian attaches next. The role of this marker is only syntactic and it does not change the semantic type of the property concept expression. (346) [[[√nall + ∅ v_poss ] v + POS] v -a] rel Lit. ‘having an instance of goodness measuring to a degree that exceeds the standard’ (347) a. RC λx. ∃d [x’s goodness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] √nall The role of the standard marker, than, which is a PP adjunct that can adjoin to the vP, is to combine with a Class 1 expression and restrict the POS, essentially set the context. It also 182 introduces an ordering relation between the property possessions. This structure is then turned into a resumptive one by the addition of resumptive pronouns that turn the relative clause into a free relative. (348) b. A pronoun makes the relative clause in (347a) into a free relative. NP <e> RC <e,t> -van/-vaɭ/-tə λx. ∃d [x’s goodness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] √nall The PP adjunct is then right adjoined to the VP. I will assume that comparative clause is unpronounced following VP ellipsis at the PF interface. The reason for assuming a clausal standard and not a phrasal standard is due to the fact that the clause can be pronounced fully, optionally (cf. (318b)). 183 (349) S DP VP VP PP Anil NP aaɳə DP P lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] RC -van/-vaɭ/-tə [ Komalan is good ] than λx. ∃d [x’s goodness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] √nall The PP adjunct then obligatorily extraposes to the left of the VP to derive the correct word order, as in the classical analysis of comparative syntax (Bresnan 1973). Comparative semantics is entirely encoded in than. Syntactically as well as semantically the comparative marker has no 184 role. Thus in some sense, this is similar to an implicit comparison (compared to) in English, although the kaaɭum comparative is an explicit comparative. (350) Compared to John, Bill is tall. This analysis also accounts for how the distribution of kaaɭum is less restricted than that of than phrases. The comparative marker cannot appear on its own since its role is to introduce a measure function. (351) a. *Than John, I love Paris. b. Anil-ine kaaɭum enikkə Paris iʃʈam aaɳə Anil-DAT than I-DAT Paris love PRED V ‘I love Paris than Anil.’ c. Anil-ine kaaɭum Komalanə pustakam uɳʈə Anil-DAT than Komalan-DAT books EX.COP ‘Komalan has more books than Anil.’ In Class 1 property concept expressions, the comparative semantics is wholly achieved by the semantics of the standard marker. 4.7.3.3. Than alone encodes comparison- Class 2 Class 2 property concept expressions are different from Class 1 property concept expressions in that they are nominalized with the –am marker. They merge in the Spec of a non possessive ∅ v . Thus in these cases, the possession is encoded overtly by combining with the possessive verb uɳʈə. The possessive verb together contributes a degree for comparison. This verb also mandatorily requires dative marking. (352) [[√pokk+ ∅ v ] v + -am] n 185 Lit. ‘being an instance of height’ (353) NP <e,t> vP <e,t> -am λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] √pokk v The nominal formed in (353) merges with a vP hosting the Poss V. Thus possession makes the predicate gradable. The standard marker than saturates the degree argument of the have predicate + dative construction. (354) VP NP V vP -am uɳʈə λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] pokkam 186 (355) S DP VP VP PP ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup (Komalan’s height)] Anil-inə NP uɳʈə DP P lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] vP -am [Komalan is tall] λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] than pokkam Similar to Class 1 property concept expressions, after the PP adjoins to the VP, it extraposes for to a position before the VP to derive the correct word order. The possessive copula introduces a degree variable, which the PP can bind. Thus possession introduces gradability or in other words gradability is only an epiphenomenon. 4.7.3.4. Than encodes comparison with the more- Class 2, NP/VP comparative The cases in which the standard marker than and the comparative marker more can encode comparison are in Class 2 as well as NP/VP comparatives. This happens optionally with Class 2 property concept expressions and obligatorily with NP/VP comparative. In these cases, the comparative marker is an adnominal modifier, meaning along the lines of “in addition of”, “in excess of”. Thus, the behavior of the Malayalam comparative marker is very different from the 187 English more. Its meaning is similar to that of an intensifier- very, totally, a lot, predicate modifiers of the sort < <e,t>, <e,t>>. The semantics is given below and is similar to the il-um comparative cases. (356) [[ kuuʈuttal]] = λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d Thus, when more occurs with than in Class 2, it specifies the degree exceeding the specified standard. (357) S DP VP VP PP Anil-inə NP uɳʈə DP P λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] NP pokkam [Komalan is tall] than λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d more Thus, NP and VP comparatives need to be made gradable overtly by the addition of the degree morphology, the comparative adnomial marker more which introduces the measure function. Below are the derivations for the NP and VP comparatives. 188 (358) NP comparatives S DP VP VP PP Anil NP ate DP P lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] NP pazham [Komalan ate] than λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d more (359) VP comparatives S DP VP VP PP Anil NP ran DP P λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] more [Komalan ran] than 4.7.3.5. Interim Conclusion I have shown a maximally transparent mapping from surface syntax to meaning by showing that both the comparative morpheme (more) and the standard morpheme (than) contribute to the 189 semantics of comparison. The than can never be omitted from comparative constructions. The than phrase can bind the degree argument in the matrix clause in bare comparatives or can act as a quantifier domain adverbial in the presence of more. 4.8. Color Comparatives In Chapter 3, I analyzed color terms, which seemingly show properties similar to both Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions, although they are always morphologically Class 1. Although, the behavior of Simple and Complex color terms was only briefly mentioned in that chapter, I will undertake a detailed analysis in this chapter. 4.8.1 Quick Recap Color expressions come in two avatars- Simple color and Complex color. The Simple form needs overt possessive predication to be gradable and therefore composes with the null non-possessive v head. On the contrary, the Complex form, which encodes possession covertly, is gradable, and exhibits canonical predication. This distinction between gradable and non-gradable color expressions, posited by Kennedy & McNally (2010) and McNally (2011) as a lexical ambiguity, thus can be seen overtly in the morphosyntax of color terms in Malayalam. Unlike previous work, however, this distinction is rooted in the morphology rather than the lexical semantics of the color terms. 4.8.2 An analysis for color comparatives The analysis sketched out in Chapter 3 predicts an asymmetry in comparison. Simple color terms should behave similar to Class 2 expressions in allowing the comparative marker ‘more’ in structures with the possessive predicate needed to introduce gradability. Complex color terms should behave similar to Class 1 non-color expressions in disallowing an overt comparative marker, as the degree variable introduced by the possessive v, with which –a combines, is closed off by POS. 190 The color terms behave exactly as predicted by the analysis. In both predicative and attributive forms, kuuʈuttal ‘more’ (a form that only appears in comparatives) is optionally allowed with Simple color terms and disallowed with Complex color terms. In the case of Simple color terms, the attributive form provides further evidence for our covert nominal COLOR. It has to be overtly pronounced. (360) a. Simple color: predicative ii kuppayam aa kuppayathin-e kaaɭum (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa aaɳə this dress that dress-acc than more white EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is white color more (so) than that dress.’) b. Simple color: attributive Anil Komalan-e kaaɭum (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa niram uɭɭa kuppayam iʈʈu Anil Komalan-acc than more white color having dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than the dress Komalan was wearing.’) In Simple color terms, the comparative marker is optional. This is consistent in behavior with Class 2 (-am ending, nominalized) property concept expressions, which showed an optionality with the comparative marker as well. However, this behavior departs from Class 1 property concept expressions that need to be nominalized in the predicative position and in comparatives. The attributive position for Simple color terms provides evidence for the covert COLOR nominal. It has to be obligatorily present. (361) Complex color: predicative ii kuppayam aa kuppayathin-e kaaɭum (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta-tə aaɳə this dress that dress-acc than more white-pron EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is having whiteness more than that dress.’) 191 b. Complex color: attributive Anil Komalan-e kaaɭum (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta kuppayam iʈʈu Anil Komalan-acc than more white dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than Komalan.’) The prediction for Complex color terms is that the comparative marker is disallowed, similar to Class 1 property concepts. Indeed, this is what we find. In both, attributive and predicative positions, the comparative marker can never appear. These comparatives can also appear with a clausal counterpart, as was noted earlier in this chapter for Class 1 and Class 2 comparatives. (362) Simple color: Attributive clausal Anil [Komalan weɭɭa niram uɭɭa kuppayam iʈʈ-at-ine kaaɭ-um] (kuuʈuttal) Anil Komalan white color having-REL dress wear-NOML-ACC than-UM more weɭɭa niram uɭɭa kuppayam iʈʈu white color having dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than the white dress Komalan was wearing.’) b. Simple color: predicative clausal ii kuppayam [aa kuppayathinə weɭɭa niram uɭɭ-atine kaaɭum] this dress that dress-DAT white color having-ACC than (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa aaɳə more white EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is white color more (so) than that dress.’) 192 Even in the predicative and attributive clausal comparative cases, the comparative marker is optional. The predicative clausal Simple color can also appear with the possessive copula. In this case, the “color” nominal has to be overt and obligatory. (363) ii kuppayam [aa kuppayathinə weɭɭa niram uɭɭ-atine kaaɭum] this dress that dress-DAT white color having-ACC than (kuuʈuttal) weɭɭa niram uɳʈə more white color EX-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is white color more (so) than that dress.’) The Complex color comparatives also show a clausal variant, similar to the Simple color comparatives. (364) Complex color: attributive a.Anil [Komalan iʈʈ-at-ine kaaɭum] (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta kuppayam iʈʈu Anil Komalan wear-NOML-ACC than more white dress wore ‘Anil wore a whiter dress than Komalan.’ (lit. ‘Anil wore a dress having whiteness more than Komalan.’) b. Complex color: predicative ii kuppayam [aa kuppayathinə weɭɭutta niram uɭɭ-at-ine kaaɭum] (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭutta-tə this dress that dress-DAT white color having-ACC than more white-pron aaɳə EQ-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is having whiteness more than that dress.’) As can be seen from the predicative Complex color usage, the standard phrase requires the presence of the overt nominal color, suggesting that even in these cases there is a null nominal color when the pronominalization is disallowed. However, in these cases, the usage of a nominalization of the Complex color can also be used, as seen in the table below: 193 (365) COMPLEX NOMINALIZATION MEANING weɭɭutta weɭɭuppə ‘white’ kaɾutta kaɾuppə ‘black’ čuvanna čuvappə ‘red’ If the nominalization form is used, there is no need for the pronominalization or the overt color nominal. The use of this nominalization form warrants the use of the existential copula. (366) Complex color nominalization: predication ii kuppayam [aa kuppayathinə weɭɭuppə uɭɭ-at-ine kaaɭum] (*kuuʈuttal) weɭɭuppə this dress that dress-DAT white having-ACC than more white uɳʈə EX-COP ‘This dress is whiter than that dress.’ (lit. This dress is having whiteness more than that dress.’) 4.8.3 Summary of the distribution of the color nominal and the comparative marker The Simple color expressions and the Complex color expressions differ in comparatives, as is expected under the theory given in Chapter 3. Simple color optionally allows the comparative marker, while Complex color disallows the comparative marker. This is similar to the behavior of Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions, as seen in Chapter 2. Class 1 (-a ending, relativized expressions) and Complex color expressions merge with the same functional head v_poss. Syntactically and semantically, the comparative marker has no role to play in these expressions. The comparative marker is disallowed syntactically since these forms are reduced relatives, and semantically the more cannot combine with a form whose degree argument is already saturated. 194 Class 2 (-am ending, nominalized expressions) and Simple color expressions merge with a different functional head, namely the v head. This head does not encode possession covertly. Thus, possession is encoded overtly using the existential copula. These expressions optionally allow the comparative marker. Class 2 comparatives are not norm-related and can appear with the comparative marker, similarly to other nominals. The overt possessive verb contributes the degree semantics: having height to a degree d. Structurally, Class 2 forms combine with the possessive verb. When than appears alone, it saturates the degree of the possessive predicate. When the more occurs with than, it specifies the degree exceeding the specified standard. This analysis is similar in spirit to the analysis for an implicit comparison. In the analysis of color expressions in Chapter 3, I posited a null color nominal, which the color property concept root composes with in the attributive and predicative position. This covert color nominal can be seen overtly in the case of color comparatives, especially in the clausal variant. This provides evidence for positing a null color nominal, which is elided under identity. To summarize, even in color comparatives, the comparative marker does not play the role of encoding comparative semantics. The proposal, similar to other property concept expressions, is that the standard marker encodes comparative semantics. 4.8.4 Than encodes comparative semantics in color comparatives Similar to the role of than in Class 1 and Class 2 comparatives, than in color comparatives is not semantically vacuous and acts as a context setter. I maintain the same semantics for the standard marker. 4.8.4.1 Than alone encodes comparison- Complex Color Complex color expressions do not allow a more. (367) [[[√weɭ + ∅ v_poss ] v + POS] v -a] rel [[[√weɭ + -utt ] v + POS] v -a] rel 195 Lit. ‘having an instance of whiteness measuring to a degree that exceeds the standard’ (368) RC λx. ∃d [x’s whiteness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] -utt √white The than is a PP adjunct which can adjoin to the vP and when combined with a complex color expression can restrict the POS, essentially set the context. b. A neuter pronoun makes the RC in (368a) into a free relative. 196 NP <e> RC -tə λx. ∃d [x’s whiteness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] -utt √white (369) The PP then right adjoins to the VP. 197 S DP VP VP PP This dress NP aaɳə DP P lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] RC -tə [that dress is white] than λx. ∃d [x’s whiteness ≥ d and d > d s ] vP -a v_poss POS λΠ λd λx ∃y [y is an instance of Π & x has y & µ(y) ≥ d] λg <d, <e, t>> . λx. ∃d [ g(d)(x) & d > d s ] -utt √white The PP adjunct extraposes to a position before the VP, to derive the correct word order. Comparative semantics is entirely encoded in than. Syntactically as well as semantically the comparative marker has no role. 198 4.8.4.2 Than alone encodes comparison- Simple color Simple color property concept expressions combine with the possessive verb. The dative case marker on the subject and the possessive verb together contributes a degree for comparison. (370) [[√neel+ ∅ v ] v + -a] rel Lit. ‘being an instance of blueness’ (371) RC vP -a λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] √neel v This merges with a possessive verb, thus possession makes the predicate gradable. Than saturates the degree argument of the have predicate + dative construction. (372) VP NP uɳʈə NP N vP -a niram λΠ λx [x is an instance of Π] 199 (373) S DP VP VP PP ii kuppayat-inə NP uɳʈə DP P lP <et> . ly. ∃Π [ sup Π (y) > sup Π (P)] neela niram [ that dress is blue] than The PP adjunct then extraposes to a position before the VP. The copula introduces a degree variable which the PP can bind and possession introduces gradability. 4.8.4.3 Than encodes comparison with the more- Simple color When the than appears optionally with more in Simple color terms, the more behaves as an adnomial degree modifier. (374) S DP VP VP PP kuppayat-inə NP uɳʈə DP P NP neela niram [dress is blue] than 200 λd ∈D d . λx ∈ D e . µ (x) = d more 4.8.5 Differentials: further evidence in favor of a semantic role for ‘than’ Measure phrases, interpreted as differentials, can combine with Class 1 and Class 2 comparatives without the presence of the comparison marker. (375) Anil Komalan-e kaaɭ-um muunə aʈi čeriya-van aaɳə (Class 1) Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM three feet small-M.SG EQ-COP ‘Anil is three feet smaller than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘Anil is one having smallness three feet than Komalan.’ (376) Anilin-ə Komalan-e kaaɭ-um ranʈu aʈi pokkam uɳʈə (Class 2) Anil-DAT Komalan-ACC than-UM two feet tallness EX.COP ‘Anil is two feet taller than Komalan.’ Lit. ‘To Anil there is tallness two inches than to Komalan.’ (377) Anil Komalan-e kaaɭ-um ranʈu pazham kuuʈuttal kazhičču (NP comparative) 54 anil komalan-ACC than-UM two bananas more eat-PAST ‘Anil ate two more bananas than Komalan.’ This constitutes further evidence for the fact that the standard marker is not semantically vacuous in Malayalam. 54 In these cases, the comparative marker has been extraposed to the right, to the immediate left position of the verb. 201 4.8.6 Comparatives in other Dravidian languages Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Tulu only have one way of expressing comparatives. They use a postposition “from”, independently attested in the language to express than. (378) nii yenn-ai viɖa uyaram Tamil you me-ACC from tall ‘You are taller than me.’ (379) nuuvvu naakante ethugaa unaavu Telugu you me-ACC tall-than COP ‘You are taller than me.’ (380) neenu ninaginta ethira iddini Kannada you me-than tall COP ‘You are taller than me.’ On first blush, these look similar to the Malayalam il-um comparative, with the exception that the comparative marker does not seem obligatory as evidenced by the lack of it in the examples above. Telugu comparatives behave differently in that the standard marker is attached directly to the property concept expression for ‘tallness’, unlike Malayalam, Tamil, Kannada where the standard marker selects the standard of comparison and form a structural unit with it. I will not attempt a closer look at the comparative construction in these languages, leaving it for future work. 4.9 A note on Superlatives A natural extension of the theory on comparatives is to figure out how superlatives work without adjectives. Although the relative versus absolute ambiguity in superlatives is well established, there is no consensus regarding how the comparison classes which gives rise to these ambiguities 202 are determined. Two factors, the LF syntax of –est and focus, have been said to determine the comparison classes. Depending on what constitutes the comparison class, the example in (381) in English is three-way ambiguous (Heim 1985, Szabolsci 1986). In the absolute reading, “the largest cake” determines the comparison class, while the relative reading comes about when either “John” or “Mary” determines the comparison class. (381) John bought the largest cake for Mary. a. ‘John bought Mary the cake that is larger than any other cake.’ ABSOLUTE b. ‘JOHN bought a larger cake for Mary than anyone else did.’ RELATIVE c. ‘John bought a larger cake for MARY than he did for anyone else.’ RELATIVE The degree quantifier –est has the semantics in (382). The covert restrictor of the degree quantifier is the comparison class C (Heim 1999). (382) ⟦-est ⟧ = λC λD λx ∃d [D(d)(x) & ∀y [y ∈ C & y ≠ x → ¬D(d)(y)]] Presuppositions: (i) x ∈ C ; (ii) ∀y [y ∈ C → ∃d [D(d)(y)]] The two prominent theories accounting for the LF syntax of –est, The scope theory and the pragmatic theory, maintain that –est stays inside the DP in absolute readings. However, they differ in their assumptions regarding the relative reading. In the scope theory, the –est moves out of the DP, while in the pragmatic theory, the –est stays inside the DP. The role of focus facilitates disambiguation of the two relative readings. However, both theories can accommodate focus although it is not obligatory. Thus, it remains an unresolved question whether focus is indeed necessary to obtain a relative reading. I provide some data from Malayalam which favor a focus analysis of relative readings. 203 4.9.1 Malayalam superlatives Superlatives are formed over the property concept expressions in (383) and (384) by adding ettavum ‘most’, a superlative form of eere ‘many’. (383) a. ettavum nalla kutti b. ettavum pokkam uɭɭa keʈʈiʈam most good child most tallness having building ‘The best child.’ ‘The tallest building.’ However, these forms do not give rise to a relative/absolute ambiguity. (384) Anil Komalanə ettavum valiya cake vaaŋŋi koʈuttu Anil Komalan-DAT most big cake buy give ‘Anil bought the biggest cake for Komalan.’ ‘Anil bought Komalan the cake that is bigger than any other cake’ ONLY ABSOLUTE The different relative readings can only come about with association with focus. There is a FocP position available, immediately above the vP (Jayaseelan 2000). The “most big cake” occupies this position in (385), thus only the absolute reading results. To get the relative reading, the relevant DP has to scramble to the FocP. (385) a. Komalanə ettavum valiya cake [Anil] F vaaŋŋi koʈuttu Komalan-DAT most big cake Anil buy give √ ‘ANIL bought a larger cake for Komalan than anyone else did.’ RELATIVE b. Anil ettavum valiya cake [Komalanə] F vaaŋŋi koʈuttu Anil most big cake Komalan-DAT buy give √ ‘Anil bought a larger cake for KOMALAN than he did for anyone else.’ RELATIVE 204 4.9.2 Chapter summary In this chapter, I analyzed the two kinds of comparatives in Malayalam and investigated their behavior with the different property concept expressions- Class 1, Class 2, Simple color, and Complex color expressions. It was shown there is a maximally transparent mapping from surface syntax to meaning by showing that both the comparative morpheme (more) and the standard morpheme (than) contribute to the semantics of comparison. The than can never be omitted from comparative constructions. The than phrase can bind the degree argument in the matrix clause in bare comparatives provided by the possessive copula in Class 2 or restrict the POS and act as a context setter in Class 1. It acts as a quantifier domain adverbial in the presence of more, when it optionally occurs with Class 2 and Simple color expressions, and obligatorily with NP and VP comparatives. 205 Chapter 5 Prospects and Look Ahead In this dissertation, I have argued that the only way adjectival meaning can be expressed in a language without a lexical category of adjectives, namely Malayalam, is by means of possession. This argument was based primarily on the interpretation of different property concept expressions, relativized property concepts, nominalized property concepts, and property concept expressions of color, when appearing in attributive, predicative positions, as well as comparatives on the basis of three major sources of evidence: morphosyntactic decomposition of property concept roots, syntactic and semantic grammatical life, and semantic composition. This dissertation has enriched our understanding of adjectival expressions by providing an alternate way of looking at the morpho-syntax and morpho-semantics of complex property concept expressions, especially in languages without a lexical category of adjectives. The main thesis argued for in the preceding chapters is the role of morphology and syntax in constraining possible variation cross-linguistically. The complex property concept expressions are formed in the syntax through merge with specific functional heads. The semantics of these functional heads, in tandem with the syntax, determine how the property concept roots participate in various grammatical functions. There are at least two ways of looking at systematic patterns of variation expressed at the level of truth conditions. We could posit a difference in the mode of semantic composition or in the denotations of the lexical primitives. This approach will distinguish the building blocks of human cognition, namely, noun, verb, adjective, and preposition along the dimensions of lexical semantics. Each lexical primitive has a dedicated semantic denotation and the restrictions we see in variation on the surface are a corollary of this denotation. There could also be variation in the same empirical domain, for example, in property concept lexemes. This variation then triggers differences in surface morpho-syntax. Semantic equivalence being equal, the syntax of the functional heads provides the means to arrive at differences in meaning. In this approach, 206 variation is seen at the level of syntactic representations. Different functional heads mediate the semantic representations possible. The main argument has been that the variation we observe in this thesis, from data looking at Dravidian, suggests a morpho-syntactic explanation of the facts. The property concept lexemes we have explored in detail shows that the denotation with which the lexemes start and end with are the same. The differences in behavior that we see at the level of morpho-syntax are due to the different grammatical life of the property concept roots. These differences receive a principled explanation if we assume that the different functional heads, with which these property concept roots apply, have different semantic orientation. Verbal and nominal heads are readily available in word formation processes. I extended Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) lexical semantics variation hypothesis by looking at how property concept expressions are decomposed below the word level. The examples drawn from Dravidian languages, with no lexical category of adjectives showed the need for understanding possession at a deeper level. Therefore, I propose the following: (386) The Possessive Predication Hypothesis: Property concept lexemes start out as roots. The only way to predicate is to have possessive morpho-syntax, either overtly or covertly. This is achieved with the help of a covert possessive head, in the case of English-type languages, or with the help of a possessive construction. This view of morpho-syntax assumes similar to distributed morphology that there are simple, functional heads available in the syntax for the word formation. This theory has no separate, lexical denotations for different property concept expressions. They start out as uncategorized roots. This would also mean that in English, which does lexicalize adjectives, property concept expressions start out as roots, then combine with a null adjectival head which has possessive semantics. In other words, our theory predicts that English adjectives are morpho- syntactically complex. Assume then that a null a head is available in English. This would have the denotation given below, where π stands for the possessive relation. (387) ⟦∅ a ⟧= lP. ld. lx. ∃ y [P (y) & π (x, y) & µ ≥ d] 207 (388) [√tall + ∅ a ] = tall a = ld. lx. ∃ y [x has tallness ≥ d] Notice that this is precisely the denotation, which the degree analysis gives for adjectives. Under the theory proposed in this dissertation, it falls from the fact that an adjectival head is available for English-type languages to combine with, which derives the desired denotation for a gradable predicate such as tall 55 . Thus, presumably in English too, adjectives too are not adjectives to begin with in the lexicon. They are uncategorized roots that start out with a sortal type, and end up as relations between abstract measurements and degrees. This could be a different way of looking at the ontological category of adjective, which has always been thought of to be a lexical primitive. Therefore, English-type languages have adjectives because it has the functional category a, whereas Malayalam lacks that and has to encode possession in a little v (for Class 1) or use the help of a possessive copular construction (for Class 2). 5.1 The grammatical life of property concept roots This thesis has shown that variation between form and meaning lies at the level of morphosyntax. Theories looking at gradability and degree modification often assume that the adjective is a given, lexical primitive. The goal is to connect, universally, the way concepts expressing adjectival meaning (PCs) with the syntactic structures in which they can participate. Taking the starting point to be the lack of lexical adjectives in a language family, Dravidian, I went on to develop a theory to account for the way in which the language family expresses predication, modification, and comparison. 55 Note that only gradable adjectives combine with the denotation of the null a head as in (387). For non-gradable predicates, only the degree variable/scalarity is missing. Thus, a non-gradable predicate such as round will combine with a null a head having the denotation: (i) ⟦ ∅ a ⟧= lP. lx. ∃ y [P (y) & π (x, y)] (ii) [√round + ∅ a ] = lx. ∃ y [π (y) and x has y] 208 Thus, the main contribution, apart from the detailed analysis of the attributive and predicative structures, is in suggesting that: (389) (i) possession, either covert or overt, is the basis for encoding property concept predication; (ii) property concepts universally lexicalize as roots, and they denote individuals of a different sortal type; (iii) variation in property concept predication is rooted in the morphosyntax and semantics of the functional vocabulary that categorizes property concept roots; (iv) adjectives, in the languages that have them, are likely syntactically derived categories that too use a possessive strategy of predication, a covert one. This dissertation has shown that although it may be worthwhile to look for linguistic and language universals, it is also very worthwhile to explore the differences and variation in understanding what these differences, in say lexical categories, mean for the nature of grammar in general. I have crucially questioned the universality regarding the mapping between lexical semantics and the lexical category. 5.2 Extensions to related domains The empirical import of the thesis advanced in this dissertation for Malayalam can be extended to other languages in the Dravidian language family, which also lack lexical adjectives. Variation in the encoding of meaning in property concepts is due to its grammatical life and not encoded in their lexical semantics. To evaluate this, there are several distributional differences between the two types of property concept roots that remain unclear. These questions bring the present research to bear on issues of intense interest in the field, including predicate composition, and the semantics of gradable predicates, scalarity, and norm relatedness. Telugu property concept expressions seem to behave differently: The first question from Chapter 2 is regarding the status of Telugu property concept expressions. We noted that Telugu only has Class 1 roots that end in –a. However, the data based on Krishnamurti’s (2003) 209 descriptive grammar account and recent data collected by us from native Telugu speakers seem to be contrary to each other. In the descriptive grammar, Class 1 property concept roots ending in –a can occur in the predicative position without being turned into light headed relatives with the addition of bound pronouns, a strategy which we find is common to all the other Dravidian languages. However, this does not seem to be a uniform strategy across the Telugu Class 1 roots. Some roots require an overt degree head (similar to Chinese ‘hen’ very), whereas some other roots do not. (390) Telugu a. atanu cala podugu Class 1 he quite tall ‘He is quite tall.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) b. naaku iiuru kotta Class 1 to-me town new ‘This town is new.’ (Krishnamurti 2003: 399) There are many puzzling things about (390). In (390a), the overt degree morphology cala ‘very’ is obligatorily required. There seem to be no such requirement for (390b). Another crucial puzzle is the presence and absence of dative case. In (390a), the subject atanu ‘he’ is marked nominative, whereas in (390b), naaku ‘to-me’ is marked dative. Recall that both the property concept expressions belong to Class 1 root. Thus, in predicative position, we expect to see canonical predication and nominative case on the subject. This does not seem to be borne out with the Telugu data. In our fieldwork, we found out that younger speakers prefer a different strategy in property concept predication. (391) a. ii abbayi podugaina-waaɖu this boy tall-M.SG ‘This boy is tall.’ b. ii prashna kashʈamaina-di 210 this question difficult-NOML ‘This question is difficult.’ In (391), we find a strategy similar to Malayalam, Tamil, and Kannada, namely, to turn the relativized property concept expressions into light headed relatives with the addition of bound pronouns (-waaɖu and –di). Note that in (391), however, there is no overt copula (unlike the case in Malayalam). This copula drop is pervasive in Tamil and Kannada as well, but disallowed in Malayalam for reasons which are still poorly understood. More data has to be collected before anything can be conclusively said about these forms. Firstly, it remains to be seen if the degree morpheme contributes anything semantically to the construction (or is it semantically bleached). Secondly, the case differences need to be systematically investigated, and lastly, the copula drop could point us to a maybe systematic and poignant difference between South Dravidian languages (Malayalam, Kannada, Tamil) and South-Central Dravidian languages (Telugu, Gondi, Kui, Kuvi). This investigation will open up micro-parametric examination of variation of property concept expressions within the same language family. Differences in gradability: Much of the existing literature on property concept expressions in the formal semantics literature has focused on gradable adjectives. An obvious question is how possessed properties relate to gradable adjectives, and whether they involve scalar structure in similar ways. An important goal of this dissertation was to undertake a detailed study of Dravidian comparatives, thereby filling an important empirical gap in our understanding of how comparison works in a language family, which does not have lexical adjectives. Francez and Koontz-Garboden (2015) treat property concept expressions like tall and big, of which gradable properties are a subset, as having the denotation of mass substances. Properties are abstract portions of matter that are preordered, i.e a binary relation which is reflexive and transitive. According to this analysis, both properties and scales denote orderings. They go on to hypothesize that the only difference between properties and scales is that the latter is an order, the former a preorder. Thus, the distinction between gradable and non-gradable properties follows straightforwardly: gradable stative predicates are just those which denote sets of abstract mass (eventuality) stuff which form a reflexive, transitive, and antisymmetric ordering. Non- gradable stative predicates are those whose denotation form an ordering which is reflexive, 211 transitive, but not antisymmetric (a preorder). In this dissertation, it was shown that gradability is an epiphenomenon falling out of the possessive relation which can be encoded overtly or covertly. It remains to be seen to what extent possession plays a role in property concept expressions, crosslinguistically. Encoding comparatives without adjectives. Chapter 4 has only scratched the surface of degree expressions, or the lack of degree constructions in Dravidian. The broad contribution of this dissertation was to explore in detail how comparatives are encoded in a language family without a lexical class of adjectives. As a preliminary inquiry, I noted that there is an asymmetry in comparatives, with the presence versus absence of the overt comparative marker. This overt comparative marker is obligatorily present in NP comparatives (i.e. comparison of NPs such as bananas), disallowed with Class 1 property concept expressions, and optional with Class 2 property concept expressions. This is expected in a theory where there is syntactic variation in the encoding of meaning expressed by Class 1 and Class 2 property concept expressions. Within the Dravidian language family, there is considerable variation in the expression of comparatives. In Malayalam, the comparative is expressed using a dedicated standard marker (kaaɭ-um ‘than’). There is an alternate way of expressing comparison, using the locative marker directly on the standard phrase. This option, as far as we know, is unavailable for the other Dravidian languages. Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu can express comparison using a postposition (viɖa, ginta, gaa respectively). There is no existing work looking at the differences in the comparatives between these languages. Our previous work on the status of property concept expressions allows us to undertake a detailed exposition about the nature of comparatives in Dravidian. By looking at data from Malayalam comparatives, I claimed that the distinction between the two types of comparatives is not that of clausal versus phrasal comparatives. However, in the other Dravidian languages, this may not be the case. This research question will attempt to grasp a better understanding of the clausal versus phrasal comparative status Furthermore, it will explore the presence versus absence of the comparative marker with the two classes of property concept expressions in Tamil and with Class 1 property concept expressions in Kannada, Telugu, Tulu and the other minor Dravidian languages. 212 One crucial component in exploring differences and similarities between these comparatives will be to understand the expression of measure phrases with the property concept expressions A central question I will explore with respect to this is to find out if all property concept expressions allow measure phrases, and if there are subtle differences between property concept expressions then, what is the source of these differences? To do this, I will draw comparisons with Japanese yori-constructions and Hindi-Urdu zyaada comparatives. An area that was not touched upon in this dissertation is the formation of sub- comparatives, such as (392). These constructions are common in English-type languages. However, as we see in (393), these constructions can appear in Malayalam. The exact formulation of these constructions is left for future work. (392) The wall is longer than the table is wide. (393) table-inə wiiti uɭɭatin-e kaaɭ-um chumarin-ə neelam uɳʈə table-DAT length having-ACC than wall-DAT length EX.COP ‘The wall is longer than the table is wide.’ Apart from being the first detailed exploration into comparatives of an under-studied language family, I also hope this exposition will fill the gap of understanding how comparatives are expressed in a language which does not have lexical adjectives. This will not only inform us in new ways of looking at variation at the level of comparatives, but also put existing theories to scrutiny, which presuppose the existence of a lexical primitive, namely, the adjective. In standard analyses of comparatives, the question has been regarding semantic composition of the standard phrase (than) with the adjective. Insights into Dravidian comparatives will inform us better about the correct and optimal strategy in the analyses on comparatives. I also hope that this research will shed some light on the controversial status of the semantics of adjectives, in languages that do lexicalize them. 213 5.3 Cross-linguistic implications for the role of possession The main claim in this dissertation was to evaluate the role of possession in languages with no lexical adjectives. It was shown that possession, whether covert or overt plays a primary role in building adjectival meaning from property concept expressions. A brief discussion was also made connecting the role of possession in building color expressions in Arabic. However, it will remain to be seen if morphosyntactic variation can be used to explain data from other under- studied languages. 5.4 Languages and learning To understand better why this question is of importance, I turn to child language acquisition data. Cross-linguistic variability of the adjective category coupled with an early word learning bias towards basic level object terms makes the acquisition of the adjectival category a particularly difficult one. This is seen at the rate and level of acquisition as well. Nouns are learned the earliest and the fastest- own name by 3 months, basic level objects by 6 months, and a small vocabulary of 50~100 nouns by 1 year, which has tempted researchers to suggest a noun advantage in child language acquisition literature. Adjectives on the other hand are acquired much later. Even though by 24 months, children can spontaneously use adjectives, laboratory research has shown that children up to 3 years old map novel adjectives to object properties only in very limited situations (cf. Mintz and Gleitman 2002). This data is predominately from Indo- European languages, with very limited data from other language families, suggesting we know almost nothing about how property concept expressions are acquired in languages which do not lexicalize an adjective. A potential explanation for the incredibly difficult nature of acquisition of adjectives has to do with the possibility that they fall into a variety of conceptual classes whose conflation is arbitrary. This situation is in stark contrast to the labeling of whole concrete objects which surface as nouns cross-linguistically (Pinker 1984). This difficulty in delineating the link from the meaning of these adjectives and its acquisition has been shown to be conditioned by extra linguistic information and cues, especially since in languages such as English the interpretation of adjectives is conditioned by the nouns with which they co-occur (Katz 1964). In general, the acquisition of non-nominal categories is said to happen sequentially, as a 214 consequence of solving the learning problem. The noun bias is exhibited in the initial state because nouns are conceptual and it is possible to have a real world reference (Snedecker 1999). This learning now forms the basis of building new representations and learning of other word categories. The importance of the link between form and meaning can now be recast in terms of learning: why is there a bias in learning one lexical category over another? One of the primary goals in this dissertation is to eliminate this compartmentalization of concepts, in cognition, into watertight categories. By exploring the realm of property concept expressions and its avatars, we will show that the crucial question should be recast in terms of the possible variations expressed by different languages in the way they express meaning, and not in terms of the possible variation of lexical semantics denotation in property concept expressions. The guiding factor being that child language acquisition is sensitive to taxonomic distinctions, thereby, an instance of the word dog selects an entity from a fixed taxonomic set (namely, the set of all dogs). Thus, what is important is not the particular “lexicalization” of the concept but the particular ways in which this meaning is established in natural language. Variation in the grammar of property concept expressions reflects a crucial difference in the way stative meaning is derived compositionally across languages and the Dravidian languages presented an opportunity to investigate such variation within a single language family, one largely understudied by formal linguistics. The core question at stake was whether grammatically distinct strategies for property concept predication can nevertheless be unified at some level either in the semantics or in syntax, and what implications follow for the treatment of stativity in formal syntactic and semantic theories more generally. 5.5 Conclusion This dissertation examined property concept expressions in an adjective-less language, across their attributive, predicative, and comparative occurrences. I first introduced the two kinds of property concept expressions and discussed a way of analyzing the cross-categorical data in which these property concept expressions build and denote adjectival meaning. I proposed an alternative to the standard theory of adjectival meaning, which assumes a particular semantic 215 denotation to lexical adjectives. Possession plays a role, either covertly or overtly, to encode adjectival meaning in the absence of adjectives. Below the word level, possession is introduced by a functional head that also introduces a degree argument. This head turns out to be a verbal head in Malayalam, although cross-linguistically this functional head could have a different category. Above the word level, possession is encoded using the possessive copula, which also contributes gradability. The resultant theory provides, among other things, an account of why possession is pervasive across languages, in encoding different grammatical functions. A consequence of the theory is that the intricacy of syntactic structure and semantic composition that are behind property concept expressions in Malayalam, and Dravidian in general, highlight the link between property concept predication and possession. The theory was extended to two areas that posed a challenge: expression of color and formation of comparatives of superiority. It was shown that these constructions, too, fit within the same analytic framework as the others. Color expressions come in two different forms, providing evidence for a gradable and non- gradable distinction reflecting in the morphosyntax and semantics. Comparatives can also be formed without adjectives. The standard marker, often assumed semantically vacuous, encodes comparative semantics. Thus, the comparative marker in adjective-less languages does not play the same role as a comparative marker in English-type languages. Finally, a variety of further directions were explored, including extending the theory to superlatives, as well as cross- linguistic import. This account posits that the source of variability in the behavior of property- concept expressions, within Malayalam, and likely cross-linguistically as well, is morpho- syntactic variation, a consequence of structure building processes, and not variability encoded in the lexicon. 216 References Alexiadou, A. 2013. Deriving color adjectival nominalizations. Linguistica 8, 143-158. Alrenga, P, C. Kennedy & J. Merchant. 2013. A new standard of comparison. Proceedings of WCCFL 30. Amritavalli, R & Jayaseelan, K.A. 2003. The genesis of syntactic categories and parametric variation. Paper presented at the 4 th GLOW-in-Asia, Seoul. Anandan, K.N. 1985. Predicate Nominals in English and Malayalam. Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation. CIEFL: Hyderabad. Andronov, M.S. 1972. Notes on the nature and origin of the adjective in Tamil. In Agesthialingom and Shanmugham (eds.), 167-78. Arche, Maria. J. 2006. Individuals in time: Tense, Aspect, and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aristotle. 1995. Categories. In Jonathan Barnes (eds), The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols. Transl. J. L. Ackrill. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 3–24. Asher, R.E. 1982. Tamil. Lingua descriptive studies 7. Amsterdam: Routledge. Asher, R.E. & T.C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam. Descriptive Grammars. Routledge. Bach, Emmon. 1967. Have and Be in English Syntax. Language 43, 462-485. Baglini, Rebekah. 2015. Stative Predication and Semantic Ontology: A Cross-linguistic Study. Ph.D dissertation, University of Chicago. Baker, Mark. 2003. Verbal Adjectives as Adjectives without Phi-Features. Proceedings of the Fourth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Yukio Otsu (ed.), Keio University, 1-22. Baker, Mark. 2005. Lexical categories: verbs, nouns and adjectives. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Balusu, R. 2014. Are there adjectives in Telugu? Handout of paper presented at ICOLSI 36, University of Kerala, December 2014. Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric Variation in the Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, 289-344. 217 Becker, Misha. The Acquisition of the Copula in Child English, in R. Billerey and B. Lillehaugen (eds.) Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, (WCCFL 19) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 57-70. Benveniste, Emile. 1966-1974: Problems in general linguistics, translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek, 2 vols. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami. Berlin, B and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bhat, D.N.S.1994. The Adjectival Category: Criteria for Differentiation and Identification. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1998. Obligation and Possession. In The Proceedings of the UPenn/MIT Workshop on Argument Structure and Aspect, edited by Heidi Harley, MITWPL 32, pages 21-40. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2014. Many or more: the Hindi-Urdu degree word zyaada and the analysis of bare comparatives. M. Erlewine and Y. Sudo eds. Proceedings of MIT workshop on Comparatives. Bhatt, Rajesh. and Shoichi. Takahashi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29:581-620. Boa, Franz. 1911/1938. The Mind of Primitive Man. Rev. ed. New York. Bochnak, Ryan. 2013. Cross-linguistic variation in the semantics of comparatives. Ph.D dissertation, University of Chicago. Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2016. Building Meaning in Navajo. Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachussets-Amherst. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18:1–34. Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations. In Moore, J. and M. Polinsky (eds). The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Chicago: CSLI and University of Chicago Press. Borschev, Vladimir and Barbara H. Partee. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme- rheme structure or perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10, 105-44. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. Manfred Bierwisch and Ewald Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 218 Bresnan, J. 1973. The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-343. Caldwell, Robert. 1956. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. Madras: University of Madras. Chandra, Pritha and R. Kumar. 2012. Alienable/Inalienable Possession: From Syntax to Semantics. Indian Linguistics 73(1-4): 35-45. Chierchia, Gennaro. and Sally Mac Connell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chierchia, Gennaro. & Ray. Turner 1988. Semantics and Property Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261 - 302. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cresswell, M. J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. Barbara Partee, 261–292. New York: Academic Press. Chung, S. 2012. Are Lexical Categories Universal? The View from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38: 1-56. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Hoekstra, Teun, Rooryck, Johan. 1995. Augmented and non-augmented HAVE. Actes du premier colloque Langues & Grammaire, Paris VIII. ed. by Léa Nash & Georges Tsoulas, 85-101. Dikken, M. den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb–particle, triadic and causative constructions. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax (R.S. Kayne, series editor). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Dikken, Marcel. den. 1997. The syntax of possession and the verb ‘have’. Introduction to the Lingua 101: 3/4 special issue on the syntax of possession and the verb ‘have’, guest- edited by M. den Dikken. Dikken, M. den. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, Predicate Inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dikken, M. den & P. Singhapreecha. 2004. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7:1. 1–54. Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and syntax. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 107.) Berlin: Mouton, 1982. Dixon, R.M.W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In R.M.W Dixon and A. Aikhenwald (eds.), Adjective classes, a cross-linguistic typology (Explorations in linguistic typology, volume I). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 219 Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikenvald, A. Y. 2004. Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures Online (WALS). Max Planck Digital Library. URL: http://wals.info. Embick, David and Alec. Marantz. 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1. Embick, David and Rolf. Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Interfaces. Frampton, John and Sam Gutmann. 2006. How sentences grow in the mind: agreement and selection in efficient minimalist syntax. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 121– 157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew and Itamar, Francez. 2010. Possessed Properties in Ulwa. Natural Language Semantics. 18 (2), pp. 197-240. Francez, Itamar and Andrew, Koontz-Garboden. 2015. Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. Language 91 (3). Francez, Itamar and Andrew, Koontz-Garboden. to appear. Malayalam property concepts and the locus of variation. In S. Sundaresan and R. Balusu (eds.) Proceedings of FASAL V. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68:553–595. Gamliel, O. 2013. Voices yet to be heard: On listening to the last speakers of Jewish Malayalam. Journal of Jewish Linguistics 1, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 135-167. Giv´on, T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction I, Benjamins: Amsterdam. Gleitman, Lila. Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. 2005. Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 23–64. Grano, Thomas and Chris. Kennedy. 2012. Mandarin Transitive Comparatives and the Grammar of Measurement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21:219-266. Green, Thomas. 2004. Electronic version of dictionary in Green (1999). Unpublished raw XML. Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT. Hackl, Martin. 2001. Comparative quantifiers and plural predication. In K. Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL XX, Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press. 220 Hale, Kale,and J. Keyser.1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic rela tions. In Ken Hale and Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT, Cambridge. Halle, Morris, and Alec. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In, Hale, K. and J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT, Cambridge. pp. 111- 176. Hansen, Nat. 2011. Color Adjectives and Radical Contextualism. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (3): 201-221. Hansen, Nat and Emmanuel Chemla. 2013. Experimenting on Contexualism. Mind and Language, 28 (3). pp. 286-321. Harley, Heidi. 2008. “When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism, and underspecification,” in Phi Theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, edited by David Adger, Susana Bejar and Daniel Harbour. Oxford: OUP. 251- 294. Harves, Stephanie. 2001. Where have all the phases gone? (Non-) Defective categories and case alternations in Russian. In Jinrich Toman (ed.) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 10: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 97- 118. Heggie, Lori. 1988. The Syntax of Copular Structures. Doctoral Dissertation, Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Heider, Eleanor A. 1972. Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic method: The case of Dani colour names. Man 7, 448-466. Heider, Eleanor A. & D.C. Olivier. 1972. The structure of the color space for naming and memory in two languages. Cognitive Psychology 3, 337-354. Heim, I. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished Ms, University of Texas, Austin. Heim, I. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT X. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Hellan, L. 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tubingen: Narr. Higginbotham, James. 1987. Indefiniteness and Predication. In Reuland and Ter Meulen (eds.), pp. 43-70. Hoeksma, J. 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural language and linguistic theory I: 403-434. 221 Hoekstra, Teun and Rene Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication. The Linguistic Review 7:1-79. Husband, E.M. 2010. Compositional states. In N. Li and D.E. Lutz (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20. 76-90. Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jayaseelan, K.A. and R. Amritavalli. 2004. Scrambling in the cleft construction of Dravidian. In, J. Sabel, M. Saito eds. The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jayaseelan, K.A. 2007. The argument structure of the dative construction. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya, G. Spathas, eds. Argument Structure. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Jenks, P, A. Koontz-Garboden, and E. Makasso. Basaá and the lexical semantics of property concept nouns. Ms. Stanford University and Manchester University. Kamp, J.A.W. 1975. Two theories of adjectives. In Formal semantics of natural language, Edward Keenan (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 123–155. Katz, Daniel. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9 (2), pp. 131-146. Kay, Paul and Chad K. Mc Daniel. 1978. The Linguistic Significance of the Meanings of Basic Color Terms. Language 54 (3), pp. 610-646. Kay, Paul, Brent Berlin, Luisa Maffi and William Merifield. 1997. Color naming across languages. In Color Categories in Thought and Language. edited by C.L. Hardin and Luisa Maffi. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47:3–31. Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and Silence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.376. Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. Garland Press, NY. Kennedy, C. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 1-45. Kennedy, C & L. McNally. 2010. Color, Context and Compositionality. Synthese 174.1: 79-98. Kim, Min-Joo. 2002. Does Korean have adjectives. Ms. Umass Amherst. Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and 222 Philosophy 4:1–45. Klein, Ewan, 1991. Comparatives, in Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung [Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research], Dieter Wunderlich and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 673–691. Koontz-Garboden, A. & I. Francez. 2010. Possessed properties in Ulwa. Natural Language Semantics 18, 197–240. Koontz-Garboden, A. The universality of lexical categories: Comments on Chung. Theoretical Linguistics 38.1-2: 103-117. Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications. Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, P. von Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris Publication. Krishnamurthi, Bh. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press. Larson, Richard. K. 1983. Restrictive modification: relative clauses and adverbs. Ph.D dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Larson, Richard. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391. Larson, Richard. K. 1998. Events and Modification of Nominals. In D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (eds.) Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Link, Godehard. 2002. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, ed. Paul Portner and Barbara Partee, 127–146. Oxford: Blackwell. Originally published 1983 in R.B¨auerle, Chr. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, Eds., Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302-323. Marantz, A. 2001. Words and Things. Ms. MIT. Marantz, A. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review. Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9. 145–189.  McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1973. Comparative constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rochester. 223 McNally. 2011. Color terms: A case study in natural language ontology. Talk given at the Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Nounhood and Adjectivehood, UAB/CSIC, Barcelona, 25/3. McNally, L. & H. de Swart. 2011. Inflection and derivation: How adjectives and nouns refer to abstract objects. Pre-proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, 425- 434. Menon, Menon. 2012. Adverbial comparatives: Evidence from Malayalam. In, A. Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, and R. Nouwen eds. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, vol 2. 461- 472. Menon, Mythili. 2013. The apparent lack of adjectival category in Malayalam and other related languages. In N. Goto, K. Otaki, A. Sato, K. Takita (eds.). Proceedings of GLOW-in-Asia IX 2012, 157-171. Menon, Mythili. and Roumyana Pancheva. 2014. The grammatical life of property concepts in Malayalam. In, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 2013, University of Victoria-Gasteiz, Spain. pp. 289-302. Menon, Mythili and Roumyana Pancheva. (to appear). Decomposing Color Expressions in Malayalam. In, Proceedings of FASAL 5. Merchant, J. 2009. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9: 134-14. Mintz, Toben. H., & Gleitman, Lila. R. 2002. Adjectives really do modify nouns: The incremental and restricted nature of early adjective acquisition. Cognition, 84, 267–293. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Lexical categories in Japanese. Lingua 73: 29-51. Mohanan, K.P and Tara Mohanan. 1999. On Representations in Grammatical Semantics. CSLI Publications. Moltmann, F. 2009. Degree structure as trope structure: a Trope-based analysis of positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (1), pp. 51-94. Moltmann, F. 2013. On the Distinction between Abstract States, Concrete States, and Tropes. In A. Mari/ C. Beyssade/Del Prete, F. (eds.): Genericity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 292-311. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murasugi, Keiko. 1990. Adjectives, nominal adjectives and adjectival verbs in Japanese: their lexical and syntactic status. In UConn working papers in linguistics (pp. 55-86). 224 Muromatsu, K. 1997. Two types of existentials: Evidence from Japanese. Lingua 101: 124-169. Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2004. On comparative quantification in the verbal domain. In Robert B. Young (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XIV, 179–196. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press. Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Garland Publishing, New York. Ohkado, M. 1991. On the status of adjectival nouns in Japanese. Lingua, 83, 67-82. Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. [Formal] approaches to [Slavic] linguistics,The Princeton Meeting 2005, ed. by James Lavine, Steven L. Franks, Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva and Hana Filip, 236–57. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. Pancheva, Roumyana. 2009. More Students Attended FASL than CONSOLE. In Proceedings of FASL 18: The Cornell Meeting. Pinker, Stephen. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Postma, Gertjan. 1997. The nature of the complementizer –az in Eastern Yiddish- implications for its position within Germanic. Talk presented at the Conference on Yiddish, 21-22 June, Paris. Rapoport, T.R. 1987. Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew. Ph.D dissertation, MIT Cambridge: MA. Rothschild, D. and G. Segal. 2009. Indexical predicates. Mind and Language, 24(4), 467–493. Rothstein, Susan, 2004: Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Blackwell: Oxford. Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. The Ambiguity of Comparatives with Less. In Janet M. Fuller, Ho Han, and David Parkinson (eds.) ESCOL ’94: Proceedings of the Eleventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. DMLL, Cornell University. pp. 258-269. Schachter, P. 1985. Parts-of-speech systems, In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, Vol I: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 3-61. 225 Schwarzschild, Roger. 2014. Comparative markers or standard markers. M. Erlewine and Y.Sudo (eds.). Proceedings of MIT workshop on comparatives. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2008. The Semantics of Comparatives and other Degree Constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass 2.2:308–331. Seuren, P. A. 1973. The Comparative. In Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet (eds.) Generative Grammar in Europe, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. pp 528-564. Siegel, M. 1976. Capturing the adjective. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Massachussetts- Amherst. Siegel, M. 1980. Capturing the adjective. New York: Garland. Snedeker, J, Gleitman, L & Brent, M. 1999. The Successes and Failures of Word-to-World Mapping. In A. Greenhill, M. Hughs, H. Littlefield, & H. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-third Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sproat, R. and C. Shih. 1991. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In C. Georgopoulos and R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 565-593. Sridhar, S.N. 1990. Kannada. London and New York: Routledge. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Steever, Sanford B. 1998. Kannada. In Steever (ed.), The Dravidian Languages. London and New York: Routledge. Sybesma R.P.E. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Szabó, Z. 2001. Adjectives in Context. In I. Kenesai and R.M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse (pp 119-146), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szabolsci, Anna. 1981. The possessive construction in Hungarian: a configurational category in a non-configurational language. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31: 161-189. Szabolsci, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89- 102. Szabolsci, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In MIT working papers in Linguistics 8, Cambridge: MIT. 226 Thompson, Sandra A. 1989. A Discourse Approach to the Cross-Linguistic Category 'Adjective'. In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman, and Michael Noonan, eds., Linguistic Categorization, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 245-265. Travis, Charles. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 15(2), 187–229. Travis, Charles. 1997. Pragmatics. In B. Hale and C. Wright (eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 87–106). Oxford: Blackwell. Variar, P. 1979. Studies in Malayalam Grammar. University of Madras, India. von Fintel, Kai & Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in Semantics. The Linguistic Review 25. 139–201. von Stechow, A. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3:1– 77. Washio, R. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Languages, 6, 1-49. Watanabe, Akira. 2013. Non-neutral interpretation of adjectives under measure phrase modification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 22 (3). pp. 261-301. Waxman, S. R., & Lidz, J. 2006. Early word learning. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 299–335). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Wellwood, Alexis, Valentine. Hacquard, and Roumyana. Pancheva. 2012. Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events. Journal of Semantics, 29 (2), 207-228. Wheeler, S. 1972. Attributives and their modifiers. Nousˆ, 6:310–334. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. The meaning of color terms: semantic, culture and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 99-150. Witkoś, Jacek. 1998. The Syntax of Clitics: Steps towards a Minimalist Account. Motivex: Poland. Witkoś, Jacek. 2000. On the preference principle and some aspects of reconstruction in A’ and A chains in Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 36: 159-181.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation is fundamentally about the expression of adjectival meaning without lexical adjectives. Adjectives are often treated as lexical primitives, a fundamental building block of language. They can participate in a variety of grammatical functions, such as attributive modification (directly modifying noun phrases), predication (of individuals, events, or propositions), and comparison (orderings between two objects or individuals with respect to the amount to which they possess a property). I contribute to the understanding of these grammatical structures, by an investigation of the way adjectival meaning is built in Malayalam and related Dravidian languages that do not have a lexical category of adjectives, thus contributing to the growing body of literature looking at under-studied languages to inform us on the nature of cross-linguistic variation in the meaning component of grammar.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word

PDF

Superlative ambiguities: a comparative perspective

PDF

Copy theory of movement and PF conditions on spell-out

PDF

Functional categories: the syntax of DP and DegP

PDF

Perspective in Turkish complementation

PDF

Comparative iIlusions at the syntax-semantics interface

PDF

Building phrase structure from items and contexts

PDF

Syntax-prosody interactions in the clausal domain: head movement and coalescence

PDF

The grammar of correction

PDF

A reduplicative analysis of sentence modal adverbs in Spanish

PDF

The phonology and phonetics of Turkish intonation

PDF

Subjectivity, commitments and degrees: on Mandarin hen

PDF

Agreement on the left edge: the syntax of left dislocation in Spanish

PDF

Where number lies: plural marking, numerals, and the collective-distributive distinction

PDF

Towards the unity of movement: implications from verb movement in Cantonese

PDF

Exploring the effects of Korean subject marking and action verbs’ repetition frequency: how they influence the discourse and the memory representations of entities and events

PDF

Prosody in contact: Spanish in Los Angeles

PDF

Asymmetry of scope taking in wh -questions

PDF

Discourse level processing and pronoun interpretation

PDF

The case of a person: The person case constraint in German

Asset Metadata

Creator Menon, Mythili (author)

Core Title Building adjectival meaning without adjectives

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publication Date 07/26/2016

Defense Date 05/02/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adjectival semantics,adjectival syntax,comparatives,gradability,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Pancheva, Roumyana (committee chair), Bhatt, Rajesh (committee member), Saltarelli, Mario (committee member), Simpson, Andrew (committee member), Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (committee member)

Creator Email mythili.menon@gmail.com,mythilim@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-277062

Unique identifier UC11280255

Identifier etd-MenonMythi-4613.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-277062 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MenonMythi-4613.pdf

Dmrecord 277062

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Menon, Mythili

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA