1  

Decomposing Notions of Adjectival Transitivity in Navajo Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten

Abstract Points of variation manifested by adjectives crosslinguistically has received much recent attention in the literature. This paper argues that one way in which adjectives may differ (crosslinguistically or within a single language) is in their projection of a degree argument position in the syntax. Under standard analyses of adjectival meaning, semantic transitivity implies syntactic transitivity. However, the Navajo data presented in this paper suggests that while all Navajo adjectives have a degree argument in their semantics, syntactic projection of the degree argument is only licensed by special morphology on the adjective. Keywords adjectives – degree semantics – comparison – transitivity – Navajo

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview While differences in the semantics of particular degree constructions have long been a focus of study, gradable adjectives occurring in these degree constructions are typically taken to have the same transitive semantic type which is reflected in their syntactic structure. The most widely adopted class of approaches takes gradable adjectives to be relations between individuals and degrees, where the degree argument is syntactically projected like an individual argument (Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1976, von Stechow 1984, Bierwisch 1989, Heim 2001). (1) [[tall]] = λddλxe.x is tall to d The degree argument d can be directly saturated through composition with degree-denoting elements like measure phrases or degree pronouns (2a). The degree argument can also be quantified over, as with comparison of superiority (more…than) (2b). The important point, however, is that all gradable adjectives categorize for a degree argument. (2) a. Susan is {5 feet / that} tall. b. Susan is taller than Sam. More recently, studies have begun to consider whether this syntactic and semantic approach is adequate given observed typological variation among adjectives and degree constructions. One set of approaches has argued that adjectives in certain languages are semantically and syntactically intransitive expressions like (3) (Klein 1980, Kennedy 2007). Analyses of adjectives as vague, intransitive expressions have been put forth for Motu (Beck et al. 2009) and Washo (Bochnak to appear). However, this approach again assumes that syntactic and semantic (in)transitivity pattern together. (3) [[tall]]c = λxe.x is considered tall in c

This paper presents a novel analysis of adjectival data from Navajo (Southern Athabaskan). I argue that while all adjectives in Navajo are semantically transitive – they have

  2  

both a degree and an individual argument – morphology determines whether adjectives are syntactically transitive or intransitive. Navajo permits adjectival stems (the final syllable in the adjective, e.g., -neez in (4), (5)) to bear different sets of morphology. The choice of morphology determines whether the adjective must be accompanied by an additional expression. Adjectival stems marked by COMPARATIVE ASPECT (CA) are only grammatical when directly preceded by a member of a set of expressions I will analyze as degree phrases (Heim 2001). The set of degree phrases includes equative (4b) and comparative standards of comparison, high degree adverbs (‘very’), and measure phrases (‘six feet’). (4) a. *Shimá ’áníłnééz. COMPARATIVE ASPECT my.mother 3SUBJ.tallCA b. Shimá [shí=gi] ’áníłnééz. COMPARATIVE ASPECT my.mother me=at 3SUBJ.tallCA ‘My mother is as tall as me.’ The other two sets of adjectival morphology are called ABSOLUTE ASPECT (AA) and PERFECTIVE ASPECT (PA). Although AA- and PA-marked adjectives are morphologically distinct from each other, they behave identically in ways that set them apart from CA-marked adjectives. In particular, AA/PA-marked adjectives do not have to be preceded by a degree phrase: (5) a. Shimá nineez. ABSOLUTE ASPECT my.mother 3SUBJ.tallAA ‘My mother is tall.’ b. Kinłání deesdoi. PERFECTIVE ASPECT Flagstaff 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘Flagstaff is hot.’

I argue against an analysis of AA/PA-marked adjectives as vague, intransitive expressions. AA/PA-marked adjectives can be modified by the same set of degree phrases that was available for CA-marked adjectives. These constructions have the semantics that we would expect if the adjective had a degree semantics. The only difference is syntactic. When AA- and PA-marked adjectives are modified by degree phrases, the degree phrase has a special syntax, shown in (6a). The degree phrase is followed by the copula (‘át’é ‘he/she/it is’). The copula is then marked by the clausal subordinator =go, glossed SUB.1 This syntax is characteristic of modifiers of clauses in Navajo. This syntax is not permitted for CA-marked adjectives (6b).

(6) a. Shimá [shí=gi ‘át’ée=go] nizhóní. ABSOLUTE ASPECT my.mother me=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My mother is as pretty as I am.’ b. *Shimá [shí=gi ‘át’ée=go] ’áníłnééz COMPARATIVE ASPECT my.mother me=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.tallCA                                                                                                                

1  The bracketing shown is argued for on the basis of movement in §3.3.3.  

  3  

I propose that all Navajo adjectives are semantically transitive. However, only CA-marked adjectives are syntactically transitive. CA morphology [‘á ní ł ] combines with the stem [-nééz] ‘tall’ and projects an extended syntactic structure of the shape in (7). The CA-marked adjective syntactically subcategorizes for both an individual and a degree argument (DegP): their syntax is such that they select for a DegP.

(7) AP t 3 <et> DegP 3 DP A <e,dt> [[ACA]] = λxλd.TALL(x) to d

3d CA stem By contrast, AA- and PA-marked adjectives are syntactically intransitive. AA/PA-marked adjectives only syntactically select for an individual. A DegP cannot directly combine with an AA/PA-marked adjective. The AP level of an AA/PA-marked adjective will be of type <dt>. (8) AP <dt> 3 DP A <e,dt> [[AAA/PA]] = λxλd.TALL(x) to d 3

AA/PA stem Given the limited syntactic structure, an AA/PA-marked adjective can only be modified by a DegP at the clausal level. We are left with an AP with an unsaturated semantic degree argument. I propose that Navajo bans phonological spell-out of phrasal projections (e.g., AP) where original semantic arguments are left unsaturated. I relate this proposal to previous proposals made for Navajo (Faltz 2000).

To close the semantic degree argument of the adjective at the AP level, CLOSE, a type-shifting operation, applies (9). When CLOSE applies, the adjective’s degree argument (d) is quantified over and a domain variable (D) is introduced. The introduction of domain variable D gives us a way to indirectly manipulate the adjective’s bound degree argument. The analysis of CLOSE and modification of AA/PA-marked adjectives by degree phrases builds on Schwarzschild’s (2010, 2011) work on adverbial modification of adjectives. (9) [[CLOSE]] = λAdtλDdt∀d.D(d) A(d) This paper’s primary claim is that semantic transitivity of adjectives does not guarantee their syntactic transitivity. After introducing at greater length the standard semantic and syntactic analysis of adjectives in §2, I present Navajo data in support of the claims about syntactic (in)transitivity of Navajo adjectives in §3. In §4, I argue against an analysis of AA/PA-marked adjectives as semantically intransitive. In §5, I address how we might formally and compositionally implement the proposal for Navajo. I present a compositional analysis of both CA- and AA/PA-marked adjectives used in various degree constructions. In §6, I suggest directions for further work. I compare and contrast the analysis of Navajo with Svenonius and Kennedy’s (2006) and Grano and Kennedy’s (2011) proposal for a degree head (MEAS/µ) that converts a measure function (type <ed>) into an expression with a syntactic degree argument. I also place the proposal in the context of recent crosslinguistic work on adjectival meaning. §7 concludes.

  4  

2. Assumptions about Adjectival Meaning

2.1. Adjectives as transitive expressions The standard analysis of degree constructions assumes that adjectives are transitive expressions denoting a relation between individuals and degrees along some dimension (e.g., height) (Seuren 1973, Cresswell 1976, von Stechow 1984, Bierwisch 1989, Heim 2001, Kennedy and McNally 2005, inter alia). Heim (2001) makes explicit the relationship between the denotation of an adjective and its syntax. Heim analogizes the syntax and semantics of an adjective like tall to transitive verbs. Both expressions project internal and external argument positions. The adjective takes the degree argument as its internal argument and the subject as its external argument.2 The adjective exits the lexicon as a type <d,et> expression with both its syntax and semantics fully formed: (10) AP 3 subject 3 degree A [[tall]] = λdd.λxe.x is tall to d Below, I will return to an alternative conceptualization of the lexically supplied meaning of adjectives. First, I will sketch the ways in which the degree argument can be saturated or bound. I assume measure phrases to be degree-denoting expressions that can directly saturate the degree argument position, as in (11).3

(11) a. James is six feet tall. b. James is [AP six feet [A’ tall]] c. [[tall]](James)(six feet) = 1 iff tall(James) to 6 feet An adjective’s degree argument can also be quantified over. Degree constructions in which the adjective’s degree argument is quantified over include the comparison of superiority (more…than), comparison of inferiority (less…than), and equative (as…as). I will exemplify these constructions with comparison of superiority. Different entries have been posited for degree heads (Deg) like MORE. I assume an A-NOT-A analysis of the comparative morpheme (Seuren 1973, Schwarzschild 2008). MORE takes two properties of degrees (D1, D2) as argument. The first property of degrees, D1, is contributed by the than-phrase. The second property of degrees, D2, is contributed by the main clause adjective. A sentence with MORE is true iff there exists a degree d that is in D2 (the extension of the main clause adjective applied to the subject) but not in D1 (the extension of the than-phrase). (12) [[MORE]] = λD1 dtλD2 dt∃d.D2(d) & ¬D1(d)

                                                                                                               

2  This analogy only goes through under a pre-Kratzerian conceptualization of transitive verbs (Kratzer 1996).  3  An alternate and widely accepted proposal for measure phrases as predicates of intervals (type <dt,t> expressions) was introduced by Schwarzschild and Wilkinson (2002). Under the interval analysis, measure phrases would undergo QR like the DegP headed by more.  

  5  

Under this account, all adjectives syntactically select for a DegP to occupy the specifier position of AP. In the subcomparative (13), the type <d,et> adjectives in the main and embedded clauses must first compose with a degree. The degree is then abstracted over. (14a) shows the underlying structure while (14b) shows the corresponding LF. The compositional semantics given the above entry for MORE is shown in (14c). (13) The door is wider than the table is long. (14) a. [IP the door is [AP [DegP MORE [CP than [IP the table is [AP OP long]]]] wide ] ] b. [ [MORE 1 the table d1 long] 2 the door d2 wide ] c. [[(14b)]] = MORE(λd1.the table is long to d1)(λd2.the door is wide to d2) = ∃d.(λd1.the table is long to d1)(d) &¬(λd2.the door is wide to d2)(d) = ∃d.(the table is long to d) & ¬(the door is wide to d)

“There exists a degree d to which the table is long and to which the door is not-wide.” Both adjectives wide and long compose first with a degree that is subsequently abstracted over. I have underlined this position in (14a) for both adjectives. This is the type of syntactic position occupied by arguments. Even when not explicitly discussed as it is in Heim (2001), semantic and syntactic notions of transitivity are consistently linked where the analysis of adjectives as type <d,et> expressions is adopted.

2.2. Adjectives as intransitive expressions Analyses that take adjectives to be semantically intransitive also link syntactic and semantic (in)transitivity of adjectives. Klein (1980) and more recent work (e.g., van Rooij 2008) take adjectives to be vague predicates of type <et>. Such adjectives only take an individual as argument and have a denotation like in (15). Whether or not x counts as tall is evaluated with respect to contextual parameter c. (15) [[tall]]c = λx. x counts as tall in c This analysis is well-equipped to handle simple predicative uses of adjectives (16). These instances of adjectives seem uncontroversially intransitive. (16) Mary is tall. T iff Mary counts as tall in the context c However, problems arise for at least those languages in which a degree semantics seems to be strongly motivated. See von Stechow (1984) for arguments for a degree semantics in general, and Kennedy (2007) and Beck et al. (2009) for diagnostics for a degree semantics. The standard analysis also has a mechanism of yielding intransitive adjectives: the null POS(ITIVE) morpheme. A representative semantics for POS is given in (17). When applied to the adjective tall in (17), the sentence is true iff there exists a degree d to which Sally is tall and d exceeds the contextual standard of comparison (STND). (17) [[POS]]c = λgd,et.λxe.∃d. x is g to d ∧ d > STND (Cresswell 1976)

  6  

The POS morpheme existentially closes the degree argument of the adjective and relates it to the contextual standard of comparison. The POS head occupies the same position in the syntax that was occupied by measure phrases (11) and degree traces (14). (18) AP t 4 <et> DP 4

e Deg A POS tall

<det,et> <d,et> Through POS – and only through POS – intransitive adjectives can be created within the framework of the standard analysis, which continues to assume that all adjectives are underlyingly semantically and syntactically transitive.

3. Syntactic (In)Transitivity Under the standard analysis, semantic transitivity entails syntactic transitivity. Navajo does not seem to fit this conceptualization, however. Navajo has three different sets of morphology that can mark adjectives: COMPARATIVE ASPECT (CA), ABSOLUTE ASPECT (AA), and PERFECTIVE ASPECT (PA). I present evidence from Young and Morgan (1987) and from original fieldwork that CA-marked adjectives are syntactically transitive while AA- and PA-marked adjectives are syntactically intransitive. The evidence is summarized below. (19) CA-marked adjectives:

a. Are obligatorily and directly preceded by a degree phrase (e.g., comparative clause or measure phrase). b. Bear morphology that indicates syntactic transitivity.

AA/PA-marked adjectives: a. Do not have to be modified by a degree phrase. When a degree phrase is present, it

must be marked as adverbial. b. Bear morphology that indicates syntactic intransitivity.

One might argue that CA-marked adjectives can be analyzed according to the standard analysis, while AA/PA-marked adjectives should be analyzed as vague, intransitive predicates. However, I will argue against these hypotheses The syntactic transitivity of Navajo adjectives is determined by morphological marking: CA projects a syntax that selects for two arguments (a degree and an individual), while the syntax projected by AA/PA selects only for one argument (an individual). At the same time, however, all adjectives (whether CA or AA/PA-marked) take an individual and a degree as semantic arguments. More formally, all adjectives (CA-, AA-, and PA-marked) have the denotation in (20). This is basically the denotation familiar from the standard analysis, with composition with the individual and degree arguments occurring in reverse order. The novel part of the proposal is the syntax. CA projects the syntax in (21a) while AA/PA projects the syntax in (21b). (20) [[ACA/AA/PA]] = λxeλdd.x is A to d

  7  

(21) a. AP b. AP 3 3 degree 3 subject AAA/PA subject ACA d

In the remainder of §3, I present empirical arguments for this proposal. After setting up my assumptions about Navajo in §3.1 and introducing the morphology and distribution of CA, AA, and PA in §3.2, I present a series of empirical arguments for the proposal outlined above.

3.1. Basic description and theoretical assumptions for Navajo

Adjectival meaning in Navajo is expressed with structures that Young and Morgan (1987) describe using the same verbal template of stems and prefixes that they adopt for eventive verbs. All Navajo verbs (including adjectives) are traditionally described in terms of templatic morphology. Consider the verb in (22). I will briefly outline the functions of portions of the template relevant to our discussion of adjectives in the language. Prefixes that are not of relevance to our discussion, or which will not be analyzed individually, are labeled PRFX. (22) yi ø ø mas ⇒ yimas PRFX SUBJECT VALENCE STEM ‘It is rolling.’ (Young and Morgan 1987: g119)4 All verbs and adjectives have a stem. In (22), the stem is –mas. This stem occurs in verbs in which an object is moving in a rolling motion. Stems do not appear on their own: they require additional morphology. Minimally, a VALENCE (VAL) marker and a subject marker are required to mark both verbal and adjectival stems, even if these markers are not overt. VAL markers are frequently taken to indicate the number of arguments syntactically projected by the verb. Substitution of a different VAL marker changes the meaning of the verb as a whole. The same stem appears in (22) and (23). In (22), the VAL marker is [ø], which is associated with an intransitive syntax.5 In (23), the VAL marker is [ł], which is associated with transitive argument structure. (23) yoo ø ł mas ⇒ yoołmas OBJECT SUBJ VAL STEM ‘S/he/it rolls it.’ (Young and Morgan 1987: g119)

The verb also always bears morphological marking of subject (SUBJ) and, for transitive verbs, the object (OBJ), regardless of whether a verb-external noun phrase is also used. The subject marker in (22) and (23) is the null third-person subject. Verb-external nouns are typically used only to introduce new referents in the discourse and are otherwise freely omitted (Willie and Jelinek 2000). Both (24a) and (24b) are grammatical:

                                                                                                               

4  References in Young and Morgan (1987) labeled ‘g’ refer to page numbers from the grammar section, while ‘d’-labeled page numbers refer to the dictionary section.  5  Referred to as a ‘classifier’ in the Athabaskan literature.  

  8  

(24) a. Jooł yimas b. Yimas ball 3SUBJ.roll 3SUBJ.roll

‘The ball is rolling.’ ‘It is rolling.’ Optional modifiers can be included to specify location, time, etc., e.g., Kinłánídi ‘in Flagstaff’ in (25b,c). I will assert that these modifiers are adverbs. Not only are these modifiers optional (25a) like verb-external nouns, but their linear position relative to the verb and other verb-external material is flexible (25b,c). They are assumed to be adjoined above the verb: they do not occupy argument positions. (25) a. Naalnish. 3SUBJ.work ‘He/she works.’

b. Biyáázh Kinłání=di naalnish. his/her.son Flagstaff=at 3SUBJ.work ‘His/her son works in Flagstaff.’

c. Kinłání=di biyáázh naalnish. Flagstaff=at his/her.son 3SUBJ.work ‘His/her son works in Flagstaff.’ (Faltz 2000: 38-39)

While verb-external nouns like jooł ‘ball’ and locative modifiers like Kinłánídi ‘in Flagstaff’ are both optional, nominal arguments are obligatorily marked on the verb. This has led some authors – proponents of the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis – to argue that the subject and object pronominal morphemes on the verb occupy the argument positions of the verb. Verb-external nouns are only optional because another element (the subject or object marker) has already satisfied the needs of the verb, e.g., Case assignment. For concrete accounts, see Jelinek (1984) and Willie and Jelinek (2000). By contrast, locative modifiers are optional but also are not marked any on the verb, suggesting they are only adverbial modifiers.

Faltz (2000) writes that if the syntactic proposals of the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis are carried over to semantics, then there are no Navajo verbs that, when spelled out, are of type <et> or <e,et>. Faltz follows the lead of previous syntactic work by only discussing saturation of nominal argument positions, but I will apply it to other types of arguments as well (namely, degrees).6 I rephrase Faltz’s generalization in terms of a spell-out condition on phrasal categories VP and AP in Navajo. ‘Original semantic arguments’ are introduced by the lexical head (A, V) and not by subsequent morphology or type-shifting operations. These argument positions must be saturated by the level of VP or AP, although saturating material may not be internal to the adjective or verb word.

                                                                                                               

6  I do not explicitly extend this part of the theory to event arguments. I assume that event arguments will also be bound within the VP by aspectual morphology that marks verbs and verb stems in Navajo (Young and Morgan 1987, Hale 2003). Modification of the event argument by verb-external temporal adverbials could proceed analogously to modification of AA/PA-marked adjectives by subordinated degree phrases.    

  9  

(26) SPELL-OUT CONDITION: AP and VP can only be spelled out when all of the adjective or verb’s original semantic arguments have been saturated or bound.

This condition will be invoked in the analysis of AA/PA-marked adjectives in §5. I introduce it here to place it in the broader context of work on Navajo verbal structure and meaning.

3.2. Morphological and distributional differences Having established a set of assumptions about Navajo morphology, syntax, and semantics, we can now examine adjectives. I summarize below Young and Morgan’s (1987) discussion of three sets of morphemes and morphophonological changes found on adjectival verbs (henceforth, adjectives): COMPARATIVE ASPECT (CA), ABSOLUTE ASPECT (AA), and PERFECTIVE ASPECT (PA).7

3.2.1 Comparative Aspect We first examine COMPARATIVE ASPECT (CA). The adjective in (27) shows CA morphology marking the adjectival stem –nééz ‘tall.’ CA is restricted to stems denoting dimensions associated with measurement systems (e.g., ‘tall,’ ‘large,’ ‘heavy,’ etc.) with very few exceptions. (27) ’á ní Ø ł nééz ⇒ ’áníłnééz PRFX PRFX SUBJ VAL STEM

CA-marked adjectives bear the left-edge prefix [‘á] and, to its left [ní].8 Next comes the subject marker, which is null for third person. To the right of the subject marker is the valence marker. Young and Morgan (1987) note that CA-marked adjectives always bear the [ł] valence marker. CA-marked adjectives like (30) are exceptional among adjectives in Navajo because one would never find a CA-marked adjective like ’áníłnééz in ‘isolation’ as in (27). We will see in §3.3 that CA-marked adjectives must be preceded by some member of a set of expressions that I will call ‘degree phrases’ (e.g., measure phrases, comparative phrases). This requirement of CA-marked adjectives sets them apart from other Navajo adjectives.

3.2.2. Absolute Aspect

We now turn to ABSOLUTE ASPECT (AA). The adjective in (28) shows AA morphology marking the adjectival stem –neez ‘tall.’ (28) ni ø ø neez ⇒ nineez PRFX SUBJ VAL STEM ‘S/he/it is long/tall.’                                                                                                                

7  I refer the interested reader to Bogal-Allbritten (2010) for more discussion of the distribution of CA, AA, and PA, and their distribution across the Athabaskan language family. Apparently exhaustive lists can be found in Young and Morgan (1987).  8  The term ‘aspect’ appears to be due to earlier work on Athabaskan languages, which invoked the linear proximity of  morphological pieces of CA and AA to true aspectual morphemes (Jeff Leer, p.c.). I do not analyze CA, AA, and PA as true aspectual morphemes.  

  10  

Morphologically, AA-marked adjectives are somewhat simpler than CA-marked adjectives. AA-marked adjectives lack a prefix where CA-marked adjectives have [‘á-]. A range of other lexically selected prefixes can appear at the left edge of some AA-marked adjectives, but for many AA-marked adjectives, e.g., nineez in (28), the prefix [ni-] is leftmost.9 As with CA-marked adjectives, the valence marker comes to the right of the subject morpheme. AA-marked adjectives always bear the [ø] valence marker.

AA morphology has a wider distribution than CA. All adjectival stems that can be CA-marked also have an AA-marked counterpart. Although they differ in vowel tone ([´] indicates high tone), the stems –neez and –nééz ‘tall’ are clearly related. I analyze them as identical stems. (29) nineez ‘áníłnééz. 3SUBJ.tallAA 3SUBJ.tallCA

However, there are many stems for which there is an AA-marked form but not a CA-marked form. The set of adjectives bearing only AA-marking includes color terms (red, black, white) and descriptions of texture (bumpy, smooth). (30) łinishgai *’áníshgai 1SG.SUBJ.gaiAA 1SG.SUBJ.gaiCA ‘I am white-colored.’

3.2.3 Perfective Aspect We finally turn to PERFECTIVE ASPECT (PA). In contrast with AA- and CA-marked adjectives – which, as classes, always had some prefixes in common – PA-marked adjectives do not systematically bear any special prefixes. Prefixes, including valence markers, are idiosyncratic. Young and Morgan (1987) classify PA-marked adjectives on the basis of their stems. The stems of PA-marked adjectives have the shape of eventive verb stems marked for perfective aspect. However, there is no sense in which PA-marked adjectives are synchronically marked for perfective aspect: like all other adjectives, they can be used outside of perfective aspect contexts. Recall that all CA-marked adjectives have AA-marked counterparts, but that there are many AA-marked adjectives for which there is no CA-marked form. Adjectives that take PA morphology have neither CA- nor AA-marked counterparts. (31) a. sido * ’áníłdo *nido 3SUBJ.hotPA 3SUBJ.hotCA 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘It is hot.’ b. shiyish * ’áshiníłyish * niyish 3SUBJ.bentPA 3SUBJ.bentCA 3SUBJ.bentPA ‘It is bent.’

                                                                                                               

9  In the presence of additional prefixes, the prefix ni- (VI) disappears when the adjective bears the null third-person subject prefix (Young and Morgan 1987). Young and Morgan (1987) also confirm that the prefix [ni-] is distinct from the morpheme [ní-] found on CA-marked adjectives.  

  11  

Although AA- and PA-marked adjectives are not morphologically related, we will see in §3.3 that they pattern as a set in several respects to the exclusion of CA-marked adjectives.

3.3. Evidence for transitivity and intransitivity in the adjectival domain

I will argue that CA-marked adjectives are transitive expressions. They syntactically select a degree phrase. By contrast, there is evidence that AA/PA-marked adjectives do not syntactically select for a degree phrase. The remainder of this section outlines four pieces of evidence for this conclusion. The evidence presented here underlies subsequent analysis.

3.3.1 Obligatoriness of degree phrases The fragment in (32) is not grammatical: (32) *Shimá ‘áníłnééz. NO DEGREE PHRASE my.mother 3SUBJ.tallCA (Intended meaning: ‘My mother is tall.’) According to Young and Morgan (1987: g192), CA-marked adjectives cannot appear without a degree phrase. Degree phrases are listed in TABLE A and appear throughout the paper. TABLE A: Degree Phrases in Navajo Construction Navajo and Gloss Full Translation a. Comparison of Superiority P-lááh Adj

P-beyond Adj

Subj is more Adj than P

b. Comparison of Inferiority P-‘oh Adj P-short.of Adj

Subj is less Adj than P

c. Measure Phrase e.g., naaki ’adeeseez Adj two feet Adj

Subj. is MP Adj.

d. Equative NP-gi Adj NP=at Adj

Subj is as Adj as NP

e. Intensifier ‘ayóo Adj very Adj

Subj is very Adj

f. Degree Pronoun kó-Adj that-Adj

Subj is that Adj

g. Degree Question haa-Adj WH-Adj

How Adj is Subj?

h. Excessive doo shó-Adj da NEG EXCESS-Adj NEG

Subj is extremely Adj, Subj is too Adj.

The standard markers in comparisons of superiority and inferiority are postpositions: in TABLE A, ‘P’ stands for pronominal object inflection on the postposition. The pronominal inflection matches the standard of comparison (the object of the postposition) in features. These same postpositions are used elsewhere in the language to express physical position. The equative construction also features marking of the standard of comparison with a marker used elsewhere with locative meaning (=gi ‘at’). Semantic shift from locative to degree meaning is not

  12  

uncommon crosslinguistically (Stassen 1985). Although I gloss these morphemes according to their ‘locative’ meanings in examples, I will posit a degree semantics for them to account for their meanings as parts of degree phrases.10

The following examples illustrate the syntax and morphology of degree phrases from TABLE A. Note that the degree phrase is obligatory wherever the adjective is CA-marked (Young and Morgan 1987). Navajo has both normal comparison of superiority constructions (33a) and subcomparative constructions (33b).11 In the subcomparative construction, the embedded adjective (’áníłtéél) is obligatorily marked by the relativizer =ígíí, glossed REL.

(33) a. Shimá *(shi-lááh) ‘áníłnééz. COMPARISON OF SUPERIORITY my.mother 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.tallCA ‘My mother is taller than I am.’ b. Díí naaltsoos *(‘eii ’áníłtéél=ígíí yi-lááh) ‘áníłnééz SUBCOMPARATIVE this book that 3SUBJ.wideCA=REL 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.longCA ‘This book is longer than that one is wide.’ b. Shimá *(shí=gi) ‘áníłnééz. EQUATIVE my.mother 1SG=at 3SUBJ.tallCA ‘My mother is as tall as I am.’ c. Shimá *(kó)-níłnééz. DEGREE PRONOUN my.mother that-3SUBJ.tallCA ‘My mother is that (gesture, pointing) tall.’ The obligatoriness of degree phrases with CA-marked adjectives sets them apart from Navajo eventive verbs (34): (34) a. Naalnish. b. (Biyáázh Kinłání=di) naalnish. 3SUBJ.work his/her.son Flagstaff=at 3SUBJ.work ‘He/she works.’ ‘His/her son works in Flagstaff.’ The requirement for a degree expression to be present also sets CA-marked adjectives apart from AA/PA-marked adjectives. The adjectives in (35) are well-formed on their own. (35) a. Nineez b. Deesdoi 3SUBJ.tallAA 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘S/he/it is tall.’ ‘It is hot.’

                                                                                                               

10  The constructions in (f), (g), and (h) lack the left-edge [‘á-] prefix that is otherwise part of CA morphology. I assume that the absence of ‘á is due to morphological competition between the degree phrase and [‘á-].  11  The subcomparative has a CA-marked adjective in both clauses. This is obligatory (§5.3). The embedded CA-marked adjective lacks an overt degree phrase but I argue (§5.1) that this position is filled by a null operator, on analogy with analyses for subcomparatives in other languages. Given the availability of subcomparatives with –lááh I will give a clausal analysis of degree constructions. I recognize the possibility of a phrasal analysis (e.g., Bhatt and Takahashi 2011), but leave further study of motivation for a phrasal analysis of –lááh to future work.  

  13  

When not modified, AA- and PA-marked adjectives appear to have the semantics of POS-marked adjectives in English (§2.2). The subject exhibits the property denoted by the adjective to a degree exceeding a contextual norm or standard of comparison.

(36) a. Context: My mother is below average height for a woman of her age. #(35a) b. Context: Barstow is below average temperature for this time of year. #(35b)

The requirement for a degree expression is the first way in which CA- and AA/PA-marked adjectives pattern differently. Below, we will see that even when AA/PA-marked adjectives occur with a degree expression, they still pattern differently from CA-marked adjectives. These pieces of evidence will be added together to support the view that CA-marked adjectives – but not AA/PA-marked adjectives – syntactically select for a degree expression.

3.3.2 Subordinated degree phrases

Although AA/PA-marked adjectives do not have to be modified by degree phrases, they can be. However, a special syntactic configuration is required (Young and Morgan 1987: g193). I defend the constituency I give below in §3.3.3. The degree expression must be marked by the morpheme =go, which has been variably referred to as an adverbializer and as a clausal subordinator (Schauber 1979). I gloss =go as SUB since we will see examples in which it clearly functions to mark a clause as subordinate to the matrix clause. (37) a. Shideezhí [ [shi-lááh ‘át’ée]=go ] nizhóní. my.little.sister 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is prettier than I am.’ b. Shideezhí [ [ shí=gi ‘át’ée=]go ] nizhóní. my.little.sister 1SGOBJ=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is as pretty as I am.’

c. *Shideezhí [ shi-lááh ] nizhóní. my.little.sister 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.tallAA In (37a,b), the degree expression is also followed by the copula ‘át’é ‘s/he/it is.’ Most of the examples from speakers contained ‘át’é. The copula appears to be a ‘dummy’ form, in a sense. It is always marked for a singular third-person subject regardless of the person features on the adjective or the standard of comparison. Additionally, ‘át’é is optional for some degree phrases (e.g., –lááh (38a)), but obligatory for others (e.g., =gi (38b)).12 (38) a. Shideezhí [ [ shiláah]=go] nizhóní my.little.sister 1SGOBJ-beyond=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is prettier than I am.’                                                                                                                

12  The basic form of the copula is ‘át’é. When ‘át’é is marked by =go, the vowel lengthens and acquires falling tone. This is a typical effect for ‘át’é (Young and Morgan 1987).    

  14  

b. * Shideezhí [ [ shí=gi]=go] nizhóní my.little.sister 1SGOBJ=LOC=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA (Intended meaning: ‘My little sister is as pretty as I am.’) The copula is also obligatory for degree phrases from TABLE A that prefix directly onto the left edge of CA-marked adjectives. As exemplified by the degree question in (39), the degree phrase (haa) is prefixed onto the left edge of the copula. Haa alone cannot bear =go. (39) Kinłání ha-it’ée=go deesdoi? Flagstaff WH-3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘How hot is Flagstaff?’

In my analysis, I will not make much of the role of ‘át’é. The crucial piece of morphology appears to be the subordinator =go. As shown, =go adjoins to the copula (where present) or to the degree phrase directly. There are two observations to make about =go. First, CA-marked adjectives cannot be preceded by degree phrases marked by =go:

(40) *Shimá shi-lááh ‘át’ée=go ‘áníłnééz. my.mother 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.tallCA Second, marking of material by =go may be indicative that the material is modifying a full clause. As shown by the sentences below, eventive verbs can be modified by full, =go-marked clauses, including if-clauses (41a), manner clauses (41b), and temporal clauses (41c). (41) a. Łééchąą’í yah ’anáánáádzáa=go ch’íhidííłhąął dog in 3SUBJ.comes.again=SUB 3OBJ.2SGSUBJ.throw.out ‘[If the dog comes in again], throw him out.’ (Young and Morgan (YM) 1987: d284)

b. Shí t’óó ’ááłk’iis yisháął=go shizhé’é tsékooh gódeg ha’asbąąz 1SG beside 1SGSUBJ.walk=SUB my.father canyon up 3OBJ.3SUBJ.drive.out ‘My father drove up out of the canyon [with me walking alongside].’ (YM 1987: d2) c. Hooghan=di nánísdzáa=go shi’éétsoh ’ádaa diistsooz home=at 1SGSUBJ.returned=SUB my.coat 3OBJ.1SGSUBJ-take.it.off

‘When I got back home, I took my coat.’ (YM 1987: d344) I take the data in (41) as evidence that =go-marking is a syntactic requirement when clauses modify other clauses. The marking of degree phrases by =go when they modify AA/PA-marked adjectives suggests that AA/PA-marked adjectives are full clauses. By contrast, the inability of degree phrases to be =go-marked when the adjective is CA-marked suggests that in the absence of a degree expression, CA-marked adjectives are not full clauses.

  15  

3.3.3 Syntactic (in)flexibility of degree phrases Degree phrases modifying AA/PA-marked adjectives are permitted to undergo movement away from the adjective:13 (42) a. [Shí=gi ‘át’ée=go] shideezhí nizhóní.

1SGOBJ=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB my.little.sister 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is as pretty as I am.’

b. K’ad [ hosiyilts’įįłígíí bi-lááh ’át’ée=go ] chidí naat’a’í

now speed.of.sound 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB airplane dadilwo’ jiní. 3PLSUBJ.fastAA REPORT

‘It is said that airplanes are faster than the speed of sound.’ (adapt. Young and Morgan 1987: d458)

The examples in (42) support the constituency that I assumed earlier. The copula and subordinator =go form a constituent with the degree expression rather than with the adjective: the copula and subordinator can be fronted with the degree expression, leaving the AA/PA-marked adjective in sentence-final position. In addition, the sentences in (42) provide another contrast between CA- and AA/PA-marked adjectives. Compare the grammatical (42a) with the ungrammatical (42b). (43) *[Shimá=gi] shideezhí ’áníłnééz my.mother=at my.little.sister 3SUBJ.tallCA

The positional flexibility of degree phrases with AA/PA-marked adjectives recalls the positional flexibility of locative and temporal modifiers of eventive verbs (§3.1). Once again, AA/PA-marked adjectives pattern with eventive verbs to the exclusion of CA-marked adjectives, which impose stricter positional restrictions on degree phrases.

3.3.4 Morphological (in)-transitivity of adjectives

So far, we have seen that CA-marked adjectives require degree phrases and stand in a tight syntactic relationship with the degree phrase: no movement of the degree phrase is permitted. By contrast, the syntactic relationship between AA/PA-marked adjectives is much looser and they do not require a degree phrase to be present. This evidence fits with the theory that CA-marked adjectives syntactically select for a degree phrase while AA/PA-marked adjectives do not. I assume that all adjectives – regardless of their morphological marking – select for a subject

                                                                                                               

13  While Young and Morgan (1987) note that degree phrases are obligatory with CA-marked adjectives, they do not discuss locational restrictions on the degree phrase. Likewise, Young and Morgan (1987) do not address the systematic requirement for subordinated degree phrases by AA/PA-marked adjectives, nor the inability for degree phrases to be subordinated with the adjective is CA-marked.  

  16  

argument. Thus, CA-marked adjectives are posited to be syntactically transitive while AA/PA-marked adjectives are syntactically intransitive. Comparison of AA and CA morphology provides additional support. Recall that every CA-marked adjective has an AA-marked counterpart. (44) gives a minimal pair for comparison. (44) a. ’á ní ø ł nééz ⇒’áníłnééz

PRFX PRFX SUBJ VAL STEM b. ni ø ø neez ⇒ nineez PRFX SUBJ VAL STEM

‘S/he/it is tall.’ CA-marked adjectives bear the valence marker [ł] while their AA-marked counterparts bear the null valence marker [ø]. In §3.1, I noted that the [ł] marker is often indicative of a transitive argument structure, while the [ø] marker is indicative of an intransitive argument structure (Young and Morgan 1987; Hale 2003). The minimal pair in (45) illustrate. (45) a. yoo ø ł mas ⇒ yoołmas OBJ SUBJ VAL STEM ‘S/he rolls it.’

b. yi ø ø mas ⇒ yimas PRFX SUBJ VAL STEM ‘It is rolling.’

The fact that CA-marked adjectives bear [ł] while AA-marked adjectives bear [ø] can be added to our stock of evidence that CA-marked adjectives are transitive, selecting both a degree phrase and a subject as argument. By contrast, AA/PA-marked adjectives are intransitive, selecting only a subject as argument. Once it has composed with a subject, the AA/PA-marked adjective has saturated all syntactic argument positions.

4. Syntactic Intransitivity Does Not Entail Semantic Intransitivity

The evidence collected in §3 supported a particular claim about the syntax of CA- vs. AA/PA-marked adjectives. I argued that CA-marked adjectives are transitive: they syntactically select for both a degree phrase (a degree) and a subject (an individual). AA/PA-marked adjectives are syntactically intransitive and only select for a subject (an individual). My goal is not to stop at the syntactic claim, however, but instead to propose an analysis that accounts for both the syntax and semantics of CA- and AA/PA-marked adjectives. In this section, I begin to address the semantics. One obvious direction would be to argue that AA/PA-marked adjectives are semantically intransitive. Following Klein (1980), we could argue that AA/PA-marked adjectives are vague, intransitive expressions. (46) [[tall]]c = λx.x counts as tall in c

  17  

This approach to adjectival meaning has garnered increasing attention in the literature. Kennedy (2007) and Beck et al. (2009) provide diagnostics or metrics by which one might determine whether a language’s adjectives have a degree semantics or a vague predicate semantics. Three diagnostics for vague predicate meaning are given below. (47) a. Do not occur with specialized degree morphology (Beck et al. 2009). b. Cannot be used in comparatives in ‘crisp judgment’ scenarios (Kennedy 2007). Both diagnostics hinge on the fact that vague predicates require context manipulation – rather than degree argument manipulation – in order to participate in comparative constructions. These diagnostics are applied to Motu (Malayo-Polynesian) and Washo (Native American isolate) by Beck et al. (2009) and Bochnak (to appear), respectively. The authors convincingly motivate a degreeless analysis of both languages.

By contrast, Navajo AA/PA-marked adjectives fail two key tests for vague predicate meaning discussed below. I will argue that this suggests that they have a degree semantics. In other words, all adjectives (whether CA- or AA/PA-marked) take both an individual and a degree as semantic arguments, regardless of the number of arguments that they syntactically select for.

First, languages whose adjectives have vague predicates canonically do not occur with specialized degree morphology. For instance, Washo uses a conjunctive strategy of comparison: (48) t’é:liwhu delkáykayiʔ k’éʔi šáwlamhu delkáykayiʔ=é:s k’áʔaš

man 3SUBJ.tall is girl 3SUBJ.tall=NEG is ‘The man is taller than the girl.’ Lit: ‘The boy is tall, the girl is not tall.’ (Bochnak, to appear) Both clauses contain the form of the adjective that are found in simple predicative

sentences like ‘The man is tall.’ Such sentences in Washo – like their English counterparts – appear to be true only if the subject (‘the man’) exceeds the contextual standard of comparison for tallness. In conjunctive comparison constructions like (48), the first clause asserts that the subject of comparison (‘the man’) meets the standard for tallness in the context. The second clause asserts that the standard of comparison (‘the girl’) does not meet this standard. Kennedy (2007) and Bochnak (to appear) analyze the second clause of a conjunctive comparison as introducing who or what (in addition to the subject) belongs in the context of comparison. In (48), the context of comparison contains both ‘the man’ and ‘the girl.’ The property of being ‘tall’ is evaluated with respect to this reduced context c. The sentence in (48) is true if the boy ‘stands out’ as tall with respect to the girl.

As we have already seen, both CA- and AA/PA-marked adjectives occur with the same set of degree phrases listed in TABLE A.14 A minimal pair is presented for comparison with degree phrases bolded. Conjunctive comparison is not utilized by AA/PA-marked adjectives. (49) a. Shimá shi-lááh ‘áníłneéz. my.mother 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.tallCA ‘My mother is taller than I am.’                                                                                                                

14   Two exceptions to this generalization appear to be that AA/PA-marked adjectives do not occur in subcomparatives, and they do not occur with measure phrases. I discuss these restrictions in §5.3 and §5.4.  

  18  

b. Shideezhí shi-lááh ‘át’ée=go nizhóní. my.little.sister 1SGOBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is prettier than I am.’ Although the standard marker –lááh also can be used in locative phrases, it appears to have been adapted – like locative markers in many languages (Stassen 1985) – to function as degree morphology. If we wanted to argue that AA/PA-marked adjectives had vague predicate meanings, we would be forced either to posit a vague predicate analysis of all adjectives in Navajo, or to argue that the two instances of –lááh have a different semantics. The first option is not tenable and the latter is not parsimonious. The second strike against a vague predicate analysis for Navajo comes from the absence of crisp judgment effects in constructions like (49b). I follow Kennedy (2007) in identifying ‘crisp judgment effects’ as the property of a comparison being infelicitous where the difference in the subject and standard of comparison is very small. The source of crisp judgment effects is the entry in (46) and the context manipulation required to produce comparative meanings. If a construction like (48) requires ‘the boy’ to stand relative to ‘the girl’ in terms of height, then the difference in their heights must be relatively significant. In contexts where differences in height are minimal, sentences like (48) and (50) are infelicitous (Bochnak to appear): (50) Context: Two ladders, one only slightly taller than the other.

?? wí:diʔ t’éweʔ dewɡíʔiš k’éʔi wí:diʔ t’éweŋa dewgiʔiš=é:s k’éʔaš this much height is this much height=NEG is (Intended meaning: ‘This one is taller than that one.’ (Bochnak to appear) Navajo does not exhibit crisp judgment effects when adjectives are AA/PA-marked. The comparisons of superiority in (51) and (52) were felicitous even when the difference between the two objects was very small. (51) Context: This bottle of water is 64°F. That bottle of water is 66°F.

Díí tó [ [ ‘eii yi-lááh ‘át’ée]=go] sik’az this water [ that.one 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=ADV] 3SUBJ.coldPA ‘This water is colder than that one (water).’ (52) Context: This bottle of water is 66°F. That bottle of water is 64°F. Díí tó [ [ ‘eii yi-lááh ‘át’ée]=go] deesdoi this water that.one 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘This water is warmer (hotter) than that one (water).’

Constructions like (51) and (52) appear to be true in the same types of verifying scenarios in which English comparison of superiority constructions are true. regardless of the morphology that marks the adjective. When used in comparative constructions, AA/PA-marked adjectives also fail to entail that the subject expresses the adjective in excess of the contextual standard of comparison. That is, although unmodified AA/PA-marked adjectives require the subject to exceed the contextual standard of comparison (53), this requirement does not carry over to adjectives

  19  

used in comparative constructions (54).15 Norm-relatedness in comparison of superiority constructions has been discussed alongside other pieces of evidence in favor of a vague predicate analysis of adjectives (Bochnak to appear). (53) a. Nineez b. Deesdoi 3SUBJ.prettyAA 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘S/he/it is pretty.’ ‘It is hot.’ (54) a. (51), Consultant comment: “This sounds fine even though they’re not actually cold.” b. Context: We’re looking at rugs at a trading post. There is a wide range of rugs, from

very attractive to very unattractive. You hold up two rugs that are not good-looking: their wool is dyed in strange colors and the weaving is not very straight or complex. One is of slightly better quality than the other. I ask what you think of the two rugs.

Díí diyógí [‘eii diyógí yi-lááh ‘át’ée=go] nizhóní this rug [that rug 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB] 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘This rug is prettier than that rug.’

Consultant comment: “Nizhóní is relative to what you’re comparing. If you have two ugly rugs, then you’re just saying that this one is better than the other one.” The data presented so far suggest that AA/PA-marked adjectives should be analyzed as

having a degree semantics. I will argue that like CA-marked adjectives, AA/PA-marked adjectives take both an individual and a degree as argument. The only analytical difficulty presented by this argument is that we have seen evidence that these adjectives are syntactically intransitive, while CA-marked adjectives are syntactically transitive. In the next section, I address this discrepancy in the semantic and syntactic argument structure of AA/PA-marked adjectives.

5. Implementing the Analysis

5.1. The analysis of CA In §3, I argued that CA-marked adjectives syntactically projected both a degree argument and an individual argument. I posit the following syntactic frame for CA-marked adjectives. The CA-marked adjective syntactically selects for a degree phrase. The DP subject is assumed to be realized as subject pronominal morphology. I assume that the subject composes first with the stem on the basis of morphology: the subject prefix is closer to the stem than the degree phrase. (55) AP 4 DegP A 3

DP ACA subject d

                                                                                                               

15  A number of AA-marked adjectives that behave exceptionally are discussed in §5.4.

  20  

The denotation of a CA-marked adjective reflects the order of composition shown in (55). (56) [[ACA]] = λxλd.x is A to d The semantics and syntax of a CA-marked adjective are essentially the same as they are under the standard analysis (§2). The only difference is the order of the individual and degree arguments. In light of the linear order of prefixes in Navajo (§3.1), composition of the individual first and the degree second is more appealing: the subject prefix occurs closer to the stem than the degree phrase will. This portion of the analysis could likely revert to more standard assumptions, however.

Given that CA-marked adjectives have the semantics and syntax of adjectives under the standard analysis, it will come as no surprise that the analysis of CA-marked adjectives in degree constructions will be familiar as well. As in English, the internal degree argument can either be saturated by a degree-denoting degree phrase (e.g., a measure phrase), by a trace of a quantificational degree phrase that has undergone quantifier raising, or by a null operator. I analyze the subcomparative as containing a null operator in the embedded clause (Chomsky 1977, von Stechow 1984, among many others). I illustrate with the subcomparative in (57).

(57) Díí naaltsoos [DegP OP ’áníłtéél=ígíí yi-lááh ] ’áníłnééz DET book 3SUBJ.wideCA=REL 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.longCA ‘This book is longer than it is wide.’ I assume that Navajo –lááh, like English MORE, is of type <dt<dt,t>>. I continue to adopt an A-NOT-A analysis of standard markers. (58) [[-lááh]] = λD1λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬D1(d) I assume the following syntax for the subcomparative; a null operator satisfies the syntactic requirement for a DegP by the embedded CA-marked adjective.16 (59) Díí naaltsoos [DegP ‘eii ’áníłtéél=ígíí yi-lááh ] ‘áníłnééz this book that.one 3SUBJ.wideCA=REL 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.longCA

‘This book is longer than that book is wide.’

[ [DegP [AP that.book d-wideCA] beyond] 1 [AP [DP this.book ] t1 [A longCA] ] ]                                                                                                                

16  The adjective-internal subject positions are actually occupied by subject pronominals, at least in the surface representation. I include the full noun phrases in the derivation for perspicuity.    

  21  

(60) AP2 qp

DegP A qp 3 AP1 Deg DP ACA 4 -lááh this book longCA DegP1 A1 OP 3

DP ACA that book wideCA

a. [[A1]] = λd.wide(that.book)(d) b. [[DegP1]] = [λD1λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬D1(d)](λd.wide(that.book)) = λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬wide(that.book)(d) c. [[A2]] = λd.long(this.book) d. [[CP]] =[λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬wide(that.book)(d)](λd.long(this.book)) = ∃d.long(this.book.)(d) & ¬wide(that.book)(d)

“There exists a degree d to which this book is long and to which that book is not wide.”

In Navajo as in English, the adjective only appears overtly in the standard of comparison in the subcomparative construction. We can assume that comparative deletion applies to delete the lower copy (Bresnan 1973): as long as we have an account of subcomparatives, an account of regular comparison of superiority constructions will follow. In the next section, when we discuss comparison of superiority constructions with AA/PA-marked adjectives, we will see an alternative conceptualization of how adjectives in the lower clause can fail to be pronounced. We now return to more general attributes of CA-marked adjectives. I have proposed that the DegP must merge directly into the specifier position of AP if the adjective is CA-marked. This requirement explains the tight positional restrictions that we saw CA-marked adjectives impose on degree phrases in §3.3.3. So far, we have phrased the tight relationship between CA-marked adjectives and DegP entirely in terms of the syntactic selectional properties of the adjective: a CA-marked adjective selects for a DegP to be merged into precisely that position.

However, a stronger statement might be that in addition to CA-marked adjectives requiring that a DegP occupy their specifier position, the DegP can only (for morphosyntactic reasons) only occur in this syntactic position. A DegP cannot, on its own, adjoin higher in the syntax. A number of the degree phrases that we have seen are, in fact, even morphologically bound to the left edge of the CA-marked adjective (the degree question and degree pronoun constructions). Given the existence of prefixed DegP, it is a relatively small step to propose that DegP must, as a class, merge within AP.

5.2. Analysis of AA/PA-marked adjectives As argued in §4, AA/PA-marked adjectives have a degree semantics. I posit the denotation in (61) for AA/PA-marked adjectives. This is the same denotation posited for CA-marked adjectives.

  22  

(61) [[AAA/PA]] = λxλd.x is A to d Unlike CA-marked adjectives, AA/PA-marked adjectives are syntactically intransitive, projecting only a position for the subject in the syntax. (62) AP 3 DP AAA/PA subject d

At the end of discussion of CA-marked adjectives above, I proposed that it is not only the case that CA-marked adjectives select for a DegP, but it is also the case that a DegP can only occur within AP. This reasoning permits us to make a prediction. If an adjective lacked a position with AP for DegP to merge into, DegP could not, on its own, merge above the level of AP, even if the semantic types were compatible. AA/PA-marked adjectives can be used to test this hypothesis. The AP of an AA/PA-marked adjective is of type <dt> and thus is compatible with the type <dt,t> DegP. Given the structure in (62), however, there is no place for DegP to merge.

I will argue that Navajo has a way to solve this syntactic problem. Recall that AA/PA-marked adjectives can be modified by degree phrases if the degree phrase is embedded within the same syntactic structure found for clausal modification more generally (§3.3.2). The DegP in (63a) and the temporal clausal modifier in (63b) are both marked by the subordinator =go.

(63) a. [[Shí=gi ‘át’ée]=go] shideezhí nizhóní.

1SGOBJ=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB my.little.sister 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is as pretty as I am.’

b. [[Hooghan=di nánísdzáa]=go]] shi’éétsoh ’ádaa diistsooz

home=at 1SGSUBJ.returned=SUB my.coat 3OBJ.1SGSUBJ-take.it.off ‘When I got back home, I took my coat.’ (Young and Morgan 1987: d344)

At this point, we know that at the AP level, AA/PA-marked adjectives are expressions of type <dt>. They cannot directly combine with the DegP for the reasons outlined above, but a subordinated DegP can adjoin at a higher level. I argue, however, that the AP cannot remain a function of type <dt> (that is, with its degree argument unsaturated) until the point in the clausal syntax at which the subordinated DegP can compose with AP. Recall my claim about the spell-out of Navajo adjectives and verbs introduced in §3.1 and repeated below. This claim is based on Faltz’s proposal that Navajo verbs are always propositional by the time that they are spelled out. (64) SPELL-OUT CONDITION: AP and VP can only be spelled out when all of the adjective or

verb’s original arguments have been saturated or bound. An adjective’s ‘original’ arguments are the degree argument and the individual argument. I define an ‘original’ argument as an argument introduced by the head of a lexical projection. The structure in (62) violates the spell-out condition. The degree argument is unsaturated. But, given the syntax of the AP, a DegP cannot be merged prior to spell out of AP.

  23  

I propose a type-shifting mechanism similar to Existential Closure (Kamp 1981, Heim 1982, Diesing 1992). The mechanism CLOSE applies to bind the degree argument of the AA/PA-marked adjective. (65) [[CLOSE]] = λAdtλDdt∀d.D(d) A(d)

“For all degrees d, if d is in the domain of D (the set of degrees that holds of the overt standard of comparison), then d is also in the set of degrees that holds of the adjective applied to the subject.” The operation CLOSE is closely related to Schwarzschild’s (2010, 2011) proposal for the

semantics of degree morphemes in languages (or particular constructions within languages) in which standard of comparison phrases (e.g., equivalents to than-phrases) are quantifier domain adverbials.17 As in Schwarzschild’s proposal, the domain variable D can be restricted by degree phrases: this will permit the degree argument of AA/PA-marked adjectives to be manipulated indirectly through domain restriction, similar to varieties of domain restriction discussed by von Fintel (1994). Once the type-shifting operation of CLOSE has applied to AP, the requirements of the spell-out condition are met. Both of the original arguments of the AA/PA-marked adjective are now closed. It is true that a new variable (D) had to be introduced in order to accomplish this task, but since D is not a semantic argument of the adjectival stem, the spell-out condition is not violated. In the following subsections, I discuss two methods of valuing D. First, by context (§5.2.1). Second, by an adverbial degree phrase (§5.2.2).

5.2.1 AA/PA-marked adjectives without further modification Where AA/PA-marked adjectives are not further modified by degree phrases (66), I assume that the domain variable D is closed and set to an interval corresponding to the contextual standard of comparison. A contextual standard is invoked as a last resort value for D. If D were simply existentially closed, sentences like (66) would be trivially true: ‘my mother’ would count as pretty as long as her degrees of prettiness were contained within some interval (Rett 2008). (66) Shimá nizhóní. my.mother 3SUBJ.prettyAA

‘My mother is pretty.’ (True iff ‘my mother’ is pretty in excess of some contextual standard of beauty.)

                                                                                                               

17  Schwarzschild (2010, 2011) focuses on application of the analysis to Hebrew but also extends the analysis to Navajo data from Bogal-Allbritten (2008). The present analysis of Navajo, as noted above, is closely related to Schwarzschild’s proposal but differs in two key ways. First, I separate the contribution of a CLOSE-like morpheme or operation from the semantics of AA/PA itself: AA/PA morphology is not semantically contentful under the present proposal. Second, I do not encode norm-relatedness into the meaning of my morpheme CLOSE (or, into the meaning of AA/PA, which Schwarzschild refers to as POS). Evidence presented at the end of §4 (contra Bogal-Allbritten 2008) indicates that we do not want to encode the requirement that the subject always exceed the contextual standard (norm-relatedness; Bierwisch 1989, Rett 2008) into the basic meaning of an AA/PA-marked adjective.  

  24  

(67) AP 3 CLOSE 3 DP A my mother prettyAA a. [[A]] = λxλd’.x is pretty to d’ b. [[AP]] = λd’.my mother is pretty to d’ c. CLOSE applies:

= [λAdtλDdt∀d.D(d) A(d)] (λd’.my mother is pretty to d’) = λDdt∀d.D(d) my mother is pretty to d

d. Context values the interval D as the standard of comparison = ∃D’. where D’ is an interval corresponding to the contextual norm for pretty, ∀d.D’(d) my mother is pretty to d

The final stage of the derivation – valuation of interval D as the contextual norm – merits further discussion. I will concentrate on two issues.

First, how does closure of the interval D occur? The process could involve composition with a syntactically present (although phonologically null) morpheme POS, redefined in terms of degree intervals rather than degrees (Heim 2006, von Stechow 2009). However, I will instead argue that closure of D occurs by means of a type-shifting operation, which is crucially syntactically non-present. The type-shifting approach to POS-like meanings is discussed at length in Grano (2012) for Mandarin Chinese. The type-shifting approach also extends naturally to the Navajo data. Since the operation CLOSE that applies to AA/PA-marked adjectives does not project a position in the syntax, we do not predict that there is a syntactic position that can be inhabited by POS in sentences like (66). In addition, a type-shifting approach is appealing since we might predict that a syntactically present POS morpheme could satisfy the selectional restrictions of CA-marked adjectives: after all, we have already seen that a null operator can satisfy this position (§5.1). However, as previously discussed, CA-marked adjectives in the main clause that lack a degree phrase do not receive POS-like interpretations: they are simply ungrammatical.

The second issue to be addressed is the nature of the interval D such that we predict the truth conditions attested for sentences like (66). Von Stechow (2009) identifies the standard of comparison as the interval returned by application of a function N to the adjectival scale SA. The interval returned by N is the interval comprised of those degrees that comprise the ‘neutral’ interval of the scale in a given context (Klein’s (1980) extension gap). The ‘neutral’ interval is the portion of a scale onto which are mapped those individuals that neither count as A nor not-A in some context. I follow von Stechow in further assuming that the right border of the neutral interval (a degree within the set of degrees returned by N applied to SA) counts as expression of the adjective A to a positive degree.18

The neutral interval supplies the value of D in (66). We can now elaborate (67d):

                                                                                                               

18   I thank Irene Heim for drawing my attention to von Stechow’s (2009) interval semantics for the standard of comparison.  

  25  

(68) ∃D’. where D’ is the contextually determined neutral interval of pretty, ∀d.D’(d) my mother is pretty to d

“For all degrees d in the neutral interval of pretty, my mother is pretty to d.” Because ‘my mother’ must be pretty to all degrees in the neutral interval, she must also be pretty to the rightmost degree in the neutral interval. The rightmost degree in the neutral interval is the first degree counting as ‘positive prettiness.’ As such, ‘my mother’ must be pretty to a degree in excess of the cutoff for ‘positive prettiness’ in the context. These truth conditions match speaker intuitions for the meaning of sentences like (66), both in Navajo and in English.

5.2.2 AA/PA-marked adjectives modified by degree phrases We now turn to the valuation of D by an overt degree phrase. I illustrate with the derivation of a comparative construction. I do not show subcomparatives here as I did for CA-marked adjectives because, as discussed in §5.3, subcomparatives are not possible for AA/PA-marked adjectives. In the regular comparison of superiority construction in Navajo as in English, the adjective in the standard of comparison (DegP) is not pronounced. While we can follow much previous work and assume deletion happens through comparative deletion, our system for Navajo actually predicts that we will never see the embedded adjective. Given the spell-out condition in Navajo, the only way in which an AA/PA-marked adjective can be spelled out is if it is marked by CLOSE. As I show in §5.3 when I return to the unavailability of subcomparatives with AA/PA-marked adjectives, if the embedded adjective is marked by CLOSE a type mismatch between the adjective and the comparative morpheme – defined as before – will result. If the adjective is not CLOSE-marked, it will be of the right type to participate in semantic composition but will not be spelled out. This is a positive result, since this instance of the adjective is not overt.19 The derivation in (70) illustrates composition of the sentence in (69). The semantics of the DegP are identical to the semantics of DegP when adjectives were CA-marked. The additional clausal structure that embeds the DegP and mediates between the matrix AP and the subordinated DegP has no semantic effect: it is only present for syntactic reasons (§5.2). The key difference between the derivation in (70) and subcomparatives in which adjectives were CA-marked is that the two CPs (the matrix AP and the DegP) combine through Predicate Modification. The denotation of the Deg head -lááh is the same as it was when it combined with CA-marked adjectives, however. Existential Closure applies to the resulting type <dt> expression. (69) Phoenix [CP3 [CP1 [DegP Flagstaff yi-lááh ] ‘át’ée=go] [CP2 [AP deesdoi ] ] ] Phoenix Flagstaff 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘Phoenix is hotter than Flagstaff.’

                                                                                                               

19  A reviewer asks why marking the adjective with CA morphology would not make possible the spell out of the embedded instance of deesdoi. While we saw CA-marking permit spell out for other adjectives in this position (e.g., (59)), the morphological distribution of CA does not extend to the adjective deesdoi. As discussed in §3.2, there are gaps for many adjectives where the CA-marked form would have been. Deesdoi is one such adjective. I assume that CA-marking in (69) is impossible because there is no suitable morphological form available: if such a form were available, we would predict that CA marking would permit spell-out of the embedded adjective.  

  26  

(70) CP4 qp

∃ CP3 q p CP1 CP2 rp 4 VP C AP2 C

rp=go 3 ø DegP V CLOSE 3

rp ‘át’é DP APA AP1 <dt> Deg Phoenix deesdoi 4 -lááh DP APA Flagstaff deesdoi a. [[AP1]] = [λxλd.hot(x)(d)](Flagstaff) = λd.hot(Flagstaff)(d) b. [[DegP]] = [λD1λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬D1(d)](λd.hot(Flagstaff)(d)) = λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬hot(Flagstaff)(d) c. [[CP1]] = [[VP]] = [[DegP]] d. [[A2]] = [λxλd.hot(x)(d)](Phoenix) = λd.hot(Phoenix)(d) e. [[AP2]] = [[POS]](λd.hot(Phoenix)(d)) = [λAdtλDdt∀d.D(d) A(d)](λd.hot(Phoenix)(d)) = λDdt∀d.D(d) hot(Phoenix)(d) f. [[CP2]] = [[AP2]] g. [[CP3]] = λD’. [ [[CP1]] & [[CP2]] ]D’) = λD’[λD2∃d.D2(d) & ¬hot(Flagstaff)(d)](D’) &

[λDdt∀d.D(d) hot(Phoenix)(d)](D’) = λD’[∃d.D’(d) & ¬hot(Flagstaff)(d)] & [∀d.D’(d) hot(Phoenix)(d)]

h. [[CP4]] = ∃D’[∃d.D’(d) & ¬hot(Flagstaff)(d)] & [∀d.D’(d) hot(Phoenix)(d)]

“There exists an interval of degrees, D’. There exists a degree d in D’ which is a degree to which Flagstaff is not-hot. For all degrees d, if d is in D’, then Phoenix is hot to d.”

Rephrased slightly, the interval D’ is such that all degrees in D’ are degrees to which Phoenix is hot. There exists at least one degree in D’ to which Phoenix is hot but Flagstaff is not hot. The situation in (71) would verify these truth conditions:

  27  

(71) It is 90 degrees in Phoenix today. It is 89 degrees in Flagstaff today. Degrees to which Phoenix is hot: [ …87, 88, 89, 90]

Degrees to which Flagstaff is not hot: [90, 91, 92, … ] There exists a degree (d=90) to which Phoenix is hot and to which Flagstaff is not-hot.

This concludes the introduction and exemplification of the analysis for AA/PA-marked adjectives. The next section demonstrates how the analysis can capture welcome predictions about the unavailability of subcomparatives with AA/PA-marked adjectives. §5 closes with a discussion of apparently ‘exceptional’ AA-marked adjectives, which are not amenable to the analysis as proposed so far.

5.3. AA/PA-marked adjectives do not permit subcomparatives We saw in §5.1 that subcomparatives are grammatical when both adjectives are CA-marked. Speakers found ungrammatical sentences in which either, or both, adjective were AA/PA-marked. (72) a. Díí naaltsoos [ ‘eii ’áníłtéél=ígíí yi-lááh ] ‘áníłnééz [CA] CA this book that 3SUBJ.wideCA=REL 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.longCA ‘This book is longer than that one is wide.’ b. * Díí naaltsoos [ [‘eii niteel=ígíí yi-lááh [AA] AA

this book that 3SUBJ.wideAA=REL 3OBJ-beyond ‘át’ée]=go] nineez 3SUBJ.be=SUBJ 3SUBJ.longAA c. * Díí naaltsoos [ ‘eii niteel=ígíí yi-lááh ] ‘áníłnééz [AA] CA

this book that 3SUBJ.wideAA=REL 3OBJ-beyond 3SUBJ.longCA

d. *? Díí naaltsoos [ [‘eii ’áníłtéél=ígíí yi-lááh [CA] AA this book that 3SUBJ.wideCA=REL 3OBJ-beyond

‘át’ée]=go] nineez 3SUBJ.be=SUBJ 3SUBJ.longAA

We can account for the ungrammaticality of (72b) and (72c) through our account of CLOSE and the Navajo spell-out condition. As outlined above, if an AA/PA-marked adjective has been spelled out, then it must bear CLOSE. The critical type mismatch comes at the point where Deg, the standard marker lááh, must compose with the AP1 containing CLOSE.

  28  

(73) CP3 q p CP1 CP2 rp 4 VP C AP2 C

rp=go 3 ø DegP V CLOSE 3

rp ‘át’é DP AAA AP1 <dt> Deg this book wide 3 -lááh CLOSE 3 DP AAA that book wide

a. [[A]] = [λxλd.wide(x)(d)](this book) = λd.wide(this book)(d) b. [[AP1]] = [[CLOSE]](λd.wide(this book)(d)) = [λAdtλDdt∀d.D(d) A(d)](λd.wide(this book)(d)) = λDdt∀d.D(d) wide(this book)(d) c. Deg is of type <dt,<dt,t>> and cannot compose with the type <dt,t> AP1. We predict that any configuration in which the AA-marked adjective is required to appear in the standard of comparison will be ungrammatical.

Our account does not yet have an explanation for the ungrammaticality of structures like (72d), where the embedded adjective is CA-marked and the matrix adjective is AA/PA-marked. Our system predicts that (72d) should be grammatical from a type-theoretic perspective. I leave further investigation of structures like (72d) to future work.

5.4. Exceptional AA-marked adjectives

We now turn to a set of adjectives whose behavior is exceptional in comparison with adjectives more generally in Navajo: AA-marked adjectives for which there exists a CA-marked counterpart that speakers frequently use, e.g., nitsaa ‘s/he/it is big’ (cf. ’áníłtso).20 These ‘exceptional’ AA-marked adjectives are judged odd in a range of constructions that our system predicts should be grammatical, and which are grammatical when they contain ‘unexceptional’ AA/PA-marked adjectives (i.e., AA/PA-marked adjectives for which there is no CA-marked counterpart). These constructions include the degree question (74) and the equative (75). I show both constructions

                                                                                                               

20  I add “…that speakers frequently use” here since a few AA-marked adjectives which fall into the ‘unexceptional’ camp are reported by Young and Morgan (1987) to have CA-marked forms (e.g., nizhóní ‘s/he/it is pretty’, ‘ánóoshóní). See Bogal-Allbritten (2008) for discussion. However, I observed during elicitation sessions that these CA-marked forms are not frequently used compared to their AA-marked counterparts. For instance, speakers frequently used nizhóní rather than ‘ánóoshóní in comparison of superiority constructions, while nineez was never volunteered instead of ’áníłnééz in comparison constructions. In addition, there was disagreement between consultants about what morphological form (if any) is taken by the CA-marked adjective in current speech.  

  29  

with a CA-marked adjective, an unexceptional AA/PA-marked adjective, and an exceptional AA-marked adjective.21 (74) a. Haa-níłtso? CA WH-3SUBJ.bigCA ‘How big is s/he/it? What size is s/he/it?’ b. Ha-it’ée=go deesdoi? Unexceptional AA/PA WH-3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.hotPA ‘How hot is it?’ c. ?? Ha-it’ée=go nitsaa? Exceptional AA WH-3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ-bigAA ‘In what way is s/he/it big?’ (big around? wide? tall?) (75) a. Shimá=gi ‘áníłtso CA my.mother=at 3SUBJ.bigCA ‘I am as big as my mother,’ ‘My mother and I are the same size.’ b. Shideezhí shimá=gi ‘át’ée=go nizhóní Unexceptional AA/PA my.little.sister my.mother=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.prettyAA ‘My little sister is as pretty as my mother.’ c. ?? Shideezhí shimá=gi ‘át’ée=go nitsaa Exceptional AA my.little.sister my.mother=at 3SUBJ.be=SUB 3SUBJ.bigAA ‘My little sister is big in the same way that my mother is.’ Consultant comment: “You’re saying they’re big, and maybe they’re both heavy or

tall. They’re big in the same way.”

The semantics of degree constructions with exceptional AA-marked adjectives merits deeper examination and discussion. Very informally, the paraphrases in (74c) and (75c) both seem to invoke some type of comparison of manner: the ‘way’ in which the subject is big is at issue, not the degree to which she is big. For now, however, I will simply note that AA-marked adjectives for which there exists a widely used CA-marked counterpart behave exceptionally.

Possible reasons for the exceptional behavior of certain AA-marked adjectives is an interesting question for future research. I tentatively propose a competition analysis. Modification of CA-marked adjectives is more straightforward semantically (degree saturation rather than degree quantification) and requires the generation of less syntactic structure. However, given our system, the same degree constructions with AA/PA- and CA-marked adjectives hold in the same verifying scenarios. When a CA-marked adjective is not used, the

                                                                                                               

21  Measure phrases are also judged ungrammatical with AA-marked adjectives, while they are grammatical with CA-marked adjectives. We cannot compare the behavior of exceptional AA-marked adjectives to other AA/PA-marked adjectives, however: measure phrases in Navajo only occur with the kind of adjective (e.g., ‘tall’, ‘wide’, ‘heavy’) that is CA-marked. This restriction of measure phrases is quite common crosslinguistically (Schwarzschild 2005, Svenonius and Kennedy 2006).  

  30  

Listener may ‘reason’ that the Speaker must have had reasons for not doing so: a meaning that is only available to AA/PA-marked adjectives must have been intended. Such a meaning might involve application of CLOSE and valuation of the D domain variable with the contextual standard, as we saw happen when AA/PA-marked adjectives were not modified by degree phrases. For elaboration of this type of competition theory, and examples of norm-relatedness arising in degree constructions, I refer the reader to Rett (2008) and Krasikova (2009).

6.0 Directions for Further Research

6.1. Relating the proposal to Svenonius and Kennedy’s (2006) MEAS To this point, I have avoided decomposing the adjective below the level of ACA/AA/PA, but Navajo seems to motivate further morphological decomposition, with division of semantic labor between individual morphological elements. Application of the decompositional theory of adjectival meaning proposed by Kennedy (1999) is intuitively appealing. Kennedy (1999) proposes that the basic meaning of an adjective is a measure function, which he defines as a function from individuals to degrees <ed>. Measure functions compose with degree morphology, e.g., MORE, AS, POS, etc. These morphemes introduce comparison with a standard of comparison (e.g., than-phrase) and convert the measure function into a property of individuals. (76) a. [[MORE]] = λged : g is a function from objects to measurable degrees.λdλx.g(x) > dthan

b. [[POS]] = λged : g is a function from objects to measurable degrees.λx.g(x) > dstnd

Since standard markers do not directly compose with adjectival stems in Navajo, direct application of Kennedy’s (1999) program to Navajo does not seem possible. However, more recently Svenonius and Kennedy (2006) propose a null degree morpheme, MEAS, which seems particularly relevant to the analysis of Navajo CA-marked adjectives. Svenonius and Kennedy (2006) propose MEAS as a null degree head that takes a measure function as argument and returns a type <d,et> expression. When MEAS-marked, a degree argument is projected as a semantic and syntactic argument of the adjective.22 Saturation of this argument position by a measure phrase is shown in (78). (77) [[MEAS]] = λged : g is a function from objects to measurable degrees.λdλx.g(x) > d (78) DegP <et> 4 NumP d Deg’ <d,et> six feet 4 Deg AP <ed> MEAS tall

                                                                                                               

22  As can be seen from (78), Kennedy assumes a different syntax than is assumed under the standard analysis or in the present analysis of Navajo. I refer the reader to Kennedy (1999) for explication of this system.  

  31  

Svenonius and Kennedy (2006) use MEAS to explain the distribution of measure phrases and a particular type of null-headed degree question in Northern Norwegian. A more recent extension of MEAS to account for Mandarin ‘transitive’ comparatives (i.e., comparative constructions in which no overt MORE morpheme is present) is found in Grano and Kennedy (2011), where MEAS is called µ. In both papers, the distribution of MEAS is restricted to adjectives associated with a conventional or salient system of measurement: for example, the adjectives tall and short can be marked by MEAS but intelligent or beautiful cannot be.23 The proposal for Navajo CA strongly recalls the proposal for MEAS/µ. In both, special morphology (CA, MEAS/µ) is necessary to project the degree argument in the syntax. In addition, the distribution of CA is, like MEAS/µ, largely restricted to adjectives associated with conventional systems of measurement, (§3.2.1, Young and Morgan 1987). Further work should explore the differences in predictions made by the two proposals and compare these predictions with the data attested in Navajo, Northern Norwegian, and Mandarin: are there facts that one proposal captures that the other does not? However, the proposal for CA differs from proposals for MEAS/µ in several important ways. First, in contrast with MEAS, the degree morpheme CA does not occupy the same position as other degree morphology in the language, e.g., the comparison of superiority standard marker –lááh. This difference is welcome for Navajo since we find CA co-occurring (obligatorily, in fact) with degree phrases. By contrast, if an adjective is MEAS-marked, the presence of MEAS precludes other overt degree morphology, e.g., MORE. A second difference between the proposals is the status of the degree argument. I have argued that all Navajo adjectives are semantically transitive but special morphology (CA) is necessary to project a position for the degree argument in the syntax. Svenonius and Kennedy (2006) and Grano and Kennedy (2011) analyze adjectives as measure functions that lack either semantic or syntactic degree arguments in their most basic lexical form: the task of MEAS is to introduce the degree as both a semantic and syntactic argument. In effect, I have argued that the standard analysis of adjectives as semantically transitive expressions can, and should, be maintained for Navajo. The novel argument is that syntactic transitivity does not automatically follow from semantic transitivity in the adjectival domain. The third difference follows from the second: while MEAS/µ are proposed within Kennedy’s (1999) decompositional analysis of adjectives as measure functions, CA operates within a theory of adjectives as type <d,et> expressions. On one hand, a Kennedy-style decompositional analysis is intuitively appealing for Navajo given the separability of the stem from CA and AA/PA morphology. A priori, Navajo adjectival stems seem like good candidates for overt expression of an adjective in a more “basic” form (e.g., a measure function). This approach is advocated by Bogal-Allbritten (2008).

However, several problems arise if we analyze Navajo adjectival stems as measure functions. First, by analyzing adjectival stems as measure functions, we set these stems apart from other stems in the language. Recall from §3.1 that verbs and adjectives in Navajo are comprised of a stem and additional morphology. These stems are also, plausibly, one- or two-place predicates that combine with additional morphology to provide the stem with the syntactic and morphological structure necessary to compose with its arguments. It is harder to

                                                                                                               

23  The distribution of µ also includes all comparative-marked adjectives (Grano and Kennedy 2011: 15).  

  32  

conceptualize of adjectival stems being measure functions, which would make them radically different in type from, e.g., eventive verb stems.24

A second, and potentially more serious, challenge to an analysis of Navajo adjectival stems as measure functions is posed by degree constructions containing AA/PA-marked adjectives. It is not obvious that the analysis of adverbial degree expressions as a restrictor of domain variables can be preserved if stems are of type <ed> rather than <e,dt> or <d,et>.25

6.2. Crosslinguistic applications The proposal that adjectives may always be semantically transitive but only syntactically transitive under special circumstances also relates to recent work on adjectival semantics and syntax crosslinguistically.

Recent work has considered the extent to which the semantics and syntax of adjectives and degree phrases are universal, and what parameters there are for variation within languages and crosslinguistically. Beck et al. (2009) addresses the issue of crosslinguistic variation, examining evidence that while a set of languages may all be analyzed as having syntactically and semantically transitive adjectives, the languages may differ in allowing or blocking particular syntactic configurations relating to the degree argument. Beck et al. examine languages in which the degree argument position of an adjective (specifier of AP) cannot be filled in the overt syntax. Beck et al. identify a number of constructions (subcomparative, measure phrase, degree question) which involve filling this syntactic position in the overt syntax by an operator.

Languages may differ minimally from each other in whether this set of constructions is permitted: for instance, English and Russian are amenable to similar syntactic analyses, but Russian lacks these constructions while English has them. In other languages (e.g., Romanian, Gergel 2009), the degree argument position may only be filled in the overt syntax if the adjective bears particular functional morphology. It seems that it will be rewarding to compare Navajo with such languages: in both, a transitive semantics does not guarantee that the syntax will permit all syntactic configurations involving the degree argument.

A second direction of research is the treatment of a degree phrase as an argument vs. an adjunct to the adjective. The present proposal for the mechanism by which degree phrases modify AA/PA-marked builds on Schwarzschild’s recent (2010, 2011) work on this issue. Interest in this issue can also be traced back to Schwarzschild (2005), where measure phrases are analyzed as adjuncts rather than arguments of the adjective. Navajo is, so far, unique in clearly marking degree phrases as adverbial when they modify syntactically intransitive adjectives.                                                                                                                

24  Alternatively, we might argue that stems (adjectival and verbal) are not measure functions but are instead more abstract in nature. For adjectival verbs, this “more abstract” basic meaning could be related to the “dimensions” advocated by Bartsch and Vennemann (1972) as the basic meaning of an adjective. I thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to their approach. Dimensions include Tallness, Breadth, Temperature, Speed, Intelligence, and Beauty. Additional morphology is necessary to convert the dimension into a predicate. It is unclear, however, what the precise nature of these Dimensions is, or what would be the “more abstract” meaning of an eventive verb.  25   An anonymous reviewer suggests one further problem for an analysis of adjectival stems as type <ed> expressions: we might predict (incorrectly) that adjectival stems can compose directly with an individual to return a degree. It is true that we never see stems – adjectival or verbal – directly composing with individual. However, it is not clear that this impossibility is due not to the meaning of the stem, but rather to a more general (Navajo-wide) condition requiring stems to compose with additional morphology prior to composition with their arguments (Hale 2003). In the present analysis, the function of CA and AA/PA is to provide a stem with a syntactic shell that makes composition with arguments and modifiers possible.  

  33  

A third way in which the proposal for Navajo connects with ongoing crosslinguistic inquiry is the fact that CA morphology – and, by extension, a transitive syntax – is almost entirely restricted to Navajo adjectives that denote dimensions associated with a conventional system of measurement. As noted above, the existence of a conventional system of measurement was the factor determining the distribution of MEAS/µ heads in Northern Norwegian and Mandarin (Svenonius and Kennedy 2006, Grano and Kennedy 2011). Even earlier, Bierwisch (1989) held “dimensional” adjectives (again, adjectives associated with conventional systems of measurement) as distinct from other gradable adjectives. There is convergence between observations on variation in adjectival meaning and on the special status of ‘dimensional’ adjectives. Navajo promises to be an informative locus of study of this issue.

7.0 Conclusion

I have proposed that all adjectives in Navajo are semantically transitive, but syntactic transitivity is only licensed for adjectives marked by CA (‘comparative aspect’) morphology. (79) a. AP b. AP 3 3 degree 3 subject AAA/PA

subject ACA

While composition between the degree phrase and the adjective occurs below the level of AP for CA-marked adjectives, composition between AA/PA-marked adjectives and a DegP is only possible at the clausal level after the degree argument of the adjective is been quantified over by the type-shifting operator CLOSE. DegP restricts the domain variable that CLOSE introduces.

The proposal integrates a rich base of empirical observations from Navajo with current theories of adjectival meaning. The proposal questions the universality of the standard analysis, which takes adjectives to be both semantically and syntactically transitive. Navajo seems to be a language in which it is necessary to separate notions of syntactic and semantic transitivity of adjectives. The relationship between adjectival syntax and semantics – and the ways in which syntactically intransitive adjectives can still participate in degree constructions – is a potentially rewarding domain for future work.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Navajo consultants Ellavina T. Perkins, Louise Kerley, and Irene Silentman for their patience and insight. Unattributed judgments and comments are due to them. This research was funded by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. I thank Sigrid Beck, Rajesh Bhatt, Seth Cable, Leonard Faltz, Ted Fernald, Irene Heim, Chris Kennedy, Roger Schwarzschild, and an anonymous NALS reviewer for their comments and suggestions on this project over the stages of its development. Previous forms of ideas expressed in this paper can be found in Bogal-Allbritten (2008) and were presented at the 2009 LSA and SSILA meetings, at MIT and University of Chicago Workshops on Comparatives, and in joint work with Rajesh Bhatt at the 2010 Workshop on Comparison Constructions Crosslinguistically at Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Any remaining errors are my own.

  34  

References

Bartsch, Renate and Theo Vennemann. 1972. The grammar of relative adjectives and of comparison. Linguistische Berichte 20: 19-32.

Beck, Sigrid, Sveta Krasikova, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter, Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst, and Elisabeth Villalta. 2009. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. In Linguistic variation yearbook 9, ed. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, 1-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bhatt, Rajesh and Shoichi Takahashi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 581-620.

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. Manfred Bierwisch and Ewald Lang, 71-262. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Bochnak, M. Ryan. To appear. The non-universal status of degrees: Evidence from Washo. To appear in Proceedings of NELS 42, ed. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett. Amherst: GLSA Publications.

Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2008. Gradability and degree constructions in Navajo. BA thesis, Swarthmore College.

Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth. 2010. Distribution and function of comparative aspect in Athabaskan/Dene. In Proceedings of 2009 Dene/Athabaskan Languages Conference, ed. Justin Spencer and Siri Tuttle. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.

Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275-343. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Peter Culicover, Thomas

Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Cresswell, Max J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. Barbara Partee,

261-292. New York: Academic Press. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinite. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Faltz, Leonard. 2000. A semantic basis for Navajo syntactic typology. In The Athabaskan

languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, ed. Theodore Fernald and Paul Platero, 28-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Gergel, Remus. 2008. Topicalization, doubling, and a little more on adjectives: What de does to degree dependencies in Romanian. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Convention of the German Society of Linguistics (DGfS), Universität Bamberg.

Grano, Thomas and Christopher Kennedy. 2011. Mandarin transitive comparatives and the grammar of measurement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21: 219-266.

Grano, Thomas. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 513-565.

Hale, Kenneth. 2003. On the significance of Eloise Jelinek’s pronominal argument hypothesis. In Formal approaches to function in grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek, ed. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and MaryAnn Willie. Linguistik Aktuell 62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  35  

Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 214-239. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Heim, Irene. 2006. Little. In Proceedings of SALT XVI, ed. Masayuki Gibson and Jonathan Howell, 35-58. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2: 39-76.

Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in Study of Language, Part 1, ed. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen and Marin Stokhoff, 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland. 1997 UCSC doctoral dissertation.

Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Modes of comparison. In Proceedings of CLS 43, ed. Malcolm Elliot, James Kirby, Osamu Sawada, Eleni Staraki, and Suwon Yoon, 141-165. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345-381.

Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1-45.

Krasikova, Sveta. 2009. Norm-relatedness in degree constructions. In Proceedings of SuB 12, ed. Arndt Riester and Torgrim Solstad. Stuttgart.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Ann Zaring, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rett, Jessica. 2008. Degree modification in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.

Rooij, Robert van. 2011. Implicit versus explicit comparatives. In Vagueness and Language Use, ed. Paul Egré and Nathan Klinedinst. Palgrave MacMillan.

Schauber, Ellen. 1979. The syntax and semantics of questions in Navajo. New York: Garland. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2005. Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches

Linguistiques de Vincennes 34: 207-228. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2008. The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions.

Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 308-331. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2010. Dimensional adjectives and quantifier-domain adverbials, handout

for talk at Workshop on Comparison Constructions Crosslinguistically, Universität Tübingen, May 2010.

Schwarzschild, Roger. 2011. Quantifier domain adverbials: Semantic change and the comparative. Handout for talk at University of Massachusetts Amherst, October 2011.

Seuren, Pieter A.M. 1973. The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe, ed. Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet. Dordrecht: Riedel.

Svenonius, Peter and Christopher Kennedy. 2006. Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Phases of Interpretation, Vol. 9 in Studies in Generative Grammar, ed. Maria Frascarelli. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar: An essay in universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

  36  

Stechow, Arnim von. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1-77.

Stechow, Arnim von. 2000. The temporal degree adjectives früh(er)/spät(er) ‘early(er)’/’later’ and the semantics of the positive. In Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, ed. Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert, 217-233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willie MaryAnne and Eloise Jelinek. 2000. Navajo as a discourse configurational language. In The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, ed. Theodore Fernald and Paul Platero, 252-287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, Robert W. and William Morgan. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.