=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Scalar Properties of Degree Modification in Karitiana: Evidence for
Indeterminate Scales
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-954/paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-954
}}
==Scalar Properties of Degree Modification in Karitiana: Evidence for
Indeterminate Scales==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-954/paper15.pdf
Scalar Properties of Degree Modification in
Karitiana: Evidence for Indeterminate Scales
Luciana Sanchez Mendes
Universidade de São Paulo (Fapesp/Capes/CNPq) and Université Paris 8
sanchez.mendes@gmail.com
Abstract. The aim of this article is to give evidence for the existence
of a new parameter for the typology of degree predicates: the indetermi-
nacy of scales. The arguments are based in the analysis of the semantic
behavior of the degree modifier pitat in Karitiana - a native brazilian
language.
1 Introduction
This paper focusses on the scalar properties of a specific verbal construction in Kari-
tiana: degree modification with the adverb pitat ‘a lot’ in sentences like (1)1 .
(1) Taso ∅-na-pytim’adn-∅ pitat.
man 3-decl-work-nfut a.lot
‘The man worked a lot’
Pitat is a degree modifier that has some particular characteristics. It only combines
with atelic verbal predicates, and the modified sentences are adequate in a range of sit-
uations related to a high degree in many dimensions, such as duration in time, number
of occurrences, intensity, speed, and distance.
The main claims of this paper are (i) pitat in Karitiana does not behave like other
degree modifiers such as beaucoup in French or a lot in English; (ii) the data from
Karitiana support a degree-scale semantics for degree modiification, and (iii) the tra-
ditional typology of gradable predicates based on the closure of the scales and their
relation with a standard of comparison can be improved by introducing a further di-
mension: the distinction between determinate and indeterminate scales.
2 Degree Modification in Karitiana
The aim of this Sect. is to present the distribution of pitat ‘a lot’ in Karitiana. Only
atelic verbal predicates can be modified by pitat. Sentences (2) and (3) with activity
and stative predicates are grammatical. Accomplishment and achievement predicates
as in sentences (4) and (5), on the other hand, cannot be modified by pitat.
1
Karitiana is a native language of the Arikén family, Tupi stock, spoken by about
320 people on a demarcated area in the northwest of Brazil (Storto and Vander Velden
[2005]).
R.K. Rendsvig and S. Katrenko (Eds.): ESSLLI 2012 Student Session Proceedings, CEUR Work-
shop Proceedings vol.: see http://ceur-ws.org/, 2012, pp. 142–149.
Degree Modification in Karitiana 143
(2) Milena ∅-na-aka-t i-tarak-t pitat.
Milena 3-decl-cop-nfut part-walk-abs. a.lot
‘Milena walked a lot’
(3) Inacio ∅-na-aka-t i-osedn-∅ pitat.
Inacio 3-decl-cop-nfut part-be.happy-abs. a.lot
‘Inacio was happy a lot’
(4) *Inacio ∅-na-aka-t i-tat-∅ pitat Porto Velho pip.
Inacio 3-decl-cop-nfut part-go-abs. a.lot Porto Velho to
‘Inacio went a lot to Porto Velho city’
(5) *Inacio ∅-na-aka-t i-horop-∅ pitat ep opy ty.
Inacio 3-decl-cop-nfut part-reach-abs. a.lot tree top obl
‘Inacio reached a lot the top of the tree’
The distribution above is similar to what we find with a lot in English (as described
in Caudal and Nicolas [2005]).
(6) Yanning walked a lot.
(7) *Yanning ate his pancake a lot.
(Caudal and Nicolas [2005], p.5)
Nevertheless pitat has an unexpected characteristic: it can be easily used in a much
wider range of interpretations. Thus, sentence (2) can be used to describe the following
situations: (i) Milena walked for a long time; (ii) Milena walked a lot of times; (iii)
Milena walked in high speed; (iv) Milena walked for a long distance; (v) Milena walked
with pleasure. And sentence (3) felicitously describes situations in which: (i) Inacio was
happy for a long time; (ii) Inacio was happy a lot of times; (iii) Inacio was very happy.
So, an appropriate analysis for pitat has to account for these two characteristics: (i) the
distribution with only atelic predicates; and (ii) the diversity of possible interpretations.
The analysis proposed in the next Sects. attemps to capture these two features.
3 Degree Modification in Karitiana Cannot be
Explained by the Mass/Count Distinction in
the Verbal Domain
Degree modifiers conveying high degree are usually sensitive to the mass/count dis-
tinction in the domain they modify. Much and many are the classical example (Chier-
chia [1998]). One could be tempted to suggest that the distribution of pitat can be
explained by this regularity. The degree adverb beaucoup in French, for example, was
investigated by Doetjes [2007] in these terms. The author follows Bach [1986] in argu-
ing that the same mass/count distinction we find in the nominal domain can be found
in the different types of verbal predicates. Roughly the proposal is that telic verbal
phrases (accomplishments and achievements) can be considered countable predicates
and atelic (activities and states) can be taken as massive.
Beaucoup has a different behavior depending on the kind of predicate that it modifies.
When it is used with a telic predicate, as in example (8), the sentence has an iterative
144 Luciana Sanchez Mendes
interpretation, by which many events occurred. In sentences with atelic predicates,
as in (9), the sentence can have an iterative interpretation or a degree interpretation
(Doetjes [2007]).
(8) Pierre va beaucoup au Louvre.
Pierre goes a.lot to.the Louvre
‘Pierre goes to the Louvre a lot (many times)’
(9) Il a plu beaucoup.
It has rained a.lot
‘It has rained a lot (many times or intensively)’
According to Doetjes [2007], the iterative interpretation of sentences with beaucoup
has its origin in the count feature of the predicate. So in sentences like (8) the fact
that only iterative interpretation is available is explained by the count nature of the
predicate aller au Louvre ‘to go to the Louvre’. Regarding the sentences with atelic
predicates, like pleuvoir ‘to rain’ in (9), when they have a degree interpretation, it is
on account of the massive nature of the verbal predicate, but when they have an itera-
tive interpretation, it is because the massive predicate shifted from mass to count. This
type–adjustment is the price to pay for the assumption that the iterative interpretation
in sentences with degree adverbs has its origin in the count nature of the predicate.
This analysis is not adequate to explain the Karitiana data. Firstly, there are more
than only two readings associated with degree modification in Karitiana. All the inter-
pretations available for sentences with pitat are equally important and none of them
should be explained by an exception rule, like ‘shift the predicate’ from mass to count.
It is not the case that one of the readings is available by one rule and the others by
another one. Beaucoup has a binary behavior (concerning its interpretations), so it
makes sense to capture it by a binary rule (mass/count distinction). Pitat has not a
binary behavior with atelic verbs, then it should not be explained by a property like
the mass/count distinction.
As the next Sect. will show, the iterative interpretation can be considered as being
part of the degree modification. I will argue that iterativity in sentences with pitat is
built on one of the possible scales associated with degree modification, and it is not an
operation on the verbal domain that competes with the degree one.
4 Degree Modification in Karitiana and Degree-
Scale Structures
The aim of this Sect. is to argue that scalar structures are the proper way to deal
with degree modification in atelic constructions in Karitiana. It will be shown that a
degree-scale semantics can account for both the distribution and meaning of pitat.
Degree modification can be understood as an operation on gradable predicates. Fol-
lowing Kennedy [1999], I will consider gradable predicates as predicates that have a
degree argument and a scalar structure2 . Kennedy and McNally [2005] argue that there
are two parameters that are crucial to the typology of degree predicates: the closure of
2
A scale is a set of degrees ordered along a dimension. It can be understood
metaphorically as a ruler formed by degrees ordered in a certain dimension (that can
be, for instance, weight, temperature, length).
Degree Modification in Karitiana 145
their scales and their relation to a standard of comparison.
The first parameter divides the scales into open and closed ones. Open scales do not
have a minimum or a maximum degree lexically determined. The adjective high, for
example, has an open scale since it has no lexically defined minimum or maximum de-
gree. On the other hand, closed scales have a well determined minimum and maximum
degree. For example, full and empty are closed scales adjectives. The scales related
with these adjectives have a minimum degree, associated to empty and a maximum
one associated to full.
The second important parameter of the typology of degree predicates is described by
their relation to the context. Relative degree predicates are dependent on a contextual
standard of comparison in order to be interpreted; absolute ones, by contrast, do not
have a context dependent standard of comparison. For instance, the adjective high is a
relative predicate because its denotation in a sentence varies according to the context.
On the other hand, an adjective such as closed does not have the standard of compari-
son defined by the context. Kennedy and McNally [2005] claim that there is an relation
between the parameters - gradable adjectives that have totally open scales have relative
standards, whereas gradable adjectives that have totally or partially closed scales have
absolute standards.
Since I am dealing with degree modification of verb phrases, this typology, which is
widely used in the studies of gradable adjectives, must be apllied to the verbal domain.
Caudal and Nicolas [2005] assume that there is a relation between event structure and
scale closure. They apply the distinction open/closed to the verbal domain and claim
that telic verbal predicates, since they have a final point given by the telos, can be
considered as having closed scales. On the other hand, atelic predicates are open scale
predicates since they do not have a lexically defined end point (telos).
As it was shown in Sect. 2, pitat can be used only with atelic verbal predicates. We may
rephrase the restriction by saying that it applies only to open scale predicates. This
is precisely the same restriction of the degree modifier very in English as described in
Kennedy and McNally [2005]3 .
(10) Kim was very worried by the diagnosis.
(11) ??Beck is very acquainted with the facts of the case.
So far this is the distribution of pitat according to a theory that assumes scalar struc-
tures. In what follows, I will develop a proposal to account for how the multiple readings
associated to the sentences with pitat are built.
Intuitively, there is a difference between degree modification of the adjectival and in the
verbal domain. When one says ‘Mary is very beautiful’, it is clear that the dimension
of the scale involved in the interpretation of the sentence is easily made available by
the adjective: the sentence is evaluated relative to a scale of beauty. But when one say
in Karitiana ‘Taso napytim’adn pitat’ (‘The man worked a lot’), the proper scale for
the evaluation of the truth conditions of the sentence is not obvious, but must be filled
by context.
This intuition can be formally captured by the theory of degree and scalar structures.
The scales formed in constructions with adjectives are scales available in the lexicon
(cf. Kennedy [1999]). This explains the similarity between the adjectives and the scales
related to them. High is related to the scale of height, happy is associated to the hap-
3
See Kennedy and McNally [2005] for details.
146 Luciana Sanchez Mendes
piness scale, and so on. Activity verbs, in turn, like the verb to work do not lexically
encode a scale. There is no “workness” scale lexically associated to the verbal predicate.
However, this does not mean that verbal constructions of this type cannot be associ-
ated to a scale. The proposal submit is that the scales in these cases are contextually
constructed rather than given by the lexicon.
I assume, following Dowty [1979], that activities are dynamic predicates involving com-
plex changes, that is a combination of changes in several possible dimensions4 .The
variety of the dimensions associated to complex change predicates is responsible for
the variable range of scales related to these predicates and therefore for the multiple
readings of the sentences in which they appear.
The variety of dimensions can be formally captured by the tools provided in the works
on degree-scales by what Kennedy and McNally [2005] called indeterminacy. Indetermi-
nacy is the capacity of a predicate to be compatible with scales of various dimensions.
The different measurable dimensions of an event denoted by an atelic verbal predicate
– as duration in time, number of occurrences, number of participants, intensity, etc. –
can be used to fill in the dimensions of the scales.
4.1 Formalization Proposal for Degree Modification with
Pitat
This Sect. intends to present my proposal of formalization for the degree modifier pitat.
As stated before the idea I adopt is that scales associated to atelic predicates (activity
and states) are not given in the lexicon, but are provided by context. Since pitat only
modifies atelic predicates, it only operates on contextual scales. Since scales are sets
of degrees, this suggests that the degree that this adverb selects is not present in the
lexical representation of the predicates it modifies. See below the traditional lexical
entry for to walk in (12) and compare to beautiful in (13).
(12) Jwalk K= λe. walk(e)5
(13) Jbeautiful K= λd. λx. beauty(x) = d
However, in order to be modified by pitat, the degree argument must be present
somehow in verbs like tarak ‘to walk’. I assume following Caudal and Nicolas [2005]
that atelic predicates may have a degree argument, although it is not present in the
lexicon. Piñón [2000] claims that there is possible to give a degree argument to verbal
predicates in the course of the semantic composition by a degree function. Following
his idea I postulate a function DegP – in (14) – that takes a simple predicate of events
and returns a relation between degrees and events6 . To capture the indeterminacy of
the scale, a measure function µ is used as a variable for dimensions (cf. Krifka [1998],
Thomas [2009]).
4
In fact, I extend the idea of complex change predicates to all activity and stative
verbs in Karitiana since they have the same behavior in pitat’s constructions.
5
I assume a neo-davidsonian semantic of events that consider verbs as predicates
of events (cf. Parsons [1990]). Furthermore, I follow Kratzer [1996] in the assumption
that the external argument is inserted in the syntax.
6
The crucial difference between the degree function I postulate and the one
seggested in Piñón [2000] is that his formula maps events, objects and degrees of ac-
complishment predicates. The degree function I suggested in (10) can be applied only
to atelic verbal predicates and it says nothing to the relation between the objects and
Degree Modification in Karitiana 147
(14) JDegPK= λPhs,ti . λd. λe. P(e) & µ (e) = d
In (10) µ can be replaced by temporal duration, event cardinality, speed, distance or
intensity7 . The DegP function has a double role. Besides adding a degree argument to
the predicate, it also functions as a restriction in the domain of pitat. Since pitat can
occur only in sentences with predicates of open scales, I assume that DegP is a function
that can be applied only to open scale predicates. I propose the following lexical entry
for pitat:
(15) JpitatK= λGhd,hs,tii . λe. ∃d. [ d ≥ N & G (d) (e) ]
where: N = normal degree of the scale
So the formalization proposed here exploits the idea in Caudal and Nicolas [2005] that
the degree modifiers can restructure or introduce scales during the derivation combining
lexical, syntatic and semantic information.
4.2 Some Consequences of the Proposal
In this Sect., some consequences of the proposal presented above are discussed. The
first one relies on the iterative versus degree interpretations (as discussed in Sect.
3). Returning to Karitiana data, with the assumption of indeterminacy of scales it is
possible to explain the iterative reading as part of the degree modification, without
postulating a type-shifting rule on the predicate as suggested by Doetjes [2007]. Thus
unlike Doetjes [2007] iterativity is considered a subtype of degree modification, and
not an operation that competes with it. In fact, in the proposal assumed in that there
is no degree interpretation. There is a degree modification and there are iterative and
intensity interpretations that are generated by the degree operation.
The second consequence of the idea that constructions involving gradable adjectives
have scales whose dimension is lexically specified; while constructions involving verbs
have contextual ones is that degree modification in the former constructions is less
complex than in the latter. The application of a degree adverb like very to an adjective
like beautiful is just an operation of modification on the lexicalized scale of beauty. The
degree modification of a verb, on the other hand, involves a few more steps. For some-
thing like to run a lot be interpreted, it is necessary that the appropriate scale of the
verb is formed and only then the construction can be evaluated. In this very distinction
lies the difference between English very and a lot. Insofar as very is a modifier that can
be applied only to lexical scales, a lot is an adverb that forces the predicate to have a
degree argument in order to be used. The assumption that degree modification in the
adjectival domain is less complex than modification in the verbal domain is supported
by other works in the degree-scale literature. Bochnak [2010] analyzes the degree mod-
ifier half and posits some semantic functions that are necessary to the modification of
verbs and are not used to modify adjectives8 .
The last consequence that will be discussed is the importance of indeterminacy to the
the events or degrees. Its purpose is to give a degree argument and a variable of scale
to the predicate.
7
In the way the formula is given it is over-generating because all verbs can be
associated to any dimension. The next step of the investigation will be to find lexical
constraints to fix this, since, of course, not all verbs have distance and high speed
readings, for instance.
8
See Bochnak [2010] for details.
148 Luciana Sanchez Mendes
typology of degree predicates. Starting from the idea that constructions involving grad-
able adjectives such as beautiful have scales available in the lexicon, while constructions
involving verbs like the ones I am dealing with have scales built in the context, the first
issue that arises is a problem in the description of the distribution of pitat. Previously
I claimed that pitat selects open scale predicates. But, in fact, the predicates that are
modified by pitat do not have a scalar structure before the modification. So it is nec-
essary to slightly reformulate that claim. In fact, pitat selects predicates that can have
an indeterminate scale and this is the relevant property for both its distribution and
meaning. The indeterminacy of scales is as important to the scales’ typology as their
closure and their relation to the standard of comparison. This is the main theoretical
contribution of this work: besides the well-know parameters of open/closed and rela-
tive/absolute predicates, the indeterminate/determinate property is also important.
In fact, since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two parameters de-
scribed in Kennedy and Mcnally [2005], there is no reason to consider them as two
different parameters. They can be treated as a single parameter described in two dif-
ferent ways. The relative vs. absolute distinction is a characteristic of degree predicates
whereas the open vs. closed distinction is a characteristic of their scalar structure. On
the ther hand, indeterminacy is an independent parameter since it allows for crossed
combinations with the other(s).
The table resumes the proposal with examples (adjectives and verbs)9 :
(In)determinacy Adjctive Verb
Open Scale Determinate high to melt (atelic reading)
Relative Predicate Indeterminate big to run
Closed Scale Determinate full to melt (telic reading)
Absolute Predicate
The proposal is that if a gradable predicate is absolute and it has a closed scale, it
necessarily has a determinate scalar strucutre, there is, its scale is given by lexicon. If a
predicate is relative, it can have a determinate or an indeterminate scale. The adjective
high is the classical example os an open scale adjective with determinate scale (scale
of height). The verbs trated in this paper as to run, on the other hand, are open scale
predicates with indeterminate scales (scales of speed, distance, iterativity, intensity,
etc.).
5 Conclusions
This paper argues that the number of parameters that classify degree predicates must
be enlarged in order to include also the determinate/indeterminate distinction. Thus
the degree modification with pitat in Karitiana can be properly analized in a degree-
scale semantics. The analysis proposed assumes that atelic predicates are verbs of
complex changes that are composed by changes in several possible dimensions (speed,
distance, iterativity, intensity) whichh are made available by the scales’ inderteminacy.
The proposal has some consequences. First, iterative interpretations in sentences with
pitat are properly described by a degree modification operation, without the postu-
lation of a type-shifting rule on the predicates. Secondly, the predictions that degree
modification in the verbal domain is in a certain way more complex than in the ad-
jectival domain is in accordance with other works in the same field. And finally, the
9
For degree achievements ambiguity see Hay et al. [1999]
Degree Modification in Karitiana 149
investigation of degree modification with pitat in Karitiana helped to reach a new
theoretical claim: the determinacy of scales is as important to their typology as their
closure and their dependence from the contextual standart.
References
1986. Bach, E.: The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1986) 5–16
2010. Bochnak, M. R.: Two sources of scalarity within the verb phrase. Paper presented
at Workshop on Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates. (2010)
2005. Caudal, P., Nicolas, D.: “Types of degrees and types of event structures”. In
C. Maienborn and A. Wöllstein, eds., Event arguments: foundations and arguments.
Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen. (2005) 277–299
1998. Chierchia, G.: Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter. In
S. Rothstein, ed., Events and Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht. (1998) 53–103
2007. Doetjes, J.: Adverbs and quantification: degree versus frequency. Lingua 117
(2007) 685–720
1979. Dowty, D.R.: Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. (1979)
1999. Hay, J., Kennedy, C., Levin, B.: Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in Degree
Achievements, SALT 9 (1999) 127–144.
1999. Kennedy, C.: Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability
and comparison. NewYork: Garland. [Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa
Cruz dissertation, 1997.] (1999)
2005. Kennedy, C., McNally, L.: Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Seman-
tic Typology of Gradable Predicates. Language 81 (2005) 345–381
1996. Kratzer, A.: “Severing the External Argument from its Verb”. In Rooryck, J.
and L. Zaring. (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht, Kluwer. (1996)
109–137
1998. Krifka, M.: “The Origins of telicity”. In Susan Rothstein (ed.) Events and Gram-
mar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (1998) 197–236
1990. Parsons, T.: Events in the Semantics of English: A Sttudy in Subatomic Seman-
tics. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. (1990)
2000. Piñón, C.: Happening gradually. In Conathan, L. J.; Good, J.; Kavitskaya, D.
Wulf, A. B. and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting
of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. (2000) 445-456
2005. Storto, L., Vander Velden, F.F.: Karitiana. Povos Indı́igenas do Brasil.
http://www.socioambiental.org/pib/epi/karitiana/karitiana.shtm (2005)
2009. Thomas, G.: Comparison across domains in Mbya. In Proceedings of WSCLA
14 Vancouver: Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia. (2009)