Stage level and Individual level Readings of Dispositional Nouns

STAGE LEVEL AND INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
READINGS OF DISPOSITIONAL NOUNS
Fabienne Martin
University of Stuttgart
1 Introduction1
-ance/ence, -erie, -esse, -ise, -isme, -ité, -itude and -ion are the main suffixes
used to derive nouns from adjectives in French. The goal of this paper is to
show that some of these suffixes, namely the most productive ones, are
endowed with a certain aspectual value which semantically differentiates
them from each other, and by which they contribute to the aspectual
interpretation of the noun in their own specific way.
I will focus on the distribution of suffixes among dispositional nouns derived
from evaluative adjectives like stupide, and compare the aspectual readings
of the adjectival stem with those of the derived noun.2 Doublets or triplets
derived from the same stem with different suffixes will be the object of
particular attention, since the suffix should be the only element responsible of
potential switchings in the interpretation. I choose to focus on dispositional
nouns because their adjectival counterparts display a rich aspectual polysemy
(cf. Fernald 1999, Geuder 2000, Martin 2008) – and thus allow to test the
1I am hugely indebted to Ludovic Tanguy for having automatically collected nouns
derived with the suffixes studied here on the Internet. I am extremely grateful to the
two reviewers for their valuable comments and criticisms. I also thank Benjamin
Massot for discussions about the data, as well as the audiences of the Septièmes
Décembrettes, Going Romance 24 and Categorization and Category Change in
Morphology for their suggestions and criticisms, especially Olivier Bonami, Isabel
Oltra-Massuet, Michel Roché and Florence Villoing. All mistakes are mine.
2
I will call nouns derived from evaluative adjectives dispositional nouns rather than
quality nouns, because (i) "quality" has a larger extension than "disposition" (there are
qualities, like e.g. colors, that are not dispositions), (ii) the term nom de qualité has
been used by Milner (1982) to refer to nouns like imbécile, which do not denote
dispositions.
aforementioned hypothesis – and because doublets and triplets are quite
frequent in this lexical domain. However, despite of this specific focus, I will
take into account nouns of other lexical domains for the generalisations
proposed.
If productive deadjectival suffixes differ from each other by their aspectual
value, we can better explain the existence of dictionary3doublets or triplets
derived from the same stem, cf. (1), which would be problematic for the
Blocking Effect (Aronoff 1976) if the competing forms did not functionally
differ.
(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
coquetterie/ coquettisme (>coquet 'coquettish')
drôlerie/ drôlisme (>drôle 'funny')
fanfaronnerie/ fanfaronisme (>fanfaron 'swanky')
crapulerie/crapulisme (>crapule 'scoundrel')
crétinerie/ crétinisme (>crétin 'moron')
importunité/ importunisme (>importun 'out of place')
The same hypothesis also explains the high number of neologisms in the field
of dispositional nouns. Incompetence cannot explain it alone, because
neologisms are often used in the neighbourhood of the competing dictionary
variant. If deadjectival suffixes differ by their aspectual value, it is easier to
account for the creation of new forms and to explain which suffix is selected
for which needs.
That competing suffixes functionally differ by their aspectual profile has
already been argued for other kinds of nominalisations, cf. e.g. Alexiadou
(2001) about -ing nominalisations in English and the corresponding nouns in
Greek, Dubois (1962), Martin (2010) or Uth (2011) about -age, -ment and ion in French, as well as Ferret, Soare and Villoing (2010) about -ée and -age
in French. In the field of deadjectival nouns, the fine grained descriptive
study of Daude (2002) of Latin nomina qualitatis already suggests that the
Latin ancestors of the French suffixes at study also compete by their
aspectual value, and it will be shown in Section 3 that French reflects some
aspects of the interplay between Latin competing suffixes.
The present study makes use of two types of data. Firstly, the different
readings of 170 deadjectival dispositional nouns have been manually
identified and classified on the basis of several tests presented in Section 2.
Secondly, the productivity of the suffixes at study was roughly appreciated
3 I will call dictionary words words which are recorded in dictionaries.
through the use on neologisms. Dispositional nouns presented on the Internet
but not stored in dictionaries were automatically collected by L. Tanguy at
the ERSS Laboratory of the University of Toulouse. For each item of a list of
1000 evaluative adjectives, a list of nine possible nouns combining the
adjectival stem and one of the suffixes at study was automatically generated
following Hathout's technique (Tanguy & Hathout 2007). From the generated
forms were automatically discarded all nouns present in le Lexique des
formes fléchies du français or le Trésor de la langue française. The
remainings forms which occur 1 to 200 times on the Internet (in presence of
the adjectival stem) were collected with the help of Webbafix (Hathout
2002). A part of the output list has been cleaned manually. I discarded non
French words (or produced by speakers which are not native speakers of
French), non nominal forms, mispelled words, typos, hapax as well as words
judged unacceptable by three native speakers to which I submitted a precleaned list. For 110 dictionary words analysed for the study, 159 neologisms
were identified. The table below summarises the distribution of suffixes
among them. It shows that 34,3% of the neologisms are built with -itude,
25,6% with -ité, 18,1% with -isme and 13,7% with -erie. The other suffixes
are hardly used to create new words.4 Although these data remain to be
confirmed by a research on a larger scale, I provisionally conclude that itude, -ité, -isme and -erie are the main productive deadjectival suffixes in
French. All dictionary words and neologisms used in this study are given in
the Appendix.
Suffixes
Dictionary
words
(total:110)
Neologisms
(total:159)
itude
ité
--
erie
isme
eur
ion
ance
ie
ise
esse
ice
0
32
19
15
10
7
7
6
6
4
3
1
0%
29%
9%
6,3%
6,3%
5,4%
55
29
--
41
0
0
6
34,3%
18,2%
--
0%
0%
3,7%
17,2% 13,6%
22
13,7% 25,6%
5,4% 3,6% 2,7% 0,9%
1
3
2
0
0,6% 1,8% 1,2% 0%
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 briefly delineates the aspectual
readings of evaluative adjectives (section 2.1) and those of derived nouns
(section 2.2). Section 3 focuses on the aspectual value of the suffixes -isme, erie, -itude and -ité.
4
-ance might be an exception, see Dal & Namer (2010).
2 Aspectual readings of evaluative readings and derived nouns
2.1 Evaluative adjectives
As is well known, evaluative adjectives like stupid can be used either as
individual-level predicates, cf. (2), or as stage-level ones, cf. (3)-(4), cf. e.g.
Kratzer (1995), Fernald (1999).
(2)
(3)
(4)
C'était quelqu'un de stupide.
'He was a stupid man.'
Feynman a dansé sur la table. Il a été stupide.
'Feynman danced on the table. He was stupid.'
Feynman a été stupide de danser sur la table.
'Feynman was stupid to dance on the table.'
(3) and (4) illustrate a subcase of stage-level (temporary) readings, namely
the one where the adjective asserts the occurrence of a state s and
presupposes the occurrence of an action e through which the state s is
concretely manifested, cf. Geuder (2000), Barker (2002), Martin (2008),
Oshima (2009). For instance, the second sentence in (3) presupposes that
Feynman did something and asserts that he was stupid while doing so. Under
this stage-level reading, the event time of s equals the one of e.5
In order to understand the semantic and pragmatic properties of evaluative
predicates, we need to develop the aspectual typology further and to
distinguish several subtypes of these two main aspectual readings. Since this
paper focuses on nouns derived from these adjectives, I will present the
relevant sub-readings in the section devoted to the nouns. However, I will
then mention if the reading present in the nominal domain is inherited from
the adjectival basis or not. 2.2 Dispositional nouns
5 It has been proposed that on the use illustrated in (3) or (4), the adjectival sentence
redescribes the event itself, and thus that the adjective has an eventive reading on this
kind of contexts (Haas et al. 2007). But Martin (2008) presents several counterarguments against this claim and suggests that the eventive flavour of this use comes
from the fact that the adjectival sentence presupposes the occurrence of an event
manifesting the asserted state. In line with these arguments, I will thus keep the
conservative view of neo-Davidsonian semantics that adjective sentences that
introduce a Davidsonian argument denote states.
Evaluative dispositional nouns (DNs) are derived from evaluative adjectives
like stupide. Three readings of DNs are classically delineated, namely a
permanent reading under which the QN denotes a quality/ trope,6 cf. (5), an
event reading, cf. (6), and a metonymic object reading, cf. (7), see e.g.
Meunier (1981), Beauseroy and Knittel (2007) on French DNs.
(5)
Pierre est d'une grande gentillesse.
Pierre is of-a great kindness.
'Pierre is very kind.'
Son frère l'adore et lui fait des gentillesses. (Internet)
His brother him.ACC adores and him.DAT makes kindness-PL.
'His brother adores him and displays kind acts to him'
Pierre a apporté des petites douceurs.
'Pierre brought some delicacies.'
(6)
(7)
The indicators for the eventive reading are among others the optionality of
argument structure, cf. (8b), the compatibility with the verbs faire or
commettre, cf. (6) and (8a), and the verb avoir lieu, cf. (8b); see e.g. Godard
& Jayez (1994) on eventivity tests.
(8) (a)
(b)
Qui a fait des méchancetés à Rose Aimée? (Internet)
Who has made des malicious-ité-PL to Rose Aimée?
'Who was mean to Rose Aimée?'
Les deux plus graves bêtises ont eu lieu dans la salle de bains.
(Internet)
'The most serious stupid acts took place in the bath room.'
6 Cf. Moltmann (2004) and Villalba (2009) about the idea that NPs like Peter's
intelligence denote tropes. A problem with this view is that according to the definition
of tropes endorsed by these authors, tropes can be placed on temporal and spatial
axes. Moltmann's example (i) supports this view for happiness.
(i)
John's happiness lasted only one year.
However, as it will be shown below, only a subset of QNs behave like happiness on
this respect. Several options are then available. Firstly, one could distinguish, among
QNs, those who denote tropes (compatible with temporal predicates), and those who
do not. Secondly, one could give up the idea that tropes are concrete entities (cf. e.g.
Campbell 1990 for such a view) and admit that all QNs uniformly denote tropes. I
will remain agnostic about the issue here and simply adopt the view that some QNs
denote temporal entities (that we can decide to call tropes or not) and others denote
abstract objects which cannot be ascribed temporal boundaries.
Differentiating three readings is not enough though. The next sections argue
that two permanent readings and two temporary ones remain to be delineated.
2.2.1 Two types of permanent readings: qualities versus habits
In the studies devoted to genericity, it is common to distinguish between
what is called the dispositional and the habitual readings of generic
sentences. Take John eats spinach. Roughly, on its habitual reading, this
sentence says that John regularly eats/ has the habit of eating spinach, while
on its generic reading, it says that John does not object to eating spinach (see
e.g. Dahl 1975, Krifka et al. 1995, Menendez-Benito t.a., Alexejenko 2009).
This second reading notably differs from the first in that John does not
actually have to eat spinach for the sentence to be true: the dispositional
reading normally does not entail actual event manifestations, while the
habitual reading is an inductive generalisation inferred from observed
behaviours and thus presupposes actual events.
At least some dispositional nouns display a similar ambiguity under their
permanent reading. 7 Under what I call their basic dispositional reading, DNs
describe a disposition, like generic sentences do under their dispositional
reading. All DNs have this reading, but see Sections 3.2. and 3.3 about -erie
and -itude nouns. But as it will be argued below, a subset of DNs can also
express something closer to habits.
Habits and dispositions differ in two respects. Firstly, as already alluded to
above, habits have to be instantiated at least a certain number of times in
order to be truly ascribed to individuals. On the other hand, individuals can in
principle have a disposition without ever instantiating it. Secondly, natural
languages suggest that we more easily conceive habits as temporal entities
than dispositions. This is suggested by the way nouns explicitly referring to
dispositions (or more generally qualities) or habits combine with temporal
predicates. For instance in French, habitude 'habit' can serve as the argument
of the verb durer 'last' or perdurer 'perpetuate', cf. (9), while qualité 'quality'
or disposition 'disposition' do not, or at least not so easily, cf. (10).
(9)
(10)
Cette habitude a duré/perduré des années.
'This habit lasted/ perpetuated for years.'
??
Cette qualité/ ?cette disposition a duré/ perduré des années.
7
The availability of the dispositional or habitual readings can be tested e.g. through
the compatibility with faire preuve de or manifester 'manifest' (cf. manifester de
l'intelligence 'manifest intelligence' vs ??manifester du bavardage 'manifest chatting').
'This quality/ this disposition lasted/ perpetuated for years.'
If we assume, as it is traditionally the case, that predicates like durer need a
subject that denotes an eventuality, we can take this contrast as an evidence
that habit-denoting nouns express states, while disposition-denoting nouns
express objects without clear temporal structures.
What interests us here is that DNs differ from each other by their
compatibility with predicates like durer. A first subset of DNs, including
intelligence, resemble nouns like qualité in that they cannot easily be
combined with temporal predicates, nor with durative adverbials, cf. (11)(12). Adresse, égoïsme, arrivisme and intégrité pattern with intelligence on
this respect. As we will see below through the example (18), these nouns
differ from the corresponding adjectival stems.
(11)
(12)
??
Son intelligence dure/perdure depuis une éternité.
'His intelligence lasts/perpetuates from time immemorial.'
??
Une intelligence de dix ans/ de toute une vie.
'An intelligence of ten years/ of a whole life.'
A second subset of DNs, including inconstance, are compatible with these
verbs and adverbials, cf. (13)-(14).
(13) (a) [context: the speaker evaluates a football team] Cette inconstance
dure depuis le début de la saison alors oui à un moment on a
enchaîné de bons résultats mais tout comme l'année passée sa [sic]
n'a pas duré car cette équipe à mon avis ne supporte pas la pression.
(Internet)
'This inconstancy lasts since the beginning of the season then yes at
one moment we had a chain of good results but exactly as last year it
didn't last because this team to my mind does not endure pressure.'
(b) [context: the speaker evaluates a football player] Son inconstance
dure en général quelques semaines, voire mois... Mais quand il est
en forme... ben il est vraiment bon. (Internet)
'His inconstancy lasts in general some weeks, or even months... But
when he's in a good shape... well he's very good.'
(14)
Une inconstance de plusieurs années/de toute une vie.
'An inconstancy of several years/ of a whole life.'
Intempérance, indifférence and despotisme pattern with inconstance:
(15)
Son despotisme a perduré à travers les siècles et nous insulte
toujours. (Internet)
(16)
'His despotism perpetuated through centuries and still insults us.'
Pour [les Japonais], cette terre [l'île de Hokkaido] est sans prestige
parce qu'elle est sans histoire [...] A peine l'avaient-ils découverte
qu'ils s'en sont détournés, et cette indifférence a duré mille ans.
(Internet)
'For the Japanese, this country [the island of Hokkaido] is without
prestige because it is without history [...] As soon as they
discovered it they turned away from it, and this indifference lasted
for thousand years.'
Note that used as the subject of durer, these nouns express properties that
have to be instantiated, that is habits rather than dispositions. For instance,
one cannot deny that the individual one is talking about in (15) concretely
manifested his despotism. When used without durer, the same nouns can
express properties that never instantiate, that is dispositions. For instance, the
following discourse does not seem totally contradictory:
(17)
Heureusement que son despotisme n'a jamais pu se manifester. Il
était incapable d'atteindre une fonction qui le lui aurait permis.
'Fortunately, his despotism could never manifest itself. He was
unable to achieve a position which would have allowed him to do
so.'
In conclusion, data presented in (11)-(17) show that DNs are ambiguous
between a dispositional and a habitual reading, and that predicates like durer
favour the latter.
Suffixes do not seem to be sensitive to the differences between DNs which
can denote habits besides dispositions and those which do not; for instance,
intelligence and inconstance are built with the same suffix. However, it is
useful to distinguish these two readings if one wants to delineate the semantic
contribution of the adjectival stem from the one of the suffixation rule. The
difference between intelligence and inconstance suggests that (i) adjectival
roots like inconstant come with a state while those like intelligent do not, and
(ii) the state is unsurprisingly introduced by the adjectival root, and not by the
suffixation rule.
Observe that stateless adjectival roots like intelligent can nevertheless be
used in state-denoting structures, as soon as another element introduces a
state. For instance, copular sentences built with these adjectives can be
modified by temporal modifiers, which suggests that a state is introduced.
(18)
Il a été intelligent pendant 6 mois et puis voilà qu'il vient de ruiner
sa carrière au complet. (Internet)
'He has been intelligent for 6 months and then suddenly he just
totally ruined his carrier.'
The difference between copular sentences and the corresponding derived
nominals indicates that with stateless adjectives, the copula, and not the
adjective, is responsible for the introduction of the state (which matches the
analysis of the copula by Rothstein 1999).
2.2.2 Two types of stage-level readings: eventive vs stative
One should also distinguish two types of temporary readings. Indeed, data
suggest that the eventive reading of DNs cannot be the only stage-level
reading that they are likely to have. For among DNs that cannot display this
eventive reading – let us call them [−EV] –, some are still acceptable in
contexts which force them to denote an episodic eventuality.
Take for instance inconstance, intelligence and discrétion. As shown in (19),
these nouns are all [−EV].
(19) (a) Pierre a fait/commis une ??discrétion/ ??inconstance/ ??intelligence.
'Pierre performed/committed a discretion/ fickleness/ intelligence.'
(b) ??Sa discrétion/ ??son inconstance/ ??son intelligence a eu lieu dans la
cuisine.
'His discretion/ fickleness took place in the kitchen.'
However, contrary to intelligence, discrétion and inconstance can embed
under episodic perception reports, cf. (20) below. Under the classical
assumption that perception reports require a predicate denoting an
eventuality, this already suggests that the DNs at hand denote states. Besides,
given that the adverbial ce matin makes clear that the perception report is
episodic, the state perceived has to be episodic too. 8, 9
8 For English, Moltmann (2010) argues that trope nominalisations in general can be
the complements of perception verbs while be+adj. never can. However, I believe that
some deadjectival nouns are better than others in perception report in English too.
Moreover, a quick search on the Internet suggests that be+ adj. is certainly not always
unacceptable under perception verbs in English.
9 I choose perception verbs which are not compatible with fact denoting NPs like the
fact that, at least with a perfect tense (cf. ?J'ai assisté au fait que... 'I witnessed the
fact that...', ??J'ai vu le fait que...'I saw the fact that...'). Verbs like remarquer 'notice'
are less reliable to test the presence of an eventuality argument, precisely because they
are compatible with fact denoting NPs. The case of être témoin de, another translation
(20) (a) Ce matin, j'ai assisté à sa discrétion/ son inconstance/??son
intelligence.
'This morning, I witnessed his discretion/ his inconstancy/ his
intelligence.'
(b) Côté toreros, nous avons assisté à une relative discrétion des figuras
(Internet)
'On the side of toreros, we witnessed a relative discretion of the
figuras.'
(c) On assiste à une inconstance [...] dans les déclarations: le chef de
l'Etat fixe un prix, le ministère du commerce fixe un autre.
(Internet)
'We witness an inconstancy [...] in the declarations: the head of the
State fixes a price, the minister of Trade fixes another.'
A second piece of evidence suggesting that [−EV] DNs like discrétion and
inconstance can have a (stative) stage-level reading is that they are
compatible with an iterative interpretation. Individual-level predicates are
generally difficult to interpret iteratively. Indeed, even if it is in principle
conceivable that an individual instantiates successively several permanent
states of the same kind, we normally tend to conceive this string of
permanent states as a unique 'big' state (normally, there is no ground to
conceive them as discrete).
The iterative interpretation of DNs like discrétion can be obtained either
through the plural morphology10, cf. (21)-(22), or through a frequency
adjective like répété, cf. (23)-(24). DNs like intelligence that lack stage-level
readings cannot be interpreted iteratively, cf. (25)-(26). Note that on this
point, intelligence differs from être intelligent, which combines with
fréquemment 'frequently' or plusieurs fois 'several times'.
of 'witness', is a bit complex. Under the first reading of témoin, paraphrasable by
'person who certifies or can certify what she has seen or heard' (definition taken from
the TLF), être témoin de seems to be compatible with fact-denoting NPs. Under the
second reading of témoin, described in the TLF as personne qui assiste à un
événement sans qu'elle soit amenée à en témoigner ('person who witnesses an event
without being lead to testify its occurrence'), être témoin de is closer to assister à.
10
In fact, it appears that the plural mrphology blocks the dispositional reading of
DNs. An evidence for this is that plural DNs do not pass the tests of the dispositional
reading proposed in footnote 7 (see e.g. Il a manifesté ??des discrétions/??des
inconstances, 'He manifested discretions/ inconstancies'.)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
Ce matin, j'ai trouvé les discrétions de notre invité plutôt suspectes.
'This morning, I found the discretions of our guest rather suspicious.'
Ses inconstances sur le terrain leur ont fait perdre le match.
'His inconstancies on the ground made them lose the match.'
Olyanne trouvait suspecte la discrétion répétée de Choelfe et Yohy:
comme s'ils parlaient peu pour ne pas se faire remarquer. (Internet)
'Olyanne found the repeated discretion of Choelfe and Yohy
suspicious: as if they talked little in order not to be noticed.'
Son inconstance répétée sur le terrain leur a fait perdre le match.
(Internet)
'His repeated inconstancy on the ground made them lose the match.'
*Ce matin, son intelligence répétée a sauvé la situation.
'This morning, his repeated intelligence saved the situation.'
*Ce matin, ses intelligences ont sauvé la situation.
'This morning, his intelligences saved the situation.'
Contexts like the one illustrated in (27) provide a third piece of evidence in
favour of the idea that among [−EV] DNs, some have a (stative) stage-level
reading.
The context of (27) indeed selects stage-level readings of DNs too: given the
anaphorical value of ce, the noun is invited to denote an eventuality v whose
event time equals the event time of the action e described in the previous
sentence. Since discrétion is [−EV], we know that the denoted eventuality v is
a state. Following Martin 2006, I will call action dependent state a state
simultaneous with an action, and through which this state manifests itself.
(27)
Alors, Pierre a choisi de se taire. Cette discrétion/
??
inconstance/??intelligence m'a étonnée.
'Then, Pierre chose to shut up. This discretion/ fickleness/
intelligence surprised me.'
This construction is interesting because it shows that DNs differ by the type
of action the denoted state requires in order to manifest itself. This will
explain why inconstance is prima facie weird in (27), although it can have a
stative stage-level reading, as seen before.
States like those denoted by discrétion can manifest themselves through a
single action, e.g. deciding to keep silent. Let us call the corresponding
adjectives and nouns 'single' action dependent state predicates.
Other states need a more complex actional chain to take place. Inconstancy,
for instance, describe a state of being variable in one's actions (opinions,
choices, etc). For variability between actions to show up, one therefore has at
least to perform several actions. A single action thus does not suffice to
manifest inconstancy. This is why inconstance is inappropriate in (27), at
least if the event time of s equals the event time of the action e expressed in
the first sentence, which is the default interpretation. The same problem
arises if the first sentence in (27) is followed by the copular sentence Il a été
inconstant, which shows that the restriction comes from the adjectival root.
Now, observe that inconstance is fine in (27) if the DN is interpreted so that s
manifests itself through an implicit chain of actions, of which e is the last and
explicit part (Paul first chose to talk, and then to shut up, and then to talk, and
then again to shut up, etc.). This stative reading is still stage-level, because
the sentence can be true even in a context where Paul does not have the
habit/disposition to be inconstant. Let us call pluraction dependent state
predicates these predicates like inconstance/ inconstant which express states
that only manifest themselves through a 'super' action made of several
actions.
In sum, it was shown in this section that two types of stage-level readings of
DNs must be differentiated, the eventive and the stative ones. Some DNs
have the eventive stage-level reading (indiscrétion), others only get the
stative stage-level one (discrétion/ inconstance vs intelligence). Under their
stative stage-level readings, DNs either express 'single action' dependent
states (discrétion) or 'pluraction' dependent states (inconstance).11
2.2.3 Between permanency and episodicity: the case of temporary
dispositions
The difference between stage-level and individual-level readings of
dispositional nouns is in some cases less easy to pin down than suggested
until now. This is particularly the case when dispositional nouns seem to be
used to refer to something like temporary dispositions, as we will see below.
Let me immediately observe that the existence of temporary dispositions is
not a contradiction in terms. For instance, moods (sadness, anxiety, etc) are
often analysed as temporary dispositions (cf. e.g. Siemer 2009). Furthermore,
it is perfectly normal to ascribe e.g. a temporary incapacity to somebody.
Other examples of (non evaluative) temporary dispositions are for instance
11
Another way to test whether a noun has a stage-level reading not explored in this
paper is to check whether it can be used in a context where an incompatible
disposition is attributed to the individual. Example: l'amabilité de Pierre n'empêche
pas qu'il soit généralement désagréable 'the kindness of Pierre does not contradict the
fact that he's generally unpleasant' (not contradictory because amabilité has a stagelevel reading) vs ??l'intelligence de Pierre n'empêche pas qu'il soit généralement
stupide 'the intelligence of Pierre does not contradict the fact that he's generally stupid'
(contradictory because intelligence doesn't has the stage-level reading).
the willing to strike, adhesivity (over once the glue has dried), radioactivity,
etc.
Moods and other temporary dispositions challenge the traditional distinction
between stage-level and individual-level properties, since they combine some
definitional properties of the two. However, I will consider that predicates
denoting temporary dispositions are nevertheless individual-level, despite the
fact that they get a transient interpretation. The main reason for this is that as
we will see, predicates denoting short dispositions/ habits behave like typical
individual-level predicates: (i) they denote (short) habits or dispositions
(what we can call tendencies) rather than action dependent states; (ii) they do
not get iterative interpretations.
Take for instance (28), provided by a reviewer:
(28)
Pierre a hurlé pendant toute la réunion. Ce despotisme n'a plu à
personne.
'Pierre shouted during the whole meeting. This despotism didn't
please anybody.'
Again, because of the demonstrative ce, the DN ce despotisme is interpreted
as referring to a transient property, taking place during the string of actions
described in the previous sentence. However, there are two reasons to believe
that despotisme nevertheless denotes a disposition in (28), and not action
dependent states like discrétion or inconstance can under their stative stagelevel reading. Firstly, despotisme cannot get an iterative interpretation in the
context of (28), cf. (29).12
(29)
Pierre a hurlé pendant toute la réunion. ??Ce despotisme répété n'a
plu à personne/ *ces despotismes n'ont plu à personne.
'Pierre shouted during the whole meeting. This repeated despotism
didn't please anybody/ these despotisms didn't please anybody.'
Secondly, despotisme seems to be difficult to use at all to describe action
dependent states, which suggests that it has a lexical bias towards the
dispositional interpretation. Take for instance (30):
(30)
J'ai demandé à entrer. Le chef m'a hurlé dessus, puis a claqué la
porte. ??Ce despotisme m'a étonné de sa part.
12
For some reason that I cannot explain, pluralizing the noun is even worse than
modifying it with répété.
'I asked to go in. The boss shouted at me and slamed the door in my
face. This despotism surprised me of him.'
Commenting two acts performed in a dictatorial way (as those described in
30) with the help of despotisme sounds strange to me. To get (30) acceptable,
I have to reinterpret despotisme as a lazy spell-out of accès de despotisme,
'fit, bout of despotism' (of course, in that case, accès provides the stage-level
reading). Besides, interpreting the DN as denoting a temporary disposition is
difficult here, because the actional chain manifesting it is somehow too short.
If the example (29) is better, it is because the actional chain is long enough to
make the 'transient disposition' reading plausible.
I conclude from (28)-(30) that even if nouns like despotisme can have
episodic readings, they then still denote dispositions, habits or tendencies
rather than action dependent states. They are thus individual level predicates,
even when interpreted episodically.
It is interesting to observe that episodic perception reports seem to reject DNs
like despotism:
(31)
??
Ce matin, j'ai assisté à son despotisme.
'This morning, I witnessed his despotism.'
This seems to indicate that episodic perception reports do not simply require
the DN to have a transient reading. Rather, they want the DN to denote either
an event, or an action dependent state.
To summarise, DNs differ from each other by the range of readings they can
have. Permanent readings: All can denote a disposition, but only a subset can
also denote habits. Transient readings: some denote events (indiscrétion),
other denote action dependent states (discrétion, inconstance), those like
despotisme can denote temporary dispositions.
The next section focuses on the role of the suffixes in the aspectual reading of
the nominalisation.
3 The aspectual value of deadjectival suffixes
As already mentioned in the introduction, the hypothesis I want to argue for
is that the most productive deadjectival suffixes have each a specific
aspectual value by which they functionally differ from each other and by
which they contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the nouns containing
them.
Evidence in favour of this claim is that the range of readings DNs have
significantly varies with the suffix chosen. Among the 170 DNs analysed
manually, all can have one or two of the permanent readings. But 100% of erie DNs have the eventive reading, while only 20,7% of -ité DNs have it,
and none of the -isme DNs. With respect to the stage level readings (stative
or eventive), all -erie DNs have it, while 68% of -ité DNs get it, and 20% of isme DNs. Of course, all nouns which have the eventive reading have a
temporary (stage-level) reading, but the reverse is not true (remember
discrétion/ inconstance, which have a temporary reading, but no eventive
one).13
Tests used for the classification were, for the eventive reading, (i) the
compatibility with faire or commettre or (ii) the compatibility with avoir lieu/
prendre place + spatial PP. For the temporary readings in general (stative or
eventive), the tests used were (i) the embeddability in episodic perception
reports, (ii) the availability of the iterative interpretation and (iii) the
possibility to denote eventualities whose temporal trace equals the one of an
event (as in discourses like 27).
I take these data to confirm again that it is useful to differentiate two types of
temporary readings, and to go against the claim that DNs are all aspectually
underspecified at the lexical level (as e.g. by Beauseroy 2009:129 for
French), since the suffix plays a role in the range of aspectual values a QN
can have.
The next subsections are devoted to the aspectual value of each of the most
productive deadjectival suffixes, namely -isme, -erie, -itude and -ité.
3.1 -isme
As a rule, DNs built with the suffix -isme exclusively denote dispositions,
habits or tendencies and thus only get individual-level readings.14 They
therefore have a strong bias towards permanency, since properties of this
kind are by default conceived as permanent. If they can nevertheless get an
episodic interpretation as e.g. despotisme in (28), they still have to denote a
disposition.
A first evidence for this claim that in general, -isme DNs cannot get an
iterative interpretation: firstly, virtually no -isme DN can be pluralized, cf.
13 I found no test who would distinguish the stative temporary reading from the
eventive one, and I am not even sure that such test exists (given that there is not
equivalent of the progressive in the nominal domain).
14
According to Rita Manzini (p.c.), what I claim for French -isme DNs seems to be
true for Italian -ismo DNs.
(32a); secondly, only few of them (e.g. optimisme, angélisme, or héroïsme)
can be modified by répété, cf. (32b) vs (32c):
(32) (a) * Les despotismes/ infantilismes/ frénétismes/ érotismes/ égoïsmes/
diabolismes/ cynismes/ drôlismes/ crétinismes / crapulismes/
coquettismes/ arrivismes/ optimismes/ héroïsmes/ angélismes...de
Pierre.
'The despotisms/ childishnesses/ frenetisms/ erotisms/ égoïsms/
diabolisms/ cynicisms/ funny-isms/ cretinisms/ scoundrel-isms/
coquettish-isms/ carrierisms/ optimisms/ héroïsms/ angelisms... of
Pierre.'
??
(b)
Son despotisme / infantilisme/ frénétisme/ érotisme/ égoïsme/
drôlisme/
diabolisme/
cynisme/
crétinisme/
crapulisme/
coquettisme/ arrivisme ... répété.
'His repeated despotism, ...'
(c)
votre optimisme répété concernant les recettes prévisionnelles
(Internet)
'your repeated optimism with regard to the projected takings'
The rule of suffixation must be responsible of this constraint, since often,
competing DNs derived from the same adjectival stems but with another
suffix accept the iterative interpretation. For instance, DNs built with the
suffixes -erie or -age in (33) can be pluralized and modified by répété.
(33)
(a)
(b)
Ses crétineries/ coquetteries/ drôleries/ enfantillages
'Her scoundrel-eries/ coquettish-eries/ funny-eries/ childisheries.'
Sa crétinerie/ coquetterie/ drôlerie/ son enfantillage répété(e)
'Her repeated scoundrel-erie/ coquettish-erie/ funny-erie/
childish- erie.'
A second evidence for the claim that -isme DNs are always individual-level
and thus cannot denote action dependent states is that they are strange in
episodic perception reports, cf. (34b) vs (34a). (Note that again, optimisme,
héroïsme and angélisme do not follow the general pattern of -isme DNs and
are acceptable in the context provided in 34).
(34)
(a)
Ce matin, j'ai assisté à sa crétinerie/ coquetterie/ drôlerie/ son
enfantillage.
'This morning, I witnessed her scoundrel-erie/ coquettish-erie/
funnyerie/ childish-erie.'
(b)
??
Ce matin, j'ai assisté à son crétinisme/ coquettisme/
drôlisme/ infantilisme.
'This morning, I witnessed her scoundrel-isme/ coquettishisme/ funny-isme/ childish-isme.'
Thirdly, when attached to adjectival stems which preferentially have a
temporary reading like nu 'naked', -isme makes the individual-level reading
of the derived noun compulsory. For instance, nudisme 'nudism' has to refer
to a disposition rather than to a particular state, which is well rendered by its
German translation Nacktkultur.
In conclusion, -isme tends to univocally attribute the individual-level reading
to the deadjectival noun, including with adjectival stems which could in
principle be attributed other readings, or preferentially have a stage-level
reading.15 As we saw in the previous section about despotisme, -isme DNs
can nevertheless get transient interpretations, but they still denote
dispositions, habits or stable tendencies in that case, rather than action
dependent states.
The exact scope of the claim remains to be evaluated though. We already
pointed out that DNs like optimisme falsify what seems to us to be the
general rule (they can be used to denote action dependent states). A more
systematic analysis of -isme DNs remains to be done to evaluate how
exceptional are these nouns.
3.2. -erie
15 Note that this property of -isme seems to extend to -iste. For instance, there is no
entailment from (i) to (ii), because being in favour of X does not entail that I am a Xist – indeed, X-ist implies that I am permanently in favour of X.
(i)
Pierre est favorable à la suspension./ 'Pierre is in favour of the
suspension.'
(ii)
Pierre est suspensionniste./'Pierre is suspension-iste.'
That -iste has this value too explains why -iste adjectives are odd with the present
perfect and a temporary adverbial (Ce matin, Pierre a été favorable à la suspension
'This morning, Peter was in favour of the suspension' vs. ??Ce matin, Pierre a été
suspensionniste 'This morning, Pierre was suspension-iste'). However, there are again
exceptions to this tendency, cf. e.g. optimiste 'optimist', which does not trigger any
pragmatic oddity with the present perfect.
Note that among the three models of -isme derivations distinguished by Roché (2011),
DNs systematically instantiate Model 3 (the 'be' model), and nouns like
suspensionnisme 'prosuspension' instantiate Model 1, in which -isme Ns are based on
the predicative axiological relation to be favorable to N.
Any dispositional noun composed with the 'abstract' -erie suffix (as opposed
to the locative one found e.g. in brasserie 'brassery') has an eventive
reading.16 This suffix can not only attach to adjectival stems, but also to
nominal ones as in ânerie 'stupidity/ rubbish', derived from âne 'donkey'. The
eventive reading is also the only reading that any -erie noun can have,
included neologisms. I take this as an indication of the fact that this reading is
the basic one.
Given that most stems of -erie nouns do not have an eventive reading by
themselves – evaluative adjectives do not have it, cf. section 2.1 and nouns
like âne certainly do not either – the rule of suffixation in -erie must be the
element that introduces the event argument.
Interestingly, the stem cannot systematically predicate an event, cf. (35).
(35)
(a)
(b)
# Son acte/ ce qu'il a fait est gredin (OK est une gredinerie)
'His act/ what he did is mischievous (is a mischievous-erie).'
# Son acte/ ce qu'il a fait est fainéant (OK est une fainéanterie)
'His act/ what he did is lazy (is a lazy-erie).'
This suggests that -erie nouns on the eventive reading cannot be paraphrased
by “event which is P”, P being the stem (this is one of the possible meanings
discussed by Drapeau and Boulanger 1982). A more appropriate paraphrase
is something like 'event involving an entity x which is P'.
That -erie works as an “eventizer” is perhaps related to the presence of the
infinitival morpheme -er in its composition. In fact, according to some
authors, -er is etymologically present in -erie (cf. Bécherel 1981), but it
seems hard to prove. However, whatever its etymology is, it might be that -er
is perceived as the infinitival morpheme in the suffix by speakers of French.
Nouns in -erie also have an individual-level reading, that I assume to be
derived from the basic eventive reading by a mechanism like coercion. That
the permanent reading is not basic is confirmed by the fact that the eventivity
of -erie still surfaces when it is selected. Indeed, when -erie Ns are used to
describe a permanent property, there is a tendency to assume that this
property is actualised through concrete events. In other words, under their
individual-level reading, -erie Ns are rather interpreted as habit-denoting than
disposition-denoting nouns (as delineated in Section 2.2.1). This is not the
case of the permanent reading expressed by -ité or -isme nouns. This intuition
is difficult to illustrate, but the contrasts in (36) and (37) are an attempt:
16
Temple (1996) provides at least some non-dispositional nouns which do not have an
eventive reading, namely bessonnerie, or nouns denoting a type of activity like
hôtellerie. On the history of -erie, see e.g. the in-depth study of Hüning (1999).
(36a) and (37a) are not contradictory because they denote 'classical'
dispositions, that individuals can have without instantiating them in concrete
manifestations, while (36b) and (37b) are.
(36)
(a)
(b)
(37)
(a)
(b)
Sa sensibilité n'a jamais vraiment l'occasion de se manifester.
'His sensible-ité never really has the opportunity to manifest
itself.'
??
Sa sensiblerie n'a jamais vraiment l'occasion de se
manifester.
'His sensible-erie never really has the opportunity to manifest
itself.'
Heureusement, sa tendance maniaque n'a jamais l'occasion de
se manifester.
''Fortunately, his maniac tendency never has the opportunity to
manifest itself.'
??
Heureusement, sa maniaquerie n'a jamais l'occasion de
se manifester.
''Fortunately, his maniac-erie tendency never has the
opportunity to manifest itself.'
Interestingly, Daude (2002) already contrasts the Latin suffixes -ia from
which -erie is derived and -tas (the ancestor of -ité) in a similar way. He
claims that -ia Quality Nouns “are not completely abstract” because they
“summarise a set of manifestations” of the quality, and are typically
attributed to the individual on the basis of these concrete instantiations. This
is how the habitual reading is distinguished from the dispositional one: it is
an inductive generalisation inferred from observed behaviors.
3.3 -itude
According to our searches in corpora, -itude is one of the most productive
deadjectival suffixes, which suggests that Bécherel (1981)'s claim that this
suffix is unproductive is not correct or at least no longer valid.17 The idea that
17 I discarded from the counting neologisms in -itude like intelligentitude,
constantitiude or incongruitude, rejected by my informants, and exclusively used as a
parody of the politician Ségolène Royal in her use of bravitude instead of bravoure in
2007 and at the source of a big media buzz (one million hits on Google, cf.
http;//en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bravitude_climbing_fast_on_Google). One could argue
that Royal's neologism emulates the use of this suffix, but the fact she produced it
could also be seen as the reflection of the productivity of -itude at that time.
-itude enjoys a revival is also argued by Koehl (2012a, 2012b), on the basis
of much larger corpora than mine.
A specificity of -itude DNs is that they must denote a property of animates
(as opposed to objects or events). This has already been observed by Rainer
(1989:312) for the Italian suffix -itudine, cf. his examples (38).
(38) (a) La gratitudine di Paolo verso Paola/??della tua visita.
La gratitude de Paolo envers Paola/??de ta visite.
'The grateful-itude of Paolo towards Paola/of your visit.'
(b) La rettitudina di Paolo/ ??della tua pronuncia.
La rectitude de Paolo/ ??de ta prononciation.
'The straight-itude of Paolo/ of your pronunciation.'
(c)
Besides, like -isme Ns, -itude ones do not easily get stage-level readings
(eventive or stative), cf. (39)-(40). Observe that this is not always true of the
corresponding adjectival stem (for instance, être con 'to be stupid' certainly
has a stage-level reading).
(39) (a) Sa connitude est sans bornes.
(Internet)
'His stupid-itude is infinite.'
(b) J'ai vu/ assisté à sa connerie/# connitude.
'I saw/ witnessed his stupid -erie/ stupid -itude.'
(c) Il a fait une connerie/ # une connitude.
'He made a stupid -erie/ a stupid -itude.'
(40) (a) Notre potentiel d'inhumanitude me dégoûte.
(Internet)
'Our potential of inhuman-itude disgusts me.'
(b) Il a commis une inhumanité (#inhumanitude) et une injustice plus
grande que celle du précédent.
(Internet)
'He committed a inhuman-ité (inhuman-itude) and an injustice
greater than the former.'
On the individual-level reading, -itude DNs have a particular flavour which
distinguishes them from -ité or -erie Ns on the same reading. This specificity
of -itude nouns has been observed at several places. Bécherel (1981) claims
that -itude Ns are more 'concrete' than corresponding -ité ones; the same
intuition is reflected in Senghor's words about Césaire's use of négritude,
which he finds 'more concrete' than négrité (Senghor 1977). For Latin, Daude
(2002) claims that -tudo (from which -itude is derived) actualises more than tas (which is more abstract), and suggests an exercise, a putting into a
practice: “nomina qualitatis in -tudo tend to express traits of character or
dispositions determining a behaviour” (italics and translation mines). Daude's
claim about Latin is echoed in the Wikipedia entry devoted to the French
suffix: '-itude serves to form words implying the idea of an attitude, a pose
explicitly adopted, in opposition to the intrinsic […] quality designated by the
noun or adjectival stem' (translation mine).
I claim that this value of -itude comes from the fact that the semantics of the
words habitude and attitude is transferred to the -itude suffixation process, so
that these Ns end up with denoting habits/ ways of being/ regular behaviours,
that is more concrete entities than dispositions (cf. Section 2.2.1). In other
words, the idea is that we deal here with an instance of what Rainer (2005)
calls irradiation after Bréal (1892:20), that is a transfer of a semantic feature
from a word meaning to a word formation meaning.18 A first indication of
this is that users of neologisms in -itude sometimes overtly link their lexical
creation to the words of attitude or habitude, cf. e.g. (41):
(41)
“L'humanitude”, une attitude partagée, comme une nouvelle façon
de vivre ensemble.
(Internet)
“The human-itude”, a shared attitude, like a new way to live
together.
Moreover, -itude DNs are more appropriate than -ité ones to univocally
denote behaviours or habits. For instance, belgitude translates the concept of
Belgisch Sein – Belgian ways of being, of behaving, Belgian habits, etc. –
much better than belgicité, which can also simply describe the property of
having the Belgian nationality. This second reading is not available to
belgitude. For instance, belgitude cannot be attributed to somebody who has
the Belgian nationality but never lived in Belgium and doesn't know anything
about Belgian habits and culture.
To summarise, -itude DNs denote habits and attitudes. This explains why
they are [+ANIM] (inanimates do not have habits or attitudes). It perhaps
also explains why these DNs are preferrably interpreted as individual-level
predicates – at least habits need time to take place.
3.4 -ité
18 Rainer (2005) also claims that -itude nouns are an example of irradiation. But
according to him, the 'irradiating' words are not habitude and attitude, but rather nègre
'neger' and servitude, whose semantics 'contaminates' the -itude word process
formation through the word négritude, so that -itude Ns ended up designating
oppressed social groups and their emancipatory aspirations. However, although this
semantic path might be correct for a subset of -itude nouns directly created on
Césaire's model, it does not capture the differences between ethnic nouns like
belgitude/ belgicité, nor between Ns like humanitude and humanité.
Although -ité is less used than -itude among neologisms, it is the most
frequent one if one considers dictionary words and neologisms altogether,
(with a total of 22,5% of all Ns examined). This confirms Koehl's (2009)
study on the distribution of deadjectival suffixes. It is also the most
underspecified suffix, since -ité nouns can in principle have any of the
readings delineated in the previous section. What is specific to -ité compared
to the three other productive suffixes analysed above is that it does not seem
to contribute by itself to the aspectual value of the created noun. The
aspectual readings of the derived noun is much more dependent from the
readings displayed by the adjectival base. The permanent reading of
dispositional nouns is always salient because the adjectival stem from which
they derive systematically have a dispositional reading. For instance, un
homme loyal 'a loyal man' preferably denotes a man which has the disposition
to be loyal. And loyauté 'loyalty' unsurprisingly has a preference for the
dispositional reading. For instance, la loyauté de cet homme m'a surpris 'the
loyalty of this man surprised me' is by default understood as the expression of
surprise about an individual-level property. But facts differ if we take an
adjectival root that preferrably selects the stage-level reading. For instance,
un homme nu 'a naked man' preferrably describes a man which is temporarily
naked. And la nudité de cet homme m'a surpris 'the nakedness of this man
surprised me' is by default understood as the expression of surprise about a
stage-level property. (That nudité has difficulties to get the individual level
reading is also confirmed by the oddity of une manifestation de nudité 'a
manifestation of nakedness'.) In other words, -ité does not seem to carry its
own aspectual feature. It is the unmarked form chosen for unmarked
situations, while -itude, -erie and -isme are marked forms for marked
situations – an example of a more general tendency that Horn (1984) calls
“division of pragmatic labour”.
4. Summary and open questions
The analysis argued for in the previous sections can be summarised as
follows. Dispositional nouns and the adjectival stems from which they derive
do not have exactly the same aspectual readings. The affix is partly
responsible for this semantic switch. Let us see how the analysis provided for
each suffix can be summarized.
On the semantic side, I simply assume here that DNs like intelligence denote
properties, although this is not crucial for my argumentation. Assuming that
adjectival stems are property-denoting too, the suffixes at hand are thus
defined as functions that map properties to properties, (are of type <<e,t>,
<e,t>>). The differences in the denotation between the four types of nouns
can be summarised as follows. The suffix -ité is the unmarked productive
suffi and can form Ns with any kind of aspectual interpretation. The suffix isme tends to force the deadjectival noun to have a dispositional reading (but
it remains to be evaluated how frequent are the exceptions to this rule). The
suffix -erie imposes a preference for the eventive reading, but is compatible
with any other readings although, under the permanent reading, -erie nouns
tend to denote habits rather than dispositions. The suffix -itude forces the
noun to denote habits or attitudes and thereby imposes the features of
permanency and animacy.
There are many points raised by deadjectival suffixes and nouns that this
work does not address. Firstly, it would be interesting to look at pseudowords combining a deadjectival suffix that I claim to be productive with
another non-productive suffix. According to Kiparsky's (1982) distinction
among suffixes according to their level of attachment, suffixes which are
non-productive, semantically idiosyncratic and structure-changing ('level 1'
suffixes) cannot be appended to a stem containing a suffix which is
productive and phonologically neutral ('level 2' suffixes). If the classification
proposed here is right, the deadjectival suffixes -isme, -itude, -erie and -ité
should be level 2 suffixes (and note that Kiparsky classifies the English suffix
-ism as such), while -ance, -esse, -eur, -ie, -ice and -ion should be level 1
suffixes. If we combine a level 1 suffix with a level 2 one to an adjectival
pseudo stem, it is predicted that the pseudo-noun where the level 1 suffix is
attached to the stem before the level 2 one is appended should sound better
than the corresponding pseudo-word that combines the suffixes in the reverse
order. This seems a priori correct; if we take for instance the pseudo
adjective lougnon, the corresponding noun lougnonesserie sounds 'more
French' than the noun lougnoneriesse. But this should be investigated more
carefully, through psycholinguistic experiments.19 Secondly, I have simply
assumed that deadjectival nouns denote properties and have not discussed the
other options that have been proposed elsewhere, namely that these nouns
denote kinds of tropes20 (Moltmann 2004) or abstract substances (Villalba
2009). The pro and contra of an extension of their analyses to French remain
to be evaluated. Thirdly, I mainly focused on dispositional nouns and have
19
The idea of the experiment briefly described here is taken from a research proposal
called Do competing suffixes differ by their meaning? A study in experimental
morphopragmatics, written in 2010 by Nicolas Dumay (BBCL, San Sebastian) and
Fabienne Martin (Stuttgart).
20 As Villalba 2009:139 (note 1) observes, the extension of Moltmann's analysis to
Romance languages is problematic because it is grounded on the fact that bare nouns
in English can be kind denoting, which is not the case in Spanish or French.
not systematically investigated the role of the suffixes with other kinds of
nouns. Fourthly, the role of the plural in the interpretation should be
systematically investigated. With some nouns but not with others, the plural
is required for the event reading to appear (see e.g. Pierre a fait ??une/OKdes
politesse(s), 'Pierre made one/sm act(s) of politeness'). However, this is never
the case with -erie nouns, which might be related to the fact that -erie forms
collective nouns, as suggested by Spitzer 1931:30, cited by Temple
1996:145-146. Fifthly, the factors at play in the emergence of the event
reading should be identified. Obviously, some pragmatic factors are involved,
since in general, negative nouns get the eventive reading more easily than the
corresponding positive nouns (cp. faire des OKmaladresses/??des adresses, des
OK
malhonnêtetés/??des honnêtetés, des OKbêtises/??des intelligences). Finally,
I haven't systematically looked at the distribution of frequency adjectives
with the nouns I focused on. Only some nouns are acceptable with constant,
and this seems to depend partly on the suffix chosen (cf. son cynisme/
infantilisme constant 'his constant cynism/ childishness', sa constante nudité
'his constant nakedness' vs ??son constant nudisme 'his constant nudism'). A
noun like habitude seems to be combined with fréquent (but then, it isn't the
habit which is frequent, but rather its instantiations), but it is not with répété,
cf. une habitude fréquente ' a frequent habit' vs une ??habitude répétée 'a
repeated habit'. A deeper investigation of the distribution of frequency
adjectives with deadjectival nouns would probably be useful for their
semantic analysis.
References
Alexejenko, S. 2009. “Dispositional generics as in-virtue-of generalizations”.
Presentation to the conference Genericity 2, Paris ENS, May 2009.
Alexiadou, A. 2001. Functional structures in nominals: nominalization and
ergativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.
Barker, C. 2002. “The Dynamics of Vagueness”. Linguistics and Philosophy,
25:1–36.
Beauseroy, D. 2009. Syntaxe et sémantique des noms abstraits statifs : des
propriétés verbales ou adjectivales aux propriétés nominales. PhD thesis,
Université de Nancy.
Beauseroy, D., M.-L. Knittel. 2007. “Nombre et détermination. Le cas des
noms de qualité”. Revista di linguistica, 2:231–262.
Boneh, N., E. Doron. 2008. “Habituality and the habitual aspect”, in
Rothstein, S. (ed), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the
semantics of aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 321-347.
Bréal, M. 1892. “De l’irradiation grammaticale”. Mémoires de la Société de
linguistique de Paris, 7:20–23.
Bécherel, D. 1981. “Différenciation morpho-sémantique des suffixes
nominalisateurs de l’adjectif”. Cahiers de lexicologie, 38:45–59.
Campbell, K. 1990. Abstract particulars. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, O. 1975. “On generics”, in Keenan, E. (ed), Formal Semantics of
Natural Language. London & New-York: Cambridge University Press, 99112.
Dal, G. & F. Namer. 2010. “Les noms en -ance/-ence du français: quel(s)
patron(s) constructionnel(s)? ”, in Neveu, F. et al. (eds), Actes en ligne du
2ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 893-907.
Daude, J. 2002. “Les substantifs abstraits de qualité”, in Kircher-Durand, C.
(ed), Grammaire fondamentale du latin, t. IX. La création lexicale : la
formation des noms par dérivation suffixale, Pleuven/Paris: Peeters, 225-305.
Dubois, J. 1962. Etude sur la dérivation suffixale en français moderne. Paris:
Nathan.
Drapeau, L., A. Boulanger, 1982. “Les suffixes -erie en français populaire”.
Revue québécoise de linguistique, 11(2):73–91.
Ferret, K., E. Soare, F. Villoing. 2011. “Rivalry between French -age and -ée:
the role of grammatical aspect in nominalization”, in Aloni, M., H.
Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, K. Schulz, K. (eds), Logic, language and meaning,
Amsterdam/New-York: Springer, 284-294.
Fernald, T. 1999. “Evidential coercion: Using individual-level predicates in
stage-level environments”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29/1:43–63.
Godard, D. & J. Jayez. 1994. “Types nominaux et anaphores: le cas des
objets et des événements”, Cahiers Chronos, 1:41-58.
Geuder, W. 2000. Oriented adverbs. PhD thesis, Universität Tuebingen.
Haas, P., R. Marín, F. Tayalati. 2007. “Les adjectifs de comportement sont
dynamiques et agentifs”. XXV Congrès international de linguistique et de
philologie romane, Innsbruck.
Hathout, N., L. Tanguy. 2002. “Webaffix: un outil d’acquisition
morphologique dérivationnelle à partir du web”, in Proceedings of Taln
2002, Nancy, 24-27 June 2002.
Horn, L. 1984. “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based
and R-based implicatures”, in Schiffrin (ed), Meaning, form and use in
context, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 11-42.
Hüning, M. 1999. Woordensmederij. De geschiedenis van het suffix -erij.
PhD Thesis, Universiteit Leiden.
Koehl, A. 2009. “Are French -ité suffixed nouns property nouns? ”, in
Montermini, F., G. Boyé & J. Tseng (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 6th
Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project; 95-110.
Koehl, A. 2012. “The second life of French -itude suffixation”, talk presented
to the 15th International Morphology Meeting (IMM15), Vienna.
Koehl, A. To appear. “Altitude, négritude, bravitude ou la résurgence d’une
suffixation”, in Actes du Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
(CMLF2012).
Kiparsky, P. 1982, “Lexical Morphology and Phonology”, in Yang, I. (ed),
Linguistics in the morning calm, Seoul: Hanshin, 3-91.
Kratzer, A. 1995. “Stage-level and individual-level predicates”, in Carlson,
G. & F. Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 125-175.
Krifka, M, F. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Chierchia, and G. Link.
1995. “Introduction”, in Carlson, G. & G. Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book.
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1-24.
Martin, F. 2008. Les prédicats statifs. Etude sémantique et pragmatique.
Bruxelles: Duculot/de Boeck.
Menéndez-Benito, P. 2012. “On Dispositional Sentences”, in Mari, A., C.
Beyssade and F. del Prete (eds), Genericity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meunier, A. 1981. Nominalisations d'adjectifs par verbes supports. PhD
Thesis, Université Paris 7.
Milner, J.-C. 1982. Ordres et raisons de langue, Paris: Seuil.
Moltmann, F. 2004. “Properties and kind of tropes: new linguistic facts and
old philosophical insights”. Mind, 123/1:1–41.
Rainer, F. 1988. “Towards a theory of blocking: the case of Italian and
German quality nouns” in van Maarle, J. G. Booij (eds), Yearbook of
Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications
Rainer, F. 1989. I nomi di qualità nell’italiano contemporaneo. Vienna:
Braumüller.
Rainer, F. 2005. “Semantic change in word formation”. Linguistics,
43/2:415–441.
Roché, M. 2011. “Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en
iste?” in Roché, M., G. Boyé, N. Hathout, S. Lignon, M. Plénat, Des unités
morphologiques au lexique. Paris/Londres: Hermès Lavoisier.
Rothstein, S. 2011. “Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: the
semantics of predicative adjective phrases and be”. Natural Language
Semantics 7/4:347-420.
Siemer, M. 2009. “Mood experience: Implications of a dispositional theory
of moods”. Emotion Review 1/3:256)263.
Spitzer, L. 1931. “Warum ersetz frz. -erie (dtsch -erei) das alte -ie (-ei),
Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 51, 70-75.
Tanguy, L., N. Hathout. 2007. Perl pour les linguistes. Programmes en Perl
pour exploiter les données langagières, Paris/Londres: Hermès Lavoisier.
Temple, M. 1996. Pour une sémantique des mots construits, Lille: Presses du
Septentrion.
Uth, M. 2011. Abstrakte Bedeutung und regelhafte Wortbildung.
Französische Ereignisnominalisierungen auf -age und -ment. Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.
Villalba, X. 2009. “Definite adjective nominalizations in Spanish”, in
Espinal, M. T., M. Leonetti, M., L. McNally (eds), Proceedings of the IV
Nereus International Workshop ’Definiteness and DP structure in romance
languages. Universität Konstanz. Arbeitspapier 12x Fachbereich
Sprachwissenschaft.
Appendix
Below are listed all dictionary words (DWs) and neologisms (Ns) taken into
account for the study.
-erie DWs: balourderie, bizarrerie, bouderie, bouffonnerie, brusquerie, chicanerie,
cocasserie, connerie, coquetterie, coquinerie,crânerie, crapulerie, crétinerie,
dégueulasserie, drôlerie, effronterie, espièglerie, faroucherie, finauderie,flagornerie,
flatterie, folâtrerie, fourberie, gaminerie, grognonerie, hautainnerie, ignarerie,
imbécilerie
-erie Ns: bestialerie, bonhommerie, candiderie, cinglerie, cuculerie, cupiderie,
férocerie, fouinerie, fragilerie, génialerie, grand-guignolerie, grandioserie,
honnêterie,
honterie,
ignoblerie,
immonderie
indignerie,
infamerie,
innocenterie,insolenterie, ironerie, jovialerie
-isme DWs: angélisme arrivisme, artisme, barbarisme, coquettisme, crétinisme,
cynisme, despotisme, diabolisme, égoïsme,érotisme, extatisme, frénétisme, hirsutisme,
humanisme, idiotisme, immoralisme, infantilisme, intégrisme, ironisme
-isme Ns: amicalisme, asocialisme, attentivisme, avarisme, balourdisme, bestialisme,
bizarrisme, bonhommisme, bouffonisme,candi(di)sme, colérisme, coquettisme,
coquinisme, crapulisme, cuculisme, drôlisme fanfaronisme,farouchisme, faussisme,
fébrilisme, férocisme, fidélisme, fragilisme, grand-guignolisme, grognonisme,
honnêtisme, hontisme, horribilisme, hostilisme, ignarisme, imbécilisme, immondisme,
impatientisme, impudisme,impulsivisme, incongruisme, indignisme, inhumanisme,
innocentisme, insolentisme, intelligentisme, jovialisme
-ité DWs: acerbité; affabilité, agilité, amabilité, amicalité, anxiété, asocialité,
atrocité, avidité, banalité, bestialité, bonté ,brutalité, causticité, convivialité,
cordialité, coriacité, cruauté, créduliténcrudité, culpabilité, cupidité, curiosité,
déloyauté, docilité, dureté, émotivité, étrangeté, excentricité, explosivité, expressivité,
exquisité, fausseté, fébrilité, férocité, fidélité, fierté, fragilité, frivolité, grandiosité,
honnêteté, hostilité, humanité, ignobilité, immoralité, impériosité, impétuosité,
importunité, impulsivité, incapacité, incongruité, incrédulité, indignité, indocilité,
inexorabilité, infidélité, inflexibilité, ingéniosité, ingénuité, inhumanité, insensibilité,
intégrité, intensité, intrépidité, invincibilité, invulnérabilité, irascibilité, irrationalité,
irritabilité, jovialité
-ité Ns: angélicité, astuciosité, attentivité, avarité, bizarrité, candidité, capriciosité,
costaudité, cocassité, comicité,conscienciosité, coquinité, craintivité, crétinité,
déliciosité, désagréabilité, fantasticité, fêtardité, formidabilité,froidité, furiosité,
gaminité, génialité, grognonité, hidosité, horribilité, ignarité, immondité, infamité,
-itude DWs: certitude, habitude, incertitude, ingratitude, rectitude
-itude Ns: abjectitude, acariâtritude, acerbitude, artistitude, asocialitude, atrocitude,
banalitude, bestialitude, bétitude, bouffonitude, cocassitude, comicitude coquinitude,
coriacitude, cruelitude, cuculitude, cupiditude, faiblitude,fainéantitude, farouchitude,
faussitude, férocitude, fidélitude, fiertitude, formidabilitude, fragilitude, froiditude,
génialitude, grandiositude, granditude, hautainitude, hilaritude, hirsutitude,
horribilitude, humanitude, humilitude, fidiotitude, ignarditude, ignobilitude,
imbécilitude, immoralitude, incongruitude, indignitude, infamitude, inhumanitude,
intégritude, ironitude, jovialitude
other Ns: abominance, admirance, affirmance, hésitance, fascinance, agilance,
furibardise, fêtardise, froussardise
-ance DWs: ambivalence, bienveillance, clairvoyance, clémence, complaisance,
condescendance, confiance, constance, déliquescence, désobligeance, diligence,
distance, effervescence, élégance, extravagance, exubérance, impertinence,
impuissance, inclémence, incohérence, incompétence, inconscience, inconstance,
inconvenance, indécence, indépendance, indifférence, indolence, inélégance,
innocence, intelligence, intempérance, intolérance, malveillance, pertinence,
puissance
-esse DWs: grandesse, humblesse, faiblesse, indélicatesse, politesse, impolitesse,
finesse, faiblesse, délicatesse, allégresse, adresse
-eur DWs: impudeur, candeur, froideur, fureur, hideur, laideur; impudeur, ferveur,
douceur, chaleur, candeur
-ice/ -ise DWs: avarice, fainéantise, bêtise, justice, franchise, faiblardise, couardise,
-ie DWs: ironie, barbarie, idiotie, infâmie, bonhommie,jalousie; folie, félonie,
euphorie, discourtoisie, courtoisie,
-ion DWs: attention, abjection, introversion, indécision, précision, imprécision,
indiscrétion, discrétion, dévôtion, correction, confusion, compréhension,
circonspection, ambition, affection.