Talk:Adjective phrase

Planned changes for entry as part of class project

This entry will be edited for style and content as part of a linguistics class project at UBC (Ling300, 2017wT1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM Dechaine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rosemary. I now note the following: University of British Columbia, Rosemary Dechaine, class on linguistics with undergraduates, mainly juniors. I suggest adding a few informative sentences to your user page providing this information. You could provide a list of the pages being edited by your students and links to those pages. My concern with this sort of project is the same as it was last time, a couple of years ago. Because they are beginning linguists, they simply parrot information that they find or are given. Thus if, for instance, they are given or pointed to information about a specific framework, they fill up Wikipedia with information about that one specific framework. That is what I experienced last time your students participated in this sort of project. They lack an overview of the field that is necessary to write balanced Wikipedia articles.--Tjo3ya (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Content removed from article

Discussion of vulgar and marginally relevant former content

It looks like it might be copyrighted, like from the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest or something. --LDC Do adj. phrases necesarily need to start with an adj? (struggling to think of an example)... -- Tarquin Adjectival phrases, more properly adjective phrases are prepositional phrases that modifies a noun or pronoun. In "tightness of sleep", the "of sleep" is an adjective phrase. I think it's the only one in the passage. The other kinds are participial phrases, gerund phrases, infinitive phrases and apposite phrases, according to the first grammar book at hand.Ortolan88 Every sentence in this example begins with a gerund phrase, but they're all adverbial rather than adjectival. --LDC modifies nouns, and adjectives..

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Adjective phrase" is more common on Google Web Search, Google Book Search, and Google Scholar, and nearly always has the same sense; "adjectival phrase" is less common, and often refers to any phrase that modifies a noun (including a noun-modifying prepositional phrase). —Ruakh_TALK 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a British/American language issue? I'm from the UK, and have only ever heard "adjectival phrase," not "adjective phrase." Mtford 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Adjective phrase" does appear to be more widely used, but not by that much, so I weak support it. Other articles with the word adjectival: List of adjectival forms of place names and Predicative (adjectival or nominal), though I don't think these need renaming as they sound better (not a good reason, but I think either works). –Pomte 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Not only is there only weak support, but if this is a British-American difference, then it should not be changed. --Stemonitis 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict

The article is in conflict with itself. At its current state, it is confusing. --114.241.30.19 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. More than that, much of it is flat wrong. That includes all the example sentences, none of which contain adjective phrases or manage to demonstrate what adjective phrases are. "without a friend" is a prepositional phrase, "kind" is an adjective in a noun phrase, and "of kindly nature" is another prepositional phrase. --Gastogh (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen two definitions of "adjectival phrase". One is any phrase that modifies a noun, whether attributively or predicatively. Such phrases may be prepositional phrases. For example, in an on-again-off-again relationship, on again off again is an adjectival phrase. The OED quotes sources giving beat-up as an adjectival phrase, as well as in grain, of (great, little, any) moment, in mourning,

But they say that out of X is only an adjective phrase when used attributively, as in a curious out-of-the-way place, not when used predicatively as in the place lies rather out of the way. If that's true (and it would seem to conflict with their identification of of great moment as being an adj. phrase, since some of their examples are predicative), then "adjective phrase" in this sense is merely an attributive phrase, and IMO this article should be moved to that name.

The other definition I've seen is a phrase where the part of speech of the head is adjective. For example, much quicker than I was and fond of animals.

I have no idea how valid or widespread these competing definitions are. The first does seem to be related to the "simplification" that calls all attributive noun modifiers "adjectives". — kwami (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language, which is IMHO the greatest authority on (morpho)syntactical theory, defines the adjective phrase as a phrase which has an adjective as headword. The adj. phrase can consist of only the head, but it can also have a modifier (= an adverb, usually before the head - "very pretty") and/or a complement (= prepositional phrase or V-ing clauses or that-clauses - "happy about the news", "happy that you came" etc.) Dejanm83 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way the two uses can be distinguished as phrasal adjective vs adjectival phrase, or are those synonymous?

Looks like we should cover both. Or all three, I guess.

For more precise wording, I suppose the other two would be 'phrasal modifier' & 'phrasal attributive'. — kwami (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

wtf

For me this article was very confusing and I could not even pay attention while reading the first sentence. Could someone please simplify this? I woul appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat8707 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent revision

Kwami,

This article should carry the title "adjective phrase". That is what grammar and syntax textbooks call these phrases. The three sources in footnote 1 use this term (not "adjectival phrase"). Furthermore, the discussion above on this talk page indicates that "adjective phrase" is indeed the more common term. For me, the term "adjectival phrase" can only denote a phrase that functions like an adjective but that strictly speaking does not contain an adjective.

I have no objection to that. (I didn't object to the move, only that you left the page history stranded.) — kwami (talk)

Concerning the three paragraphs that you have reinserted into the article, the information from the first now appears in the introduction. So that first paragraph should be removed entirely to avoid redundancy. The second paragraph and third paragraph are not sourced. For them to remain, they should each receive at least one good citation.

Then please cite them for sourcing. I don't have time to do anything now, and may not for a while. — kwami (talk)

Your claim that Turkish and Japanese do not have adjectives is not backed up by the articles here in Wikipedia on Turkish and Japanese grammar. Both of the articles use the term "adjective" to describe a word class in the respective language. Concerning Japanese, I am checking further with a very knowledgeable source. I will post here what I find out. --Tjo3ya (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just sloppy usage, like calling "my lady" a pronoun. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now checked. Japanese definitely has adjectives. --Tjo3ya (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not. It has a class of stative verbs that are sometimes called adjectives, as well as nouns compounded with the copula which are also sometimes called adjectives, but apart from the possible exception of the irregular word onaji "same", no actual word class of adjectives. (And it would be a little odd to have a word class for a single lexeme.) — kwami (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have conflicting information. I have now corresponded with an expert on Japanese syntax and morphology. This person has stated firmly that Japanese has adjectives. I see, however, that this article here in Wikipedia claims that Japanese does not have adjectives in the "syntactic sense", whatever that means. I also see, however, that the article lacks key citations. It does not point to established sources when it makes the claim that Japanese does not really have adjectives.

Perhaps the issue in Japanese is similar to what we have in English with forms like terrified, upset, annoyed, etc. These forms appear to be derived from the past participles of the corresponding verbs, so one might query whether they actually qualify as adjectives. The fact that they can be modified by adverbs such as very is the deciding factor. The adverb very can modify the adjective terrified (He was very terrified), but it cannot modify the verb terrified (*That very terrified him). Perhaps one can apply this reasoning to Japanese adjectives. For instance, if there are adverbs or adverb-like words that can modify the i-adjectives but cannot modify verbs, then my view would be that Japanese has adjectives in the "syntactic sense". The fact that i-adjectives take inflectional suffixes that are characteristic of verbs is a secondary consideration.

I have actually found a good sources that employs the term adjectival when describing apparent forms of the passive, e.g. I was annoyed. This sentence has the outward appearance of the passive, but it actually contains an adjective instead of a participle, so it is called the adjectival passive. I think a short section can be included in the article that points to this sort of use of adjectival. Does that work for you? --Tjo3ya (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Syntactic sense" means as a part of speech, which is how you're using the word. Your new approach is incompatible with the article as you left it, before I restored the note on attributives. What you propose changing it to in your 2nd paragraph is semantic sense. Yes, all languages have descriptive words, and most have attributive functions. Not all have a part of speech that corresponds to adjectives in English, just as not all have adpositions or adverbs. You might want to review the lit on parts of speech cross-linguistically. The only universal parts of speech (beside interjections) are generally thought to be nouns and verbs, though even that has been challenged for the Pacific Northwest.

Yes, we should cover adjectival passives. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to explain what I meant in my edit summary: Turkish and Japanese certainly have adjectives in the sense that they have words that tell something about [a word that functions as] a noun. In any case, what matters to this article is not that they have a separate part of speech that can be called "adjectives", but that they have words that are used to specify something about a noun: These are placed to the right of the noun. --JorisvS (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, I am removing the citation challenge at the end of the article. That Japanese has adjectives seems to be the default stance, as the article on Japanese grammar here in Wikipedia demonstrates. I fully believe that the specific analysis of Japanese adjectives reveals that they do not match well the western concept of the adjective, but that matter should be addressed in the appropriate articles on Japanese grammar. The fact that i-adjectives and na-adjectives in Japanese are denoted as "adjectives" in Wikipedia and textbooks on Japanese is more than good enough for the brief reference in this article. --Tjo3ya (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not the default stance. Anyway, if we're going to give examples of APs in various languages, we should at least choose languages that people can agree have adjectives. Yes, those words are called "adjectives", but the word "noun" in noun phrase is also commonly called an "adjective". All "adjective" means in that sense is "attributive". It's not a part of speech. Unless you're willing to accept any noun or preposition is an "adjective" when it's used attributively? (But then what would predicative adjectives be?)

Some people, such as Dixon, claim that all languages have adjectives. He will find the adjectives in a language that doesn't have any because it must have some, as all languages have them. This is like people who claim that all languages have subjects, which is preposterous when you actually look at the data. Disproving such pseudoscientific claims is like disproving astrology. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, we agree concerning the examples you produce here. For me, the word noun in noun phrase is a noun, not an adjective; it is the first element in a compound noun, a fact that can be known based upon the unique intonation contour of compound nouns. The claim that all languages have subjects is indeed ridiculous.

But concerning adjectives in Japanese, I will compromise immediately on this issue if you can name a good journal article or scholarly book that discusses the fact that Japanese does not have adjectives. A quick search on "Japanese adjectives" using Google confirms my claim that Japanese is widely seen as having adjectives. --Tjo3ya (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't, I'm moving, my books are packed. But a quick review of the lit should show you the issue is at least debated. If you're going by syntactic criteria, then let's say that TAM inflection is indicative of verbs. By that criterion, the i- and na-"adjectives" are verbs. Anyway, controversial cases should not be presented as prototypical examples, and we hardly want to say "Japanese adjectives (assuming Japanese has adjectives".... — kwami (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

TAM is a morphological criterion. There are at least two other criteria that bear on this issue, semantic content and distribution. Apparently, the semantic criterion supports taking the i- and na-adjectives as adjectives, because these words typically express a property that is assigned to a noun. Concerning the distributional criterion, my guess that it also supports taking them as adjectives. In other words, my guess is that the i- and na-adjectives distribute very much like adjectives do in languages that indisputably have adjectives: they can modify the noun phrase inside of which they appear and thus they function attributively, or they modify another noun phrase inside of which they do not appear, in which case they function predicatively. Note that this distributional criterion is a syntactic consideration. For me, two out of three criteria suffice to grant these words adjective status. You seem to be elevating the one criterion to the detriment of the other two.

I see that you have deleted the relevant statements entirely from the section, and I also discern that you are refusing to back up your stance by pointing to the authorities. I intend to check soon to see what more authorities actually say about adjectives in Japanese - the next time I am in the library. I suspect that I will find that the authorities acknowledge adjectives in Japanese and that your stance is an isolated claim. If my suspicion proves to be correct, I will revisit the issue.

In the meantime, I suggested a compromise above concerning the use of the term "adjectival". I hope you are OK with that compromise and that you will not challenge the changes that I make in the area. --Tjo3ya (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you need to compromise? I don't object to covering adjectival passives etc.

TAM is not a morphological criterion. The morphology of TAM is morphological.

According to your argument, "wood" is an adjective, because it functions both attributively (a wood table) and predicatively (the table is wood). Taking it further, Japanese has no verbs, only adjectives, because all Japanese "verbs" can function both attributively and predicatively. There is no syntactic difference, just a morphological one. One subset of verbs is primarily descriptive, but then that's true of many languages with stative verbs. English count nouns and non-count nouns have different semantics, but you wouldn't argue that one of them aren't nouns.

Semantic criterion: Word classes are defined by grammar, not semantics. I mean, "lightning" and "waterfall" are verbs in some languages. But let's see: "to want" is an adjective, right? It's an -i word. Except in the third person: in the third person it's a verb. "To like" and "to hate" are also adjectives. But "busy" is a verb. Actually, in many cases words come in cognate pairs, an "adjective" and a "verb", both of which function both attributively and predicatively. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, I concede your point concerning attributive and predicative usage: both verbs and adjectives are used in both ways. I have been informed, however, that one really cannot argue that adjectives are verbs in Japanese because the inflectional endings for the adjectives are different from those for the verbs. The basic inflectional endings for adjectives are -i and -ku, and for verbs they are -ru and -ta. These two sets of endings apparently have nothing in common historically. Thus to maintain your analysis, you would need to explain how it has come to pass that the adjectives, which are supposedly really verbs or nouns, came to develop inflectional endings that are quite distinct from those for verbs or nouns.

But that is all beside the point, since what counts in Wikipedia are sources. You are not producing sources to back up your claim. If when I check a couple of standard references about adjectives in Japanese, they make no claims about adjectives actually being verbs or nouns, I will be back restoring what you cut, and if I find that the sources back up your stance, I will acknowledge your point as being at least somewhat correct. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

English strong and weak verbs have different inflections that have nothing in common historically. That doesn't mean that one of them are not verbs. Count and mass nouns have different inflections which correlate to semantics, yet we consider them all nouns. As I explained, I cannot produce sources right now. But it's trivial to do so. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That argument doesn't go through. Strong and weak verbs in the Germanic languages overlap in their inflection paradigms in the simple present. Count and mass nouns in English form their plural (wine, one wine, two wines) with the same morphological -s suffix, and they are both modified by adjectives and determiners and can function as immediate dependents of verbs, which means they have very similar distributions. Now if similar arguments apply to the i-adjectives and verbs, and na-adjectives and nouns in Japanese, then you may have a point. The adjectives and verbs, and adjectives and nouns, should have overlapping inflectional morphology at least to some extent. Let's revisit this issue after the one or the other of us can back up his stance with the authorities. --Tjo3ya (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The na-words are historically compounds of nouns and the copula. They have the same inflections as the copula. Since the Japanese copula is considered a verb, by your argument na-words are also verbs.

I-words behave like Japanese verbs. There is no syntactic difference. You're positing they are adjectives based solely on semantics, which doesn't fly. Parts of speech are not semantic categories. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Adjectival phrase → Adjective phrase – This article should carry the title Adjective phrase because that is what most grammar and syntax textbooks call them. The issue is discussed in two spots above, and there is now consensus that Adjective phrase is more appropriate. Tjo3ya (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - other criteria (e.g. Google's Ngram feature; JSTOR, Google Books, and Google scholar searches) show only a slight preference for adjective phrase over adjectival phrase). I can't really speak to tendencies in textbooks; I only have one syntax textbook and it uses adjective phrase. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, grammar and syntax textbooks seem to almost unanimously use the term adjective phrase, e.g. Kesner Bland (1996), Jurafsky and Martin (2000), Radford (2004), Carnie (2013). Full citations for these sources are listed in the literature list at the bottom of the article. The term adjectival phrase seems to be used in a more specialized way, as discussed in the article in the section with the title Adjective phrase vs. adjectival phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjo3ya (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the Ngram finding, and per Tjo3ya's point that "adjectival phrase" can have a slightly different, more specialised meaning. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.