ten Wolde (2023): The English Binominal Noun Phrase #
@cite{ten-wolde-2023}
End-to-end study file connecting the core taxonomy, semantic theory, and English fragment data to the empirical claims in @cite{ten-wolde-2023}.
Key claims formalized #
Six-way taxonomy (Table 2.2): N+PP, head-classifier, pseudo-partitive, evaluative BNP, evaluative modifier, binominal intensifier — each with distinct diagnostic profiles.
Grammaticalization cline (Ch. 5–6): N₁ nouns progress through the six stages with increasing semantic bleaching, loss of nounhood features (plural, number agreement), and reanalysis of [N₁ of a] as a constituent.
Three-way evaluative distinction (Table 4.2, Ch. 4): EBNP, EM, and BI are separate constructions with different semantic composition, premodification patterns, and diagnostic properties.
Semantic class predicts path (Ch. 5): inanimate N₁ nouns develop pseudo-partitive readings; animate and abstract N₁ nouns generally skip pseudo-partitive and enter evaluative uses directly.
Table 4.2: Overview of evaluative categories #
The three evaluative constructions differ on multiple diagnostics.
These theorems verify the Table 4.2 claims against the formalized
diagnostic functions in Core.Lexical.Binominal.
EBNP: N₁ allows plural, Det₂ marks number, of replaceable by copula.
EM: N₁ frozen singular, Det₂ no longer marks number, [N₁ of a] is a constituent, of not replaceable by copula.
BI: same as EM on these diagnostics — further bleaching is syntactic (shifts into AdjP), not visible in these features.
All three evaluative types are N₂-headed.
Ch. 7, Table 4.2: N₁ premodification distinguishes EBNP from EM/BI. EBNP allows descriptive premodification of N₁ (a total idiot of a doctor); EM and BI block it (#a total hell of a time) because [N₁ of a] has been reanalyzed as a modifier unit.
Table 4.2: N₂ type restriction distinguishes BI from EBNP/EM. EBNP and EM restrict N₂ to count/collective nouns; BI extends to mass.
Table 4.2: N₁ & N₂ agreement loosens along the evaluative path.
Table 4.2: of becomes optional at the BI stage.
Ch. 5–6: Diachronic path depends on N₁ semantic class #
Inanimate nouns (cake, nub, breeze, husk) develop pseudo-partitive readings. Animate (beast, whale, snake) and abstract (hell, bitch) nouns generally skip pseudo-partitive.
All inanimate entries have pseudo-partitive in their construction list.
Most animate entries skip pseudo-partitive (beast, whale).
Snake is the exception: an animate noun with pseudo-partitive.
The semantic class predicate agrees with the entry data for all inanimate nouns in the corpus.
The main grammaticalization path #
@cite{ten-wolde-2023} Ch. 8: the main evaluative path is N+PP → Head-Classifier → EBNP → EM → BI, skipping pseudo-partitive. Animate and abstract nouns follow this path; inanimate nouns may develop pseudo-partitive as an intermediate stage.
Animate nouns skip pseudo-partitive: beast and whale have evaluative uses but no pseudo-partitive attestations.
Abstract nouns also skip pseudo-partitive (except hell which participates in all six). bitch follows the main path.
The semantic class predicate correctly predicts which nouns skip pseudo-partitive: animate and abstract predict no PP, inanimate predicts PP.
Ch. 5: hell is the most grammaticalized N₁ noun #
hell participates in all six constructions and has developed reduced forms (helluva, hella), indicating advanced grammaticalization. whale also has a reduced form (whaleuva) but participates in only five constructions.
hell is the only N₁ in the dataset that participates in all six types.
whale has a reduced form (whaleuva) but only five constructions.
hell is the only entry in the dataset with all six constructions.
Semantic composition across the three evaluative stages #
Demonstrates the progression from EBNP (full gradable predicate)
to EM (evaluative measure) to BI (degree intensifier) using the
worked examples from Theories/Semantics/Lexical/Noun/Binominal.
The three evaluative semantics form an entailment chain: BI → EM (proved), but EBNP is independent of EM.