Parallels between Chinese

adjectives and long/short

form adjectives in Serbo-Croatian
Boban Arsenijević, University of Niš
Joanna Sio, University of Olomouc

1
Organization of the talk
1. Introduce the phenomena the talk focuses on: long and short form
adjectives in Serbo-Croatian and modification with and without the
adnominal modification marker in Cantonese.
2. Provide an overview of similarities between the two oppositions.
3. Test to what extent the two oppositions conform to Cinque’s (2010)
generalizations about direct and indirect modification.
4. Sketch a tentative analysis and point at the possible sources of
divergence.
5. Conclude.

2
1. Introducing the two divides

3
The Chinese divide: the adnominal
modification marker
• In Chinese, adjectives modifying a noun typically come with a marker
(de in Mandarin as in (1a), ge in Cantonese as in (1b)), often called
the adnominal modification marker (AMM).
(1)a. congming *(de) nuhai b. cungming *(ge) neoizai
clever AMM girl clever AMM girl
‘clever girl’ ‘clever girl’
• Some adjectives, however, may, and some even must be used without
an AMM.
(2)a. jyun (ge) toi b. diksi (*ge) sigei
round AMM table taxi AMM driver
’round table’ ’taxi driver’
4
The Serbo-Croatian divide: long and short
form adjectives
• In Serbo-Croatian (S-C) and high register Slovenian, adjectives display
two distinct forms, typically labeled as the long and the short form of
the adjective (LF, SF, respectively).
(4) a. beli leptir S-C
white_LF butterfly
b. beo leptir
white_SF butterfly
‘white butterfly’
• Certain adjectives lack one of the forms:
mašinski / *mašinsk, Jovanov / *Jovanovi S-C
machine.AdjLF/SF Jovan’s.LF/SF
5
2. Parallels between the two dichotomies

6
Morpho-syntactic parallels
• Segment g in the Cantonese AMM ge bears a demonstrative meaning
(shared with general classifier go and manner demonstrative gam).
• LF suffix in S-C (and Slo) is an incorporated demonstrative pronoun.
• Certain Slo dialects lost the LF and replaced it with SF combined with
what looks like a deaccented grammaticalized demonstrative.
(5) ta ta zelen svinčnik Slovenian
this.NomMSg ta green.NomMSg pencil.NomMSg
‘this green pencil’
• Cantonese: Adj Dem N, S-C: Adj-Dem N, Slo: Dem=Adj N.

7
Presupposition: Chinese
• Consider a context in which a murder has taken place, and person X
has been interrogated. She comes out, where her husband is waiting
for her, and says one of the following two sentences:
(6) a. keoidei bei gin hong-sik ge saam ngo tai
they give CL red-color AMM shirt I se
’They showed me a/?the red shirt.’
b. keoidei bei gin hong-sik saam ngo tai
they give CL red-color shirt I see
’They showed me a/the red shirt.’
• (6a): agnosticism, surprise: what’s the relevance of a red shirt, (6b):
presupposition: the/a red shirt reveals something about the murder.
8
Presupposition: S-C
• The same effect emerges in S-C between SF and LF:
(7) a. Pokazali su mi crven džemper. S-C
showed.3MPl Aux me.Dat red.SF sweater
‘They showed me a/?the red sweater.’
b. Pokazali su mi crveni džemper.
showed.3MPl Aux me.Dat red.LF sweater
‘They showed me a/the red sweater.’
• Exactly the same asymmetry between (7a-b) as between (6a-b).
• AMM-modification parallels SF, and bare modification LF.

9
Another context: Chinese
• Consider a context where the speaker is handed a bag of toys.
(8) a. bong ngo lo saai di laan ge bozi ceot lei aa
help me take all CLPL broken marker marble out here SFP
’Can you help me take out all the chipped marbles?’
b. bong ngo lo saai di laan bozi ceot lei aa
help me take all CLPL broken marble out here SFP
’Can you help me take out all the chipped marbles?”
• Sentence (8a) does not presuppose that there are (chipped) marbles in the
box, or in the world – there may turn out to be none. Sentence (8b)
presupposes that there are chipped marbles in the narrow context, or at
least in the world.

10
Same in S-C
• Exactly the same holds in S-C, again with equivalence between the Chinese
AMM modification and the S-C SF.
(9) a. Pretraži torbu, i izdvoj svaki zalomljen kliker. S-C
search bag and single_out every chipped.SF marble
’Search the bag, and if you find chipped marbles take each out.’
b. Pretraži torbu, i izdvoj svaki zalomljeni kliker.
search bag and single_out every chipped.LF marble
’Search the bag of toys, and take out every chipped marble.’
• Same in Slo, thanks to Lanko Marušič (p.c.), also for pointing out that the
presupposition of existence is general, not just in the narrow context.

11
Relational adjectives
• In Chinese, relational adjectives are used only without the AMM.
(12) geihaai (*ge) gungcingsi fongce (*ge) zam
machine AMM engineer train AMM station
’mechanical engineer’ ’train station’
• S-C suffix for the productive derivation of relational adjectives -ski has no
SF:
(13) mašin-ski/*mašin-sk inženjer pluć-ni/*pluć-an kapacitet
machine-RelAdj.LF/SF engineer lung-Adj.LF/SF capacity
‘machine engineer’ ‘lung capacity’
• The parallel is again between AMM-modification and SF (noted by Cinque
2010).

12
Chinese quantifier houdo ’many’
• Cantonese quantifiers usually can be used either only with AMM, or
without.
• Quantifier houdo ‘many’ can have both uses.
• With AMM, it only has the strong (proportional) interpretation, accounting
for the ungrammaticality in (10b). Without the AMM, it has both the strong
and the weak (cardinal) reading.
(10) a. *fong japmin jau houdo ge jan
room inside have many GE person
int. ‘There are many people in the room.’
b. fong japmin jau houdo jan
room inside have many person
‘There are many people in the room.’

13
S-C quantifier mnogo ’many’
• Same in S-C: quantifier mnogo has a phi-featurless variant and a LF.
(11) a. U sobi ima mnogo ljudi.
in room has many people.Gen
‘There are many people in the room.’
b. *U sobi ima mnogih ljudi.
in room has many.LFMPlGen people.Gen
int. ‘There are many people in the room.’
• The LF variant mnogi ’many’ only has the strong interpretation
(Krasikova 2011, Arsenijević 2016) – parallel between LF and AMM.
• Mnogo is not SF but an adverb – not really an LF-SF asymmetry.

14
3. Cinque’s (2010) asymmetries between
direct and indirect modification

15
Direct and indirect modification
• Cinque (2010) argues that cross-linguistically, adjectives occur in two
different structural contexts, yielding two different patterns of their
syntactic and semantic behavior, which he refers to as direct and
indirect modification.
• Direct modification roughly corresponds to generation along the
nominal projection and indirect to generation in a relative clause with
consequent syntactic operations giving it adjectival outlook.
• He identifies AMM modification in Chinese and SF modification in S-C
as instances of indirect modification, and bare modification in
Chinese and LF in S-C as instances of direct modification.

16
Aim of this section
• So far, the match AMM – SF and bare adjective – LF is quite strong.
• The question that emerges is whether their behavior fits Cinque’s
descriptions of direct and indirect modification.
• Two possible ways to approach it:
1. try to explain the similarities above by Cinque’s analysis,
2. test to what extent Cantonese and S-C adjectival modification
fits the asymmetries that Cinque describes between direct and indirect
modification.
• We do the latter, as the option more prone to objective assessment.

17
Individual vs. stage level in S-C
• Direct modification is more likely to receive the individual-level
interpretation, and the indirect modification tends to have the stage-level
interpretation, with otherwise ambiguous adjectives (Cinque 2010: 6).
• Confirmed in S-C, where (14b) is unusual and requires a special context:
(14) a. U blizini se verovatno nalazio nevidljiv vidljivi molekul.
in vicinity Refl probably found invisible_SF visible_LF molecule
‘There was probably an invisible visible molecule in the vicinity.’
b. U blizini se verovatno nalazio nevidljivi vidljiv molekul.
in vicinity Refl probably found invisible_LF visible_SF molecule
‘There was probably an invisible visible molecule in the vicinity.’

18
Individual vs. stage level in Cantonese
• In Cantonese, however, the licensing of bare modification is a matter
of other aspects of the adjectival semantics (’immanent property’,
relational interpretations), not stage vs. individual level.
• There are both individual level and stage level adjectives among those
which do as well as among those which do not license bare use.
• Presence or absence of the AMM among the former has no effect on
the stage vs. individual interpretation.
(19) a. Individual-level: b. Stage-level:
jyun (ge) toi jyit (ge) ca
round AMM table hot AMM tea
19
Restrictive vs. non-restrictive
• Cinque (2010: 7-8) generalizes that indirect modification is always
restrictive, while direct modification can receive both the restrictive and
the non-restrictive type of interpretation.
• However, fenomenalan ’awesome.SF’ in (20) is clearly non-restrictive.
(20) Glas pozajmljuje (i ovoga puta) fenomenalan Nikola Simić.
voice lends and this time awesome.SF N S
‘The voice is given by Nikola Simić, who was awesome (again).’
• Apart from the predicate position, examples where SF is used for restrictive
modification, as in (14a), are less frequent than the non-restrictive use.
• In Cantonese, non-restrictive modification is considered unavailable.

20
Modal vs. implicit relative clause
• Cinque (2010: 8-9) also argues that adjectives like possible have two
interpretations (the modal and the implicit relative clause one: that it was
possible for X to Y) in the direct modifier use, but only one (the implicit
relative clause reading) in the indirect modification use.
• Confirmed in S-C (cannot be tested in Cantonese, no such adjective).
(21) a. Razmotren je svaki mogući kandidat.
considered is every possible.LF candidate
’Each potential candidate has been considered.’
’Each candidate which could be considered has been considered.’
b. Razmotren je svaki moguć kandidat.
considered is every possible.SF candidate
’Each potential candidate has been considered.’
*’Each candidate which could be considered has been considered.’

21
Intersective vs. non-intersective reading
• Cinque (2010: 9-10) observes that direct modifiers have both the
intersective and the non-intersective interpretation (Larson 1995,
1998), while indirect modifiers lack the non-intersective one.
• Cantonese AMM modifiers can receive both interpretations.
(22) Peter hai jat go jau noising ge lousi
Peter is one CL have patience AMM teacher
’Peter is patient and is a teacher.’ (intersective)
’Peter teaches patiently.’ (non-intersective)

22
Intersective vs. non-intersective reading – S-C
• S-C SF adjectives can receive both interpretatios (in both languages,
non-intersective interpretation is typically disprefered, but sometimes
it is even the more prominent one).
(23) a. Laza je strastveni, učtivi/energični plesač.
L is pationate.LF polite/energetic.LF dancer
‘Laza is a pationate, polite/energetic dancer.’
b. Laza je strastven, učtiv/energičan plesač.
L is pationate.SF polite/energetic.SF dancer
‘Laza is a pationate, polite/energetic dancer.’
• Asymmetry: SF requires that the modified noun provides the
comparison class for gradable adjectives, LF has no such requirement.
23
Relative vs. absolute degree
• Cinque (2010: 10-11) observes that direct modification favors
absolute interpretations (global comparison classes) and indirect
modification the relative ones (the noun provides the comparison
class).
• This has just been confirmed by the last slide’s last observation for S-C
and generally also holds for Cantonese and other AMM languages,
see Cheng and Sybesma (2009) .

24
Epistemic vs. evaluative, S-C LF
• For adjectives ambiguous between the epistemic and the evaluative
interpretation, Cinque (2010: 11-12) generalizes that the epistemic
interpretation is more likely for indirect modifiers, and the evaluative
interpretation in the direct modification.
• LF in S-C has equally available both interpretations – no asymmetry.
(24) U to vreme štićenik mu je nepoznati slikar…
in that time protégé him.Dat is unknown.LF painter
‘At that time, his protégé is an unidentified/unknown painter.’

25
Epistemic vs. evaluative, S-C SF
• SF does not shows the described (or even shows the oppositeo one):
the epistemic reading is dispreferred to the evaluative reading.
(25) U to vreme štićenik mu je nepoznat slikar…
in that time protégé him.Dat is unknown.SF painter
‘At that time, his protégé is an (?)unidentified/insignificant painter.’
• My intuition: SF prefers the comparison class set by the noun, which
in turn prefers the evaluative interpretation, as the epistemic
interpretation is not straighforwardly gradable.
• Again, cannot be tested in Cantonese due to the lack of ambiguous
adjective-structure combinations.
26
Discourse-anaphoric vs. NP-dependent, S-C
• Cinque (2010: 12-13) generalizes that indirect modification is more
likely than direct modification to receive the discourse anaphoric
(rather than the NP dependent) interpretation for adjectives like
different.
• Hard to test in S-C, as plural does not distinguish LF from SF.
• LF cannot come in the postnominal position, which gives a handle to
construct a test.
• The test will be partial, since the prenominal position is available not
only to LF but to both.

27
Discourse-anaphoric vs. NP-dependent, S-C
(26) a. Pera i Mika žive u gradovima različitim i udaljenim.
P and M live in cities different and remote.
’Pera and Mika live in cities different in many way.’
b. Pera i Mika žive u udaljenim i različitim gradovima.
P and M live in remote and different cities
’Pera and Mika live in cities different in many way.’
• Both sentences have both interpretations (different from a salient
city, different from each other).
• Either both forms are ambiguous, or only SF is ambiguous, and the
ambiguity of (25b) comes from its ambiguity between LF and SF.
28
Discourse-anaphoric vs. NP-dependent,
Cantonese
• In Cantonese, only AMM modification is grammatical (without it, the
sentence can be saved by adding the numeral two, but it then also
promotes one of the two readings).
(27) Frantisek tung Boban jyu hai m tung ge gwokgaa gaa
Frantisek and Boban live be.at NEG same GE place SFP
’Frantisek and Boban live in a different place.’
’Frantisek and Boban live in two different places.’
• This configuration is fully ambiguous between the two
interpretations.
• Not a pragmatic effect as there are other unambiguous ways to say it.
29
Summary of the tests
Opposition Result for S-C Result for Cantonese
Individual vs. stage level confirmed disconfirmed
Restrictive vs. non-restrictive disconfirmed N/A
Modal vs. implicit relative confirmed N/A
Intersective vs. non-intersective disconfirmed disconfirmed
Relative vs. absolute confirmed confirmed
Epistemic vs. evaluative disconfirmed N/A
Discourse-anaphoric vs. NP dependent disconfirmed disconfirmed

30
Summary of the tests
• Three out of seven generalizations were confirmed, and four were
rejected on S-C data.
• One has been confirmed, three rejected, and three could not be
tested on Cantonese data.
• On one out of seven tests the two languages gave different outcomes
(confirm vs. disconfirm).
• The picture seems to be more complex: next to (in)direct
modification, avaiability of articles/classifiers, restrictedness of direct
modification, and possibly other properties also play a role.

31
4. Point at the possible sources of
divergence

32
Is it still the direct vs. indirect modification
opposition?
• Two possibilities:
a) It is not, it is something else.
b) It is, but some of the empirical oppositions linked to it in Cinque
(2010) are a product of its interaction with other properties of the
nominal domain.
• Possible candidates:
- (primary) semantic status of bare nouns in the language (e.g.
Chierchia 1998), esp. since both S-C and Cantonese are articleless.
- 2 different dimension of the nominal semantics: the predicate and
the resource situation (Elbourne 2005, Arsenijević 2017).

33
Lexical nouns and their semantics
• Bare nouns in S-C and Chinese denote kinds (Chierchia 1998, Krifka
1995), which licenses their frequent phonologically null DP layer.
(28) a. Pekar se okrenuo.
baker Refl turned_around
’A/the baker turned around.’
b. keoidei bei gin saam ngo tai
they give CL shirt I see
’They showed me a/the red shirt.’

34
The two types of modification
• Restriction of the predicate:
(29) blue book
x, s. blue(x) & book(x) & in(s, x)
• Restriction of the resource situation:
(30) blue book
x, s. book(x) & blue(s) & in(s, x)
• Article languages lack, or only marginally have available the latter
option, while it is prominent, sometimes the only strategy in
articleless languages.
• Only indirect modification can realize resource situation restriction.

35
Resource situations and indirect modification
• Irrespective of their type, modifiers in article languages restrict only
the predicate (description) of the nominal expression.
• In articleless languages, indirect modifiers are ambiguous between
restricting predicates or resource situations – recall section 2, e.g. (9).
(9) a. Pretraži torbu, i izdvoj svaki zalomljen kliker. S-C
search bag and single_out every chipped.SF marble
’Search the bag, and if you find chipped marbles take each out.’
b. Pretraži torbu, i izdvoj svaki zalomljeni kliker.
search bag and single_out every chipped.LF marble
’Search the bag of toys, and take out every chipped marble.’
36
Prominence of situation modification
• The kind nature of nouns in Cantonese in combination with the
classifier system of the lower portion of the nominal domain renders
resource situation restriction a more powerful tool for modification
(and the direct modification a last resort, e.g. in relational adjectives).
• This in turn promotes indirect modification, as the one which has
both modification strategies available.
• S-C is different in involving a grammatical number+gender system
with a agreement marking, which gives it a more ballanced nature.
• While it also displays resource situation restriction as a modification
strategy, it still uses both strategies equally.
37
Levels of modification and their realization
specific resource situations! S-C Cantonese
Modifying predicate of kind LF no ge
Modifying kind DP LF if prenominal restrictive ge
(only indirect) SF if prenominal non-restrictive
SF if postnominal
Modifying predicate of LF if prenominal restrictive ge
instantiation SF if prenominal non-restrictive
SF if postnominal
Modifying instantiation DP SF (only non-restrictive) /
(only indirect)
38
S-C issues
• Referrential agreement of SFs due to a binding of the resource situation in
SF by that in DP: every prenominal restrictive adjective must agree with the
specification of definiteness/specificity in DP (Stanković 2015).
• Hence, SF is available for:
- all postnominal indirect modifiers,
- non-restrictive prenominal indirect modifiers in specific contexts,
- restrictive prenominal (indirect?) modifiers in nonspecific contexts,
- modifiers with salient indefinite resource situations (unbound by D).
• This clearly bears on the failed tests above: restrictive vs. non-restrictive,
intersective vs. non-intersective readings, discourse anaphoric vs. NP-
dependent and epistemic vs. evaluative interpretation.

39
Cantonese issues
• Cantonese additionally disconfirmed the test of the individual vs.
stage level interpretation, and cannot apply three others.
• This could be for two different reasons:
1) Cantonese simply has too strong restrictions on direct modification,
and either cannot express certain meanings with adjectives, or
resorts to coercion.
2) As Cantonese (and S-C) indirect modification does not restrict the
predicate in the nominal expression, but the resource situation, it
can both restrict sets of situations (stage level) and the world
(individual level), whereas in article languages they have no way to
modify into the kind domain (structurally too high).
40
5. Conclusion

41
• There is a high degree of morpho-syntactic and semantic similarity
between the S-C SF-LF opposition and the one among AMM and bare
modification in Cantonese.
• Either these two oppositions do not fully match the opposition
between direct and indirect modification of Cinque (2010), or the
opposition is manifested by fewer empirical asymmetries.
• The opposition of direct vs. indirect modification and its underlying
structural reality interact with other syntactic parameters and
structural properties (articles/classifiers, kind vs. instantiation level
modification), yielding different surface generalizations across
different (types of) languages.

42
THANK YOU!

43