Typological Variation of the Adjectival Class: Markedness and Iconicity at the Semantics ⇔ ⇔ ⇔ ⇔ Syntax Interface *

1. Adjectives and parts of speech systems Ask a layperson what they know about grammar and you are likely to get an answer that has something to do with parts of speech; ask a linguist what they know about parts of speech and the answer is quite likely to be much less enlightening. Parts of speech systems or, as I will refer to them here, lexical classes are among the most frequently overlooked aspects of linguistic analysis, yet they are at the same time among the most fundamental elements of language. Lexical classes play a key role in most, if not all, syntactic theories, they are the cornerstones of lexicography , and they are crucial elements in morphological analysis—yet precise and rigorous definitions of these classes have never been successfully formulated. More often than not, lexical classes are treated merely as primitives, either in terms of input to rules, determinants of underlying phrase structure, governors of inflectional patterns, or as sources of valency and subcatego-rization frames. Thus, class-designations such as " verb " , " adjective " , and " noun " are the linch-pins of semantic, syntactic, and morphological structure, but the terms themselves are rarely defined and their properties, both formal and functional, are often taken for granted. While it is certainly possible to carry out linguistic analysis without a clear definition of the basic units involved (as long as the identity of these units can be agreed upon), any theory which proceeds without a full understanding of its own primitives rests on uncertain foundations. Most current linguistic theories—whose main proponents are speakers of and researchers in European languages—are modeled on languages with parts-of-speech systems organized into the four major classes of verb, noun, adjective, and adverb. Cross-linguistic investigation shows that not all languages fit this pattern: while nouns and verbs appear to be essentially universal, languages that have few or no adjectives are a typological commonplace. 1 Even languages that do have adjectives vary tremendously in terms of their absolute numbers and the sets of meanings singled out by language-specific definitions of an adjectival class. Any credible attempt to define parts of speech must come to terms with both of these types of variation, and to date most proposals for a criterial definition of adjective have failed on both counts. As I will argue in this paper , traditional approaches to defining lexical classes in general (and …