Decomposing (non)-restrictivity. Evaluative modifiers in post-head positions

38 Pages·2016·0.69 MB·English

by  Fabienne Martin

Decomposing (non)-restrictivity. Evaluative modifiers in
post-head positions
Fabienne Martin
To cite this version:
Fabienne Martin. Decomposing (non)-restrictivity. Evaluative modifiers in post-head positions. 2013.
￿hal-00788131v1￿
HAL Id: hal-00788131
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00788131v1
Preprint submitted on 15 Feb 2013 (v1), last revised 29 Apr 2014 (v4)
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Decomposing (non-)restrictivity
Evaluative modifiers in post-head positions
Fabienne Martin
University of Stuttgart
February 13th 2013
Draft, comments welcome
1. Introduction
This paper is devoted to a particular aspect of the interpretation of evaluative adjectives
(marvelous, horrible), that is, adjectives that are compatible with subjective attitude verbs
like find in the construction find x adj (e.g. find marvelous) and give rise to the so-called
‘faultless disagreement’ pattern.1 Evaluative adjectives have often been claimed to mani-
fest a strong, and even exclusive, preference for the nonrestrictive reading (henceforth the
‘nonrestrictive bias hypothesis’). For French for instance, Milner (1978) :301 claims that
adjectives that he calls ‘affectifs’ (abominable ‘awful’, horrible ‘horrible’) cannot be used
‘in a restrictive or anaphorical way’ (my translation). For Spanish, Demonte (2008) : 71
argues that what she calls ‘extreme degree adjectives’ (horrible ‘horrible’, necio ‘stupid’,
espantoso ‘awful’) and ‘qualitative superlative adjectives’ (maravilloso ‘wonderful’, magní-
fico ‘magnificent’) ‘are predicative nonrestrictive modifiers’. For Catalan, Castroviejo-Miró
and Schwager (2008) :184 assume that adjectives like beautiful ‘are often understood as
non-restrictive’. For German, Umbach (2012b) claims that ‘evaluative predicates [...] often
cannot be used restrictively’. The claim has also been extended to adverbials derived from
these adjectives. For instance, Castroviejo-Miró (2008) :63 argue that her extremely adver-
bials ‘are non-restrictive modifiers’.
Forthoselanguagesthatallowboththepost-andpre-headpositionsforatleastasubset
of their adjectives,2 a frequent observation reported in support of the ‘nonrestrictive bias
1. If A claims that the dessert is delicious, and B reacts by claiming that it is not, there is a sense in
whichbothAandBareright,i.e.thattheirdisagreementis‘faultless’,cf.e.g.Lasersohn(2005),Stephenson
(2007).
Evaluative predicates are not the only ones that display faultless disagreement effects; vague scalar
predicates(rich,heavy,tall)alsodo,cf.Richard(2004).However,asKennedy(ta):6observes,thelatterare
notsystematicallyacceptableunderfind.
2. The quantitative study of Thuilier et al. (2012) provides an interesting picture about the frequence
of the postnominal vs prenominal position (among ‘transportable’ adjectives). Their corpus contains 14.804
occurrences of adjectives, of which 4.227 (28,6%) are anteposed and 10.577 (71,4%) are postposed. 1920
lemmasappearintheoccurrences.182lemmasonlyappearinbothanteposedandpostposedpositions,but
1
hypothesis’ is that evaluative adjectives are often odd in post-nominal position, cf. e.g. (1)
for French.
(1) a. J’ai vu l’horrible type ce matin.
Ihave seen thehorrible guy this morning
’I saw the horrible guy this morning.’
b. #J’ai vu le type horrible ce matin.
Ihave seen the guy horrible this morning
’I saw the guy horrible this morning.’
The argument relies on what has been called the complementarity hypothesis, namely the
hypothesis that pre-head modifiers receive a nonrestrictive interpretation in Romance,
while post-head modifiers receive a restrictive interpretation (see e.g. Bouchard (1998),
Alexiadou (2001) and Demonte (2005)). The idea is therefore that (1b) is odd because
(i) the adjective being post-nominal, it must have the restrictive reading and (ii) horrible
being evaluative, it doesn’t easily get the restrictive reading.3
An immediate problem for this argument is that evaluatives do appear in post-nominal
positions in corpora, even in presence of a definite, a factor that had been argued to fa-
vour the anteposition by Forsgren (1978).4 A search in the literary database Frantext 97
for any evaluative modifier studied here will deliver many occurrences of the adjective in
post-head position.
One of the goals of this paper is to reconcile these data with the nonrestrictive bias
and the complementarity hypotheses. The idea pursued is that the terms ‘restrictive’ and
‘nonrestrictive’ cover two different but related properties, and that satisfying one of them
only allows the modifier to appear in the post-head position. In Section (2), we discuss in
detail the two definitions of (non-) restrictivity used in the literature. Section (3) shows
how they relate to each other. Section (4) addresses the case where modifiers can appear
in post-nominal position if they convey a causal relation only. Section (5) discusses two
previous accounts of the nonrestrictive bias of evaluative predicates, identifies the contexts
in which evaluative adjectives can appear in post-nominal position and explains why, on
the basis of the definitions of (non)restrictivity built in Section (2).
The other properties by which pre- and post-head modifiers are traditionally distingui-
shed (like the differences between idiomatic and literal readings, intersective and non-
intersectivereadings,and‘centralpropertymodification’versus‘referentmodification’)are
not addressed in this paper. That is, the discussion is restricted to cases where the other
reading(s) of the adjective remain(s) the same in pre- and post-nominal position. So for
instance, I will ignore cases where the evaluative adjective is non-intersective only in pre-
nominal position and intersective or non-intersective in the postnominal one (cf. Cinque
theycorrespondto5.473occurrences,thatis37%ofthecorpus,whichsuggeststhat‘transportable’lemmas
areveryfrequent.Amongthe5473adjectivesthatappearinbothpositions,68,1%areanteposedand31,9%
are postposed. The ratio they obtain for the whole corpus is therefore turned over for these ‘transportable’
adjectives.
3. Thecomplementarityhypothesisisnotendorsedbyeveryone.Forinstance,Cinque(2005,2010)argues
thatpost-nominaladjectivesinRomancearesystematicallyambiguousbetweenrestrictiveandnonrestrictive
modification.
4. The corpus study of Thuilier et al. (2012) :42 shows that in a definite DP, modifiers manifest a slight
preferenceforthepostnominalposition,aresultthatcontradictsForsgren’sdata.
(2003)’s contrasts between un buon attacante ‘a forward good at playing forward’ and un
attaccante buono ‘a forward good at playing forward/ a good-hearted forward’). I will also
ignore the ‘objective’ (non-evaluative) reading evaluative adjectives can have in postnomi-
nal position only (cf. e.g. un roman fantastique ‘a fantastic novel/a fantasy novel’ vs. un
fantastique roman ‘a fantastic novel’).5 As for adverbials, I only take their manner adver-
bial into account, since it is the only one which can easily appear in pre- and post-nominal
position (what is called the agent-oriented reading is generally restricted to pre-verbal po-
sitions, cf. e.g. Geuder (2000) for discussion).
Whenthemodifierkeepsthesamerangeofreadingswheninpre-orpost-headposition
(except their restrictive vs nonrestrictive one), I will say that the modifier is commutable.
2. Decomposing (non)- restrictivity
2.1. (Non)-restrictivity : set-based definition
(Non-)restrictivity is rarely explicitly defined in works devoted to (non)-restrictive modi-
fication, but the traditional intuition behind this notion is generally clear : a modifier M
restrictively modifies the head H when the contextual set of objects denoted by the modi-
fiedheadMHisproperlyincludedinthecontextualsetofobjectsdenotedbyH.Ontheother
hand, M nonrestrictively modifies H if the contextual set of objects denoted by H equals the
contextualsetofobjectsdenotedbyMH.AsCabredo-Hofherr(prep)emphasises,restrictive
modifiers are under this traditional definition inherently contrastive : they presuppose the
existence of entities of which the description given by the modifier is not true.6
Piñón (2005) provides formal definitions of restrictive and nonrestrictive modification
thatcapturethisconceptionof(non)-restrictivity.Irepeatthemin(2).M isamodelwhich
consists of a nonempty set O of objects o, a non empty set S of possible situations s, and
an interpretation function J.K. M and H designate functions from situations and objects to
truth values.
(2) a. M nonvacuously restrictively modifies H in s iff
Jλo[Ms(o) ∧Hs(o)]KM,g ⊂JHsKM,g and Jλo[Ms(o) ∧Hs(o)]KM,g 6=0/
b. M nonvacuously nonrestrictively modifies H in s iff
Jλo[Ms(o) ∧Hs(o)]KM,g =JHsKM,g and Jλo[Ms(o) ∧Hs(o)]KM,g 6=0/
The advantage of the definitions in (2) is that they are neutral regarding what the set of
objects O is. They may be physical, abstract objects, events, etc. Note that if the denotation
ofHinthesituations(i.e.H )isasingletonset,then,accordingto(2),themodifiercannot
s
non-vacuously restrictively modify H . As Piñón observes, this captures the old idea that a
s
proper noun can be nonrestrictively but not restrictively modified.
Under the complementarity hypothesis, this definition captures well the difference bet-
ween (3a) and (3b), from Demonte (2008).
5. Correlations between the position of the adjective and its meaning are anyway not regular in French
accordingtoAbeilléandGodard(1999).
6. This is made very clear by Bach (1974) :271 (apud Cabredo-Hofherr id.) about restrictive relative
clauses:‘Arestrictiverelativeclausepresupposestheexistencesofentitiesofwhichthedescriptiongivenin
therelativeclauseisnottrue’.
(3) a. Encontré las llaves viejas.
find-PAST-1SG the keys old
‘I found the subset of keys in s which are old.’
b. Encontré las viejas llaves.
find-PAST-1SG the old keys
‘I found all members of the set of keys in s and they are old.’
2.2. Contrasts not captured yet
Althoughcertainlyuseful,thisdefinitionof(non-)restrictivity(henceforth(non-)restrictivity )
1
cannot suffice to cover all uses made of this notion in the literature. In particular, as shown
below, it cannot among others render the contrasts between restrictive and nonrestrictive
modificationthathavebeencorrelatedwithapost-vspre-headposition(i)withadverbials
(section 2.2.1) and (ii) with indefinite NPs (section 2.2.2).
2.2.1. Adverbials
Peterson (1997) : 231-238 argued that the distinction between the restrictive and nonres-
trictive readings of relative clauses and adjectives also applies to adverbs.7 One of Peter-
son’s examples is given in (4).
(4) The Titanic’s rapidly sinking caused great loss of life. (Peterson 1997)
a. restrictive : The Titanic’s sinking being rapid caused great loss of life.
b. nonrestrictive : The Titanic’s sinking, which [by the way] was rapid, caused great
loss of life.
Peterson does not directly correlate this ambiguity with the syntactical position of the ad-
verbial, but Morzycki (2008) agrees with Shaer (2000, 2003) that the nonrestrictive rea-
ding is not available with postverbal manner adverbials :
(5) The Titanic’s sinking rapidly caused great loss of life.
a. restrictive : The Titanic’s sinking being rapid caused great loss of life.
b. # nonrestrictive
Peterson emphasizes that the ambiguity ‘is not, however, exactly what it was’ with adjec-
tives : with adverbials, the restrictive reading does not amount to the reference to a proper
subset of events of a salient set (p. 235). Indeed, in each of the situations described in
(4)-(5), there is a single event described (a singleton set), independent of the structural
positionoftheadverb.Hence,themodificationcanonlybenonrestrictive :‘afterall,there
1
was only one sinking of the Titanic’ (Piñón ibid :5). However, we share Peterson and Mor-
zycki’s intuition that the ambiguity illustrated in (5) shares something with the restrictive
vs nonrestrictive ambiguity found with adjectives. We therefore need another definition of
restrictivity.
7. AsGöbbel(2007)fn14observes,thisviewcanbetracedbacktoHeny(2007),whoclaimsthat‘adverbs
placed before the verb rather than after the VP may turn out to have a sort of nonrestrictive force, being an
interpolationorcommentbythespeaker’.
2.2.2. Indefinites
According to Piñón’s definition of restrictivity given in (2), restrictive modifiers are those
1 1
where some members of H in the situation s do not pertain to M in s. In order to check
whether this is the case or not, the interpreter must be able to build a representation of the
setHM independentlyoftherepresentationofthesetH .ThisiseasywithdefiniteDPs,be-
s s
cause these standardly presuppose their domain of quantification. But indefinites do not :
quelques fleurs bleues ’sm blue flowers’ do not presuppose a contextually restricted set of
flowers — rather, it introduces a contextual set of blue flowers, and does not introduce nor
presuppose an independent contextual set of flowers.
With indefinites, modifiers will thus systematically be nonrestrictive independently
1
of their syntactical position according to (2), at least if s is not the maximal situation
(we discuss this case below). Symptomatically, indefinites are often left explicitly aside
in works devoted to (non)-restrictivity. Katz (2008) :16 explicitly says that indefinite DPs
are undefined for (non)-restrictivity. The same for Demonte (1999) :148 about Spanish.
Cabredo-Hofherr (prep) also explicitly leaves aside indefinites NP in her work on the (non-
)restrictive relative clauses in German.
The difficulty can partly be overcome if JHK is not a contextual, but rather a maximal
set. Indeed, the ambiguity can in principle be captured with indefinites, too : the modifier
willbedefinedasnonrestrictiveifallmembersofthemaximalsetHaremembersofM;we
deal then with what Fabricius-Hansen (2009) calls ‘conceptual nonrestrictivity’, i.e. cases
where the modification does not restrict the extension of the noun, which is the case if
JMHK = JHK. The relation of identity can be semantic (unmarried bachelor), prototypical
(white snow) or stereotypical (innocent passengers). The modifier will be restrictive if JMHK
⊂ JHK (which is possible only if the relation of identity is defeasible, thus prototypical or
stereotypical).
This way, we can capture the ambiguity illustrated in (6) : (6a) can be taken to im-
ply that passengers are by definition innocent, while (6b) suggests that passengers can in
principle be either innocent or not.
(6) a. Supposons qu’il y ait d’innocents passagers dans la salle.
‘Let us assume that there are innocent passengers in the room.’
b. Supposons qu’il y ait des passagers innocents dans l’avion.
‘Let us assume that there are innocent passengers in the room.’
The same contrast obtains in German, where restrictivity is marked by narrow Focus on
1
the modifier, cf. e.g. Umbach (2006), Riester and Baumann (tted). Take for instance the
examples (7) inspired from one of Umbach’s examples :
(7) a. Nehmen Sie an, in dem Wartezimmer befinden sich [unschuldige PASSAGIERE] .
F
‘Let us assume that there are innocent passengers in the waiting room.’
b. Nehmen Sie an, in dem Wartezimme befinden sich [UNSCHULDIGE] Passagiere.
F
‘Let us assume that there are innocent passengers in the waiting room.’
While (7a) suggests that passengers are by definition innocent (at least on one of its rea-
dings), (7b) clearly presupposes the existence of guilty passengers.
However, the difference between pre- and post-nominal modifiers in French or focused
and non-focused ones in German cannot be accounted for with indefinites when one does
not deal with conceptual or ‘maximal’ (non)restrictivity. That does not impede authors to
assume that in these cases too, modifiers are ambiguous between the two readings. For
French, at least some authors consider that the modifier in des magnifiques fleurs ‘some
wonderfulflowers’isnonrestrictivewhiletheoneindesfleursmagnifiquesisrestrictive.But
according to the definition (2), if s is the maximal situation, both de magnifiques fleurs and
des fleurs magnifiques are restrictive . For German, Ebert (1971) (apud Cabredo-Hofherr
1
(prep)) observes that relatives as the one in (8) are classified either as restrictive or as
nonrestrictive. However, under both readings, the set of messy gardens is properly inclu-
ded in the maximal set of gardens. This confirms again that we need another definition of
(non-)restrictivity.
(8) Er besass einen Garten, der sehr ungepflegt war.
He owned a Garden, that very messy was
‘He owned a very messy Garden/ a Garden, which was (by the way) very messy.’
2.3. (Non-)restrictivity : definition in terms of information structure
Many authors agree with the fact that the difference between the restrictive and nonres-
trictive readings of attributive (non appositive) modifiers (also) has to do with information
structure, cf. e.g. Ebert (1971, 1973), Peterson (1997), Jacob (2005), Umbach (2006),
Morzycki (2008), Cabredo-Hofherr (prep), Riester and Baumann (tted), Riester (2012).
However, there is much less agreement about the way (non)restrictivity defined in terms
of information structure (henceforth (non)restrictivity ) should be characterized. Before
2
giving a state of the art (section 2.3.1-2.3.2) and concluding with the proposal adopted
here (section 2.3.3), let me present some contrasts between pre- and post-nominals modi-
fiers that are both nonrestrictive (or both restrictive ), independently of their syntactical
1 1
position :
(9) Comment est-ce que Pierre lui a annoncé?
‘How did Pierre tell her?’
a. Il lui a annoncé [VIOLEMMENT]
F
b. # Il lui a [VIOLEMMENT] annoncé.
F
‘He (violently) told her (violently).’
(10) Comment sont les fleurs tu vas lui acheter?
‘How are the flowers will you buy her?’
a. Je vais lui acheter des fleurs [MAGNIFIQUES]
F
‘I’ll buy her magnificent flowers.’
b. # Je vais lui acheter de [MAGNIFIQUES] fleurs.
F
These contrasts show that only post-head modifiers are compatible with new information
focus.Notethattheyarequiterobustanddonotexhibitthesubtleltyusualindataprovided
to account for the difference between pre- and post-nominal modifiers.
2.3.1. Nonrestrictive modifiers as conventional implicatures
Morzycki (2008) defines nonrestrictive modifiers as conveying conventional implicatures.
His point of departure is Peterson (1997)’s view on the matter, which I will therefore
present first.
The way Peterson (1997) characterizes restrictive and nonrestrictive adverbials has
mainly to do with information structure. He distinguishes the two readings by the kind
of answers the sentence containing them can provide. In his illustration (11) of the non-
restrictive use of the adverbial, the whole answer including the adverbial constitutes its
focused part, that is the information asked for by the question. In this case, the answer
constitutes what Peterson calls a ‘double assertion’ : the Titanic sank and the sinking was
rapid. In his illustration (12) of the restrictive use, the focused part within the answer is
the adverbial alone, i.e. the adverbial bears narrow focus.
(11) a. What memorable events involving large ships in the North Atlantic can you
mention?
b. [...] [The Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine in 1915. Also, the Titanic
sink rapidly. It hit an iceberg] . (nonrestrictive reading)
F
(12) a. What caused such a great loss of life in the sinking of the Titanic?
b. The Titanic sank [rapidly] . (restrictive reading)
F
Göbbel (2007) casts Peterson’s intuition in a focus-theoretical framework and argues after
him that the restrictive vs. nonrestrictive distinction is an informational one, both for ad-
jectival and adverbial modifiers : the modifier is narrowly focused on the restrictive use,
and integrated into a broader focus on the nonrestrictive use.
Morzycki (2008) rejects Peterson’s and Göbbel’s characterisation of the nonrestrictive
modifiers as non-focused and restrictive ones as focused (to which we come back below),
but adopts Peterson’s idea that nonrestrictive modifiers make part of ‘double-assertions’.
Besides, Morzycki proposes to extend to the whole class of nonrestrictive modifiers, inclu-
dingtheattributive(nonappositive)modifiers,thetypicalcharacterizationofappositivesas
‘parenthetical’,asadditionalextra-commentsonthecurrentutterance.Hetreatsallnonres-
trictive modifiers (including adjectives or adverbials in pre-head position) as a subspecies
of expressive meaning as defined by Potts (2005), and identified with conventional impli-
catures. According to this approach, a sentence with a nonrestrictive modifier is a way of
saying two sentences in one. The modifier is then conceived as predicated of an (implicit)
contextually-restricted definite description. For instance, (13a) receives as a paraphrase
(13b), and (14a) means something like (14b) (C is a contextually supplied domain va-
riable).
(13) a. Every unsuitable word was deleted. (nonrestrictive)
b. Every word was deleted. They were unsuitable.
(14) a. If a ship slowly sinks , it’s always regrettable.
C
b. Every ship-sinking is regrettable. The sinkings (i.e., the relevant sinkings) are
C C
slow.
Observe that the nonrestrictive modification is then analysed as having wide scope (e.g. on
the conditional in (14)). This is expected if indeed the implication they convey is a conven-
tional implicature.
Although appealing for appositives, such an analysis raises several problems when ex-
tended to nonrestrictivity in general. Firstly, it is important not to conflate attributive with
2
appositive nonrestrictive modifiers. Indeed, as already noticed by Leffel (2012) :12, these
two kinds of nonrestrictive modifiers differ in their discourse properties. On one hand, ap-
positivestendtoconveynewinformation,contrarytopresuppositions(Potts(2005))).This
explains Pott’s contrast repeated in (15).
(15) Lance Amstrong survived cancer...
a. # When reporters interview Lance, a cancer survivor, he often talks about the
disease.
b. And most riders know that Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor
On the other hand, attributive nonrestrictive modifiers regularly present the predication as
presupposed, as shown by the contrast (16) provided by Leffel (2012). The same contrast
obtainsforanycommutablemodifierinFrench,cf.(17a).AsWaugh(1977)indeedalready
observed, modifiers in prenominal position can always present the description as already
introduced in the previous context, cf. her ex. (17a). Appositives cannot, as shown by the
oddity of (17b).
(16) a. # Carcinogens are harmful, and you should use this product to rid your body of
all carcinogens, which are harmful.
b. Carcinogens are harmful, and you should use this product to rid your body of all
harmful carcinogens.
(17) a. J’ai vu un éléphant énorme. Cet énorme éléphant buvait de
Ihave seen a elephant huge. This huge elephant drink-IMP. of
l’eau.
thewater
’I saw a huge elephant. This huge elephant was drinking water.’
b. # J’ai vu un éléphant énorme. Cet éléphant, énorme, buvait de
Ihave seen a elephant huge. This elephant huge drink-IMP. of
l’eau.
thewater
‘I saw a huge elephant. This elephant, huge, was drinking water.’
The second problem raised by Morzycki’s approach is that conventional implicatures take
maximally wide scope, even in contexts that are filters or plugs for presupposition projec-
tion (like verba dicendi), and are speaker-oriented – they convey the speaker’s commentary
of what is said. This is probably the case for expressives like damn or fucking (in John told
methatthejerkstoppeddrinking,jerkoutscopestheverbofsayingandreflectsthespeaker’s
opinion). But this is less clear for non expressive pre-head modifiers. For instance, in The
snail told me he quickly approached the salad, if quickly were understood as a comment on
the utterance, this comment would on the most accessible interpretation be attributed to
the snail, not to the speaker. Besides, some evaluative adjectives like fantastique ‘fantastic’
or merveilleux ‘marvelous’, which resemble expressives in that their use seem always ac-
companied by the expression of the speaker’s emotion (as shown e.g. by the fact that they
somehow require an exclamative prosody), do not seem to project when used in indefi-
nites. For instance, Je voudrais trouver un magnifique appartement! ‘I would like to find a
magnificent apartment!’ does not project the description conveyed by magnifique (I come
backtothispointlater).Also,characterizingnonrestrictiveattributivemodifiersasspeaker
orientedwouldbeatoddwithtraditionaldescriptionsingrammarsofFrench.Accordingto
thesedescriptions,thepredicationconveyedbyadjectivesinprenominalpositionispresen-
ted as ‘notorious’, ‘common-knowledge’, ‘stereotypical’, as ‘mentions of social discourse’, of
the vox populi (Delente (2004), see also Roubaud (1785), Lafaye (1841), Berlan (1992)).8
In fact, it is the post-nominal rather than the prenominal adjectives that are traditionally
characterized as conveying the speaker’s opinion in French grammars.
A third problem raised by Morzycki’s account for our purposes is that it only offers a
characterisation in terms of information structure of nonrestrictivity. It does not provide a
definition of restrictivity which is independent of the set-theory based definition (2).
2.3.2. Nonrestrictive modifiers as presupposition triggers
Nonrestrictive modifiers have also been be said to be presupposed material. This idea has
different incarnations. I will begin by Leffel (2012), because it is one of the most explicit
proposalinthisdirection.Leffelbeginsbyobservingthattheclaimthatnonrestrictiveattri-
butivemodifierspresupposetheirdescriptionis‘nearlyself-evident’formodifiersthatoccur
in definite DPs : ‘clearly my sick mother presupposes that the speaker has a mother and the
speaker’s mother is sick’ (p. 13). About non-definites DPs, his claim is double. Firstly, he as-
sumes that nonrestrictive attributive adjectives in non definites trigger an inference which
is generic or universal by nature; they do not predicate a property to an individual, but
rather predicate something of all individuals in the denotation of the noun. In the terms
of Umbach (2006), nonrestrictive modifiers in non-definites always have according to this
view the ‘kind-related’ reading.9 Secondly, Leffel claims that this generic inference is pre-
supposed. On this view, harmful toxins means ‘the set of y such that y is a toxin’ and is
defined only if the presupposition that toxins are generally harmful is satisfied. His first
argument in favour of the second claim is that the generic inference is preserved under
negation, in questions, modal contexts, etc. For instance, This product might contain harm-
ful toxins still entails that toxins are generally harmful. His second argument, taken from
Umbach (2006), is that nonrestrictive modifiers cannot take intonational focus in English
or German, which is expected if they are backgrounded constituents (cf. also Beller (2012)
on this point).
AlthoughLeffel’saccountmightbecorrectwhennonrestrictivityisconceptualinFabricius-
Hansen’s terms, it cannot be generalized to all attributive/non appositive nonrestrictive
readings. Firstly, it cannot always be extended to adverbials in preverbal position. For ins-
tance, J’ai rapidement mangé un sandwich ‘I quickly ate a sandwich’ does not presuppose
that eating-a-sandwich-events are generally quick. Secondly, in indefinites, prenominal ad-
jectives (always nonrestrictive in French) do not systematically have the kind-related rea-
ding. For instance, un stupide employé de la bibliothèque ‘a stupid worker of the library’
8. ‘Theadjectiveisbeforethenounwhenthepropertydenotedistakenforgranted’(Roubaud(1785),my
translation); ‘[with a prenominal adjective] we say what is known’ (Lafaye (1841), my translation). Some
authorsassumethatprenominaladjectivesarealwayspartofananaphoricNP(seeWaugh(1977)andNolke
(1996)).Butaswewillseelater,thisisnotcorrectsincetheycanbeusedinNPsreferringtonewlyintroduced
referents.
9. UmbachclaimsthatindefiniteNPs,nonrestrictivemodifierscaneitherbekind-related(e.g.derkleine
Pekinese ‘the small Pekinese’ can entail that Pekinese dogs are generally small’) or referent-related (e.g. der
kleinePekinesecanentailthatthedogreferredtoissmall(p.154).