Talk:Nominalized adjective

Tech Questions
creating and inserting pictures with the citation

possible legend of linguistics topics, similar to other projects

merging of adjectival noun and adjectival noun (noun) pages

Hi Jonathan, we are hoping that you received our email regarding out tech meeting. Contko (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that Adjectival noun (noun) be merged into Adjectival noun. I think that the two articles are discussing the same topic, just with different names. — DPoon (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur the articles should be merged. They both talk about the exact same topics (the various definitions of "adjectival noun"), which could be done in one article.--Serafín33 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think the two articles can be merged into one. Contko (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As i don't believe there is a difference between adjectival nouns and adjectival noun (noun) I am in full support of the merging. The amalgamation would help reduce confusion for people looking up information on a topic they are not really familiar with. Maebaran (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Adjectival noun (noun) should be merged into Adjectival noun. Since Adjectival noun (noun) is fairly empty, that shouldn't be a problem. Since there have been no objections, I will go ahead with the merge. --Boson (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

=Annotated Bibliography : B1 Adjectival Nouns=

Arnaud, Pierre, J. L. (2010). "Judging the degree of adjectivization of english nouns: An investigation of the discourse behaviour of a sample of frequent predmodifier nouns". English Studies, 91, 3. doi: 10.1080/00138381003647558 The main argument of this paper is to look at some nouns that appear to share some same characteristics of adjectives and those that frequently happen as prenominal modifiers. As well as looking at the natures of nominality and adjectivity through an investigation of a corpus. This article will be significant for a wiki project because it will show data of nominals and adjectivals separately and then put them together as modifiers. This is from the perspective of researcher Pierre J. L. Arnaud. A possible shortcoming is that this paper only shows examples for English nouns. My impression is that it is well structured and is easy to navigate to the relevant information.

Bowers, John, S. (1975). "Some adjectival nominalizations in English". Lingua, 37, 341 – 361. doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(75)90041-8 "The argument of this paper is that not all adjectives will or must go through a nominalization transformation. There are however some adjectives that underlyingly must go through such a transformation. This paper has significance to our project because it is looking at the transformations or lack of transformation that an adjective may go through. Including how if affects modifiers and other lexical items. Written by John S. Bowers from the department of Modern Languages and Linguistics at Cornell University. There maybe a lot of extra talk involving transformations that may occur with other parts of speech included in the paper and is therefore not focusing completely on the adjectival noun transformation. My impression of the work is that it gives a lot of valuable information on which forms may undergo a transformation."

Dickens, D. (1983). "Teaching attributive adjective endings and adjectival nouns: An attempt at simplification". Teaching German, 16(1), 103-106. "This particular article explains the use of attributive and adjectival nouns and how to approach teaching the concepts to students learning german. This article will be of importance because it breaks the concepts and applications down into layman terms. The article is presented in a manner that promotes learning of the basic concepts. The most noticeable downside to this article is heavily bias to german usages but relate them back to english application. I think that this article is useful in learning the bare bone basics but my not be helpful past that."

Iwasaki, N. (2000). Speaking Japanese "L1 and L2 grammatical encoding of case particles and adjectives/adjectival nouns". The University of Arizona. Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/289191 The main argument of this article examines lexical retrieval processes for adjectives and adjectival nouns and case particle selection, by examining speech errors. What this article is trying to elaborate is the linking of psycholinguistic theories of sentence production to the study of second language acquisition. This article is valuable to our research project because it would show the process of acquisition of adjectival nouns. More importantly, this serves to illustrate how English speaker recognize adjectival nouns through a comparative study with second language acquisition of language process. This article or rather dissertation is written by a Ph.D student and examines the second language acquisition by Japanese people. This article may not prove to be useful as its very orientated towards Japanese speaker more so over English speakers. I would say it would be a useful materials to read upon to expand our perspective of adjectival acquisition from other speakers other than English speaker.

Lord, J. B. (1970). "Sequence in clusters of pre-nominal adjective and adjectivals in English". Journal of English Linguistics, 4, 57. doi: 10.1177/007542427000400104 The main argument is looking at the sequences in clusters, and the ordering of the sequences of pronominal adjectives in English. I will also look at and suggest more evidence between known relations from the grammatical to the acceptable idiosyncratic variations. This paper will add value to our project, as it will discuss the transformational investment of a noun into an adjectival. It is written in the point of the main researcher John, B. Lord. The paper may focus more on the sequencing of clusters rather than the actually formation of adjectival nouns. This article will be helpful in identifying the cluster sequences that may occur with pre-nominals and adjectives but perhaps not a lot on actual adjectival nouns themselves.

Meydan, M. (1999). "Nominal group subject restructuring in adjectival sentences with an appropriate noun". Languages, 33(133), 59-80 "This article examines adjectival constructions in regards to their effect on sentence subjects, semantic conditions and semantic properties. This is significant to our topic because it outlines their influence on the structure of sentences. Furthermore it provides insight into how this structuring affects the semantics of the sentences. It is written from the perspective of a researcher dealing with French subject matter. A possible downfall could be how well the data is able to generalize to other languages. My impression of the work is that the specific questions of the research seem to address very specific questions but may lack external validity."

Pysz, A. (2006). "The structural location of adnominal adjectives: Prospects for Old English", Volume SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, Issue 3 (3), p.59-85 "The main argument of this article illustrate the location of adjectival nouns with respect to Chomskyan tradition of generative syntax. This article examines the structural of adjectival nouns in the generative literature. This article can prove to be useful because it examines the development of adjectival nouns through the perspective Chomsky. It also sketch a preliminary account of adjectival nouns in Old English which shows their surface properties. We can examine adjectival nouns from looking at Old English and how that carry over to modern English. To summarize, this article can help the group to write the paper from another perspective-Chomsky. A possible drawback of this article is that its too English orientated and does not show examples from other languages which may not show the entirety of adjectival nouns as there are adjectival nouns in other languages. This is a good piece of article and it compliments the article written by Yamamura, S."

Sklavounou, E. (1999). "Adjectival constructions with sentential subject in modern greek and in french". Languages, 33(133), 45-58. "This article compares adjectival nominalization in French and Greek and the effect this has on semantic and lexical categories in both languages. The value of this article is that it provides insight towards the lexical identities of adjectival nouns. The perspective of this researcher comes from a study only looking at modern Greek and French constructions with sentient subjects. A possible downfall is that only these types of sentences and deverbal phrases are analyzed. My impression of the work is that it seems to be an in depth analyses of these adjectival nominalizations."

Swan, O. (1980). "The derivation of the Russian adjectival noun". Russian Linguistics, 4(4), 397-404. This article discusses mainly the different uses of Adjectival Nouns and how they are created. The main focus in the article is Adjectival Nouns in Russian but quite nicely denotes the phenomenon as it is used in English. The article is helpful to our project because it provides the information of what exactly an adjectival noun is, as well as, an extensive explanation of the different ways a adjectival noun can be used and created. The source i have chosen is a peer reviewed article and is presents from an unbiased and factual point of view. The main drawback of this article is that the main focus is on German adjectival nouns and not on english ones. I feel that this article thoroughly explains the different forms of adjectival nouns and provides useful example to enable better understanding. Yamamura, S. (2010). "The development of adjectives used as nouns in the history of English". English Linguistics, (27)2, 344-363. "The main argument for this article examines how adjective developed to be used as noun in the history of English. It also identifies the relation to the loss of the adjective inflection in some words. There is a correlation for these historical events that cause such change to the structure of the language of English overtime. This article is relevant to our topic because it identifies how adjectival nouns comes into being. Also, it explains how such structure is possible in terms of DP structure which contains the “phonological null pronominal”. In short, this paper will give our group a better understanding of the origin of adjectival noun which will help us when we write up the description in the project. This paper is written from the point of view of a Japanese-English linguist. A shortcoming for this paper is that its evidence is all in Old English which may not be completely relevant to modern English. Also, it tends to be overly English dominated and does not bring up examples from the same language family trees such as German. I believe this is a great piece of article to help the group understand adjectival nouns in general and will be a major factor in our project."--Maebaran (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ling 300
contko, when you are editing the first section of Lexicalist Theory, make sure to elaborate the Lexical transformation process.Zengc (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I did my share of editing. Let me know if the terminology in the theory section are still mind-boggling for a beginner...Zengc (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I realized that I already did the syntactical analysis of The theory of development of Adjectival nouns. It can be found under the English subsection. Perhaps someone can move it to the development section instead?Zengc (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So just added a very simple definition, and linked adjective and noun to their respective wiki's. Feel free to add on to the definition I know what's there is super simplified. Contko (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've come across a couple of different theories that are being talked about one being the lexicalist theory and the other being the syntactic theory, could come in handy when putting together the history/theory section Contko (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the information we are posting needs to be simplistically written, this is used as an education tool to inform people who have no back ground knowledge. Maebaran (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey can we make sure to cite all the information we post. Thanks y'all. Maebaran (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, we need your references! Contko (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey y'all, I have the tress for the Swedish Section done. However, i am not able to post them. Will ask how at the tech. meeting on the 7th. Maebaran (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Group B2 peer review
Dear Group B1,

Here are our suggestions on how to improve your Wikipedia page. We have made some copy-edits such as adding links, removing broken links, fixing typos and grammatical errors, and basic formatting.

Clarity

Certain terminology used need to be defined so they are understandable to non-experts (e.g. lexical roles, unvalued φ-features). We have added some links to other Wikipedia articles for you.

Verifiability

A number of sentences, especially for factual content, need citations after them to show where you found this information. Also, each data example needs to have citations to show where you received this information. The format of the citations for data examples should also follow Rose-Marie's format shown in class. It should follow this format: (Author, Year, Page Number, Example Number).

Neutrality

The article had a good sense of neutrality overall. There are no instances of bias, however, more citations are needed to show that your content is someone else's work, and not of your own opinion.

Quality of research

The history section is interesting and well-researched. The different languages covered and the data were clear with separate subheadings, but more languages from different families would also contribute to a more diverse article. The references you have used are varied, scholarly, and include a mixture of more recent and earlier works. However, you might look for additional resources to supplement your article.

Comprehensiveness

Your sections are good but could be developed further. The introduction could be expanded to give a better overview of the topic and a good background understanding. More content under the two different theories can be included, with subheadings for each theory to explicitly represent the theories.

Lay-out

Consider having separate sections for "frequency of use" and "history" or retitling the section and combining it as one. The "tree" subheading seems out of place because the other headings under that section are languages. It could be made as a subheading underneath "German." A "See also" section could be included.

Citations

All your citations are consistent format, except for reference [2] http://www.dartmouth.edu/~german/Grammatik/AdjectivalNouns/AdjectivalNouns.html Add more information about this reference (author, date, etc.)

Images

You might consider putting captions underneath the images. The images could be aligned to the right or left to prevent abundant white space on either side. Your images are very helpful for clarifying content. The image underneath "frequency of use/history" could be formatted as a table so that it is more readable.

Style

The data should be put in boxes to make it more clear that you are referring to examples. There should be a morpheme gloss and translation underneath data in other languages. Only the first word of the heading titles should be capitalized (unless it is a proper noun).

--Bibliophileb (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) -- Abi.manuel (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC) --Rchomat (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC) -- Lizhugs (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC) -- Izza157 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Theory development of adjectival nouns for English"
This section does not need to describe the generalities of these theories and it needs a rewrite--"This theory is prominently stated beginning in the 1970's", for instance, is not good writing. Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, if they need to be mentioned at all (which frankly I doubt), should be named in full and wikilinked. "Chomsky’s contributions talked about how..." is even worse, and any page referring to Fowler can't use the phrase "based around". "The projection rules" are undefined: the term "projection" hasn't been mentioned yet; the time spent on talking about Chomsky and Halle is better spent discussing that. And "theory development" is not very pretty either. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarity
Taking into account B2’s suggestion to define our terms and make them more understandable, we have added additional explanation as well as linked certain terms (such as lexical roles and φ-features). We also had a look at the links that B2 suggested we look at. It helped to recognize the clarity in other articles in order to create more clarification in our own. It was a good reminder to remember who our audience is and to remember to present concepts in a way that is accessible to a range of readers.

Verifiability
We followed B2’s suggestions regarding verifiability by adding further citations, especially regarding factual content and data examples. We also adjusted the formatting of our citations to proper Wikipedia style citation.

Neutrality
B2 was happy with the neutrality of our page. We have focused on maintaining this sense of neutrality when adding further information to our page. Also, with the additional citations we have acknowledged the sources of our discussion of adjectival nouns.

Images
Thank you Group B2 for your feedback, we will take heed of your suggestions. Most of our images are now aligned to the right, without white spaces on either side. We also plan to add description to of all our pictures; thank you for pointing that out! As you suggested, we formatted a table for our image of "frequency of use/history" section. Zengc (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Style
After getting feedback from Group B2, boxes were established to make it clear which examples we are referring to. Morpheme gloss and translation are also now presented in the data of other languages. We also fixed the capitalization of other words in heading titles. Much thanks to Group B2 for pointing that out. Zengc (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality of research
We addressed the issue they presented by adding more languages with additional sources and will add more languages as we find the information. These sections were also expanded from the same sources to provide further information on the topic.

Comprehensiveness
We added extra information to the introduction and expanded the section on theories, and created the subsections for each theory. This section was also expanded with further information for clarity as well as pictures.

Layout
We clarified title headings, like frequency of use/history changed to frequency of use and history. By recommendation we also added the "see also" section. We also moved some sections around to create easier reading. Sections were deleted that were only present to guide the layout and research of the article.

Maebaran and Contko (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

German
The section on German has the statement The way this is worded, expressing causation, does not take sufficient account of the fact that agreement applies only in certain circumstances (e.g. when the adjective is used attributively but not when it is used as a predicative complement). I would suggest a minor re-wording. --Boson (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Adjectives in German contain various information, such as case and gender, and therefore must agree with the noun that they are modifying."

Better title?
Can we find a better title for this article? The term "adjectival noun" seems not to be commonly used in this meaning, and is more commonly used to denote nouns used as adjectives, and particularly for Japanese na-adjectives. Adjectives used as nouns are more commonly called "nominalized adjectives" or something like that. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any objection to Nominalized adjective as the title? W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No? I'm going to move it then. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the stated structural grammar semantics in this article actually correct?
The substitution of 'the poor people' with 'the poor' does not seem to be correct to me.

It seems to me that 'the poor' is actually a contracted form for 'the people who could be in the category of people defined as poor', subtly but importantly different from 'the poor people'. The latter I suggest means we can identify specific people, who happen to be poor, the former I suggest means unknown non specific people who could be defined as poor.

Similarly for any other subject.

Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your idea "the people who could be in the category of people defined as poor" is fatally ambiguous. In the same context, you use the word poor to mean two or three different things—you write of either a low-quality category or of penniless people, but which of the two? Your parse of "the poor people" uses another definition of poor, as you write of pitiful people. In the article, the example "the poor" refers to people who have no money. catsmoke (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)