Parameterizing Scale Structure: Cognitive–Discursive Constraints on Degree Semantics in Kazakh and French
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1609.26Keywords:
degree semantics, scale structure, operator licensing, negation, monotonicityAbstract
This article develops a parameterization of scale structure (ScaleType) as a central predictor in degree semantics and formulates the Degree Semantics Parameter (DSP) as a system of invariant compositional dependencies. Drawing on parallel data from Kazakh and French, the study demonstrates that the licensing of operator classes – absolute modifiers, measure expressions, comparative constructions, recursive/conjunctive strategies, and extremal operators – is systematically governed by the geometry of scales. Open scales license measure expressions, contextual standards, and unbounded recursion, whereas closed and bounded scales license maximizers, absolute or proportional standards, and block recursion once the upper boundary is reached. These dependencies emerge as cross-linguistic universals and are reproduced without inversion in Kazakh and French, despite major morphosyntactic differences. The empirical base consists of interlinear glossed minimal pairs (IGT), supported by corpus-based statistical modeling and reliability checks. Interface factors such as negation, focus, and register shift the probability of operator licensing and the choice of standards of comparison, yet never change the direction of scale-governed effects. They function as distributional parameters rather than structural determinants. The findings refine the architecture of degree semantics by confirming the degrees-as-variables approach, showing that operator selection directly follows from scale geometry. The study contributes to typological generalization, proposes explicit diagnostics for monotonicity and recursion, and ensures reproducibility through open access to annotated data and code. Limitations concern the restriction to two languages and reliance on corpus methods; further research should extend the language sample and test recursive comparisons experimentally.
References
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119405283
Anderson, C., & Morzycki, M. (2015). Degrees as kinds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(3), 791–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9290-2
Annual Review of Linguistics. (2019). Special issue on comparison and gradability. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304176
Beck, S., Krasikova, S., Fleischer, D., Gergel, R., Hofstetter, S., Savelsberg, C., Vanderelst, J., & Villalta, E. (2009). Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9(1), 1-66.
Biber, D. (2021). Corpus approaches to register variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876611
Bowler, M. (2020). Degree semantics without degrees? Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 24, 145–162.
Bylinina, L., Tikhonov, A., & Garmash, E. (2021). Negation and scalar inferences: Evidence from Russian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1321
Combettes, B. (2020). Genre, register and the expression of comparison in French. Langue française, 208, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.208.0087
Dubois, J., Lagane, R., & Chuquet, H. (2021). La comparaison en français contemporain [Comparison in contemporary French]. Paris: Ophrys.
Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 10 (pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3102
Hohaus, V., & Zimmermann, M. (2021). Extremal degree modification in typological perspective. Linguistics, 59(3), 525–570. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0003
Issakova, S., Kislyakova, E., Madzhaeva, S., Issakova, A., Khairzhanova, B., & Rakhimgaliyeva, A. (2026). Discourse Worldview on Freelancing in the Contemporary Job Market (Based on the English Language Material). World Journal of English Language, 16(3), 198-204. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n3p198
Isembayeva, A. (2021). Genre-specific uses of gradable adjectives in Kazakh. Journal of Language and Education, 7(2), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle2021.114
Johansson, S. (2020). Corpus linguistics and cross-linguistic patterns of gradability. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324327
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9008-0
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071
Klein, E. (1991). Comparatives. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 673–691). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maslova, E. (2009). Focus and scalar interpretation. Linguistic Typology, 13(2), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2009.009
Mendia, J. (2020). Gradability and scalar restrictions. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 24, 275–292.
Morzycki, M. (2012). Adverbial modification. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 2, pp. 1185–1212). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mukhtarullina, A., Issakova, S., Alimbek, G., & Issakova, A. (2024). The Pragmatic Aspect of Modality in the English Mass-Media Discourse. World journal of English language, 14(4), 322-327. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n4p322
Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47
Paradis, C. (2010). Higher scales of degree: The case of very, highly, and absolutely. London: Routledge.
Rabinovich, E., Xu, Y., & Stevenson, S. (2020). Modeling genre effects in comparative constructions. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2020 (pp. 4512–4521). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.365
Rett, J. (2015). The semantics of evaluativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602470.001.0001
Scontras, G. (2017). Degree semantics and extremal adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 34(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffw011
Seuren, P. (1973). The comparative. In F. Kiefer & N. Ruwet (Eds.), Generative grammar in Europe (pp. 528–564). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Snyder, W. (2021). Cross-linguistic variation in scalar recursion. Linguistic Inquiry, 52(4), 681–715. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00393
Syrett, K., & Kennedy, C. (2022). The acquisition of comparatives and measure phrases. Language Acquisition, 29(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2021.1992559
Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toleuova, A. (2022). Gradable predicates in Kazakh: Scale structure and degree modification. Kazakh Linguistic Review, 14(1), 45–68.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2022). Corpus linguistics at work (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.106
von Stechow, A. (2009). The temporal and the modal: The case of noch/encore. Snippets, 19, 9–11.
Wellwood, A. (2020). The meaning of more. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198717199.001.0001