Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2(pesnta.1.2) 9/5/84; site scc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!pesnta!scc!steiny
From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Adjective order
Message-ID: <520@scc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 15:29:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: scc.520
Posted: Thu Jul 25 15:29:55 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 02:44:02 EDT
References: <521@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Don Steiny Software
Lines: 128

>
> 
> Some time ago, I noticed that when more than one adjective is applied
> to a noun in English, there is an invariable order in which they are
> applied.  
> one says the big red house", not "the red big house".
> 
> I wondered about a couple of points.  First, has anyone else ever noticed
> this ordering?  
>	Frank Adams
	

	YES!  One thing I have spent some time working on is a
transformational explaination.  It is probably not the most
favored course in this day and age, but there are compelling
arguments.   Consider a special type of "adjective" those
adjectives that are formed with the "-ing" form of a verb or
the past participle.   I was sorting through words for another
purpose when I noticed that the past participle form of intranstive
verbs cannot be used as adjectives.

	Transitive verbs: need, fry.

	1) He needed the books.
	2) The needed books are here.
	3) He fried the fish.
	4) The fried fish were delecious.

	Intransitive verbs: "agree", "bark".

	5) The dogs barked.
	6) *The barked dogs . .
	7) The doctors agreed.
	8) *The agreed doctors . .

	Further evidence that intransitive verbs cannot be used in the 
"adjective" slot in NP's is homophones like "concentrate."   
There are two words "concentrate", one transitive and one intransitive, 
"to charge the soultion,"  "to concentrate on the problem."
Notice that the first use is transitive and the second
intransitive. 

	9)  The concentrated solution was . . .
	10) ?The concentrated question was . . .

notice that when the word "concentrate" is used in that slot, it gets
the transtive reading. #10 might not really be funny, if it is
given the interpretation that the question was more concentrated
than other questions, but not if it has the reading that the
question is concentrating (note that the two verbs mean
different things, the question is . . . which verb are we using?).

	Notice that with the "-ing" suffix intranstive verbs work
fine:

	11) The barking dogs . . .
	12) the agreeing doctors . . .

and that verbs that are homophones get the intransitive reading
in that slot:

	13) The concentrating student . . .
	14) ?The consentrating question . . .

These examples have lead me to hypothesize that the stucture that
we are generating is not:

	DET ADJ NOUN

but a relative clause that is reduced to the NP form we use.
Thus, "the barking dogs" comes from "The dogs are barking",
The "The fried fish" comes from "X fried the fish."  

This correctly predicts the reading of the homophones.

	X consentrated the solution
		=> The concentrated solution . . .
	The student was concentrating.
		=> The concentrating student . . .

Basically, it seems that under some circumstances, the rule

	I) NP => DET ADJ[0] NOUN

does not predict the surface structure as well as assuming
that the string is generated from an underlying S and 
reduced to the left hand side of I.  

	This proposal seems to help explain the words that
double as verbs that occur in the ADJ slot in I, but
what about words that are always adjectives?

	I have tried out, as a thought experiment, the idea
that the I is NEVER generated and that all occurances of I
come from reduced relative clauses.  That would mean
that:

	15) The red barn . . .

comes from:

	16) The barn that is red.

(Notice that there has to be some part of the transformation
that arbitrarily switches the adjective and the noun, but
English is backwards that way relative to the other Indo-European
languages, and some rule like "English switching" does not
strike me as too outragous).

	NP's that have multiple adjectives, like 

	17) The big red barn . ..

comes from:

	18) The barn that is red that is big . . .

I think that each additional modification, i.e. "that is ..."
has to make sense semantically.   I think there are
natural subset relationships that more carefully isolate
the desired subset, and that these relationships are based
on our experience. 

-- 
scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060