Nothing bad here. Nonstandard use of mal ?bad? in Argentinian Spanish.

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Congreso; Theoretical and Empirical Approaches to Microvariation (TEAM 2018); 2018

Nothing bad here. Nonstandard use of mal ?bad? in Argentinian Spanish. Elatives are a rich source of (micro)variation in Spanish. A well-known example is bien, which in some Spanish varieties serves as a degree elative [Ebien], as opposed to the manner adverbial seen in ?standard? Spanish [SS]. Here I analyze an underexplored, nonstandard use of the adverb mal ?bad? in Argentinian Spanish [AS]. In contrast to the negative manner adv also seen in SS (1)a[Smal], mal in AS is used to convey high degrees in a positive sense of quantification [Emal] (1)b. The variation is important since for non-AS speakers (1) has univocal reading, while in AS it needs to be disambiguated; but also because Emal shows distinct (A) behavioral and (B) aspectual properties and full (crosscategorial) productivity and systematicity unseen in other nonstandard and standard elatives (vs. bien, Rexach&Gutierrez2014; in AS: vs. bocha/banda, Masullo 2017). (1)a. Ayer descansó mal. ?Yesterday he rested in an incorrect manner? (he didn?t rest well)[AS]/[SS]b. Ayer descansó mal. ?Yesterday he rested a lot?[AS]/*[SS](A) Emal is different from the broadly comparable SS modifier muy/mucho ?a lot?, but also from the nonstandard elative Ebien. Like other elatives, Emal is incompatible with imperatives (3). However, unlike Ebien (or AS band/bocha), Emal cannot be displaced to left periphery to yield exclamative force (4). Ordering and aspectual entailments are different (5)-(6); linearization (cf. (5)|(7)) being central to interpretation. Emal is not constrained to predicative/attributive uses and shows no categorial restrictions: it freely combines with PPs, Vs, Ns (8), to consistently distinct entailments (regardless e.g. of N type (9)). Emal does not form antonymous pairs (10). This is key since if Emal were either the same type of elative as Ebien, or an elative variant of Smal (7)a it would be expected to yield low(est) or negative degrees, contrary to fact. A locality constraint draws a contrast with SS adv mucho/elative demasiado and (otherwise similar) English bad (11)a. (2)a. El camión está (Smal/Smuy/Ebien/*Emal) cargado. ?The truck is (Smalwrongly/Smuy-Ebienvery) loaded?b. El camión está cargado (*Smal/*smucho/*Smuy/okemal). ?The truck is (extraordinarily) loaded?(3)Por favor, estudia/descansa (Smucho/*Emal). ?Please, study/rest Smuchoa lot/* Emal extraordinarily much?.(4)a.{SMuy/EBien} rica te quedó la comida. ?The meal was very tasty (as you prepared it)?b.*EMal rica te quedó la comida/La comida te quedó rica okEmal. ?The meal was extraordinarily tasty?(5)Cortó (Smucho/Ebien/*Emal) el pan (*S mucho/*Ebien/Emal). ?He cut the bread a lot/completely/badly? (6)a. Cortó el pan (Ebien/Smuy/*Emal) fino (*Ebien/*Smuy/Emal). ?He sliced the meat very/≈badly thin? b. (EBien/SMuy/*EMal) fino. ?extremely/very thin? cf. Fino (*Ebien/*Smuy/Emal) ?≈badly thin?(7)a.Cortó mal el pan.?He cut the bread Smalwrongly? b. Cortó el pan mal. ?He cut the bread Emalbadly?(8)a. {(??EBien/SMuy/*SMucho) en calma (okmal). ?Well/Very/Much/Extraordinarily in calm? b. calmarse (*Ebien/*Smuy/okSmucho/okEmal). ?Calm down Smuchoa lot/Emalextraordinarily?.(9)a.{(*EBien/*SMuy/SMucho) sueño|(??EBien/SMuy/*SMucho) amigo} b. {Amigo/Sueño} Emal.(10)a.{Sbien/??Ebien} ganado ?SCorrectly/EVery won? b. (Smal) ganado (Emal).?Won Sincorrectly/Eby far?(11)a. Duele (*realmente) Emal b. Duele (okrealmente) mucho/demasiado ?It hurts (okreal(ly)) bad?It hurts (real*(ly)) a lot/too much?(B) The definition of elatives as degrees out of a conventional scale (Bosque 2002), as opposed to superlatives (max. degree on the scale), is key to the wider distribution (e.g. compatibility with max. degree (12) and nongradable A (ciego mal ?≈badly blind?)) but also to predict that in verbs, emal does not yield telicity (13). By introducing a nondiscrete high value which is not an upper end of a scale (Kennedy 2007 etc.) modification with emal does not yield an eventuality carried out to full extent. Analysis: We propose that AS varies by allowing emal (not Ebien) to freely occur as internal VP-(or XP-) quantifier, just as (the also crosscategorial) SS muy/mucho (but without morphological alternation). Two observations are key: (i) The sense of measure imposed on the event bears on the denotation of the scale introduced by √, reflecting a generalized measuring-out effect noted on lexicalized scales (Levin& Rappaport[LR] 2010 i.a.). Namely, it is noted that in ?deadjectivals?, degree modifiers measure the event by imposing a measure on the property scale provided by the lexical root [√], just as with Emal ((15)c); while in transitive and unergative denominals, they measure the event by imposing a measure on the extension of the object named by √, reflecting the well-known effect (Tenny 1985, Krifka 1998) seen in unincorporated transitive variants (sketchily illustrated in (16), cf. Harley 2005:47). (ii) On l-syntactic approaches to verb formation and VP structure (Hale & Keyser 1993), these cases are similar in that the incorporated √ comes from the same position: sister-to-vº, which is the position centrally associated with measuring-out effects. From this perspective, Emal would pose an interesting case where measuring-out over a lexical root (Harley 2005) can be discussed further. On this analysis, however, we must assume that emal is allowed to have an aspectual effect on the event(uality) by directly modifying √. To account for this, we follow Bosque & Masullo?s (1998) analysis of comparable aspectual modification in SS, according to which verbs formed by √incorporation present a configuration [vP[vº[Q-√S]] where Q represents a hidden quantifier containing a lexical quantificational/degree feature which licenses the relevant adjunct (SS mucho in their example) by checking a lexical quantificational feature. Our proposal is different from BM?s in that, first, it directly relies on the aspectual feature of the Root (in Harley?s account, a lexicalized quantificational (±bounded) feature applied to scalar-denoting Roots) which is correspondingly modelled by degree modifiers (if present); second, it offers a unified analysis for the finer aspectual entailments sanctioned by the modifier simply by relying on structural differences in event type (temporal readings in activities (13), degree readings in accomplishments (inner state, e.g. se lustró/oscureció mal ?it became badly shining/polished?, with se producing telic versions of (15)b-d)), and states (15)c, as expected; but also on the scalar properties of √ (i.e., with aspectual calculation depending on the type of scale that √ represents), as in standard semantic analyses (Hay 1998, Kennedy & McNally 1999 i.a.). It remains consistent with the standard l-syntactic analysis of VP structure (17) (HK 2005, Harley 2005); but especially with Harley?s configurational account of measuring-out effects, which would be consistently defined here by Emal, with √ occupying the relevant position (18) in all the cases at issue. Assuming standardly that unergatives (e.g. denominals like descansar ((1)|(15)a) are ?hidden? transitives produced by incorporation of the n√ in measure-out position (17)a, and that locatum verb (e.g.(15)b) configurations (17)c also apply to stative transitives like respetar (HK 2002:38), with √ in the relevant aspectual position also ((15)c|(18)c), quantification by Emal directly on the scale supplied by √ follows from the same principles, readily extending to deadjectivals ((15)d, (17)b|(18)b). It also correctly captures the sense of measurement lexically licensed namely by motion verbs (measured along spatial scales (16)a), vs. unergatives formed by incorporation of incremental themes, arguably measured by amount of substance produced (16)b, which along with change of state ((15)d-(16)a) define the three subtypes of measuring-out on lexicalized scales (LH 2010). If correct, the proposal offers a simple explanation of the syntactic(A) and semantic (B) properties of this nonstandard elative, with direct composition with √ allowing to account for full crosscategorial productivity (and corresponding aspectual effects) and locality constraints. It remains to be seen if similar negmanner-to-poselative (micro)variations are equally systematic and productive in other Spanish varieties or languages (e.g. full productivity as opposed to Eng. bad).(12) a. (??EBien/#SMuy/*EMal) cerrada. ?well/very closed?b. Cerrada Emal. ?extraordinarily closed? (13)descansó/comió Emal (*en una hora). ?He rested/ate ≈badly (extraordinarily much) (*in an hour)? (14) a. Llovió mucho. (√RAIN.3S.PST bad) ´It rained a lot´ (= a lot of rain) (INHERENT QUANT.) (BM 1998)b. Comió mucho. (√FOOD.3S.PST bad) ?He ate a lot (=a lot of food)? (ARGUMENTAL QUANT.) (15)a. descansar mal (√REST.INF bad) ?rest badly? [⥵hacer descanso mal ?do extr. rest?] b. lustrar mal (√REST.INF bad) ?(shoe)shine badly? [⥵poner (con) lustre mal ?with ext. (shoe)shine?] c. respetar mal (√RESPECT.INF bad) ?respect badly? [⥵tener (con) respeto mal ?have ext. respect?]d. oscurecer mal (√DARK.INF bad) ?darken badly? [⥵volverse oscuro mal ?become ext. dark?] (16)AS|*SS: a.Caminó Emal. (lit. √THREAD.3sg.PST badly) ?He walked ≈much? [⥵did much thread] b. Sudó Emal. (lit. √SWEAT.3sg.PST badly) ?He sweated ≈much?[⥵produced much sweat] c. Oscureció Emal. (lit. √DARK.3sg.PST badly) ?It darkened ≈much?[⥵become much dark](17)a. vP [DP, v? [vº, √nP]]b. vP [DP, v? [vº, √aP]]c. vP [V P [DP, √P]] (HK 2005)(18)a. vP [DP, v? [vº, Qi√nP] Qi]]b. vP [DP, v? [vº, Qi√aP] Qi]]c. vP [vº P [DP, Qi√P] Qi]]