Against 'long'movement of the superlative operator

Syntax, 2008

The standard view of superlatives treats them as a subkind of adjectives. However, in many languages, superlatives require the presence of a determiner, even in the predicate position. This leads to an apparent contradiction, since it is independently known that determiners syntactically combine with extended NP projections and are excluded with APs. This issue is resolved if superlative adjectives always appear in an attributive (modificational) position. Superlative phrases without an overt noun (e.g., in the predicative position) modify a null head noun. I show that this hypothesis immediately explains the restrictions on the distribution of superlatives in languages as diverse as Russian, French, German, Dutch, Breton, Spanish and Portuguese. I propose that the modificational nature of superlative adjectives can be derived from their semantics, and I argue that such a proposal yields a natural explanation of the behavior of superlatives in Hebrew and Persian. Finally, I discuss the interaction between this theory and the standard, movement-based analyses of comparatives and superlatives and provide an explanation for apparent counterexamples.

Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale

The goal of this paper is to reconcile the definite marking with the indefinite-like semantics of those superlatives that take a relative/comparative reading. Following Szabolcsi (1986) and Heim (1999), we will assume that the difference between absolute and relative readings of superlatives is represented at the syntactic level of semantic representation, LF (Logical Form). We will however depart from Heim’s hypothesis that what raises at LF is the superlative operator itself (EST). We will instead assume a quantificational-determiner analysis of EST, which involves two raising operations at LF: EST-raising to Spec,DP and raising of the whole superlative DP (Determiner Phrase) to a scope position in the sentence. We will examine the relative readings of quality superlatives. The generalizations and the proposed analysis are not assumed to extend to quantity superlatives.

Language and Linguistics Compass, 2008

(1) is an example of an adjectival comparative. In it, the adjective important is flanked by more and a comparative clause headed by than. This article is a survey of recent ideas about the interpretation of comparatives, including (i) the underlying semantics based on the idea of a threshold; (ii) the interpretation of comparative clauses that include quantifiers (brighter than on many other days); (iii) remarks on differentials such as much in (1) above: what they do in the comparative and what they do elsewhere in the language; (iv) the relationship between comparatives and other Degree constructions (e.g. as important, too important); and (v) the types of phrases in which comparatives are found (adjective: tighter versus noun: more water). Given the nature and purpose of this essay, I have tried not to presuppose background in formal semantics and I have departed from standard practice in journal articles by, as much as possible, not interrupting the flow with footnotes and references. There are two appendices. The first provides more analytical detail and there I do rely on formal techniques of natural language semantics. The second covers the sources for the ideas surveyed here.

Journal of Semantics, 2010

It has historically been assumed that comparative ("more than", "fewer/less than") and superlative ("at most", "at least") quantifiers can be semantically analysed in accordance with their core logicalmathematical properties. However, recent theoretical and experimental work has cast doubt on the validity of this assumption. Geurts and Nouwen (2007) have claimed that superlative quantifiers possess an additional modal component in their semantics which is absent from comparative quantifiers, and that this accounts for the previously neglected differences in usage and interpretation between the two types of quantifier which they identify. Their semantically modal hypothesis has received additional support from empirical investigations. In this paper, we further corroborate that superlative quantifiers have additional modal interpretations. However, we propose an alternative analysis, whereby these quantifiers possess the semantics postulated by the classical model, and the additional aspects of meaning arise as a consequence of psychological complexity and pragmatic implicature. We explain how this model is consistent with the existing empirical findings. Additionally, we present the findings of four novel experiments which support our model above the semantically modal account.

Linguistics and Philosophy, 1995

Language

This paper reports on the results of a broad cross-linguistic study on the semantics of quantity words such as many in the superlative (e.g. most). While some languages use such a form to express both a relative reading (as in Gloria has visited the most continents) and a proportional reading (as in Gloria has visited most continents), the vast majority do not allow the latter, though all allow the former. Absolute readings for the superlatives of ordinary gradable adjectives, in contrast, are universal. We offer an explanation for this cross-linguistic generalization, centered around two core assumptions: quantity words denote gradable predicates of degrees, while proportional readings involve a comparison class of individuals. We argue that proportional readings arise in rare cases when the former assumption is violated.

Proceedings of Salt 29, 2019

In this paper, I present a novel compositional analysis of modal predicative superlatives, that is, predicative superlatives accompanied by modal adjectives such as possible, as that in (1). (1) Mary wanted to be the prettiest possible. I argue that they are elliptical bona fide degree-relative clauses denoting maximal degrees and whose semantic contribution is similar to that of Measure Phrases. This account will require a novel composition of the superlative which involves the formation of an ordered set and the selection of a maximal element. I argue that not only is this account able to derive their peculiar semantics (dispensing us from the ad hoc components that previous accounts posited), but it can also capture the morphosyntax of these constructions, especially in Romance languages, which turn out more informative than English in this respect.

Linguistics and Philosophy, 2002

Annual Review of Linguistics, 2019

In this review, we discuss the empirical landscape of degree constructions cross-linguistically as well as the major analytical avenues that have been pursued to account for individual languages and cross-linguistic variation. We first focus on comparatives and outline various compositional strategies for different types of comparative sentences as well as points of cross-linguistic variation in the lexicalization of comparative operators and gradable predicates. We then expand the discussion to superlatives, equatives, and other degree constructions. Finally, we turn to constructions beyond the prototypical degree constructions but where degree-based analyses have been pursued; we focus on change-of-state verbs and exclamatives. This is an area that is especially ripe for future cross-linguistic research. We conclude by mentioning connections to other subfields of linguistics, such as language acquisition, historical linguistics, and language processing. Expected final online publi...