Plural superlatives and distributivity

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.

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.

Statements with plural definite descriptions are often assumed to come with a maximal interpretation, requiring all the individuals meeting the description to have the property expressed by the predicate in the sentence. However, there clearly is some variability with respect to this requirement, as non-maximal interpretations seem to be possible in various circumstances as well. This paper presents experimental evidence informing the relationship between maximal and nonmaximal interpretations of definite plurals. I suggest that the results are best captured by a view that sees the semantics of plural definites as involving maximality, but which allows for non-maximal interpretations, even with distributive predicates, by some type of pragmatic mechanism. Various possible choices of such mechanisms are discussed, though the question of which one is best suited to account for the data is not conclusively resolved. However, the advantages over other accounts, which assume a non-maximal semantics combined with pragmatic strengthening when needed to derive maximal readings, with respect to the present results seem rather clear.

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.

Natural Language Semantics, 1993

This paper begins with a discussion of CUMULATIVITY (e.g., 'P(a) & P(b) implies P(a+b)'), formalized using a verb phrase operator. Next, the meanings of distributivity markers such as each and non-distributivity indicators such as together are considered. An existing analysis of each in terms of quantification over parts of a plurality is adopted. However, together is problematic, for it involves a cancellation or negation of the quantification associated with each. (The four boys together owned exactly three cars could not be true if each of the boys owned three cars, though the same sentence without together could be.) A refinement of this idea of negated quantification over parts is proposed as an analysis for non-distributivity operators. It is then worked out in the system described in Cooper (1983), in which positive and negative extensions are assigned. Presuppositions connected with plural reference are considered at this point as well. Finally, the cumulativity operator is argued to be quantificational and therefore sensitive to contextual domain selection. This context sensitivity is claimed to be the source of distributive readings that appear in the absence of modifiers like each and non-distributive or collective readings that arise without together.

2017

We have proposed a framework based upon the λ -calculus with higher-order intuitionistic types for the symbolic computation of the semantic analysis, integrating lexical data ([Bassac et al., 2010, Mery, 2011, Retoré, 2014]). We discuss the pertinence of using Russell’s ι and Hilbert’s ε and τ operators for the semantics of the definite and indefinite determiners, recapitulating the main points of [Retoré, 2014], extending the work of von Heusinger in [Egli and von Heusinger, 1995] with higherorder tyiping in a multi-sorted frameowrk. We then study the possible implications of using such operators on underspecified sets of individuals such as those used when computing the semantics of plurals or massive entities, as done in [Mery et al., 2015].

The primary aim of this paper is to propose a phrasal set-up of the quantificational domain in the nominal hierarchy of projections that accounts for the differing linearizational and inflectional properties of strong and weak quantifiers in German in the sense of Milsark (1974Milsark ( , 1977. I argue that the German bare vs. inflected universal quantifier dichotomy constitutes a solid basis for the proposal of two diverging quantifier phrases (QP). Additionally, evidence is put forth for the existence of two discrete possessive heads (Poss 0 ). The main difference between these two instances will be found in their value of grammatical definiteness due to their varying positions. With these axioms combined, we arrive at a symmetrical bisection of [±definite] QP and PossP encircling the nominal core categories D and N, respectively. I also make use of this phrasal configuration to develop an algorithm for the evaluation of morphological form on strong quantifiers, which is arguably also applicable in further instances of morphological evaluation, namely the division of strong/weak adjective inflection in exceptional case-marking configurations. In addition, the analysis proposed thereby allows pinning down the locus of application of said algorithm at an early stage in the phonological component: the subcomponent Morphology (Chomsky 1995).

2012

Choosing quantity over quality: syntax guides interpretive preferences for novel superlatives Alexis Wellwood ([email protected]) Darko Odic ([email protected]) Department of Linguistics 1401 Marie Mount Hall College Park, MD 20742 USA Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 USA Justin Halberda ([email protected]) Jeffrey Lidz ([email protected]) Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 USA Department of Linguistics 1401 Marie Mount Hall College Park, MD 20742 USA Abstract Acquiring the correct meanings of number words (e.g., seven, forty-two) is challenging, as such words fail to describe salient properties of individuals or objects in their environment, re- ferring rather to properties of sets of such objects or individu- als. Understanding how children succeed in this task requires a precise understanding not only of the kinds of data children have available to them, but also of the char...

Formal semantic analyses often take words to be minimal building blocks for the purposes of compositionality. But various recent theories of morphology and syntax have converged on the view that there is no demarcation line corresponding to the word level. The same conclusion has emerged from the compositional semantics of superlatives. In the spirit of extending compositionality below the word level, this paper explores how a small set of particles (Japanese ka and mo, Chinese dou, and Hungarian vala/vagy, mind, and is) form quantifier words and serve as connectives, additive and scalar particles, question markers, and existential verbs. Our main question is whether the meanings of these particles across the varied environments are highly regular, or they are lexicalized with a variety of different meanings that bear a family resemblance. This paper does not reach definitive conclusions, but it raises analytical possibilities using Boolean semantics and Inquisitive Semantics (the semantics of alternatives). It also draws attention to systematic similarities and some differences between the multiple uses of mo and dou that have not been studied in the literature, and reviews accounts in terms of maximality and additivity.

2019

This paper focuses on two questions in the semantics of plural predication: (i) What is the source of variation between non-distributive predicates with respect to Homogeneity? (ii) What is the nature of the distributive/collective distinction in plural predication, i.e., do we have two different meanings corresponding to collective and distributive situations or one weak underspecified meaning compatible with both? Examining question (ii), I strengthen arguments that predicates differ in whether they give rise to one weak meaning or to stronger ones. I further claim that there is a correlation between the behavior of predicates in this regard and their behavior with respect to Homogeneity, which calls for a unified perspective on questions (i)-(ii). I propose to capture this correlation by a modest modification of a standard view of Homogeneity which relies on a trivalent semantics for the pluralization operator together with a relativization of that operator to ‘covers’.