Predicative superlatives. 1 Superlatives can have a purely predicative construal

Transcription

1 Topics in Syntax and Semantics, Spring 2018 Predicative superlatives Nico(letta) Loccioni 1 Superlatives can have a purely predicative construal Predicative = non attributive modifier, that is no nominal projection is present. Matushansky 2008 claims that crosslinguistically adjectival superlatives can only be attributive and can never function as predicates. She argues that unlike absolute or comparative forms of adjectives (as in (1)), when superlatives appear in predicate position without an overt noun as in (2a), they modify a null head noun (see (2b)). (1) This story is good/ better (that the other) (2) a. This story is the best b. This story is the best n Matushansky 2008 I argue that purely predicative construals of superlatives exist. (3) a. Relative interpretations of adjectival superlatives Mary was (the) kindest yesterday ( Mary was the kindest one) Mary was kinder yesterday than any other relevant day b. NPI containing relative clauses Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been (3a) c. Modal superlatives Mary was the kindest she could be d. (Postnominal superlatives in Romance) Not the focus of today s seminar la fille [ la plus belle ] the girl the more beautiful the most beautiful girl (3b) (and (3a)) and (3c) should not be given the same treatment. semantic evidence: the two relative clauses in (3b) and (3c) cannot be given the same compositional analysis, as mentioned by Howard The question is left open by Romero syntactic evidence: (3b) and (3a) can be given a comparative paraphrase, (3c) cannot (at least not easily). comparatives license NPIs but modal comparatives are not grammatical: 1

2 Nicoletta Loccioni (4) This morning, Mary was kinder than she had ever been before (5) *Mary try to be kinder possible In Italian & Spanish, (3b) (and (3a)) are *. (3c) is perfectly grammatical. What is the definite article doing in predicative superlatives? I associate the presence of the definite article in predicative superlatives to the definiteness of the degree phrase as in (6b): (6) a. [ dp D [ [ ap... ] N ] ] Attributive b. [ ap [ degp D -est degree ] A ] ] Predicative (7) Attributive a. I met the kindest girl. b. [ DP the [ [ kind-est ] girl ] (8) Predicative a. Mary was the kindest YESTERDAY b. [ AP [ DegP the -est degree ] kind ] In languages like Italian and Spanish the two functions of the definite determiner shown in (6) are marked differently: whereas agreeing determiners can only appear in attributive structures like (6a), null or non-agreeing ones are used to express definiteness at the degree level. (9) a. L anno in cui Maria fu più felice [ita] the year (in) which Maria was more happy b. El año (en) que María fue más feliz [spa] the year (in) which Maria was more happy x Abs the year when M. was happier than any other (relevant) female person Rel the year where Maria was happier than any other year (10) a. L anno in cui Maria fu la più felice the year (in) which Maria was the.f.sg more happy b. El año (en) que María fue la más feliz the year (in) which Maria was the.f.sg more happy [ita] [spa] Abs, x Comp (11) María quería ser/ estar lo más guapa Maria wanted to.be to.be it.m.s. more pretty.7s.f. Maria wanted to be the prettiest possible 2 posible possible

3 Topics in Syntax and Semantics, Spring 2018 Also note that the copula estar, as well as ser, is an option in (11). This fact provide further evidence that lo más guapa posible is a predicate (estar cannot take nominals in the postcopular position). (12) María quería ser/ *estar la más guapa Maria wanted to.be to.be ithef.s. more pretty.7s.f. Maria wanted to be the prettiest one (13) [Italian/Spanish] If agreeing determiner the superlative is attributive 2 Semantic facts (3c) can be paraphrased with an equative sentence, (3b) cannot. (14) a. Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been Yesterday, Mary was as kind as she has ever been b. Mary was the kindest she could be Mary was as kind as she could be In the previous accounts this difference translated into using degree properties in the first case (Howard 2014) vs. using degree sets for modal cases (Romero 2013). 2.1 Account of (3b) à la Howard Two-place lexical entry for -est from Heim (15) a. Let P be a degree property and Q be a set of such properties -est(q,p) d [P(d) & Q Q [Q P (Q(d))] b. -est = λq <d<st>,t>. λp <d,st>. d [P(d) & Q Q [Q P (Q(d))] plus the crucial presupposition in (27): (16) -est (Q,P) is defined only if P Q & Q[Q Q & P Q] (17) Mary was the kindest she has ever been -est <<d,st>,t> that she has ever been <d-kind> λd λw Mary was d-kind in w 3

4 Nicoletta Loccioni (18) a. that she has ever been <d-kind> b. λp [ CP ever λt [ C [ C λq[p=q]] λdλw[she is d-kind at t in w ]] = λp. t [ P = λdλw[she is d-kind at t in w ]] = {λdλw.she is d-kind at t in w t D i } (19) (17) = 1 iff d [λw. Mary was d-kind at t 3 in w] & Q {λdλw.she is d-kind at t in w t D i } [Q [λd. λw. Mary was d-kind at t 3 in w] (Q(d))] 2.2 Account of (3c) à la Romero Two-place lexical entry of est from Heim (20) a. Let P be a degree set and Q be a set of sets -est(q,p) d [P(d) & Q Q [Q P (Q(d))] b. -est = λq <dt,t>. λp <d,t>. d [P(d) & Q Q [Q P (Q(d))] Crucially, no presupposition is mentioned (see below for discussion). (21) Mary was the kindest possible/that she could be -est <dt,t> that she could be λd Mary was d-kind (22) LF: [ [-est [1 possible < for Maria/one to be t 1 kind >] ] [ 2 Maria is t 2 kind ] ] The shift operation spelled out in (23) takes the set of degrees [λd [ she could be ]] and turns it into a set of upper-bound degree sets ( of type < dt, t >), making it into a suitable argument for -est: (23) shift <d,t> <dt,t> = λd <d,t>.λd <d,t>. d [D(d ) & D = λd.d d ] (24) a. 1 that she could be < t 1 kind > = λd. [ kind(she, d)] b. SHIFT ( 1 that she could be < t 1 kind > ) = λd. d [ [ kind(she/m, d )] & D = λd.d d c. (21) = 1 iff d[ kind(m, d)] & D [( d [ [pretty(m,d )] & D = λd.d d ] & D λd. [ kind(m,d) ]) D (d) ] There is a degree d s.t. Mary is d-kind and there is no degree higher than d s.t. it is possible for Mary to be that kind 4

5 Topics in Syntax and Semantics, Spring Meaning generated by Romero s analysis Since she does not adopt the presupposition in (27), there is no presupposition that the set denoted by [λd.mary was d-kind] is a member of the set of sets (25b). Thus, Romero derives the weaker meaning in (26a), as opposed to the stronger one in (26b). (25) a. λd.mary was d-kind b. λd. d [ [ kind(she/m, d )] & D = λd.d d (26) Mary was the kindest she could be a. Mary was at least as kind as it was possible for her to be b. Mary was as kind as it was possible for her to be and no more She proposes that (26a) correspond to the literal meaning of the (26) and she leaves the question open for future investigation Would adding the presupposition in (27) give us (26b)? If we add (27) (repeated below), we obtain that (21) is defined only if [λd.mary was d-kind] is a member of the set of sets (25b). (27) -est (Q,P) is defined only if P Q & Q[Q Q & P Q] This means that every degree in P is also a degree of some Q in Q. (28) d.[kind (m,d)] D d [ [pretty(m,d )] & D = λd.d d ] & D (d)] So - this would actually derive the stronger interpretation. 2.3 Discussion: degree sets vs. degree properties Can you provide a unified analysis to (3b) and (3c)? NPI cases Modal cases <d,st> <d,t> -est <d,st>,t> -est <d,t> Howard tentatively suggests to treat possible as playing an analogous role to ever or anyone, i.e. introduce alternative accessible worlds. But he recognises that this analysis will 5

6 Nicoletta Loccioni derive the correct truth conditions only if -est quantifies over degree sets and not degree properties. (29) Mary was the kindest possible/that she could be a. Mary was as kind as she could be b. There is no other possible world where Mary is as kind as she was in w 0. (30) (29) = 1 iff d[mary is d-kind in w 0 ] & D {λd.mary was d-kind in w : w Acc(w 0 )} [ D [ λd. [Mary is d-kind in w 0 ] D (d) ] (30) derives that in no other accessible world is Mary kinder than she is in the actual world. Therefore it is compatible with ties. If Mary is as kind in w 0 as she is in w 4, -est would not be able to distinguish between the following sets of sets: (31) a. λd.mary was d-kind in w 0 b. λd.mary was d-kind in w 4 If (31b) is identical to [λd.mary was d-kind in w 0 ], then D {λd.mary was d-kind in w : w Acc(w 0 )} [ D [ λd. [Mary is d-kind in w 0 ] D (d) ] will not apply to (31b). This is what we want. We derived (29a) But if we use degree properties instead, -est would be able to distinguish between (the property versions of) (31a) and (31b). As a result, we would derive truth conditions that are too strong. We would derive (29b) instead of (29a). On the other hand, using degree sets (instead of degree properties) for the NPI cases would allow ties and therefore derive the wrong truth conditions. We would derive (32b) instead of (32a). (32) Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been a. Mary was kinder yesterday than she was in any other relevant time b. Yesterday, Mary was as kind as she has ever been This is because -est would not be able to distinguish between identical degree sets. So if Mary was as kind yesterday as she was on Monday, then (33a) and (33b) would denote the same set. (32) would be predicted to be true in such a scenario. (33) a. λd.mary was d-kind yesterday b. λd.mary was d-kind on Monday On the other hand the only way for the degree properties (34a) and (34b) to be identical is if w d, Mary was as kind yesterday as she was on Monday. (34) a. λd.λw.mary was d-kind yesterday in w 6

7 Topics in Syntax and Semantics, Spring 2018 b. λd.λw.mary was d-kind on Monday in w Using degree sets in one case vs. degree properties in the other is a way to capture the fact that the two sentences seem to differ in uniqueness: Mary was the kindest she could be does not require the actual world to be the only one where Mary is kind to the maximal level (ties are ok). Mary was the kindest YESTERDAY and Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been do require that yesterday was the only time where Mary was Max-kind Some additional evidence that these sentences are structurally different come from Romance. 3 Romance facts The Italian (and Spanish) counterparts of (3) don t have the same grammatility status as English. (35) a. *Ieri Maria era { il/ la/ } più gentile Yesterday Maria was the.neutr the.f more kind b. *Ieri, Maria è stata { il/ la/ } più Yesterday, Mary was the.neutr the.f more stata. been c. Maria è stata il più gentile che poteva (con Mary was the.neutr more kind that she.could with gentile kind Mary was the kindest she could be (with the costumers) che fosse mai she has.subj never i clienti) the costumers If one takes into account French as well (which differ from Italian and Spanish in a systematic way), then it becomes more evident that there is a correspondance between (i) the possibility of associating with focus at the sentential level and (ii) the possibility of having an overt RC expressing the comparison class. (36) English a. Mary was the kindest YESTERDAY b. Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been (37) French a. Ce This prof est le plus réveillé à 13h, juste après avoir pris son prof is the more awake at 1pm right after having taken his This professor is the most awake at 1pm, right after he got his coffee b. Aujourd hui, Marie a été la plus gentille qu elle ait jamais Today Mary has been the most kind that.she has.subj never Today Mary was the kindest she has ever been 7 café. coffee. été been

8 Nicoletta Loccioni (to be compared to Italian (35) and (35b)) I won t discuss this point further today. 3.1 Modal Cases Modal cases look like amount relatives in Italian and Spanish. They appear with the neutral/pronominal form of the determiner like other amount (free) relatives (38) Spanish a. Susana es más guapa de [ F reerc lo Susana is more pretty of the Susana is prettier than Mary is b. María es dos veces lo guapa Maria is two times the[neutr] que lo es María ] that it is Mary que era su madre beautiful.f that was her mother Maria is twice the beauty that her mother was Grosu and Landman 2013 c. María quería estar lo más guapa posible Maria wanted to.be it.m.s. more pretty.7s.f. possible Maria wanted to be the prettiest possible In Italian quanto how much can be used instead of the determiner (they cannot co-occur). quanto is also used in than-complements that people normally assume to denote a single degree. (39) Italian a. Gianni è più alto di quanto Gianni is more tall di how(much) Gianni is taller than Piero (is) b. Dovevo essere quanto più carina had.to be how.much more pretty I had to be the prettiest possible non (lo) sia Piero expl.neg it be.subj Piero possibile possible the -est possible can form a unit in Italian to the exclusion of the adjectival predicate. (40) a. Maria voleva essere carina il/ quanto più possible Maria wanted to.be pretty the how.much more possible In the case of a nominal projection, that can be headed by a separate indefinite determiner in Italian: (41) Abbiamo We.have bisogno need di una persona il più preparata possibile. of a person the more experienced possible 8

9 Topics in Syntax and Semantics, Spring 2018 My proposal: in modal cases, the degree phrase denotes a single maximal degree of type d. It s a degree description and not a function, similarly to the Measure Phrase in (43): (42) [ the -est d s.t. for Mary to be d-kind ] = max(λd. kind(d,maria)) (43) John is [ MP two meters ] tall It s a synctactic constituent with referential value. When you plug (42) in, you get (informally): (44) Mary was that kind (where that = (42)) Imagine kindness can be rated in a scale 1 to 20 and that there are four accessible worlds from w: w 1, w 2, w 3 and w 4. a. Mary is 17-kind in w 1 and no more than that. b. Mary is 14-kind in w 2 and no more than that. c. Mary is 12-kind in w 3 and no more than that. d. Mary is 7-kind in w 4 and no more than that. In this model: a. [ the kindest possible ] returns the degree 17 and b. the full sentence means that Mary in the actual world was 17-kind. We can assume that The DegP moves to the top of the clause (as in Romero) and ACD is resolved but unlike Romero the DegP s sister takes the DegP as its argument. (45) Analysis à la Romero <t> (46) My proposal <t> <dt,t> <d,t> DegP <d> <d,t> -est 1 possible 2 Maria be t 2 -pretty 2 Maria be t 2 -pretty (or alternatevely we can leave the degree phrase in situ. We would have to resolve ellipsis differently) < e, t > DegP <d> < d, et > kind/pretty 9

10 Nicoletta Loccioni Unlike Romero 2013 (and more in the spirit of Krasikova 2012), the definite determiner is not superflous. What meaning does this generate? (26a) or (26b)? I guess it generates the same interpretation as a measure phrase: (47) John is [6 feet] tall Why do we need más or più to get maximality? If [ lo que lo es María ] in (38a) and [ lo más guapa posible ] in (38c) both denote a maximal degree (as shown below) one could wonder what the role of the comparative/superlative morpheme is. (48) a. lo que lo es María = max(λd.pretty(d,maría)) b. lo guapa que era su madre = max(λd.pretty(d,sm)) c. lo más guapa posible = max((λd. pretty(d,maría)) d. *lo guapa posible = max((λd. pretty(d,maría)) Why can t we use an amount relative strategy in non-modal cases? As far as I can tell, modal cases are the only cases where bona fide amount relatives are used in Romance superlatives. Why is that? References Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman (2013). Amount relatives. In: SynCom II. Heim, Irene (1999). Notes on Superlatives. Ms. Draft. Howard, Edwin Martin (2014). Superlative degree clauses: Evidence from NPI licensing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Krasikova, Sveta (2012). Definiteness in superlatives. In: Logic, language and meaning. Springer, pp Matushansky, Ora (2008). On the attributive nature of superlatives. In: Syntax 11.1, pp Romero, Maribel (2013). Modal superlatives: a compositional analysis. In: Natural language semantics 21.1, pp