Abstract

This paper will present an analysis of comparatives and superlatives geared to deal uniformly with certain kinds of ambiguities common to both constructions, especially focus ambiguities and strict/sloppy identity ambiguities. The analysis will also address some differences between the two constructions, such as the differing scoping possibilities of the measure quantifier. The relevant ambiguities of comparative and superlatives will be analyzed through an intermediary: A single underspecified semantics for each sentence will be resolved in certain very constrained ways to give the various readings. The use of underspecified semantics to capture ambiguities has had particular appeal to those with a computational perspective. I argue here, however, that there is an important theoretical motivation for taking this road as well. It unburdens the compositional semantics. Much of the complexity is factored into machinery that will generally be necesssary for dealing with ellipsis and focus. Other than that, comparative adjectives are like other adjectives: comparative determines like other determiners. This division of labor is in some sense the motivation for the hypothesis of a Logical Form (or LF) that plays a central role in semantic interpretation. Although there are some exceptions, scope relations cannot in general be read off surface syntax. Furthermore, studies of quantificational adverbs and of focus formatives like only, also, and before have shown that not only the scopes but also the domain sets of certain quantifications are underdetermined by the surface syntax. This does not mean that the surface syntax does not contribute a great deal. It does; at the very least an array of predicates and role assignments. It just means that much more than this needs to be done, much of it apparently related to the structure of quantification. In this paper when I refer to compositional semantics I will mean that part of semantics that can be read off the surface syntax. This part of the semantics of comparatives and superlatives is the part

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.