Abstract

This paper makes the empirical observation that so-called ‘NP-internal relative readings’ are available for certain speakers of English (as well as Dutch) for quantity superlatives but never for superlatives of other gradable adjectives. Previous accounts of this phenomenon in other languages attribute the availability of this type of reading to the absence of a definite article or DP layer. Contra the predictions of such accounts, in English, it is when the nominal expression containing the quantity superlative appears to be definite that these readings are generated. I account for these readings by building on the theory that many/much and their antonyms are fundamentally degree-predicates of scalar intervals, not degree-predicates of individuals. This leads me to propose a novel syntactic configuration in which the definite article forms a measure phrase constituent with the quantity superlative to the exclusion of the focused element. The NP-internal relative reading is derived through focus-association, with the superlative morpheme remaining in situ inside the definite measure phrase. The proposal adds to an emerging consensus that the quantity expressions much, many, few and little and their crosslinguistic counterparts are of a distinct type and are syntactically more complex than other gradable adjectives. It also provides indirect support for an in situ approach to deriving the relative readings of superlatives in definite contexts. EARLY ACCESS

Highlights

  • This paper examines a previously overlooked reading of quantity superlatives in English

  • The empirical landscape makes clear that the syntax and semantics of at least some varieties of English can generate the relative readings of definite-marked noun phrases containing quantity superlatives with NP-internal focus, as in (41)

  • The analysis proposed here is able to account for all relative readings of quantity superlatives in English

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper examines a previously overlooked reading of quantity superlatives in English (the superlative forms of the quantity words many, much, few and little). If focus in (2) is on apples the sentence may be interpreted as comparing the quantities of different types of fruit that Annick picked in Brandenburg. Adjectival treatment of most, least and fewest is conceptually appealing, I will argue that it is incompatible with the full range of relative readings that these quantity superlatives generate. It cannot account for the contrast which I describe below, between these superlatives and the superlatives of ‘ordinary’ adjectives in terms of the availability of ‘NP-internal relative’ readings. Such a decompositional approach to most is advocated by Coppock et al (2020)

Relative readings with NP-internal focus
Comparison to Slavic
Summary
Preliminaries
Relative readings of non-quantity superlatives
The movement approach
Relative readings of quantity superlatives
Semantic differences
Proposal
Overview of the proposal
Ayse picked t2
Details of the proposal
The MonP projection
Composition of the most
Composition of IP and the comparison class
Putting it together
Adjectival superlatives revisited
Superlatives inside overt measure pseudopartitives
Syntactic constraints in English
Revisiting the SUP-in situ versus SUP-movement debate
Beyond English
Bulgarian
Flemish
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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