Binding into relative superlative descriptions Dylan Bumford May - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Binding into relative superlative descriptions Dylan Bumford May 20, 2018: SALT 28, MIT University of California, Los Angeles

Superlative ambiguities Superlative adjectives ofuen associated with two kinds of readings (1) Who here owns the newest iphone? a. Who here owns an iphone X? [Absolute] b. Who here owns an iphone newer than [Relative] any iphone owned by anyone else? Qvestion Is this a matuer of domain underspecification or compositional ambiguity? 1/24

Domain restriction On the one hand, quantificational domains known to be rampantly b. Rel: Mary (…the largest visited city) a. Abs: No one (…Boston) Bill 2/24 underspecified b. everyone in my class (2) When I walked into my class today, everyone C was really quiet a. everyone in the school (3) Which student visited the largest C New England city? John · · · ✈ · · · Manchester ▷ C = { x | NE-city x } Sue · · · ✈ · · · Amherst Mary · · · ✈ · · · Providence ▷ C = { x | NE-city x , visited x } · · · ✈ · · · New Haven

Scope (5) Which student visited the largest New England city? city ] est city ] est a. Abs: student visit [ large Bill On the other hand, degree quantifiers known to take variable scope Sue play ] er (4) John read a longer play … a. … than Macbeth John read a [ long er play ] John [ read a long b. … than Mary 3/24 John · · · ✈ · · · Manchester · · · ✈ · · · Amherst ▷ No one (visited Boston) Mary · · · ✈ · · · Providence b. Rel: student [ visit large · · · ✈ · · · New Haven ▷ Mary (out-visited the others)

Focus Any analysis should contend with the fact that relative readings associate with focus Jackendofg (1972) Szabolcsi (1986) (7) a. When did JOHN get the fewest letuers from Peter? b. When did John get the fewest letuers from PETER? 4/24 (6) a. Of the three men, John hates { BILL , *MARY } the most b. Of the three men, { JOHN , *MARY } hates Bill the most ▷ John got fewer Peter letuers than anyone else got ▷ John got fewer Peter letuers than letuers from anyone else

Reference analysis: Scope John F With this in mind, take the following hypothesis from Heim 1999 the d -good drummer heard 5/24 est C • ‘est’ scopes over sentence; compares the degrees the focus (8) JOHN heard the best drummer achieves to the degrees its competitors achieve ⟦ est ⟧ = λ C λ P . ∀ Q ∈ C . Q � P ⇒ Q ⊂ P   λ d . John heard a d -good drummer ,          λ d . Mary heard a d -good drummer ,      ∼ C λ d . Bill heard a d -good drummer ,         λ d .     . .  

Reference analysis: Restriction est C And the other following hypothesis from Heim 1999 x heard John F d -good drummer 6/24 the (8) JOHN heard the best drummer C • ‘est’ compares witnesses for the description restricted to those that satisfy the description’s local context ∪ ⟦ est ⟧ = λ C λ R λ x . ∃ d . { x } = R d ∩   λ x . John heard x ,           λ x . Mary heard x ,     ∼ C λ x . Bill heard x ,       λ x    .    . .   λ d

Immediate predictions: Ties (9) JOHN climbed the highest mountain Restr Scope a. John and Mary climbed the same highest climbed mountain b. John out-climbs everyone else, by climbing two equally high mountains 7/24 ✓ ✖ ✖ ✓ ▷ Judgments appear to be mixed …

Immediate predictions: Split-scope Restr Coppock & Beaver 2014) issue for restriction theories is disputed (Sharvit & Stateva 2002, mountain ] est ments exceed everybody else’s Mary’s mountain-climbing require- a. Heim (1999) Scope Sue highest mountain (10) MARY needs to climb the 8/24 John · · · · · · 1000 fu · · · · · · 2000 fu Mary · · · · · · 3000 fu ✖ ✓ John F [ need climb high ▷ Data widely accepted, but whether this is a real undergeneration

Sloppiness in relative readings As with ‘only’, if the focus binds a pronoun, an ambiguity arises depending on whether the pronoun covaries with alternatives or not Gawron (1995) (11) Mary gave her sister the most expensive book a. Absolute: Of all the books, Mary gave the most expensive to Mary’s sister Of all the people to give Mary’s sister a book, Mary gave her the most expensive c. Sloppy Relative: Of all the people to give their sister a book, Mary gave her’s the most expensive 9/24 b. Strict Relative:

Sloppiness: Scope analysis the Scope theories of the superlative predict both relative readings: book expensive d 10/24 gave y Mary F est C   λ d . M gave M/M’s sister a d -expensive book ,           λ d . J gave J /M’s sister a d -expensive book ,     ∼ C λ d . S gave S /M’s sister a d -expensive book         λ d  .    .  .  λ y her y / m sister

Sloppiness: Restriction analysis Mary F As do restriction theories: x gave y 11/24 book expensive d the est C   λ x . M gave M’s/M’s sister x ,           λ x . J gave J ’s/M’s sister x ,     ∼ C λ x . S gave S ’s/M’s sister x       λ x   .    .  .   λ y λ d her y / m sister

The trouble: Sloppiness in relative descriptions Cleo 4 4 5 9 Harry 7 7 6 6 8 8 12/24 suit? a. Absolute: No one 8 the......... c. Sloppy Rel: Harry highest ..... Cleo: ♣ Dina: � Harry: � Sam: ♠ ♠ 2 ♣ � � � (12) Who played .... � � � � card ... of ...... their ..... � � � ♠ ♠ ♠ � � � � � ♠ 2 � Sam Dina 9 � 5 � ♠ � ♠ ♠ � � � � � � � � � � � b. Strict Rel: Dina, Sam ♠ � 2

Scope: Strict descriptions predicted Harry F (13) HARRY played the highest card of his suit d -high card play z 13/24 est C a. ✓ Strict: Harry played a higher heart than anyone else played ∀ Q ∈ C . Q = H ∨ Q ⊂ H ∼ C λ d λ z   λ d . C ♣ … d -high card of h ’s suit             λ d . D � … d -high card of h ’s suit λ d . H � … d -high card of h ’s suit          λ d . S ♠ … d -high card of h ’s suit  of his h suit  

Scope: Sloppy descriptions predicted Harry F (13) HARRY played the highest card of his suit d -high card play z 14/24 est C Sam a spade Dina a diamond, b. ✓ Sloppy: Harry played a higher heart than Cleo a club, ∀ Q ∈ C . Q = H ∨ Q ⊂ H ∼ C λ d λ z   λ d . C ♣ … d -high card of C’s suit             λ d . D � … d -high card of D’s suit λ d . H � … d -high card of H’s suit          λ d . S ♠ … d -high card of S’s suit  of his z suit  

Restriction: Strict descriptions predicted Harry F (14) HARRY played the highest card of his suit x play z 15/24 d -high card the est C a. ✓ Strict: Harry played a higher heart than anyone else played   λ x . C ♣ played x             λ x . D � played x λ x . H � played x          λ x . S ♠ played x  ∼ C   λ y . ∃ d . { y } = R d ∩ ∪ C λ x λ z λ d of his h suit

Restriction: Sloppy superlative descriptions NOT predicted d -high card (14) HARRY played the highest card of his suit x play z Harry F 16/24 est C the Sam a spade Dina a diamond, b. ✖ Sloppy: Harry played a higher heart than Cleo a club,   λ x . C ♣ played x             λ x . D � played x λ x . H � played x          λ x . S ♠ played x  ∼ C   λ y . ∃ d . { y } = R d ∩ ∪ C λ x λ z λ d of his z suit

Two nonstarters • Scope the focus • Unscope the superlative DP 17/24 Harry   λ x . C ♣ play x     λ z         λ x . D � play x [ the est C λ d [ d -high … his z … ] ] λ x . H � play x       [ ∼ C [ λ x z F play x ] ]    λ x . S ♠ play x    ▷ No problem, but this is just the strict reading ∼ C [ Harry F λ z z play [ the est C λ d [ d -high … his z … ] ]   C ♣ play the est C ( λ d . d -high … C … )           D � play the est C ( λ d . d -high … D … )   H � play the est C ( λ d . d -high … H … )          S ♠ play the est C ( λ d . d -high … S … )    ▷ Possibly incomprehensible, probably unusable