Modal superlatives as degree descriptions. Evidence from Romance. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL at University of Georgia May 03 2019 Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 1 / 24
What this talk is about I In this talk, Romance data will play a crucial role in motivating a novel compositional analysis of modal predicative superlatives (shown in (1) and(2)). (1) Mary wanted to be the prettiest possible. (2) a. Maria voveva essere il pi` u carina possibile Maria wanted to.be the. sg.m. more pretty. sg.f. possible b. Mar´ ıa quer´ ıa estar lo m´ as guapa posible Maria wanted to.be it. m.s. more pretty.7s.f. possible ‘Maria wanted to be the prettiest possible’ I argue that they are elliptical bona fide degree-relative clauses denoting maximal degrees and with the same semantic contribution as Measure Phrases. This account will require a novel composition of the superla- tive which involves the formation of an ordered set and the selection of a maximal element. I show that not only is this account able to derive their peculiar semantics, but it can also capture the unique morphosyntax of these constructions, especially in Romance languages. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 2 / 24
The interpretation of modal superlatives I Semantically, modal superlatives are unique in that they have what Schwarz 2005 calls “equative force”. That is, they can be paraphrased using an equative construction as shown in (3). (3) She wanted to be the prettiest possible. ≈ She wanted to be as pretty as possible This is a typical feature of so-called amount relatives (also referred to as degree relatives ) which are relative clauses interpreted as a property of amounts or degrees. (4) It will take us years to drink the champagne that they spilled that evening. ≈ It will take us years to drink as much champagne as they spilled that evening adapted from Heim 1987 (5) John put in his bag [every book he could]. ≈ John put in his bag as many books as he could Grosu and Landman 2013 Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 3 / 24
The interpretation of modal superlatives II Non-modal superlatives have instead stronger truth conditions that result in incompatibility with ties. (6) a. Yesterday, Mary was the kindest she has ever been ≈ Mary was kinder yesterday than she was at any other relevant time �≈ Yesterday Mary was as kind as she has ever been b. Mary was the kindest YESTERDAY ≈ Yesterday Mary was kinder than any other relevant day �≈ Yesterday Mary was as kind as on a day when she was the kindest Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 4 / 24
Previous accounts I In the literature, there are three main accounts of English modal superlatives: (i) Larson 2000, (ii) Schwarz 2005 and (iii) Romero 2010, 2013. They all focused on DPs with a nominal projection (like (7) below) and did not discuss predicative cases like (7). (7) Don tried to hire the prettiest girl possible. I will try to adjust their analysis to account for predicative cases, when possible. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 5 / 24
Previous accounts II Larson 2000 : the modal predicate possible in (8-a) ia a postnominal reduced relative clause with an infinitival complement. The elided clause contains an antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) gap � that is resolved by extracting the noun phrase containing the ellipsis site from the antecedent and reconstructing � with an infinitive form of the matrix clause. (8) a. John bought the largest present possible b. John bought the largest present [ rc possible for him to buy t ] c. John bought the largest present [ rc possible � acd ] d. [ dp i the largest present [ Op i possible [ for John to buy t i ]]] [ John bought t i ] Problems with Larson 2000: → No semantic account. → The relative clause is a standard individual-based relative clause. → It is not able to account for for the predicative cases we are interested in, where no nominal head is present. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 6 / 24
Previous accounts III Schwarz 2005 : -est possible is a non-decomposable lexical item. It is not derived from bare -est . Both -est and -est possible occupy the specifier position of A and they are assigned the meanings in (10) and (11). (9) a. [ ap [ d eg p est ] [ a’ large ] ] b. [ ap [ d eg p est possible ] [ a’ large ] ] Schwarz 2005 (10) � est � = λ P <d,st> . ∃ d [P(d) & ∀ Q ∈ Q [Q � =P → ¬ (Q(d))] (11) � est possible � w = λ P <s,dt> . [ ∀ d [ ∃ w’[wRw’ & P(w’)(d) = 1] → P(w)(d) = 1 ] [ In (10), P and Q range over properties of degrees whereas Q is a contextually determined set of properties of degrees. In (11), P ranges over intensional degree properties; w and w’ range over possible worlds; and R is an accessibility relation between possible worlds. ] Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 7 / 24
Previous accounts IV Since (12-a) is assigned the LF in (12-b) (where A is the abstract indefinite determiner associated by Szabolcsi 1986 to relative interpretations of superlatives), it produces the truth conditions (12-c). (12) a. John bought the largest present possible b. [ DegP est possible ] λ 1 [John bought A [ AP t 1 large ] present ] c. ∀ d [ ∃ w’[wRw’ & John bought a d-large present in w’ ] → John bought a d-large present in w ] ≈ in no other accessible world did John buy a present larger that the one he bought in w. Schwarz’s (2005) machinery can be used to derive the meaning of our predicative cases. (13) a. Mary was the prettiest possible b. [ DegP est possible ] λ 1 [Mary was [ AP d 1 pretty ] ] c. ∀ d [ ∃ w’[wRw’ & John was a d-pretty in w’ ] → Mary was d-pretty in w ] ≈ in no accessible world is Mary prettier that she is in the actual world. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 8 / 24
Previous accounts V Problems with Schwarz 2005: → In order to derive the interpretation of modal superlatives, the meaning of -est possible is not derived compositionally from bare -est . The two operators are assumed to be independent from each other. → The definite determiner is not interpreted in the usual way. Romero 2013 follows Larson 2000 in taking possible to head a reduced relative clause with an ACD gap, but she interprets the constituent [ possible � ] as a relative clause ranging over degrees and not over individuals. (14) [ λd [ possible � acd ] ] For -est she assumes the two-place lexical entry in (15). The first argument (the comparison class) is a shifted version of (14). The second argument is created after DegP movement and ACD gap resolution. (15) Let P be a degree set and Q be a set of sets � -est � = λ Q <dt,t> . λ P <d,t> . ∃ d [P(d) & ∀ Q ∈ Q [Q � =P → ¬ (Q(d))] Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 9 / 24
Previous accounts VI This is how her account would apply to our predicative cases: IP (16) Mary was the prettiest possible DegP < d,t > -est < dt,t > 2 IP* 1 Maria VP possible be � t 2 pretty (17) a. LF: [ [-est [1 possible < for Maria/one to be t 1 pretty > ] ] [ 2 Maria was t 2 pretty ] ] b. � (13-a) � = 1 iff ∃ d[ pretty(m, d)] & ∀ D’[( ∃ d’[ ♦ [pretty(m,d’)] & D’ = λ d”.d” ≤ d’ ] & D’ � = λ d. [ pretty(m,d) ]) → ¬ D’(d) ] “There is a degree d s.t. Mary was d -pretty and there is no degree higher than d s.t. it was possible for Mary to be that pretty” Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 10 / 24
Previous accounts VII Problems with Romero 2010: → Equative force is the result of a particular type of quantification (over degree sets rather than degree properties) that could not be extended to other non-modal superlatives. → If she used degree properties, for Mary was the prettiest possible she would derived the interpretation *there is no other possible world where Mary was as pretty as she was in the actual world → If we use degree sets for non modal cases such as (6), we derive the wrong “equative” interpretation. → The definite determiner is not interpreted in the usual way. It has merely existential force. Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 11 / 24
Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives I We saw that modal superlatives have unique semantic properties. We are going to see that they are also morphosyntactically unique. But in order to do so, we need to put English on the side and look at Romance languages. (18) a. Yesterday Mary was the kindest { possible/ she could be } b. Yesterday Mary was the kindest she has ever been c. Mary was the kindest YESTERDAY First of all, the Italian counterparts of (18) do not have the same grammatility status as English. The same holds true in Spanish. (19) a. Maria ` e stata il pi` u carina che poteva (con i clienti) Mary was the. neutr more nice that she.could with the costumers ‘Mary was the nicest she could be (with the costumers)’ b.*Ieri, Maria ` e stata { il/ la/ ∅ } pi` u carina che fosse Yesterday, Mary was the. neutr the. f more nice she has. subj mai stata. never been c.*Ieri Maria era { il/ la/ ∅ } pi` u carina Yesterday Maria was the. neutr the. f more nice Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 12 / 24
Recommend
More recommend
