Modal superlatives as degree descriptions. Evidence from Romance. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

Maria voveva wanted essere to.be il the.sg.m. pi` u more carina pretty.sg.f. possibile possible

• b. Mar´

ıa Maria quer´ ıa wanted estar to.be lo it.m.s. m´ as more guapa pretty.7s.f. posible 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. [dpi the largest present [ Opi possible [ for John to buy ti]]] [ John bought ti ]

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 [degp est ] [a’ large ] ]
• b. [ap [degp est possible ] [a’ large ] ]

Schwarz 2005 (10) est = λP<d,st>. ∃d [P(d) & ∀Q ∈ Q [Q=P → ¬ (Q(d))] (11) est possiblew = λP<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 ] λ1 [John bought A [AP t1 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 ] λ1 [Mary was [AP d1 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 = λQ<dt,t>. λP<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: (16) Mary was the prettiest possible

IP <d,t> IP* VP t2 pretty be Maria 2 DegP <dt,t>

• possible

1

• est

(17) a. LF: [ [-est [1 possible < for Maria/one to be t1 pretty >] ] [ 2 Maria was t2 pretty ] ]

• b. (13-a) = 1 iff ∃d[ pretty(m, d)] & ∀D’[(∃d’[♦[pretty(m,d’)] & D’ =

λd”.d”≤d’ ] & D’ = λd. [ 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 Mary ` e stata was il the.neutr pi` u more carina nice che that poteva she.could (con with i the clienti) costumers ‘Mary was the nicest she could be (with the costumers)’ b.*Ieri, Yesterday, Maria Mary ` e stata was { il/ the.neutr la/ the.f ∅ } pi` u more carina nice che she fosse has.subj mai never stata. been c.*Ieri Yesterday Maria Maria era was { il/ the.neutr la/ the.f ∅ } pi` u more carina nice

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 12 / 24

Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives II

In (19-a) the determiner does not agree in gender with the adjective carina, ‘nice/pretty’. This type of mismatch is only attested in modal superlatives: (20) Maria Maria era was la/* the.f il the.neutr pi` u more carina nice ‘Maria was the nicest one’ Second, Romance modal superlative predicates show a level of syntactic independence that their non-modal counterparts do not have. (i) Unlike other predicative superlatives in Romance, they can appear as the sentential predicate: (21) a. Maria Mary ` e stata was il the.neutr pi` u more carina nice che that poteva she.could (con with i the clienti) costumers ‘Mary was the nicest she could be (with the costumers)’ b.*Ieri Yesterday Maria Maria era was { il/ the.neutr la/ the.f ∅ } pi` u more carina nice (ungrammatical under the intended meaning)

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 13 / 24

Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives III

(ii) They are compatible with an indefinite determiner at the higher DP level. (22) a. Ho I.have bisogno need di

• f

una a torta cake il the pi` u more grande big possibile. possible ‘I need the biggest possible cake’ b.*Ho I.have bisogno need di

• f

una a torta cake il the pi` u more grande big

• int. ‘I need the biggest cake’

(iii) The nominal phrase can be cliticized to the exclusion of the predicate, as shown in (23-a). (23) [ talking about some torta ‘cake’ again ]

• a. La

cl voglio I.want il the pi` u more grande big possibile possible b.*La cl voglio I.want il the pi` u more grande big

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 14 / 24

Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives IV

Third, modal superlatives look suspiciously similar to other (free) amount relatives in these languages. As an example compare Spanish (24) with the free relative in (25-a), which are normally assumed to denote single degrees. (24) Mar´ ıa Maria quer´ ıa wanted estar to.be lo it.m.s. m´ as more guapa pretty.7s.f. (que that fuera) was posible possible ‘Maria wanted to be the prettiest possible’ (25) a. Susana Susana es is m´ as more guapa pretty de

• f

[ lo the que that lo it es is Mar´ ıa Mary ] ‘Susana is prettier than Mary is’

• b. Mar´

ıa Maria es is dos two veces times [ lo the[neutr] guapa beautiful.f que that era was su her madre mother ] ‘Maria is twice the beauty that her mother was’ Grosu and Landman 2013

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 15 / 24

Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives V

In Italian the wh word quanto, ‘how much’ can be used instead of the neutral form of the determiner. Quanto is also used in than-complements, which are normally assumed to denote single degrees. (26) Maria Maria voleva wanted essere to.be quanto how.much pi` u more carina pretty possibile possible ‘Maria wanted to be the prettiest possible’ (27) Gianni Gianni ` e is pi` u more alto tall di di quanto how(much) non expl.neg (lo) it sia be.subj Piero Piero ‘Gianni is taller than Piero (is)’

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 16 / 24

Morphosyntactic properties of Romance Modal superlatives VI

To sum up, Romance languages like Spanish and Italian clearly show that modal superlatives are morphosyntactically unique. They seem to form an independent syntactic constituent, which can be headed by a definite determiner and can appear in positions were their non-modal counterparts are not able to. Overall they look very similar to constituents that are normally taken to be degree descriptions.

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 17 / 24

The proposed analysis I

I argue that the degree phrase in modal superlatives is an elliptical relative

• clause. Once ellipsis is resolved, the relative clause refers to a single maximal degree

(and not a set of degree sets, as in Romero 2013) which plays the role of a Measure

• Phrase. That is, it provides a degree that saturates the degree slot of the adjective

directly. → similar contribution as that of the Measure Phrase 5 feet in (28): (28) Federica is [ five feet ] tall (29) Mary wanted to be the prettiest possible ≈ Mary wanted to be that pretty, where that = the unique degree such that Mary cannot be prettier than that.

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 18 / 24

The proposed analysis II

In order to capture the morphosyntactic partitive nature of modal superlative, I put forth a novel compositional analysis. I composed modal superlatives in four main steps. (i) First, the comparison class of degrees is formed. (ii) Second, the comparative component of the superlative creates a total ordering of degrees. (iii) Third, the ordinal-like element sup turns the ordered set into a singleton containing the maximal degree. (iv) Lastly, the determiner performs a uniqueness test and returns the unique maximal degree. (ii)-(iv) mimic de facto what max (as given in (30)) could do. I use max for the sake

• f simplicity and readability. The three operations should be thought as

distinct. (30) max = λN<dt> . ιd[ d ∈ N & ∀d’ [ d’ ∈ N & d = d’ → d’ < d]] (31) lo ◦ sup ◦ m´ as = max

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 19 / 24

The proposed analysis III

Let’s look at the semantic composition of (24). The structure in (32) is fed to semantic interpretation. The semantic composition of the Degree phrase is spelled out in (33).

TP3 VP TP2 TP1 PRO1 estar guapa t2 2 DegP lo sup m´ as 3 (que fuera) posible quer´ ıa 1 Mar´ ıa

(32) Maria [ 1 quer´ ıa [ [ lo sup m´ as 3 (que fuera) posible <para PRO1 estar guapa t3 >] [ 2 PRO1 estar guapa t2 ] ]

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 20 / 24

The proposed analysis IV

The unique maximal degree denoted by the DegP measures the degree of the property denoted by guapa.

<d,t> 2 PRO1 estar guapa t2 <d> lo sup m´ as 3 (que fuera) posible

(33) a. 2 PRO1 estar guapa t2 = λd. [ guapa(g(1),d) ]

• b. < para PRO1 estar guapa t3 > = [ guapa (g(1), g(3)) ]
• c. 3 possible < para PRO1 estar guapa t3 > = λd.♦[ guapa (g(1), d)]
• d. lo sup m´

as 3 possible < para PRO1 estar guapa t3 > = max(λd.♦[ guapa (g(1), d)]) [ max(λd.♦[ guapa (g(1), d)])] should be thought as a shorthand for: (34) ιd[ ♦[ guapa (g(1), d)] & ∀d’ [ ♦[ guapa (g(1), d’) & d=d’] → d’ < d]] (35) (24) = querer-estar-guapa(Mar´ ıa, max(λd.♦[ guapa (Maria, d)]))

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 21 / 24

The proposed analysis V

Modal superlatives can thus be thought of as partitives constructions over degrees. In this respect, they are parallel to partitives over individuals such as (36). (36) the prettiest of his sisters In the same way in which (36) takes the comparison class overtly, so do modal

• superlatives. Unlike our modal cases, however, (36) denotes a unique individual and

not a maximal degree.

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 22 / 24

Conclusion

Today I presented a novel analysis of modal superlatives that was motivated by both their (i) peculiar interpretation (their “equative force”) and (ii) their morphosyntactic properties. Specifically, I argued that they involve a bona fide elliptical degree relative. Internally, the degree phrase was analyzed as a partitive construction over degrees, parallel to partitive constructions over individuals such as the tallest of the boys. As in the case of other morphologically partitive constructions, the comparison class is

• vertly specified in modal superlatives. In order to capture the morphosyntactic

properties of modal superlatives, I put forth a novel composition which involves the formation of an ordered set and the selection of a maximal element. Once ellipsis is resolved, the relative clause refers to a maximal degree which plays the role of a Measure Phrase. That is, it directly saturates the degree slot of the adjective.

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 23 / 24

Thank you!

Nico(letta) Loccioni LSRL 49 at University of Georgia 24 / 24

References

Grosu, Alexander and Fred Landman (2013). “Amount relatives”. In: SynCom II. Heim, Irene (1987). “Where does the definiteness restriction apply. Evidence from the definiteness of variables.” In: The Representation of (In)definiteness. Ed. by Erik Reuland and Alice ter Meulen. MIT Press, pp. 21–42. Larson, Richard K (2000). “ACD in AP”. In: WCCFL. Vol. 19, pp. 4–6. Romero, Maribel (2010). “Modal superlatives and 3-place vs. 2-place-est”. In: Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6.1, p. 10. – (2013). “Modal superlatives: a compositional analysis”. In: Natural language semantics 21.1, pp. 79–110. Schwarz, Bernhard (2005). “Modal superlatives”. In: Semantics and Linguistic

• Theory. Vol. 15, pp. 187–204.

Szabolcsi, Anna (1986). “Comparative superlatives”. In: MIT Working papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 245–265.