Ora Matushansky, CNRS/Université Paris-8
email: [email protected]
SUPERLATIVES AT THE INTERFACE
UMass, April 26, 2006
Structure of the talk:
•
Cross-linguistic generalization: superlative adjectives are obligatorily attributive.
•
Potential explanation: the extended NP (xNP) modified by the superlative adjective
is an argument of the superlative morpheme
•
Problem: the superlative morpheme has been argued to QR for interpretability (in
comparative superlatives, at least)
•
Possible partial answer: the compositional semantics of comparative superlatives
can be derived without movement
Not to be discussed: “stage” superlatives (I’m happiest when I’m doing syntax), PP superlatives
(At least Madonna sang at her best) and adverbial superlatives (Who drove the fastest?).
1.
INTRODUCTION
Cross-linguistically, superlatives, both in predicative and attributive positions, often bear a
definite article:
(1)
a.
b.
a.
English
This story is the best.
This theory is the most interesting.
(2)
Cette
histoire est la
meilleure.
French
this-Fsg story
is the-Fsg best-Fsg
b.
Cette
théorie est la
plus intéressante.
this-Fsg theory is the-Fsg more interesting-Fsg
(3) Deze stoel is de
grootste
Dutch
this chair is the-C largest-AGR
This chair is the largest.
Projection of a definite article is dependent on the presence of a nominal head (c-selection,
or a semantic requirement). The latter can be achieved by nominalization (the rich, the Prussian
blue) or by projecting a null head noun (the so-called NP-ellipsis).
(4) a.
The rich are not like you and me.
b.
The vivid blue of this painting comes from a lapis lazuli pigment.
(5) Context: Do you want a/the red dress or a/the blue one?
a.
b.
c.
la/une rouge
the/a red
la/una roja
the/a red
krasnuju
red-LF-Fsg-Acc
French
Spanish
Russian
d.
(et ha-) aduma
Hebrew
Acc Def red
Proposal: the definite article is there in (1)-(3) because there is a null noun (cf. Ross 1964)
NB: Some traditional grammars (Spanish, Breton) suggest that superlatives can/must be nominalized. I leave aside
the difference between the nominalization hypothesis and the NP-ellipsis hypothesis.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
2
If we start with the basic assumption that a superlative adjective is always attributive, i.e. it is
necessarily embedded in an xNP, then a motley collection of facts from different languages will
receive a natural explanation.
Cautionary note: I will only discuss superlatives built via a dedicated superlative morpheme.
Other ways of encoding the superlative meaning do not have the same syntactic properties.
NB: As Ross 1964 points out, the adverbial use of superlatives differs from their use in predicate and argument
positions. We will leave adverbial superlatives aside.
2.
ENGLISH
English is complicated by the availability of one-insertion, fortunately optional for superlatives.
2.1. Argument positions: a null head noun is available
Superlatives without an overt head noun can appear in argument positions:
(6) a.
After the competition, the best/the winners will receive a prize.
b.
Do you like these cars? The best/the Mercedes belongs to my mother.
The fact that even in languages like English, with hardly any overt morphology, bare superlatives
in argument positions trigger verbal agreement shows that a null head noun must be possible.
Since this option is available for argument superlatives, there is no reason to believe that it would
be unavailable for predicate superlatives. In other words, we can argue that predicate superlative
phrases without an overt head noun also involve NP-ellipsis.
2.2. Differentials/factor phrases
Differentials and factor phrases in comparatives can appear either as measure phrases or as byPPs on the right xNP-periphery. It is unlikely that they are transformationally related:
differential
(7) a.
Thumbelina is two inches taller than Tom Thumb.
b.
Thumbelina is taller than Tom Thumb by two inches.
(8)
a.
Thumbelina is three times taller than Tom Thumb.
factor phrase
b.
Thumbelina is taller than Tom Thumb by the factor of three.
When a comparative is attributive, the differential/factor phrase must appear as a by-PP:
(9) a.
Thumbelina is a (*two inches/*three times) taller doll than Tom Thumb.
b.
Thumbelina is a taller doll than Tom Thumb by two inches/by the factor of three.
The grammaticality of (9b) shows that the prohibition on measure phrases is not the question of
the semantics of an attributive comparative.
Superlatives allow differentials/factor phrases only as by-PPs (Stateva 2002, 2003):
(10) a.
Thumbelina is the (*two inches/*three times) tallest of/among the dolls.
b.
Thumbelina is (*two inches/*three times) the tallest of/among the dolls.
c.
Thumbelina is the tallest (doll) by two inches/by the factor of three.
If superlative adjectives are obligatorily attributive, no additional explanation is required.
NB: The adverbial by far can also appear before the definite article (David Pesetsky, p.c.). See section 10.2.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
3
2.3. Anaphoric so
Corver 1997, Stateva 2002, 2003: anaphora involving so is possible with comparatives, but not
with superlatives:
(11) a.
b.
The panda is a charming animal, but the lemur is more so.
* There are many charming animals, but lemurs are the most so.
However, so cannot function as a noun modifier, comparative or not:
(12) a. * The panda is a charming bear, and the lemur is a so primate.
b. * The panda is a charming bear, and the lemur is a more so primate.
If superlatives are necessarily attributive, the ungrammaticality of the “predicative” superlative
in (11b) is due to the same reason as the ungrammaticality of (12): so is not a possible modifier
2.4. Stacking
Cross-linguistic generalization: adjectives cannot be modified by adjectives (no stacking):
(13) a.
Don José and Escamillo are young *(men) very different from each other.
b.
Carmen is beautiful (*wilful).
Post-nominal adjectives denoting a temporary property (on which see Bolinger 1967), PPs and
relatives can combine with superlatives (as well as with ordinals) without an overt noun:
(14) The problem had several solutions – ours was considered…
a. * (a/the) cheap available/on the market/(that) we could think of
positive adjective
b.
the cheapest available/on the market/(that) we could think of
superlative adjective
c. * the cheapest mathematical/good/functional
with pre-nominal APs
with a reduced relative
d. * the cheapest different from the original one
Post-nominal modifiers can appear without an overt noun in superlatives, but not with any
other APs (cf. Ross 1964).
NB: Bhatt 2002 discusses infinitival relatives in combination with superlatives and ordinals (the first/oldest woman
to walk on the moon) and comes to the conclusion that the superlative/ordinal xNP has to be base-generated inside
the relative clause. (See Heycock to appear for an alternative analysis and Bhatt and Sharvit 2005 for objections to
it.) It is unclear whether the same analysis can be used for post-nominal -able adjectives (but see Larson 2000).
3.
GERMANIC AGREEMENT VS. CONCORD
Adjectives in predicate position in German show no morphological agreement with the subject.
Attributive adjectives are derived from predicative adjectives by the addition of a vowel:
(15) a.
German
Das ist eine schön*(-e) Schlange.
this is a-F beautiful snake (F)
This is a beautiful snake.
b.
Diese Schlange ist schön(*-e).
this
snake
is beautiful
This snake is beautiful.
→ German has no mechanism to trigger agreement between the subject and the AP predicate.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
4
Nonetheless, superlatives in predicate position show attributive marking:
(16) a.
Das ist die
schönst*(e)
this is the-F most beautiful
This is the most beautiful snake.
Schlange.
snake
German
b.
Diese Schlange ist die
schönst*(e).
this
snake
is the-F most beautiful
This snake is the most beautiful.
The pattern is easily explained if there is a null head noun in (16b), similar to one in that it
takes its reference from the context. The superlative adjective shows concord with that noun. The
fact that agreement marking on superlatives in predicate positions is obligatory shows that
predicate superlatives must be analyzed as containing a head noun (NP-ellipsis)
A similar argument can be constructed for Dutch.
4.
FRENCH
4.1. Equatives
The demonstrative ce is impossible if the post-copular XP is adjectival (ce requires an equative):
(17) a.
Marie (c’) est notre/une directrice.
Marie this is our/a
director.
Marie is our director.
b.
Marie (*c’) est intelligente.
Marie this is intelligent.
Marie is intelligent.
c.
Marie (c’) est la plus intelligente.
Marie this is the more intelligent
Marie is the most intelligent (one).
The simplest explanation is that the superlative adjective in (17c) modifies a null noun.
NB: To be sure, the predicate does not have to be nominal, it only has to be able to be. But once we have shown that
a null head noun is licensed by a superlative, there is no reason not to extend this analysis to non-obvious cases.
4.2. Prepositional superlatives
An alternative to the hypothesis that gender/number features come from the definite article is the
hypothesis that these features are somehow bestowed on the superlative adjective (which has the
ability to bear them) and then transmitted to the article.
Besides the persistent question of where the article comes from, there is an empirical argument
against this hypothesis:
(18) a.
Notre maison est la
plus à gauche.
our
house.F is the-F more to left
Our house is the leftmost.
b.
Notre bâtiment est le
plus à gauche.
our
buidling.M is the-M more to left
Our building is the leftmost.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
5
PPs do not inflect for gender. The only possible source of gender on the article in the predicate of
(18) is the null head noun.
(19) La
plus à gauche est à moi.
the-F more to left
is to me
The leftmost is mine.
PPs by themselves never license NP-ellipsis in French.
(20) * La/une à gauche est à moi
the/a to left
is to me
The only reason why it is possible in (19) is because of the superlative.
Besides locatives, there are other PPs that can be combined with superlatives, such as en forme ‘in shape’, en retard
‘late’, etc.
Possible objection: how come the gender of the noun is always the same as that of the subject?
Two answers: (a) not always (or rather, not in all languages) and (b) nouns can agree for gender
(see the next issue of Snippets for a discussion).
5.
BRETON
NP-ellipsis is disallowed in definite DPs in Breton. Instead, the place of the lexical head noun is
taken by the dummy definite head noun hini (plural re), whose closest English equivalent is that
(Mélanie Jouitteau, p.c., Kervella 1995, translated by Mélanie Jouitteau):
(21) an *(hini) ruz
the *(NDEF red
the red one
Superlative phrases in the predicate position necessarily contain this head noun:
(22) Paol a zo an *(hini) bras-añ
Paul PRT is the *(NDEF large-SUP
Paul is the tallest.
Positive and comparative adjectives in the predicate position do not require any head nouns:
(23) a.
Bras on
large am
I am tall.
b.
Paol a zo bras-oc’h
(evit ar re
all)
Paul PRT is large-COMP (for the NDEF-PL other)
Paul is taller (than others).
If superlative phrases must contain a head noun, this noun is obligatorily overt in the predicative
superlative phrases because definite xNPs do not allow NP-ellipsis.
6.
HEBREW
Biblical/literary Hebrew has null-derived comparatives and superlatives:
(24) Eti (yoter) gdola mi axota
Eti more large from sister+3F.SG
Eti is taller than her sister.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
(25) a.
b.
6
ha- qqaTon
et- avi:nu
ha-yyo:m
def-small-M.SG ACC father+1PL def-day
The young(est) one is with our father today (Genesis 42:13)
mi- gdo:lam
w- ad qTannam
from big-CS+3PL and until small-CS+3PL
From the great(est) one among them to the small/least one among them (Jonah 3:5)
Like in other languages, the definite article is obligatory. Like in other languages, superlatives in
Hebrew license NP-ellipsis and partitives. Except in Hebrew, partitives are construct states (see
Danon 1998, Borer 2005 for discussion):
(26) a.
rov
ha- talmidim
majority def students
most of the students
b.
mispar ha- mištatfim ha- muat
number def participants def little
the small number of participants
Siloni 2001
(27) tovej
ha-talmidim
good-Mpl-CS def-students
the best of the students
Apart from construct states with quantified and nominal heads, Hebrew has adjectival/participial
construct states (Hazout 2000, Kim 2000, Siloni 2001), where the second xNP is an argument
of the adjectival head:
(28) a.
yalda
yefat
mar’e
nixnesa laxeder.
Siloni 2001
girl.F-sg beautiful-Fsg-CS look.Msg entered to+the room
A good-looking girl entered the room.
b.
yeladim
nos’ey
matanot nixnesu laxeder.
children.M-pl carry-PRT-pl-CS gifts.F-pl entered to+the room
Children carrying gifts entered the room.
A simple hypothesis:
(27) can be assimilated to other adjectival construct states. However, in this case, xNP2 has to be
an argument of the superlative (because in other adjectival construct states it is).
Possible alternative: If superlative phrases must contain a null noun, then examples like (27)
involve nominal construct states.
The problem is that Hebrew construct states don’t allow modification of N1 unless the adjective
is extraposed, i.e. N1 cannot be phrasal (cf. Ritter 1987, 1988, among others). The combination
superlative + ØN seems to be phrasal.
Siloni 2001: construct state superlatives are “nominalized” (cf. Heaton 2000, Wintner 2000)
Possible implementation: Suppose the null head noun (NP = N0) is combined with the adjective by the operation of
m-merger (Matushansky 2006), which morphologically merges two syntactically adjacent heads into a single head.
Then we lose all distinction between a null noun and a nominalization.
7.
RUSSIAN
Russian adjectives come in two forms: long form and short form. The long form is based on the
short form via suffixation (see Halle and Matushansky 2006):
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
(29) a.
krasiv-aj-a
beautiful-LF-FsgNom
b.
krasiv-oj-e
beautiful-LF-NsgNom
The short form can only appear in the predicate position:
(30) a.
Teorija byla
xoroša.
theory was-Fsg good-Fsg-SF
b.
Teorija byla
xorošaja.
theory was-Fsg good-Fsg-LF
The theory was good.
7
short form
long form
(31) * xoroša/!xorošaja teorija
good-Fsg-SF/good-Fsg-LF theory
Babby 1973, 1975, Bailyn 1994, Siegel 1976, Pereltsvaig 2001, among others: long-form
adjectives are always attributive (evidence comes from their interpretation and syntax). Thus,
when a long-form adjective appears in the predicative position, as in (30b), there’s always a null
head noun that it modifies.
Independent evidence for the existence of null nouns in Russian: NP-ellipsis is allowed with just
about any adjective (except intensional ones):
(32) Daj mne krasnuju/
elektricheskuju/ francuzskuju Ø.
gve me red-LF-F-Acc electric-LF-F-Acc Fench-LF-F-Acc
Give me the red/electric/French one.
Since the mechanism is readily available, it is simpler to postulate NP-ellipsis in the predicate
position than to search for an alternative explanation.
Only long-form adjectives can form superlatives:
(33) a.
sam-*(aj)-a
krasiv-*(aj)-a
(ženščina)
analytic
most-LF-FsgNom beautiful-LF-FsgNom woman-Nom
b.
(nai)-krasiv-ejš-*(aj)-a
(ženščina)
synthetic
over-beautiful-SUP-LF-FsgNom woman-Nom
If long form-marking is what happens in the attributive position and superlatives are obligatorily
attributive (contain a null head noun), superlatives would only appear in the long form.
8.
SPANISH (AND PORTUGUESE)
As is well-known (see Roldán 1974, Luján 1981, Lema 1992, Schmitt 1992, Costa 1998, among
others), Spanish has two copulas: ser and estar (which also function as auxiliaries.)
Their distribution is constrained syntactically (only ser can be used with nominal predicates;
only estar can be used with locative PPs) and semantically (estar implies more transience of the
adjectival predicate, though coercion is always possible):
NP-predicate
(34) a.
María Callas !es/*está una cantante.
Maria Callas is
a singer
Maria Callas is a singer.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
8
b.
María Callas *es/!está en Roma.
PP-predicate
Maria Callas is
in Rome
Maria Callas is in Rome.
(35) a.
María Callas !es/*está alta.
individual-level AP
Maria Callas is
tall
Maria Callas is tall (estar is ok with ACT-BE interpretation, i.e., being tall).
b.
María Callas *es/!está disponible.
stage-level AP
María Callas is
available
Maria Callas is available.
Superlatives, of any adjectives, can only appear with ser:
(36) María Callas es/*está
la más alta/disponible.
Maria Callas is
the more tall/available
Maria Callas is the tallest/the most available.
If superlatives are always attributive and the predicates in (36) are xNPs, the pattern is naturally
explained.
These data show that modifying a phonologically null head noun is more than an alternative
structure for superlatives, it is the only one.
9.
SUMMARY
The superlative adjective (independently of whether the suffix is a superlative or a comparative
one) is necessarily projected inside an xNP.
Evidence from several languages argues that predicate superlative phrases involve attributive
modification of a null nominal head.
The null nominal element is necessarily anaphoric.
NB: Except in adverbial superlatives and stage-superlatives.
Possible formalizations:
•
There is a null head noun
•
Superlatives are necessarily nominalizations
One argument against nominalization is the fact that the understood noun is anaphoric (can
a nominalizing affix n0 be anaphoric to a phrasal projection?)
We might have a new insight into the licensing of partitives and NP-ellipsis
Back to Hebrew: what if Hebrew construct state superlatives do not contain a null noun but
instead are assimilated to other adjectival superlatives? Then the xNP2 has to be an argument of
the superlative adjective and the constraint is semantic rather than syntactic.
10.
SYNTAX-SEMANTICS INTERFACE
The superlative and the noun it modifies are not in the right configuration for the superlative to
license a null head noun or even to ensure the presence of a noun syntactically. Therefore, syntax
is not where we should look for solution.
Proposal: By giving the superlative adjective the right semantics, we can ensure that it requires
an argument that provides the comparison set (roughly, in the set C the individual x possesses the
property P to the highest degree d)
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
9
Like with intensional adjectives (former, fake), here an adjunct takes its sister as an argument
10.1. Attributive semantics
Further evidence that the xNP functions as an argument of the superlative adjective comes from
the fact that superlatives are interpreted in conjunction with the xNP they modify (Heim 1999):
[simplified]
(37) the tallest mountain
a.
= the unique x such that x is the tallest among mountains
b.
≠ the unique x such that x is the tallest and x is a mountain
NB: Heim 1999 obtains the non-intersectivity of (37) as a result of obligatory QR of the superlative morpheme out of
the AP and to a level above the noun (clause-level, perhaps xNP-internal).
(37) shows that attributive superlatives cannot be interpreted intersectively.
I propose to link this fact to the restriction on the domain of a superlative morpheme noted by
Heim 1999:
(38) All of these candidates are acceptable. But John is the most impressive.
Following von Fintel 1994, Heim 1999 suggests that the superlative morpheme is like other
quantifiers in that it contains a phonetically unrealized predicate variable that appears next to
the determiner at LF and receives a value from the context of utterance:
(39) a.
John is the [C -est] impressive
b.
C = {x: x is one of these candidates}
Heim suggests that the C-argument reflects standard context-dependency of quantifiers.
The simplest possible hypothesis: the obligatory head noun in superlatives is the C argument
(Farkas and É. Kiss 2000 make this assumption, too)
Support: The major difference between comparatives (more than x) and superlatives (more than
every member of X) is that the latter involve universal quantification over the comparison set.
NB: The only factor in choosing between the comparative -er or the superlative -est morpheme in English is whether
the cardinality of the set under consideration is 2 (comparative) or more than 2 (superlative). Therefore, there exists
a distinction between a comparative meaning and the comparative morpheme -er.
Suppose what requires an xNP is the universal quantifier that is contained in the superlative.
This explains why the superlative adjective must be attributive. A universal quantifier never
allows the omission of its restrictor.
It also suggests how superlatives are contextually restricted. All quantifiers are specified for
the domain restriction (von Fintel 1994), but here we also have an xNP.
10.2. The in-situ theory of superlatives
If the superlative morpheme takes the head xNP as an argument, it must be interpreted in-situ.
Movement theories of superlatives are therefore incompatible with cross-linguistic syntax.
Further evidence: measure phrases combine with the superlative in its surface position:
(40) a.
They got by far the best phonologist on the market.
b.
This mountain is the tallest by at least 200 m.
So what is the evidence in favor of movement theories of superlatives?
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
10
10.3. Does the superlative affix move?
Two kinds of arguments:
"
Comparative morpheme moves (degree QR is possible and sometimes required)
"
The truth conditions for superlatives cannot be derived without movement
The first class of arguments is reviewed in Bhatt and Pancheva 2004 (but see Grosu 2005). We
will not discuss them here because we don’t have the time. The big picture that emerges from the
syntax and semantics of comparatives is that the comparative morpheme + comparative clause
complex must raise at least as high as the first 〈t〉-type node, where λ-abstraction over degrees
ensures its interpretability:
= Tom Thumb is taller than Thumbelina
(41)
〈t〉
〈d, t〉
DegP
0
λd ∈ Dd
IP
Deg
CP
Tom Thumb
0
I
I′
more
[λd′ ∈ Dd . Thumbelina is d′-tall]
…
AP
is
DegP
A′
A0
tall
10.4. Comparative superlatives
Superlative phrases can have two different interpretations: the absolute one and the comparative
one (Ross 1964, Hoeksema 1983, Szabolcsi 1986, Gawron 1995, Heim 1985, 1999, Farkas and
É. Kiss 2000, Sharvit and Stateva 2002, etc.):
absolute
(42) a.
Lucy climbed the highest mountain.
b.
LUCY climbed the highest mountain.
comparative
= Lucy climbed a higher mountain than anybody else did.
NB: There are syntactic and semantic restrictions on comparative superlatives that I leave aside here
How to obtain the comparative reading?
Recall that under standard assumptions the superlative morpheme takes a contextual argument C
(the comparison set). Comparative readings can be obtained by contextually restricting C (Farkas
and É. Kiss 2000, Sharvit and Stateva 2002):
(43) C = {x : x is a mountain climbed by one of the people under consideration}
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple
11.
COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVES IN INTENSIONAL CONTEXTS
A nominal argument in an intensional environment can be read de re or de dicto:
(44) Lucy needs to climb a high mountain.
Shorthand: ∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) ≡ ∀w compatible with Lucy’s needs in w0
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
11
Farkas and É. Kiss 2000 derive the comparative reading by restricting the comparison set C of
the superlative to:
•
all mountains in the relevant possible world (the absolute reading)
•
all mountains that were climbed by some member of the set associated with Lucy
(the comparative reading)
⇒ We expect 4 readings in intensional environments.
11.1. The predicted readings
Absolute superlatives require no context:
absolute superlative
(45) Lucy needs to climb the highest mountain.
a.
∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) . Lucy climbs the mountain that is highest in w0
de re
b.
∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) . Lucy climbs the mountain that is highest in w
de dicto
Here it is the entire DP that is interpreted de re or de dicto: in (45a) Lucy climbs Mt. Everest; in
(45b) in each relevant possible world Lucy climbs the highest mountain in that world.
comparative superlative
(46) LUCY needs to climb the highest mountain.
a.
∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) . the real-world mountain that Lucy climbs in w is higher
de re
than the real-world mountains that others climb in w
b.
∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) . Lucy climbs in w a mountain higher than the mountains
de dicto
that others climb in w.
In (46a) everybody needs to climb some real-world mountain. The mountain that Lucy needs to
climb is higher than the mountains that others need to climb.
In (46b) Lucy’s need is to climb a mountain higher than anyone else does (to outstrip everyone
else).
The right truth-conditions of both readings be derived via contextual restriction on C and the
superlative morpheme may stay in situ
Contrary to predictions, a fifth option is possible.
11.2. “Upstairs de dicto” reading
(47) Relative need scenario (“upstairs de dicto”)
Lucy needs to climb a 5000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve her ranking.
Jill needs to climb a 4000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve her ranking.
Fred needs to climb a 3000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve his ranking.
Interpretation: Lucy’s minimal needs exceed anyone else’s, and so…
comparative superlative
(46) LUCY needs to climb the highest mountain.
The existence of the upstairs de dicto reading is the main reason for allowing the superlative
morpheme to scope out of the DP. This reading cannot be obtained by domain restriction on C:
#
There is no particular mountain that Lucy needs to climb. This excludes the de re
readings.
#
Lucy’s needs can be satisfied, for example, in a world where she climbs a 6000 ft
mountain, whereas Fred climbs a 9000 ft mountain (i.e., in a world where “her”
mountain is not the highest among all the mountains climbed). This excludes the de
dicto readings.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
12
11.3. Heim’s movement analysis
Szabolcsi 1986, Gawron 1995, Farkas and É. Kiss 2000: comparative superlatives are indefinite
and non-specific, both semantically and syntactically. Implementation: comparative superlatives
contain the special indefinite article the (but see Gutiérrez-Rexach 2005 for an alternative):
“upstairs de dicto” via QR
(48)
〈t〉
〈e, t〉
Lucy
〈d, 〈e, t〉〉
λd ∈ Dd
DegP
VP
V0
Deg0
C
〈w, t〉
-st
〈t〉
must w0 λw
PRO
V′
0
V
DP
0
climb w D
the
d
NP
AP
NP
0
A mountain
high〈d, 〈e, t〉〉
The superlative morpheme is first combined with the comparison set argument C, then the DegP
is QRed (the intermediate landing site at the NP-level is unimportant) and combined with the λabstracted VP (or TP – a node of type 〈t〉), and then takes the subject as an external argument:
(46) c.
∀z ≠ Lucy . max { d : ∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) [ Lucy climbs a d-high w mountain w in
w} > max { d : ∀w ∈ NEED (z, w0) [ z climbs a d-high w mountain w in w ]} ]
Heim 1999 proposes a straightforward way of deriving the superlative comparison set C from
the alternative set of the focused element.
11.4. Additional results
Previously unobserved prediction: if ordinary extraction is impossible (in strong islands, such
as complex NPs), comparative superlatives also are:
∃>∀, *∀>∃
(49) a.
Lucy had a strong desire to buy every book.
no comparative reading
b.
LUCY had a strong desire to climb the highest mountain.
Alternative analysis: the configuration in (49) violates the locality constraints on comparative
readings (Szabolcsi 1986, Farkas and É. Kiss 2000).
PPs overtly introducing the comparison set constrain the licenser rather than the NP that the
superlative modifies (Ross 1964:61):
(50) a.
Of those girls he went out with last year, Irmintrude drank the most.
b.
Tony could cook steak the best of those guys I roomed with last year.
Association with focus is a natural consequence
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
13
11.5. Alternative in-situ analyses
Heim 1999: an in-situ reading is possible if C becomes a function of the evaluation world:
(51) ∀w ∈ NEED (Lucy, w0) . Lucy climbs in w [ the [ f(w) -st] [high mountain in w]]
Sharvit and Stateva 2002: the superlative definite description is viewed as a property (type 〈e, t〉)
containing an intensionalizing operator IDENT (e.g. the unique property P which is a member of
the contextually salient domain J and which in each world in W* has the same value as the
property of being highest mountain).
Gutiérrez-Rexach 2005 also has an analysis, but I haven’t read it yet
Another option: kinds.
Normally, kinds cannot have non-abstract properties:
(52) Justine photographed the large symbol.
realization only
NB: A kind reading of the large symbol is possible if large is used non-restrictively and definiteness comes from
elsewhere: Justine has already photographed the large symbol on the wall/this large symbol.
The constraint goes away if we define kinds on the basis of these non-abstract properties.
NB: Once again, kinds are not about natural kinds, but rather about contextually established classifications (see
Bouchard 2005 for the concept of a concept)
(47) Relative need scenario (“upstairs de dicto”)
Lucy needs to climb a 5000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve her ranking.
Jill needs to climb a 4000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve her ranking.
Fred needs to climb a 3000 ft mountain (or higher) to improve his ranking.
In this scenario, we can distinguish mountain sub-kinds according to height: mountains equal to
or higher than 3000 ft, mountains equal to or higher than 4000 ft, mountains equal to or higher
than 5000 ft, etc. These sub-kinds can be compared with respect to height.
comparative superlative
(46) LUCY needs to climb the highest mountain.
Let us change argument ordering in the superlative lexical entry to reflect the assumption that C
is supplied by the xNP the superlative modifies:
(53) [[-st]] = λR〈d, 〈e, t〉〉 . λC〈e, t〉 . λx〈e〉 . ∀z ∈ C [ z ≠ x → max (λd.R (d)(x)) > max (λd.R (d)(z))]
(54) [[ [the [high-st] mountain kind] ]] =
= ιx . ∀z [ mountain kind (z) ∧ z ≠ x . max (λd . x is d-high) > max (λd . z is d-high) ]
As expected, the superlative returns the mountain kind that is the highest. Let us now further
restrict this kind to mountains that someone needs to climb (the usual domain restriction of von
Fintel 1994). Since kinds are not linked to a possible world (only their realizations are), such
domain restriction doesn’t entail anything about real-world mountains.
NB: Presuppositions on superlatives ensure that the referent of (54) is itself a mountain kind.
(55) [[ Lucy λx . [needs w0 (λw . [x climb w [the [high-st] mountain kind] ] )] ]] = 1 under the truthcondtions in (56).
(56) ∀w ∈ NEED (w0) ∀z [ mountain kind (z) ∧ z ≠ y → Lucy climbs in w the unique
mountain kind y . max (λd . y is d-high) > max (λd . z is d-high) ]
However, a mountain kind cannot be climbed – only its realization may. Thus (56) is interpreted
along the lines of (57):
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
14
(57) ∀w ∈ NEED (w0) ∀z [ z is a mountain kind ∧ z ≠ y → Lucy climbs in w a realization in w
of the unique mountain kind y . max (λd . y is d-high) > max (λd . z is d-high) ]
In each possible world the mountain that Lucy climbs need not be the highest in that possible
world, but the kind to which such mountains belong is higher than other relevant mountain kinds.
But why is only the realization reading possible in extensional contexts?
(58) Lucy climbed the highest mountain.
≠
Lucy climbed one or more instance of the highest mountain kind among those
considered.
What blocks the kind reading here?
Untested prediction: No “upstairs de dicto” readings with individual-level predicates, which do
not require a shift to realizations
11.6. Summary
I have proposed an alternative in-situ analysis of the so-called “upstairs de dicto” reading of
superlatives based on the notion of a kind. Since the superlative morpheme is interpreted in situ,
this view is compatible with the cross-linguistically attributive syntax of superlatives and permits
to fully assimilate contextual restrictions on the superlative (the comparison set C) to those on
standard quantification.
What still has to be done:
"
Check whether the approach has the problems that the movement analysis does
"
Compare my proposal with that of Sharvit and Stateva 2002, which seems similar in
that it also relies on existential quantification in situ
"
Check if there is an explanation for the island effect for comparative superlatives,
quantity superlatives and Ross’ PPs
"
Test the approach with languages where kind readings are harder to get
"
Properly compare kind superlatives to modal compatibility relatives
"
Elaborate the theory of comparison for complex and abstract objects (joint work with
Eddy Ruys)
"
Work out what to do with superlative adverbials
"
Check individual-level predicates
12.
APPENDIX: CROSS-LINGUISTIC EXCEPTIONS
Sometimes superlatives in the predicate position seem to behave as if there is no null noun there,
e.g. there might be no article, attributive marking fails, etc. Different areas of exceptions in
different languages.
12.1. Predicate position
In English, the superlative definite article may be absent in the predicate position:
* without the article for many speakers
(59) Sue is (the) best in her class.
(60) a.
It is cold in New York, it’s cold in Philadelphia, but it’s (the) coldest in Boston.
b.
I’m (the) happiest when I’m doing syntax.
Does this mean that our generalization is incorrect?
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
a)
b)
15
Two separate cases: in (60) one-insertion is out.
Different areas of exceptions in different languages
(59) is easy: cf. definite article omission with nominal predicates whose extension is necessarily
a singleton set (Stowell 1991):
(61) a.
b.
The queen appointed her lover treasurer of the realm.
Anne’s death made George (the) king of England.
The omission of the definite article is conditional on there being only one individual satisfying
the predicate at every given moment.
NB: One-insertion blocks article omission. Because one is D-linked?
On the other hand, (60) seems more likely to cause problems: one-insertion is ungrammatical in
this environment:
(60) a′. * It is cold in New York, it’s cold in Philadelphia, but it’s (the) coldest one in Boston.
b′. * I’m (the) happiest one when I’m doing syntax.
NB: One-insertion is equally ungrammatical in adverbial superlatives: The spaceship reactor was damaged the worst
(*one).
In fact, (60) may involve two different environments: lists and stages. Stages are understandable:
we compare different stages of the same individual. It may be that lists involve the same kind of
effect (if a list is viewed as a plural individual, then each member of the list may act as a spatiotemporal slice of this individual, cf. Carlson 1977, the similarity between stages of an individual
and instances of kinds).
We have no explanation for why article omission is allowed here, but it seems to be related to the
abstract character of the null noun (cf. adverbial superlatives).
Predicate superlatives force the omission of the definite article in Scandinavian (many thanks to
Sten Vikner for the discussion)
In Dutch and in German, the gender marking on the predicate may be default:
(62) Deze stoel is de
grootste/beste/roodste.
Dutch
this chair is the-Csg largest-ϕ/best-ϕ/reddest-ϕ
This chair is the largest/best/reddest.
(63) Deze stoel is het
grootste/beste/roodste.
this chair is the-Nsg largest-ϕ/best-ϕ/reddest-ϕ
This chair is the largest/best/reddest.
The interpretations of (62) and (63) are slightly different. As far as I could determine, the
predicate in (63) means something like ‘the largest/best/reddest thing’. As long as the only things
under consideration are chairs, by default (63) would mean the same as (62), but once we
introduce other objects, the truth conditions will be different.
In Dutch the appearance of the suffix -e on an attributive adjective marks that the xNP containing
it is of common gender and/or plural and/or definite, i.e. no attributive suffix with neuter singular
indefinites (Odijk 1992, Menuzzi 1994, Broekhuis 1999:208, etc.).
When the gender marking on the superlative predicate is default, the attributive suffix may be
omitted despite the definiteness of the superlative xNP:
(64) Deze stoel is de
grootst*(e)/best*(e)/roodst*(e).
this chair is the-Csg largest-ϕ/best-ϕ/reddest-ϕ
Dutch
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
16
This chair is the largest/best/reddest.
(65) ? Deze stoel is het
grootst(e)/best(e)/roodst(e).
this chair is the-Nsg largest-ϕ/best-ϕ/reddest-ϕ
This chair is the largest/best/reddest.
This omission also optional with adverbial superlatives, but obligatory with PP ones:
(66) a.
Marie schreeuwde het
hardst(e).
adverbial superlative
Marie screamed
the.Nsg hardest-ϕ
Marie screamed the loudest.
reflexive PP superlative
b.
Marie schreeuwde op d’r hardst(*e).
Marie screamed
at her hardest-ϕ
Marie screamed as loudly as she could.
This may be due to the abstract character of the null noun or to the special nature of modification
in this case (see Odijk 1992, Menuzzi 1994, Broekhuis 1999:208, etc., for such effects).
12.2. Spanish relative clauses
In Spanish, there is one environment in which an adjective with a superlative meaning surfaces
obligatorily without the definite article (María Luisa Zubizarreta, p.c.):
(67) la
que es
más alta
the.Fsg that be-3sg more tall-Fsg
the one who is the tallest
Strikingly, in this environment and in this environment only, ser is not obligatory: estar appears
with adjectives that normally require it:
(68) la
que está
más enojada
the.Fsg that be-3sg more annoyed-Fsg
the one who is the most annoyed
The availability of estar suggests that we are not dealing with an xNP here, which also explains
why the article is ungrammatical here:
(69) la
que está (*la)
más enojada
the.Fsg that be-3sg (*the.Fsg more annoyed-Fsg
Once again, predicate position is involved, but the phenomenon is restricted to relative clauses.
We have no explanation for this effect.
12.3. Norwegian
In Danish, as well as in Norwegian and Swedish, predicative adjectives agree with the subject in
the same way as attributive adjectives do (the data below are from Danish, Vikner 2001:51):
(70) a.
en
grøn
bus
d.
to
grønne husser
a.M/F green bus
two green-PL houses
b.
to
grønne busser
(71) a.
En
bus er grøn
two green-PL buses
one.M/F bus is green
c.
et
grønt
hus
a.N green-Nsg house
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
b.
To busser er grønne
two buses are green-PL
17
d.
To husser er grønne
two houses are green-PL
c.
En
hus er grønt
one.M/F bus is green-Nsg
Superlatives in the predicate position show no marking at all and no article is present:
(72) a.
Den
grønne bus er størst.
Vikner 2001:61
the.M/Fsg green-ϕ bus is biggest
b.
De
grønne busser er størst.
the.PL green-ϕ buses are biggest
c.
Det
grønne hus
er størst.
the.Nsg green-ϕ house is biggest
d.
De
grønne husser er størst.
the.PL green-ϕ houses are biggest
The absence of concord is normal for adjectives in definite xNPs. However, attributive
adjectives in definite xNPs show an attributive marker -e (cf. German), which predicate
superlatives do not (though attributive superlatives behave as expected, Kaja Borthen, p.c.):
(73) a.
En pen(*e) hund var svært pen(*e).
Norwegian
a pretty dog was very pretty
A pretty dog was very pretty.
b.
Den pen*(e)
hunden var svært pen(*e).
the pretty-DEF dog-DEF was very pretty
The pretty dog was very pretty.
c.
Den penest*(e)
hunden var penest(*e).
the prettiest-DEF dog-DEF was prettiest
The prettiest dog was the prettiest.
So we have two puzzles: (a) the absence of the definite article in predicate superlatives and (b)
the absence of any kind of marking on the predicate superlative. The assumption that predicate
superlatives are not attributive (i.e. the standard theory) is compatible with (a) but not with (b),
since other predicate adjectives do show agreement with the subject.
On the other hand, Mainland Scandinavian occasionally allows definite article drop (see Borthen
1998 for the relevance of Donnellan’s attributive/referential distinction and Delsing 1993:118 on
the relevance of uniqueness for the drop of the first definite article) and NP-ellipsis:
Definite article drop:
Norwegian (Borthen 1998)
(74) a.
Jeg tar alltid inn på dyreste
hotell.
I take always in on expensivest-DEF hotel
I always stay in the most exensive hotel.
b.
Jeg tar alltid inn på det dyreste
hotellet.
I take always in on the expensivest-DEF hotel-the
I always stay in the most exensive hotel.
Danish (Sten Vikner, pc)
(75) Let the universities do what they do best:
a.
forskning og uddannelser på højeste
videnskabelige niveau.
research and educations on highest-DEF scientific
level
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
b.
18
forskning og uddannelser på det højeste
videnskabelige niveau.
research and educations on the highest-DEF scientific
level
NP-ellipsis:
(76) Det er mange bivirkninger av denne medisinen.
there are many side-effects of this drug
This drug has many side-effects.
Norwegian (Kaja Borthen, pc.)
a.
Den mest vanlige
bivirkningen har vært svimmelhet.
the most common-DEF side-effect
has been vertigo
The most common side effect has been vertigo.
b.
Den mest vanlige har vært svimmelhet
the most common has been vertigo
Danish (Sten Vikner, pc)
(77) Der er mange bivirkninger ved p-piller…
There are many side-effects with contraceptive-pills
There are many side effects with contraceptive pills…
a.
men den hyppigste
bivirkning er kvalme
but the most-frequent-DEF side-effect is nausea
b.
men den hyppigste
er kvalme
but the most-frequent-DEF is nausea
but the most frequent is nausea.
The combination of the article drop and NP-ellipsis is not allowed:
(76) c.
* Mest vanlig(e)
har vært svimmelhet.
Norwegian
most common-DEF has been vertigo
(77) c. * men hyppigst(e)
er kvalme
Danish
but most-frequent-DEF is nausea
This may be due to the fact that article drop is conditioned by referentiality (the “attributive” use
of the superlative, as shown by Borthen 1998): perhaps NP-ellipsis in the argument position is
incompatible with it.
Even if the absence of the article on superlatives in the predicate position is due to “attributive”
article omission (Borthen 1998) and the noun is deleted by NP-ellipsis and their combination is
allowed in the predicate position though not in argument ones, we still have no explanation for
the lack of definiteness marking on the superlative adjective. More work is required, in particular
what concerns adverbial superlatives in Mainland Scandinavian.
12.4. Modern Hebrew
We have discussed Hebrew null-derived comparatives and superlatives. We can now turned to
the analytic ones.
(78) a.
haxi ceira
SUP young-Fsg
b.
ha-ceira
be-yoter
the-young-Fsg in-more
the youngest
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
19
It is (78a) that interests us: there is no apparent definite article with the superlative.
(79) a.
b.
ha- baxura *(ha-) ceira
the- girl
*(the young-Fsg
the young girl
ha- baxura (*ha-) haxi ceira
the- girl
*(the SUP young-Fsg
the youngest girl
Possibility 1: haplology
Possibility 2: hidden definiteness
No difference between attributive and predicative superlatives in this respect.
Problem: superlative predicates allow zero copula (as opposed to the pronominal one), while
ordinary definite xNPs do not.
This is not about DPs vs. APs, NPs, and PPs, or about individual-level vs. stage-level predicates.
Negation makes pronominal copula optional (Boneh 2003)
12.5. Summary
In several languages, superlatives in the predicate position appear to disprove our theory that all
superlatives are attributive.
The variety of exceptions suggests that the argument is on the right track
REFERENCES
Babby, Leonard H. 1973. The deep structure of adjectives and participles in Russian. Language 49, 349360.
Babby, Leonard H. 1975. Transformation Grammar of Russian Adjectives. The Hague: Mouton.
Bailyn, John. 1994. The syntax and semantics of Russian long and short adjectives: an X'-theoretic
account. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ann Arbor Meeting, ed. by Jindrich
Toman, 1-30. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification.
Natural Language Semantics 10, 43-90.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merge of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 1-45.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Yael Sharvit. 2005. A note on intensional superlatives. Paper presented at SALT 15.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1-34.
Boneh, Nora. 2003. La représentation syntaxique du temps: le cas de l'hébreu moderne et de l'arabe
standard et dialectal, Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 8.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense. In Name Only: 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borthen, Kaja. 1998. Linguistic evidence prompting the linguistic necessity of Donnellan's referentialattributive distinction? The distribution and interpretation of Norwegian bare superlatives. Ms.,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Bouchard, Denis. 2005. Sériation des adjectifs dans le SN et formation de Concepts. In L'Adjectif, ed. by
Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Ora Matushansky. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 34. SaintDenis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Broekhuis, Hans. 1999. Adjectives and Adjective Phrases. Modern Grammar of Dutch occasional papers:
2. Tilburg.
Carlson, Gregory Norman. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
20
Corver, Norbert. 1997. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 15, 289-368.
Costa, João. 1998. L'opposition ser/estar en portugais. In "Etre" et "Avoir": syntaxe, sémantique,
typologie, ed. by Alain Rouveret, 139-153. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Danon, Gaby. 1998. Two syntactic positions for determiners in Hebrew. In Proceedings of IATL 13, ed.
by Adam Zachary Wyner. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Lund.
Farkas, Donka, and Katalin É. Kiss. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 417-455.
von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
Gawron, Jean Mark. 1995. Comparatives, superlatives, and resolution. Linguistics and Philosophy 18,
333-380.
Grosu, Alexander. 2005. Against a conservativity-based account of extraposition and scope effects in
degree constructions. Paper presented at Indefinites and Weak Quantifiers, Brussels, Belgium,
January 6-8, 2005.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2005. Superlative quantifiers and the dynamics of context dependence. In
Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, ed. by Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 237-266.
Oxford/New York: Elsevier Science.
Halle, Morris, and Ora Matushansky. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection.
Linguistic Inquiry 37.
Hazout, Ilan. 2000. Adjectival Genitive constructions in Modern Hebrew: A case study in coanalysis. The
Linguistic Review 9, 29-52.
Heaton, Christopher. 2000. Suggested Extensions to the Account of Modern Hebrew Noun Phrases in
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In University of Edinburgh.
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.
Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Ms., MIT.
Heycock, Caroline. to appear. On the interaction of adjectival modifiers and relative clauses. Natural
Language Semantics.
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Superlatieven. TABU 13, 101-106.
Kervella, Fransez. 1995. Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg. 3rd edition. Brest: Al Liamm.
Kim, Ji-yung. 2000. Adjectives in construct. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Larson, Richard K. 2000. ACD in AP? In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, ed. by Roger Billerey and Brook D.
Lillehaugen. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press.
Lema, José. 1992. Distinguishing copular and aspectual auxiliaries: Spanish ser and estar. In
Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics: Papers from the 22nd Linguistics Symposium on
Romance Languages, El Paso/Juarez, February 22-24, 1992, ed. by Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall,
Mario Montalbetti and Marianne Phinney. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 12, 257-274.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Luján, Marta. 1981. The Spanish copulas as aspect indicators. Lingua 54, 165-210.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head-movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 69-109.
Menuzzi, Sandro. 1994. Adjectival positions inside DP. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994, ed. by R.
Bok-Bennema and C. Cremers, 127-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Odijk, J. 1992. Uninflected adjectives in Dutch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, ed. by R. BokBennema and R. van Hout, 197-208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. Syntactic categories are neither primitive nor universal: evidence from short and
long adjectives in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 9: The Bloomington
Meeting, ed. by Steven Franks, Tracy Holloway King and Michael Yadroff, 209-227. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Ora Matushansky
Superlatives at the Interface, UMass (April 26, 2006)
21
Ritter, Elisabeth. 1987. NSO noun phrase in Modern Hebrew. In Proceedings of NELS 17, ed. by Joyce
McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett, 521-537. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of
Massachusetts, GLSA.
Ritter, Elisabeth. 1988. A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases. Linguistics 26, 909929.
Roldán, Mercedes. 1974. Towards a semantic characterization of ser and estar. Hispania 57, 68-75.
Ross, John R. 1964. A partial grammar of English superlatives, MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Schmitt, Christina. 1992. Ser and estar: a matter of aspect. In Proceedings of NELS 22, ed. by Kimberley
Broderick, 411-426. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Sharvit, Yael, and Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and
Philosophy 25, 453-505.
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1976. Capturing the Russian adjective. In Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara H.
Partee, 293-309. New York: Academic Press.
Siloni, Tal. 2001. Adjectival constructs and inalienable constructions. In Themes and Issues in the Syntax
of Arabic and Hebrew, ed. by Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Stateva, Penka. 2002. How Different are Different Degree Constructions?, Doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut.
Stateva, Penka. 2003. Superlative more. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13,
ed. by Robert B. Young and Yuping Zhou, 276-291. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications,
Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.
Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. In Views on Phrase Structure, ed. by K. Leifel and Denis
Bouchard, 37-56. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 8, ed. by
Naoki Fukui, Tova R. Rapoport and Elisabeth Sagey, 245-265. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT,
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
Vikner, Sten. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationsschift:
Universität Tübingen.
Wintner, Shuly. 2000. Definiteness in the Hebrew noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 36, 319-363.