Norbert Corver (UiL-OTS/Utrecht University) and Ora Matushansky (CNRS/Université Paris-8) AT OUR BEST WHEN AT OUR BOLDEST TIN-dag, February 4, 2006 1. INTRODUCTION The superlative PP construction in the title is relatively rare (though not unproductive) in English and very productive in Dutch. Whereas in English PP superlatives may not contain a pronoun (as in (1b-d), where a pronoun is ungrammatical) and often allow article drop (as in (1c, d)), Dutch PP superlatives require a possessive pronoun: (1) a. Alice found herself at !her/*its/*the/*Ø loneliest. b. She arrives on Sunday at *her/*its/!the/*Ø earliest/latest. c. There were thirty people at *their/*its/!the/!Ø most/least. d. At *your/*its/!the/!Ø worst/best, you will be beaten. (2) a. Naomi werd op d’r/*het best aan het publiek getoond Naomi was at 3FSG.POSS/the.NSG best to the audience shown Naomi was shown to the audience at her best. b. Sharon komt op z’n/*het vroegst om 3 uur Sharon comes at 3SG.POSS/the.NSG earliest at 3 o’clock Sharon comes at 3 o’clock at the earliest. The behavior of the Dutch possessive pronoun falls into two distinct categories: either it must be locally bound, as in (2a) and (3a), or it may not be so, as in (2b) and (3b). We will refer to these cases as reflexive PP superlative and pronominal PP superlative, respectively: (3) a. Marie keek op d’r/*z’n boost naar mij reflexive PP superlative Marie looks at 3FSG.POSS/3SG.POSS angriest at me Marie is looking at me as angrily as she ever could. b. Er waren op z’n/*hun minst 30 mensen pronominal PP superlative there were at 3SG.POSS/3PL.POSS least 30 people There were at least 30 people. In (3a), the possessive pronoun must be coindexed with the subject, which is disallowed in (3b). Claims: 1. The reflexive PP superlative in (3a) is a predicate over individuals, while the pronominal PP superlative in (3b) is a predicate over events (an adverbial). 2. PP superlatives contain a null abstract noun (cf. Ross 1964), with the meaning of stage in reflexive PP superlatives. 3. PP superlatives interact with focus, possibly in different ways. 4. In English these two constructions show dramatically different behavior ((1a) vs. (1b-d)), which shows that languages are sensitive to distinctions between abstract nouns Acknowledgements: We thank Aafke Hulk for bringing the two authors together and Tony Blair for the title of the talk (http://www.labour.org.uk/tbconfspeech/). We are also grateful to Eddy Ruys for help and discussion. Abbreviations and conventions: The possessive z’n is used for both masculine third person referents and neuter or underspecified ones, and is therefore glossed as 3SG.POSS throughout. The notations xVP, xAP and xNP (extended projections of VP, AP and NP, respectively) are used to express our agnosticism as to the exact label of the node under consideration. Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 2. 2 REFLEXIVE VS. PRONOMINAL POSSESSIVE When a PP superlative appears as a primary predicate in a raising construction, as in (4a), or with an ECM verb, as in (4b), the possessive pronoun must be bound by the nearest subject: raising (4) a. Marie lijkt me nu op d’r/*z’n best Marie seems me-DAT now at 3FSG.POSS/3SG.POSS best Marie seems to me to be at her best now. b. Ik vind Marie nu op d’r/*z’n best ECM I consider Marie now at 3FSG.POSS/3SG.POSS best I consider Marie to be at her best now. The possessive pronoun must be bound by the Nominative subject in (4a) and by the small clause subject in (4b). This makes it a weak reflexive similar to zich rather than zichzelf (see Reinhart and Reuland 1993): (5) Ik toonde Marie *zich/!zichzelf in de spiegel I showed Marie *REFL/REFL.self in the mirror I showed Marie herself in the mirror. Local binding is also obligatory when a PP superlative functions as a secondary predicate: (6) Ik toonde Jan haar op d’r/*z’n best I showed Jan-DAT her-ACC at 3FSG.POSS/3SG.POSS best I showed her to Jan at her best. ≠ I showed her to Jan at his best. The fact that the PP superlative cannot modify an indirect object follows from its status as a depictive: like most languages, Dutch disallows secondary predication with non-structural case: (7) a. * I looked at her i [PRO i tired]. b. * Marie talked about Pierre i [PRO i sick]. Inanimate subjects may appear with the unmarked (masculine singular) pronoun in the reflexive PP superlative (Haeseryn et al. 1987, henceforth ANS): (8) a. De bollenvelden zijn nu op hun/z’n mooist the bulb-fields are now at 3PL.POSS/3SG.POSS beautiful-SUP The flower fields are now at their best. b. De ballerina’s zijn nu op hun/*z’n mooist the ballerinas are now at 3PL.POSS/3SG.POSS beautiful-SUP The ballerinas are now at their best. On the other hand, when a PP superlative appears as an adverbial (xVP modifier), coindexation of the possessive with the (closest) subject or with any referential xNP is ungrammatical, and the unmarked (masculine singular) pronoun is the only option. (9) Ik nodig op z’n/*hun/*m’n hoogst 10 mensen uit I invited at 3SG/their/my highest 10 people out I invited 3 people at the most. We conclude, therefore, that superficially we are dealing with two constructions: (10) a. op REFL A-SUP reflexive PP superlative b. op 3SG A-SUP pronominal PP superlative Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 3 The English PP superlative, when interpreted as primary or secondary predication requires a reflexive pronoun: (11) a. Alice found [herself at !her/*its/*the/*Ø loneliest]. primary, ECM b. Alice i seemed [t i at !her/*its/*the/*Ø loneliest]. primary, raising c. Alice i confronted her secretary [PRO i at !her/*its/*the/*Ø angriest]. secondary On the other hand, the English equivalents to (10b) in (1b-d) disallow any pronoun: (1) b. She arrives on Sunday at *her/*its/!the/*Ø earliest/latest. c. There were thirty people at *their/*its/!the/!Ø most/least. d. At *your/*its/!the/!Ø worst/best, you will be beaten. This difference in behavior further supports the impression that we are dealing with two different construction: 1. The possessive pronoun in (10a) is reflexive, while that in (10b) seems to be unable to be (locally) bound. 2. The construction in (10a) can only be used as a primary or secondary predicate, while (10b) has to be an adverbial. 3. The English equivalent of (10a) behaves in the same way, whereas those of (10b) show a remarkably different behavior in that it disallows any pronoun. 3. THE STRUCTURE OF PP SUPERLATIVES The presence of a preposition and of the possessive pronoun strongly indicates the presence of a null nominal head. We can also inquire as to the semantics of this head. 3.1. The head noun Ross 1964: English superlatives, even when appearing in the predicate position, are attributive. He suggests the presence of a null NP in adverbial superlatives as well. Matushansky 2005: superlatives are obligatorily attributive cross-linguistically, with a null xNP in the predicate position. Russian long form adjectives: most Russian adjectives come in two forms. The long form is derived from the short form via suffixation (on the morpho-phonology of long-form adjectives see Halle and Matushansky 2006). The short form only appears as the predicate with the copular be, while long-form adjectives are always attributive (Babby 1973, Bailyn 1994, Siegel 1976; evidence comes from their interpretation and syntax), sometimes with a null noun. Only long-form adjectives can form superlatives: (12) a. Marija byla krasivaja/krasivoj/krasiva Maria was beautiful-LF-FSG.NOM/LF-FSG.INSTR/SF Maria was beautiful. b. Marija byla samaja krasivaja/ samoj krasivoj/*sama krasiva Maria was most beautiful-LF-FSG.NOM/LF-FSG.INSTR/SF Maria was the beautiful. (13) a. sam-*(aj)-a krasiv-*(aj)-a (ženščina) analytic most-LF-FSG.NOM beautiful-LF-FSG.NOM woman-NOM Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) b. 4 (nai)-krasiv-ejš-*(aj)-a (ženščina) synthetic over.EMPH-beautiful-SUP-LF-FSG.NOM 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. Spanish ser vs. estar (Roldán 1974, Lema 1992, Schmitt 1992, Costa 1998, Escandell-Vidal and Leonetti 2002, etc.): Only ser can be used with nominal predicates; estar implies more transience of the adjectival predicate, though coercion is always possible. Superlatives, of any adjectives, can only appear with ser: (14) 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 (14) are xNPs, the pattern is naturally explained. German and Dutch agreement: German and Dutch predicative adjectives do not agree with the subject. Attributive adjectives show agreement with the head noun (concord). So while German and Dutch have no mechanism to trigger agreement between the subject and the AP predicate, superlatives in predicate position show attributive marking: (15) a. Das ist die schönst*(e) Schlange. German this is the-F most beautiful snake This is the most beautiful snake. b. Diese Schlange ist die schönst*(e). this snake is the-F most beautiful This snake is the most beautiful. Dutch PP predicative superlatives conform to this generalization, given that usually xAPs cannot appear as complements to prepositions or be modified by a possessive: (16) a. op d’r boost possessive PP superlative at her angriest at her angriest *PP adjective b. * op boos at angry *possessive adjective c. * d’r boos her angry The standard assumptions about c-selection argue that the superlative constructions in (3) contain a null head noun. Several questions arise: • What is the semantics of this head noun? • Why is the possessive obligatory? We will argue for the existence of abstract empty nouns in Dutch and show that their semantics allows us to explain the obligatoriness of the possessive pronoun. 3.2. Anaphoric head nouns (“NP-ellipsis”) Matushansky 2005: all superlatives are contained in an xNP, sometimes with a null head noun: Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 5 (17) a. We considered several candidates. Pamela was the sexiest Ø NP. b. The worst Ø NP of the spies will be eliminated. The null head noun is anaphoric to the discourse in a way analogous to the so-called NP-ellipsis: (18) a. Parmi ses robes il n’y avait pas de noires Ø NP. French among her/his dresses, it NEG+there was NEG of black-PL Among her/his dresses, there was no black *(one). b. Quieres uno? Spanish want-2SG a/one-MSG Want *(one)? Whereas English has a special process of one-insertion (also available in Frisian and Breton), in most languages “NP-ellipsis” is relatively free and only constrained by recoverability (whatever it might mean). Given that Dutch allows it, can the null head noun in PP superlatives be another case of NP-ellipsis? The answer is no: NP-ellipsis in Dutch requires agreement marking on the adjective: (19) a. Jan kocht een grot*(-e) boot en Marie kocht een klein*(-e) Jan bought a big-AGR boat and Marie bought a small-AGR Jan bought a big boat and Marie bought a small one. b. * Jan kocht een grot(-*e) huis en Marie kocht een klein(-*e) Jan bought a big-AGR house and Marie bought a small-AGR PP superlatives are incompatible with agreement marking on the superlative, showing that we are dealing here with a process other than NP-ellipsis, and indeed, the null xNP is not anaphoric. 3.3. Abstract head nouns Emonds 1985 argues for the existence of grammatical nouns, such as one, person, self or thing, and Fukui 1987 and Noguchi 1997 analyze Japanese pronouns as null nouns. Such null nouns bear semantically non-vacuous features such as [+human] for person, or [-animate] for thing, and can trigger agreement (e.g., honorific agreement in Japanese). Proposal: the inventory of null nouns also includes abstract concepts. Some of such concepts function as head nouns in PP superlatives. Because there are different concepts, superlatives with different head nouns will function differently from the semantic and syntactic point of view. Not all of these nouns are instantiated in every language, and some languages do not have them at all. • Dutch has at least two null abstract relational nouns: one for reflexive PP superlatives and another one for pronominal PP superlatives. • English has (at least) a null abstract relational noun for reflexive PP superlatives and a non-relational one for pronominal PP superlatives. • Russian has no null abstract nouns (which is why it has no adverbial superlatives) • German has null abstract nouns, but they are not relational. Do we have any evidence for abstract nouns? The fact that in some languages (e.g. Hebrew) adverbials are instantiated by adjectives suggests the existence of the null noun manner or way. Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 6 3.4. The syntax of PP superlatives The productivity of reflexive PP superlatives argues against treating them as fixed expressions; it can be shown that the preposition and the possessive can be disassociated from the superlative: (20) a. op d’r vrolijkst en op d’r gelukkigst at 3FSG.POSS joyful- SUP and at 3FSG.POSS happiest b. ?? op d’r vrolijkst en d’r gelukkigst at 3FSG.POSS joyful- SUP and 3FSG.POSS happiest c. op d’r vrolijkst en gelukkigst at 3FSG.POSS joyful- SUP and happiest at her most joyful and at her happiest With pronominal PP superlatives coordination is impossible for semantic reasons. The preposition is real: PP superlatives can undergo PP-over-V (Koster 1973): (21) a. Marie heeft toen [op d’r luidst]/ [het luidst] gelachen Marie has then at 3FSG.POSS loudest/ DEF.NSG loudest laughed b. Marie heeft toen gelachen [op d’r luidst]/ *[het luidst] Marie has then laughed at 3FSG.POSS loudest/ DEF.NSG loudest Mary then laughed as loud as she could. The strong version of the possessive may not be used (probably because there’s interaction with focus): (22) a. * Marie keek op haar boost naar mij reflexive PP superlative Marie looks at 3FSG.POSS angriest at me b. *Er waren op zijn minst 30 mensen pronominal PP superlative there were at 3SG.POSS least 30 people The adjective may not take a complement, possibly because such a complement would be in focus and we already know that these superlatives interact with focus: (23) a. Jan was het boost op zijn vader Jan was DEF.NSG angriest at 3MSG.POSS father Jan was as angry at his father as he could possibly be. b. *? Jan was op z’n boost op zijn vader Jan was at 3MSG.POSS angriest at 3MSG.POSS father Alternative: the restriction is phonological, akin to the interdiction to incorporate branching or heavy APs into the verbal cluster (Neeleman 1994 and references cited) and as a left member of a compound (see de Haas and Trommelen 1993, Ruys 2004). 4. REFLEXIVE PP SUPERLATIVE Comparison can be external (between different entities) and internal (between different stages of the same entity). Reflexive PP superlatives require internal comparison (Broekhuis 1999:168, no distinction between the two types of PP superlatives): Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 7 (24) a. Hij zingt het mooiste van het hele koor. external comparison he sings the.NSG beautiful-SUP-AGR of the entire choir He sings the best in the entire choir. b. Onder de douche zingt zij het mooist. internal comparison under the shower sings she the.NSG beautiful-SUP He sings the best under the shower. (25) a. * Marie werkt op d’r hardst van de hele klas Marie works at 3FSG.POSS hardest of the whole class b. Marie werkt ’s avonds op d’r hardst Marie works in.the.evening at 3FSG.POSS hardest Marie works the hardest in the evening. Carlson 1977: stage-level predicates such as on the lawn or ill apply not to entities but to spatiotemporal slices thereof (stages). Proposal: the abstract noun in Dutch reflexive PP superlatives is a relational stage: (26) Alice found [herself at her loneliest Ø stage]. (27) DP DP her D′ 0 D NP AP NP 0 loneliest N Ø stage ti Under this assumption, the meaning of the PP superlative emerges compositionally: (28) [[ the loneliest stage of x ]] = ιh [h is a stage of x ∧ ∀h′ [h′ is a stage of x → [h = h′ ∨ MAX (λd . lonely (d)(h)) > MAX (λd . lonely (d)(h′))]]] (28) denotes a moment in time and can combine with the spatio-temporal preposition at to result in the right meaning Internal superlatives must be comparative (see Ross 1964, Hoeksema 1983, Szabolcsi 1986, Gawron 1995, Heim 1985, 1999, Farkas and É. Kiss 2000, Sharvit and Stateva 2002, etc.) 4.1. Possessive If Ø stage is relational, a possessive is obligatory. The impossibility of a post-nominal possessive (van x ‘of x’) is probably due to the same factors as the incompatibility with a strong pronoun: (29) a. *op het boost van haar at the.NSG angriest of her b. * de (beste) vriend van haar the.CSG best-AGR friend of her The fact that the possessive pronoun must be reflexive is due to the pragmatics of the situation in the same way it is in the semi-idiomatic examples (30), (31) and the fully compositional (32): Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 8 (30) a. b. c. (31) a. I kept my/*her calm. Keep your/*my head on your/*my shoulders. You’ll try your damnedest for this sort of money. (Dick Francis, Reflex, p. 21) Jan liep op z’n gemak/* op m’n gemak naar huis Jan walked at 3MSG.POSS ease/ at my ease to home Jan walked home at his ease. b. Jan was uit z’n humeur Jan was out of his humor Jan was in bad temper. (32) a. Sue brought her/#my own book. b. You can leave your/#my hat on. Using a non-reflexive pronoun in reflexive PP superlatives results in the same kind of pragmatic deviance: (33) a. # Callas sang [PRO3sg at Pavarotti’s best]. b. # [PRO1pl at our best] when [PRO3pl at their boldest]. (33) is clearly interpretable. It may also be an alternative explanation for why strong pronouns are impossible: no alternatives are available and so the pronoun cannot be focused. 4.2. Temporality We can also explain the fact that an indication of time is required (Broekhuis 1999) and overt introduction of comparison set is allowed only if this set is temporal: (34) a. * op z’n boost van allen/iedereen at 3SG angriest of all/everyone * at her/his angriest among/of all/everyone b. op z’n allerboost at 3SG all-angriest at her/his angriest ever Prediction: reflexive PP superlatives cannot appear with individual-level adjectives (though coercion is always an option): op d’r slimst (35) a.?(?) Marie was gisteren Marie was yesterday at 3FSG.POSS smartest b. Marie was gisteren op d’r ziekst Marie was yesterday at 3FSG.POSS illest Marie was the most sick yesterday. Regular superlatives when interpreted internally are virtually undistinguishable from reflexive PP superlatives. 4.3. Concord Dutch attributive adjectives, including superlatives, are inflected with the agreement marker -e unless the DP is [neuter][indefinite][singular], as in (36a): Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 9 een !groot/*grot-e stoeltje [neuter][indefinite][singular] a large chair-DIM.N a large little chair b. een *groot/!grot-e stoel [neuter][indefinite][singular] the large chair.C the large little chair c. het *groot/!grot-e stoeltje [neuter][indefinite][singular] the large chair-DIM.N the large little chair d. * groot/!grote stoeltjes [neuter][indefinite][singular] large chair-DIM.N-PL large little chairs Dutch superlatives show the regular concord pattern with the head noun, even if the head noun is covert. In PP superlatives, however, the concord marker must be absent. In this they differ from other adverbial superlatives including the “stage-superlative”: (37) a. Marie keek op d’r boost (*-e) naar mij reflexive PP superlative Marie looks at 3FSG angriest-AGR R at me Marie is looking at me as angrily as she ever could. b. Marie komt op z’n vroegst (*-e) om 3 uur pronominal PP superlative Marie comes at 3SG earliest-AGR at 3 o’clock Marie comes at 3 o’clock at the earliest. c. Ik ben het gelukkigst(-e) als ik syntaxis doe. stage superlative I am the.NSG happiest-AGR when I syntax do I am happiest when I am doing syntax. These facts are explained if (a) the null noun in PP superlatives is obligatorily [neuter][singular] (the default noun specification for Dutch) and (b) if PP superlatives are comparative superlatives, because comparative superlatives are indefinite. (36) a. NB: This doesn’t explain the optionality of agreement marking elsewhere, though. Alternative: the null noun in reflexive PP superlatives belongs to the group of nouns that do not trigger definite agreement (Odijk 1992, Menuzzi 1994, Broekhuis 1999:208, etc.). However, these A + N combinations are usually described as non-compositional. 5. PRONOMINAL PP SUPERLATIVES Probably different null abstract head nouns in Dutch (despite superficial similarity with reflexive PP superlatives): because differ in English with respect to the ability to drop/insert a possessive: (1) b. She arrives on Sunday at *her/*its/!the/*Ø earliest/latest. c. There were thirty people at *their/*its/!the/!Ø most/least. d. At *your/*its/!the/!Ø worst/best, you will be beaten. There are only three pairs of adjectives that allow this construction (early/late, much/little, and good/bad). The question is why these three? The pattern appears to be the same cross-linguistically, although it is not always expressed by a superlative (cf. French au minimum/maximum). Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 10 5.1. Focus Krifka 1999: at most/at least must associate with ordered alternatives and therefore frequently associate with focus (unless appearing with numerals). It looks like at the earliest/at the latest and at best/at worst also associate with focus: (i) They do not occur in questions (except with second occurrence focus, on which see Rooth 1996, Partee 1999, Krifka 2004, Féry and Ishihara to appear, among others) (ii) They do not co-occur with overt focus (except with paired foci) Association with focus correctly predicts that pronominal PP superlatives do not co-occur with each other, and explains Association with focus can probably explain why the strong pronoun is impossible with reflexive PP superlatives as well. If true, it provides a possible explanation for the impossibility of analytic reflexive PP superlatives: (38) a. Ze ziet er op d’r indrukwekkendst uit out she looks there at 3FSG.POSS impressive-st She is looking as impressive as she possibly could. b. * Ze ziet er op d’r meest indrukwekkend uit she looks there at 3FSG.POSS most impressive out Under the assumption that in Dutch analytic superlatives are used for emphasis, they should not be compatible with focus, which would explain their ungrammaticality. Interestingly, analytic superlatives with least are also out: (38) c. * Ze ziet er op d’r minst indrukwekkend uit she looks there at 3FSG.POSS least impressive out Other adverbial superlatives are not only compatible with focus elsewhere, but in fact require it (since they are comparative superlatives, which are licensed by focus (see Ross 1964, Hoeksema 1983, Szabolcsi 1986, Gawron 1995, Heim 1985, 1999, Farkas and É. Kiss 2000, Sharvit and Stateva 2002, etc.)): (39) Wie reed het snellst(e)? who drove the.NSG fastest-AGR Who drove the fastest? Regular adverbial superlatives contain no preposition (in Dutch or in English, unlike in German) and no possessive pronoun. 5.2. Other constructions with a P 3SG.POSS X sequence Adjuncts with the meaning ‘in the way as indicated by X’ (data drawn from ANS, p. 293): (40) a. Ze zei het op z’n/ * d’r Amsterdams she said it at 3SG.POSS/ 3FSG.POSS Amsterdam-ADJ She said in the Amsterdam manner. b. Koken jullie altijd op z’n/ * jullie Vlaams cook you.PL always at 3SG.POSS/ 2PL.POSS Flemish You always cook Flemish-style. Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 11 c. Het ging daar echt op z’n boers toe it went there really at 3SG.POSS farmer-ADJ PRT Things were organized there in a farmerish way. This meaning seems to replicated in the French construction à la française ‘in the French way’ without a pronoun, which supports our intuition that the pronoun probably has no semantic role. Similar to the pronominal PP superlative in that (a) there’s the obligatory neuter pronoun, (b) the preposition, (c) the adjective is not marked for agreement despite the apparent definiteness and (d) a null noun is nonetheless allowed (the noun has to be there because of the preposition) Another construction with what looks like a PP containing an obligatory pronoun is the inclusive comitative construction: (41) a. Jullie met z’n vieren moeten dit kunnen oplossen you with 3SG.POSS four-PL must this be-able solve-INF The four of you should be able to solve this. b. Ze waren met hun/z’n vieren they were with 3PL.POSS/3SG.POSS four-PL They were four. Similar to the reflexive PP superlative in that it has a reflexive pronoun, but differs from it in that the possibility of the unmarked pronoun is not constrained by animacy. REFERENCES Babby, Leonard H. 1973. The deep structure of adjectives and participles in Russian. Language 49, 349360. 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. 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. Costa, João. 1998. L'opposition ser/estar en Portugais. In "Etre" et "avoir" (syntaxe, sémantique, typologie), ed. by Alain Rouveret. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2002. Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In From Words to Discourse, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 159-179. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Farkas, Donka, and Katalin É. Kiss. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 417-455. Féry, Caroline, and Shinichiro Ishihara. to appear. Interpreting second occurrence focus. In Methods in Empirical Prosody Research, ed. by Stefan Sudhoff, Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer and Sandra Pappert. Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. Fukui, Naoki. 1987. Theory of projection in syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Gawron, Jean Mark. 1995. Comparatives, superlatives, and resolution. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 333-380. de Haas, Wim, and Mieke Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: 82. 'sGravenhage: Sdu Uitgeverij. Haeseryn, Walter et al. 1987. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS). Groningen/Leuven: WoltersNoordhoff/Wolters. Norbert Corver and Ora Matushansky At our best when at our boldest, version 1.0 (February 4, 2006) 12 Halle, Morris, and Ora Matushansky. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37. Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin. Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Ms., MIT. Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Superlatieven. TABU 13, 101-106. Koster, Jan. 1973. PP over V en de Theorie van J. Emonds. Spektator 2, 294-311. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren't determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, ed. by Ken Turner. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 1, 257-291: Elsevier Science. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Focus and/or context: A second look at second occurrence expressions. In Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, ed. by Hans Kamp and Barbara H. Partee, 187-207. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 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. Matushansky, Ora. 2005. The DP and the deepest. Ms., CNRS/Université Paris 8. 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. Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex Predicates. Utrecht: Led. Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73, 770-797. 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. Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Studies in Natural Language Processing, ed. by Peter Bosch and Rob van der Sandt, 213-231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720. Roldán, Mercedes. 1974. Towards a semantic characterization of ser and estar. Hispania 57, 68-75. Rooth, Mats. 1996. On the interface principles for intonational focus. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 6, ed. by Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 202-226. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University. Ross, John R. 1964. A partial grammar of English superlatives, MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Ruys, E.G. 2004. Stranding and weak pronouns: The fine structure of the Dutch Mittelfeld. Ms., UiLOTS/Utrecht University. 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, E. A. 1976. Capturing the Russian adjective. In Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara H. Partee, 293-309. New York: Academic Press. 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.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz