Modal Superlatives And 3-Place Vs. 2-Place -Est

The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6:10 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Superlative sentences with modal modifiers like possible give rise to the so-called 'modal superlative reading' . The present paper uses this reading to investigate an open issue in degree constructions: whereas two different lexical entries have been argued to exist for the comparative morpheme -er , it is not clear whether two entries are needed for the superlative morpheme -est. The paper argues that, with 3-place –est, otherwise unmotivated syntactic material would to have to be postulated and that, even with this material, not all modal superlative examples would be assigned correct truth conditions. In contrast, 2-place -est can generate the modal superlative reading in all the cases, as shown in Romero . Modal superlative sentences, thus, provide evidence that 2-place –est is needed in the grammar

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,551

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
100 (#211,908)

6 months
8 (#594,873)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Modal superlatives: a compositional analysis. [REVIEW]Maribel Romero - 2013 - Natural Language Semantics 21 (1):79-110.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Semantics in generative grammar.Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer - 1998 - Malden, MA: Blackwell. Edited by Angelika Kratzer.
Polar opposition and the ontology of 'degrees'.Christopher Kennedy - 2001 - Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (1):33-70.
Strange Relatives of the Third Kind.Alexander Grosu & Fred Landman - 1998 - Natural Language Semantics 6 (2):125-170.
Superlative expressions, context, and focus.Yael Sharvit & Penka Stateva - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (4):453-504.

View all 8 references / Add more references