Abstract
It has long been observed that the superlative construction, exemplified by John climbed the highest mountain, has two readings. On the absolute reading, the heights of the relevant mountains in a relevant context are compared; on the comparative reading, relevant climbers’ achievements of mountain climbing are compared (Szabolcsi, Comparative superlatives, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 1986). Two theories have been proposed regarding this ambiguity. One theory holds that it results from movement of the superlative morpheme -est (movement theory) (Heim, Association with focus, Doctoral Dissertation, 1985, Notes on superlatives, 1999; Szabolcsi 1986).The other theory holds that the ambiguity is derived by assignment of different values to the context variable C, keeping a single LF structure where -est stays in situ (in-situ theory) (Farkas and Kiss, Nat Lang Linguist Theory 18:417–455, 2000; Sharvit and Stateva, Linguist Philos 25:453–504, 2002). As is pointed out by Heim (1999), a choice between these theories is hard to make based solely on English. Through an investigation of Japanese superlative constructions, this paper argues that, in Japanese at least, a movement theory is required.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bošković Željko (2007) What will you have, DP or NP?. In: Efner E., Walkow M. (eds) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37. Amherst, MA, GLSA
Cresswell, M.J. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed., Barbara, H. Partee, pp. 216–292. New York: Academic Press.
Farkas, Donka F., Katalin E. Kiss (2000) On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 417–455
Fox Danny (2002) Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96
Heim, Irene. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Texas-Austin.
Heim, Irene. (1999). Notes on superlatives. Available at Semanticsarchive.net. http://semanticarchive.net/Archive/TI1MTlhZ/Superlative.pdf
Rooth, Mats. (1985). Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth Mats (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116
Ross, John Robert. (1964). A partial grammar of English superlatives. Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Rullmann, Hotze. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Sauerland Uli, Elbourne Paul (2002) Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and the derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319
Selkirk Elisabeth (1984) Phonology and syntax : The relation between sound and structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Selkirk, Elisabeth. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. In Phonology yearbook 3, 371–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seuren, P.A.M. (1973). The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe, ed., F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet, pp. 528–564. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Sharvit Yael, Stateva Penka (2002) Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 453–504
Stateva, Penka. (2000). In defense of the movement theory of superlatives. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 1999, pp. 215–226. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Szabolcsi, Anna. (1986). Comparative superlatives, 245–266. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
von Fintel, Kai. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aihara, M. The scope of -est: evidence from Japanese. Nat Lang Semantics 17, 341–367 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9046-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9046-6