Abstract
There is one salient difference between equative constructions like John drove as fast as Mary did in English and Slovenian: while the former do not allow a downward-entailing operator to occur in the standard clause and c-command the degree argument that is abstracted over, the latter do. This holds, however, only if the equative occurs without a multiplicative degree modifier. We show how these facts can be captured on relatively simple assumptions about the make-up of equative constructions. Building on the insights of von Stechow (1984) and Rullmann (1995) about the distribution of downward-entailing operators in degree constructions, we argue that the behavior of equatives in Slovenian provides new support for the following two conclusions: (i) that maximality, although a component of equatives, is separable from the other ingredients of the construction (in line with Heim 2006, pace von Stechow 1984; Schwarzschild and Wilkinson 2002, and others) and (ii) that degree domains are always dense (the Universal Density of Measurement, Fox and Hackl 2006).
We are excited to be able to participate in the celebration of Roger’s birthday. An early version of this paper was presented in a seminar co-taught with Roger at MIT. We thank Nick Fleisher, Irene Heim, Jessica Rett, Roger Schwarzschild, and an anonymous reviewer for their written comments on the previous version of the paper, as well as the audiences at the University of Göttingen and ZAS Berlin. This research has been supported by grants from Israel Science Foundation (1926/14) and Volkswagen Stiftung (VWZN3181).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The facts are different for so-called phrasal comparatives and equatives, as exemplified in (i) (Brame 1983). We assume that phrasal comparatives like (i) involve a wide-scope interpretation of the nominal quantifier and are thus orthogonal to the issues investigated in this paper.
- 2.
An apparent exception to this generalization are the so-called Class B modified numerals, as given in (i) (as observed by Fleisher 2016; see Geurts and Nouwen 2007; Nouwen 2010; Schwarz et al. 2012, among others, for discussion of their semantic properties). This paper does not shed new light on this exceptional behavior.
- 3.
If a DE operator does not c-command the degree argument abstracted over in the standard clause, the sentences are acceptable. This is shown in (i), where few mistakes occurs in both the matrix and standard clause.
- 4.
Unlike in German and many other languages (see Footnote 7), the standard marker in Slovenian equatives (and comparatives), kot, is not transparently morphologically related to relative pronouns or question words in the language (pace Haspelmath and Buchholz 1998). Similarly to as in English and other equative standard markers, it also occurs in so-called similative constructions like John danced as Sue did (see Rett 2013 for discussion of the relation between the two constructions). The demonstrative in the main clause, tako, may be dropped, though this is dispreferred and is impossible if the equative is combined with a multiplicative modifier (see Toporišič 2006 for some examples and discussion).
- 5.
One question that is raised by the above proposal pertains to the acceptability of sentences like (60) and (61) in contexts in which there is a maximal allowed speed, hence no minimal prohibited speed and no maximal element in the argument of the numeral. Following Fox and Hackl (2006), we may assume that while the acceptability of a sentence is determined in a formal system that makes no reference to contextual factors (such as the level of granularity), its ultimate truth conditions do depend on them. Accordingly, we would predict that sentences like (60) and (61) may be acceptable even in contexts in which there is no minimal prohibited speed. This is because (i) they are admitted in the formal system (since they may pick out nontrivial truth conditions, as discussed in the main text) and (ii) once the level of granularity is set in the context there may well be a minimal prohibited speed, allowing the sentences to have contingent truth conditions (see Fox and Hackl 2006, Sect. 5, for a related discussion). Of course, the felicity of (60) and (61) may furthermore depend on how accessible/identifiable the relevant level of granularity is for the conversational participants in the context. While the sentences in (60) and (61) are perceived as slightly marked if there is no minimal prohibited speed, perhaps due to these considerations, the sentence in (i) is perfectly acceptable. Further investigation of these questions is required. We are thankful to a reviewer and Maribel Romero (p.c.) for raising them.
- 6.
Another prediction of the proposal is that modal obviation may also be achieved by properly placing a modal in the matrix clause. For example, if a universal modal is generated in the matrix clause, and if the numeral takes scope above it, a modified equative with a DE operator in the standard clause may have a consistent interpretation, paraphrased in (i). This interpretation requires there to be a minimal speed such that Mary does not drive as fast as it in any of the possible worlds.
Tentatively, the predicted felicity appears to be borne out, as indicated in (ii), though further empirical study is mandated. The sentence in (ii) can be marginally used in a context in which, say, Mary is not driving 50 mph (since she is driving a truck) but may be driving at any speed below 50 mph. We can make sense of the marginality by assuming that the numeral prefers to receive scope below the modal.
- 7.
Penka (2010, 2016) discusses felicitous examples of DE operators in German equatives (see also von Stechow 1984). One such example is provided in (i).
A salient feature of all these examples seems to be that while negative indefinites and their ilk (no one, never, not anymore) are acceptable in them, plain negation is not. Although further empirical study is necessary (e.g., there may be a preference for phrasal variants of these sentences), one potential way of dealing with this variation would be to assume that German is just like what we propose for English, except that the max operator is not the one we adopt in the main text but rather max based on informativity. Namely, as discussed by Fox and Hackl (2006) and Abrusán and Spector (2011) for how many questions, on such a construal of max, negative indefinites may participate in obviation of maximality failures, as illustrated in (ii) (see Penka 2016 for a slightly different take).
References
Abrusán, M., & Spector, B. (2011). A semantics for degree questions based on intervals: Negative islands and their obviation. Journal of Semantics, 28.
Alrenga, P., & Kennedy, C. (2014). No more shall we part: Quantifiers in English comparatives. Natural Language Semantics, 22(1), 1–53.
Beck, Sigrid. (2012). DegP scope revisited. Natural Language Semantics, 20(3), 227–272.
Beck, S. (2014). Plural predication and quantified ’than’-clauses. In L. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft of semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1, pp. 91–115). MITWPL.
Brame, M. (1983). Ungrammatical notes 4: Smarter than me. Linguistic Analysis, 12, 323–328.
Chomsky, N. (1977). On \(wh\)-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.
Dotlačil, J., & Nouwen, R. (2016). The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics, 24(1), 45–78.
Fleisher, N. (2016). Comparing theories of quantifiers in* than* clauses: Lessons from downward-entailing differentials. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9.
Fox, D., & Hackl, M. (2006). The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 537–586.
Gajewski, J. (2008). More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 18, 340–357.
Geurts, B., & Nouwen, R. (2007). At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language, 83(3), 533–559.
Haspelmath, M., & Buchholz, O. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of europe. In J. van der Auwera & D. Ó. Baoill (Eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter.
Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 10 (pp. 40–64). CLC Publications: Cornell University.
Heim, I. (2006). Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. MIT: Manuscript.
Kennedy, C. (2015). A “de-fregean” semantics (and neo-gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 8(10), 1–44.
Nouwen, R. (2010). Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3.
Penka, D. (2010). Negative indenites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penka, D. (2016). Degree equatives—The same as comparatives? Slides at the workshop on equatives.
Rett, J. (2013). Similatives and the argument structure of verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(4), 1101–1137.
Rett, J. (2014). Measure phrase equatives and modified numerals. Journal of Semantics ffu004.
Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions, University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
Schwarz, B., Buccola, B., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Two types of class b numeral modifiers: A reply to nouwen 2010. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5.
Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 34, 207–228.
Schwarzschild, R. (2008). The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(2), 308–331.
Schwarzschild, R. (2010). Comparative markers and standard markers. In M. Y. Erlewine & Y. Sudo (Eds.), Proceedings of the MIT Workshop on Comparatives (Vol. 69, pp. 87–105). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Schwarzschild, Rr, & Wilkinson, K. (2002). Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics, 10(1), 1–41.
Seuren, P. A. M. (1973). The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe (pp. 528–564). Springer.
von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3(1), 1–77.
Toporišič, J. (2006). Besedjeslovne razprave. ZRC SAZU.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crnič, L., Fox, D. (2019). Equatives and Maximality. In: Altshuler, D., Rett, J. (eds) The Semantics of Plurals, Focus, Degrees, and Times. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04438-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04437-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04438-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)