Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions
- 191 Downloads
This paper argues for a particular semantic decomposition of morphological definiteness. I propose that the meaning of ‘the’ comprises two distinct compositional operations. The first builds a set of witnesses that satisfy the restricting noun phrase. The second tests this set for uniqueness. The motivation for decomposing the denotation of the definite determiner in this way comes from split-scope intervention effects. The two components—the selection of witnesses on the one hand and the counting of witnesses on the other—may take effect at different points in the composition of a constituent, and this has non-trivial semantic consequences when other operators inside the DP take action in between them. In particular, I analyze well-known examples of mutually recursive definite descriptions like ‘the rabbit in the hat’ (when there are two rabbits and two hats but only one rabbit in a hat and only one hat with a rabbit in it) as examples of definites whose referent-introducing and referent-testing components are interleaved rather than nested. I further demonstrate that this picture leads to a new theory of relative superlative descriptions like ‘the kid who climbed the highest tree’ (when there is no highest tree per se, only a highest tree-climbing kid), which explains the previously mysterious role of the definite determiner in licensing such readings.
KeywordsDefinites Superlatives Numerals Dynamic semantics Quantification and scope
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barker, C. (1995). Possessive descriptions. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Barker, C. (2001). Introducing continuations. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 11, pp. 20–35). New York: New York University.Google Scholar
- Barker, C. (2004). Possessive weak definites. In B. Partee, J.-Y. Kim, & Y. A. Lander (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics) (Vol. 29, pp. 89–113). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
- Barker, C. (2011). Possessives and relational nouns, chap. 48. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1109–1130). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
- Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics (Studies in logic, language, and information). Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
- Bobaljik, J. D. (2012). Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words (Current Studies in Linguistics) (Vol. 50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Bos, J. (2009). Computing genitive superlatives. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on computational semantics (Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp. 18–32).Google Scholar
- Brasoveanu, A. (2007). Structured nominal and modal reference, Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
- Brasoveanu, A. (2012). Modified numerals as post-suppositions. Journal of Semantics. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffs003.
- Bumford, D. (2017a). Not the only game in town: Relative and indeterminate exclusive descriptions. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
- Bumford, D. (2017b). Split-scope effects in definite descriptions, Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar
- Chacón, D. & Wellwood, A. (2012). A superlative puzzle for Bošković’s NP/DP parameter. Un-published handout, Workshop on languages with and without articles. http://archive.sfl.cnrs.fr/sites/sfl/IMG/pdf/lsalaa2012ChaconWellwood.pdf.
- Champollion, L. & Sauerland, U. (2010). Move and accommodate: A solution to haddock’s puzzle. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 8 (pp. 27–52).Google Scholar
- Charlow, S. (2014). On the semantics of exceptional scope, Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar
- Charlow, S. (2017). Post-suppositions and semantic theory. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
- Clark, H. (1975). Bridging. In Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing (Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp. 169–174).Google Scholar
- Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012a). Exclusivity, uniqueness, and definiteness. In C. Piñón (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9 (pp. 1–17).Google Scholar
- Coppock, E., & Beaver, D. (2012b). Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. In A. Chereches, N. Ashton, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 22, pp. 527–544).Google Scholar
- Coppock, E. & Beaver, D. (2014). A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. In T. Snider, S. D’Antonio & M. Wiegand (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 24 (pp. 177–196).Google Scholar
- Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
- den Dikken, M., Larson, R., & Ludlow, P. (1997). Intensional “transitive” verbs and concealed complement clauses. In P. Ludlow (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 1041–1054). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Djalali, A. (2014). On adjectival comparatives, Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Gabbay, D., & Moravcsik, J. (1974). Branching quantifiers. English and Montague grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 139.Google Scholar
- Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative quantifiers, Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Haddock, N. (1987). Incremental interpretation and combinatory categorial grammar. In Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 661–663). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction (Vol. 11). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M.
- Heim, I. (1999). Notes on superlatives. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TI1MTlhZ/.
- Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 10, pp. 40–64). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
- Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Horacek, H. (1995). More on generating referring expressions. In Proceedings of the fifth European workshop on natural language generation (pp. 43–58). Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Howard, E. (2014). Superlative degree clauses: Evidence from NPI licensing, MA thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Kadmon, N. (1987) On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
- Krasikova, S. (2012) Definiteness in superlatives. In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz & M. Westera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 411–420). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7.
- Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25). Tokyo.Google Scholar
- Larson, R. (1999). Semantics of adjectival modification. Lectures at the Dutch National Graduate School (LOT). Amsterdam. http://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/~rlarson/LOT(99)/Contents.htmld/index.html.
- Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (Foundation of Communication) (pp. 302–323). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- May, R. (1977) The grammar of quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- May, R. & Bale, A. (2005) Inverse linking. In The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. 2, pp. 639–667). Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
- Partee, B. (1986). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–144). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
- Poesio, M. (1994). Weak definites. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 4, pp. 282–299). Rochester: University of Rochester.Google Scholar
- Rooth, M. (1996). On the interface principles for intonational focus. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 6, pp. 202–226). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
- Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B. (2005). Modal superlatives. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 15, pp. 187–204). Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B. (2006). Attributive wrong. In Proceedings of the 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL) (pp. 362–370).Google Scholar
- Schwarz, F. (2014). How weak and how definite are weak definites? In A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Weak referentiality (pp. 213–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Sharvit, Y. (2015). The onliest NP: Non-definite definites. In U. Steindl (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL) (pp. 171–190).Google Scholar
- Smythe, F. (2013). The Kangchenjunga adventure: The 1930 expedition to the third highest mountain in the world. Vertebrate Graphics Limited.Google Scholar
- Stateva, P. (2002). How different are different degree constructions? Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
- Stone, M., & Webber, B. (1998). Textual economy through close coupling of syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of the ninth international workshop on natural language generation (INLG) (pp. 178–187). Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON.Google Scholar
- Svenonius, P. (1994). The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Proceedings of 12th west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL) (pp. 439–454).Google Scholar
- Szabolcsi, A. (1986). Comparative superlatives. In N. Fukui, T. Rapoport & E. Sagey (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 245–265). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Szabolcsi, A. (2012). Compositionality without word boundaries: (the) more and (the) most. In A. Chereches, N. Ashton, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (Vol. 22, pp. 1–25). University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Teodorescu, A. (2006). Adjective ordering restrictions revisited. In D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL) (pp. 399–407).Google Scholar
- Tomaszewicz, B. (2013). Focus association in superlatives and the semantics of -est. In M. Aloni, M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 226–233).Google Scholar
- Tomaszewicz, B. (2015). Superlative ambiguities: A comparative perspective, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
- von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains, Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar