Scalar properties of negative polarity superlatives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7557/1.9.1.5358Keywords:
superlatives, polarity, scalar implicatures, entailment, minimizersAbstract
Most theories agree that polarity sensitivity must be related to scalarity one way or another. Superlatives are a good example of this, since their “endpoint nature” allows for them to be in negative contexts with a quantitative interpretation. In this paper, I follow Fauconnier’s (1975a) work in distinguishing two different types of polarity-sensitive superlatives and I show how they manifest in Spanish. I argue that in this language the distinction is formally marked, what allows us to reach different conclusions from those of Fauconnier. On this line, I will defend that both types of polarity-sensitive superlatives have scalar properties of a very different nature. Thus, while for one the quantitative reading is pragmatically-driven, for the other it is semantically-driven.
References
BOSQUE, I. (1980). Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.
BOSQUE, I. (1996). On specificity and adjective position, in J. Gutiérrez & L. Silva (eds.), Perspectives on Spanish linguistics, vol. 1, Department of Linguistics, UCLA, pp. 1-14.
BOSQUE, I. (2001). Adjective position and the interpretation of indefinites, in J. Gutié-rrez-Rexach & L. Silva (eds.), Current issues in Spanish syntax and semantics, Mouton-De Gruyter, pp. 17-38.
BRESNAN, J. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic inquiry 4(3), pp. 275-344.
BOSQUE, I. & C. PICALLO (1996). Postnominal adjectives in Spanish DPs. Journal of Linguis¬tics 32(2), pp. 349-385.
CHIERCHIA, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the Syntax/Pragmatics interface, in A. Belleti (ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39-103.
CHIERCHIA, G. (2006). Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry 37, pp. 535-590.
CHIERCHIA, G. (2013). Logic in grammar. Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CINQUE, G. (2010). The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
COPPOCK, E., & D. BEAVER (2014). A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. Proceedings of SALT 24, pp. 177-196.
COPPOCK, E., & D. BEAVER (2015). Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and philosophy 38, pp. 377-435.
COPPOCK, E., & L. STRAND (2019). Most vs. the most in languages where the more means most, in A. Aguilar-Guevara, J. Pozas Loyo & V. Vázquez-Rojas Maldonado (eds.), Definiteness across languages. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 371-417.
FÁBREGAS, A. (2017). The syntax and semantics of nominal modifiers in Spanish: interpretation, types and ordering facts. Borealis: an international journal of Hispanic linguistics 6(2), pp. 1-102.
FARKAS, D., & K. É. KISS (2000). On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural language and linguistic theory 18, pp. 417-455.
FAUCONNIER, G. (1975a). Pragmatic scales and logic structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3), pp. 353-375.
FAUCONNIER, G. (1975b). Polarity and the scale principle. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 11, pp. 188-199.
GEURTS, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GIANNAKIDOU, A. (1998). Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
GIANNAKIDOU, A. (2002). Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downward entailment to (non)veridicality. Ms., University of Chicago. Available at http://home.uchicago.edu/~giannaki/pubs/cls.giannakidou.pdf
GIANNAKIDOU, A. (2007). The landscape of EVEN. Natural language and linguistic theory 25, pp. 39-81.
GIANNAKIDOU, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items, in K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1660-1712.
GONZÁLEZ RODRÍGUEZ, R. (2008). La polaridad positiva en español. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
GUTIÉRREZ-REXACH, J. (2006). Superlatives quantifiers and the dynamics of context dependence, in K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (eds.), Where semantics meets pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 237-266.
GUTIÉRREZ-REXACH, J. (2010). Characterizing superlative quantifiers, in P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (eds.), Adjectives: formal analyses in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 187-231.
HACKL, M. (2009). On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half. Natural language semantics 17, pp. 63-98.
HEIM, I. (1999). Notes on superlatives. Ms., MIT. Available at http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Lehre/SS08/Superlative.pdf
HERBURGER, E. (2003). A note on Spanish ni siquiera, even, and the analysis of NPIs. Probus 15, pp. 237-256.
HOEKSEMA, J. & H. RULLMANN (2001). Scalarity and polarity: a study of scalar adverbs as polarity items, in J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sánchez-Valencia & T. van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129-171.
HORN, L. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, University of California.
HORN, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ISRAEL, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and philosophy 19, pp. 619-666.
ISRAEL, M. (2001). Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric of Scalar Reasoning. Journal of semantics 18(4), pp. 297-331.
ISRAEL, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: pragmatics, sensitivity and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KADMON, N., & F. LANDMAN (1993). Any. Linguistics and philosophy 16, pp. 353-422.
KRASIKOVA, S (2012). Definiteness in superlatives. Amsterdam Colloquium 2011, pp. 411-420.
LADUSAW, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relation. PhD dissertation, University of Texas.
LAHIRI, U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural language semantics 6, pp. 57-123.
MILSARK, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English, in J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), Semantics: critical concepts in linguistics, vol. III. London and New York: Routledge, 2003, pp. 40-65.
PARTEE, B. (1986). The airport squib: any, almost, and superlatives, in B. Partee (ed.), Compositionality in formal semantics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 231-240.
RAE-ASALE (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española, vol. II. Madrid: Espasa.
ROOTH, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
SÁNCHEZ LÓPEZ, C. (1999). La negación, in I. Bosque & V. Demonte (dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa, pp. 2561-2634.
SOLT, S. (2011). How many most’s? Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 1-15.
SZABOLCSI, A. (1986). Comparative superlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 245-266.
SZABOLCSI, A. (2012). Compositionality without word boundaries: (the) more and (the) most. Proceedings of SALT 22, pp. 1-25.
VAN DER WOUDEN, T. (1997). Negative contexts: collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London and New York: Routledge.
WILSON, E. C. (2018). Amount superlatives and measure phrases. PhD dissertation, The City University of New York.
ZWARTS, F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic analysis 25, pp. 286-312.
ZWARTS, F. (1996). A hierarchy of negative expressions, in H. Wansing (ed.), Negation: a notion in focus. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 169-194.
ZWARTS, F. (1998). Three types of polarity, in F. Hamm y E. Hinrichs (eds.), Plurality and quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 177-238.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
