Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 14, Article 9, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.9

This is an early access version of

Wilson, E. Cameron. 2021. The most, the fewest and the least: On the relative readings of quantity superlatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 14(9). https: //doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.9.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2021 E. Cameron Wilson This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

The most, the fewest and the least: On the relative readings of quantity superlatives *

E. Cameron Wilson Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)

Abstract This paper makes the empirical observation that so-called ‘NP-internal relative readings’ are available for certain speakers of English (as well as Dutch) for quantity superlatives but never for superlatives of other gradable adjectives. Previous accounts of this phenomenon in other languages attribute the availability of this type of reading to the absence of a definite article or DP layer. Contra the predictions of such accounts, in English, it is when the nominal expression containing the quantity superlative appears to be definite that these readings are generated. I account for these readings by building on the theory that many/much and their antonyms are fundamentally degree-predicates of scalar intervals, not degree- predicates of individuals. This leads me to propose a novel syntactic configuration in which the definite article forms a measure phrase constituent with the quantity superlative to the exclusion of the focused element. The NP-internal relative reading is derived through focus-association, with the superlative morpheme remaining in situ inside the definite measure phrase. The proposal adds to an emerging consensus that the quantity expressions much, many, few and little and their crosslinguistic counterparts are of a distinct type and are syntactically more complex than other gradable adjectives. It also provides indirect support for an in situ approach to deriving the relative readings of superlatives in definite contexts.

Keywords: superlatives, relative readings, quantity adjectives, definite article, DP structure

* This paper builds on research published in the proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20 (Wilson 2015) and developed in my dissertation (Wilson 2018). This version contains additional evidence from English and Bulgarian, and the analysis has been revised to treat measure phrases as properties of scalar intervals rather than individuals. The explanation for differences between Bulgarian and English is also expanded and clarified. This work has been greatly enhanced by discussion with Sam Alxatib, Bill McClure, Jon Nissenbaum, Koen Roland, Uli Sauerland, Yael Sharvit, Stephanie Solt and others. I am very grateful to the editors and reviewers at Semantics and Pragmatics for their valuable comments and suggestions, and especially to my Bulgarian and Dutch informants, Venci Petkova, Vlada Stoyanova, Dora Valkanova, Tim Renders and Bob van Tiel. All errors are my own. early access Savt&Stateva & Sharvit and (2000) Kiss & Farkas ), 2012 (1986, Szabolcsi 2000), 1999, ilso htteebhv ifrnl rmtespraie fodnr adjectives ordinary of superlatives the from differently behave these that show will (2017). Bumford and (2014) Beaver & Coppock e.g., by recently more and (2002), hsppreaie rvosyoeloe edn fqatt ueltvsin superlatives quantity of reading overlooked previously a examines paper This ilsacmaio ewe uniispce yhrvru te eeatpeople. relevant other versus her by picked quantities between comparison a yields 2 nikpce h otape nBrandenburg. in apples most the picked Annick (2) NP general. extended in the superlatives of of understanding analysis our the for and consequences structure important have that ways in words quantity the of forms superlative (the English Introduction 1 3 om etoe ot(fte plsi h orchard. the in apples the) (of most destroyed Worms (3) derive to extended be can it of that showing reading provides by majority/‘more-than-half’ 2009) ( approach the Hackl an individuals. such of words for predicates quantity support gradable these further treating as of is, ( 1984) that adjectival, Hoeksema and as (1973) Bresnan to back going Brandenburg. in picked Annick that fruit of if types example, different For DP. of superlative on in the is arise to (2) can internal in that is focus reading pitch-accent the relative focus to additional the external an when constituent discuss English a I on paper focus this involve In examined DP. cases superlative the part, most the For on focus while locations, other versus Brandenburg in picked Annick did. quantity else anyone than apple for bigger available a gives picked subject Annick the did if on she true focus than one, salient, there different are apple a pickers bigger to apple a rise multiple picked When she state. if other any true in reading, ‘relative’ a to rise gives Brandenburg. in apple biggest the picked Annick (1) Brandenburg. in blue apples Annick the the that of all reading: of Out ‘absolute’ one the (1). biggest is in the reading sentence picked salient the the prosody, by neutral illustrated with is and This prosody. and context to h aallbten()ad()i n oiainfrataiini h literature the in tradition a for motivation one is (2) and (1) between parallel The 1985, ( Heim by proposed been have phenomena these for accounts Competing those to parallel readings, relative multiple have also superlatives Quantity on focus places, various in apples picking Annick of context the In sensitive famously are superlatives containing sentences of conditions truth The biggest apples ilsacmaio ewe the between comparison a yields (2) in adjunct the on Focus . h etnemyb nepee scmaigtequantities the comparing as interpreted be may sentence the 2 most lutae n(3). in illustrated ay uh few much, many, Brandenburg and E.C.Wilson little Annick .I ). early access most, least, is conceptually fewest . For example, it is felicitous as and green most, least 3 and incorporating a silent measure function along ii t , 2 i t , d hh , d the least h is also advocated by Coppock et al.(2020). and most This reading is illustrated in (4), where capitalization indicates a focus the fewest No, she picked the biggesther GREEN green apples, apples. but Annick’s red apples were even bigger than 1 , ). A¸eikdmore‘Ay¸sepicked green apples than any other kind of apple.’ b. While the simple, adjectival treatment of Pancheva &(2012) Tomaszewicz mention that thetional reading superlatives is in ‘marginally’ English, available but with their quantifica- analysis predicts it toThe be focus unavailable. Shen(2014, in2015) (5) and isan not external uninterpretable. relative It reading is with possiblea additional to correction contrastive interpret stress to5) ( (ia), on with limiting either the an domain absolute(i) to reading only or green apples. a. AY¸SEpicked the biggest apples. reading is simply unavailable. (4) Ay¸sepicked the most GREEN apples. fewest pitch-accent on the adjective. Incompares my the own number variety of of green English,colors apples this that Ay¸sepicked to sentence she the clearly picked numbers — the ofsentence NP apples in internal of (5) relative other with reading. a By non-quantity contrast, superlative the is equivalent infelicitous and the NP-internal 1.1 Relative readings with NP-internal focus external to the superlative NP. Pancheva &(2012) Tomaszewicz and Tomaszewicz by focus within that NP, belowoverlooked the is superlative that modifier. something What like hasin this previously ‘NP-internal been English relative’ for reading is many also speakers, available but only for superlatives of quantity ( the lines of (2006)Schwarzschild and approachSolt(2009, to 2014). Such a decompositional that these quantity superlativescontrast generate. which In I describe particular, below, it between cannot these superlatives account and for the superlatives the argue of instead for a moreas decompositional predicates account of of type their meanings, treating them The most appealing, I will argue that it is incompatible with the full range of relative readings (2015)Tomaszewicz only address the absence of the reading for non-quantity superlatives. The relative readings illustrated in (1) are triggered by focus on a constituent that is (2015) describe a class of relative readings in Slavic languages which are triggered ‘ordinary’ adjectives in terms of the availability of ‘NP-internal relative’ readings. I 1 2 early access hs Cntsydentmk es. ae nti uvy tapasta the that appears it survey, this on Based sense.’ make say–doesn’t ‘Can’t chose 4 )i iia otx lodsge oalwol the only allow to designed also context similar a in (6a) variant the accepted (7/13) h ikdape f3vreis e,gle n re.Teteswr overflow- were trees The green. and golden red, varieties: 3 of apples picked She ilc akrud.Frec tm atcpnswr ie cnrodesigned scenario a given of were range participants a item, from speakers each English For native was backgrounds. 18 survey by dialect short completed a and Therefore email variation. by interspeaker distributed to subject is superlatives tity peaches. YELLOW biggest the Ay¸se picked (5) ednu tef na Pajnto nacmlmn ftenu,a n(6). in as noun, the of complement a the on on or focus NP-adjunct include an Examples on constituent. itself, NP-internal noun another head on focus by also but accept not did readings. generally relative respondents internal Australian the and British 53% reading. and relative true, internal as (4) accepted respondents of American varieties North American of North (6/13) to 46% limited English. is readings relative internal remaining of The phenomenon reading. relative internal the on ‘True’ sentence the judging intuition, on clearly focus both the are with subject reading relative the internal on the focus Only with false. reading following relative the external apples.” Is the GREEN apples. and green reading most 30 the and “Ay¸se picked apples true? Ay¸se Ay¸se golden did. than sentence 20 color apples, also each red were of 10 There apples orchard. picked more the picked herself who in orchard color the each in of people apples other of hundreds were there — ing scenario: such one is internal the superlative. rejecting non-quantity a in of uniformly reading quite relative behaved participants words, other In sense.’ “Ay¸se picked true? sentence following the as Is peaches.” big YELLOW top. as biggest the not the at though reach softballs, couldn’t yellow giant she The like ones larger, baseballs. the even of were size peaches picked the doughnut she larger, The that were them. peaches peaches left white she The the so small. at those quite peaches reach were Ay¸se yellow couldn’t but huge trees really the few yellow of a peaches, top were white There varieties: peaches. 3 doughnut follows: of and as peaches peaches was picked She scenario peaches. the pick (5) say–doesn’t to in ‘Can’t orchard absolute sentence and and the ‘False’ NP-external ‘True’ For both between sense’. on choice make false the given and were reading They NP-internal readings. the on true be to nomlivsiainsgetdta h viaiiyo hsraigfrquan- for reading this of availability the that suggested investigation Informal h nenlrltv ednscnb eeae o nyb oue adjective, focused a by only not generated be can readings relative internal The author’s the with agreed 7 while ‘False’ chose respondents 7 only item, this For Here different. quite were superlatives quantity with items the to responses The make say–doesn’t ‘Can’t chose one and ‘False’ answered respondents Seventeen ‘ys ikdbge elwpahsta n te ido peach.’ of kind other any than peaches yellow #‘Ay¸se bigger picked ys ett ifrn ato h rhr opc apples. pick to orchard the of part different a to Ay¸se went 4 gi,teproportional the Again, . green strue. is ys ett an to Ay¸se went E.C.Wilson early access most , can only can be used in the fewest fewest . As one reviewer points out, much in the appropriate scenario–bringing the in the above examples is not quantifying 5 fewest the most is ambiguous between being the superlative of the cardinal the least and the mass quantity word and most many and its comparative and superlative forms can be used adverbially, this A¸eikdmore‘Ay¸sepicked apples than any other fruit.’ ‘She read more books by Asimov than by any other author.’ ‘She liked more pictures of flowers than pictures of anything else’ the fewest much , b. She read the most books by ASIMOV. c. She liked the most pictures of FLOWERS. A¸eikdfewer‘Ay¸sepicked red apples than any other kind of apple.’ Finally, a word about argument position is in order. Relative readings of q- In English, is equally available for quantity superlatives (8) and non-quantity superlatives ( 9) superlative DP is the direct object of the verb. 1.2 Comparison to Slavic NP-internal relative readings are availablephenomenon across in Slavic these languages. languages However, the patterns quite differently than in English. Pancheva superlatives are generally degraded in subjectet position al. (Farkas2011). & This Kiss syntactic is2000, constraintsKotek true are of discussed NP-internal inpredicted relative section by 4.2, readings where my as I account. well. show In This that the and they are meantime other in I fact focus on constructions in which the Indeed, two additional respondents toaccepted the an survey NP-internal who reading rejected of thetotal variant proportion with of North Americans whoreadings accepted to some 62%. form of NP-internal relative events in the denotationquantify of over the apples VP. and However, has itthis no is construction adverbial clear use. and (7) also that shows gives rise that to the NP-internal relative(7) reading. Ay¸sepicked the fewest RED apples. quantity word because leaves open the possibility that over apples as part of the DP, but is an adverbial modifier quantifying over picking (6) a. Ay¸sepicked the most APPLES. The most (their examples 18 and 17 respectively). &(2012) Tomaszewicz observe that in Bulgarian the NP-internal relative reading early access 3 (2006)). Gribanova & Dost (2001), 1)Ivan (11) Ivan (8) h ent akri ufie otefis rsdcwr faD nBlain n t omis form its Noyer and & Embick Bulgarian, therein, in references DP and (2001) a (Franks of to word attaches is prosodic word first the the of that to by suffixed determined is marker alongside definite speakers The to available latently are readings superlative of relative forms that suggests bare the 2009) (Hackl reading and ‘minority’ equivalent no is there since bare Generally, student. best a has class This a. who (12) student chemistry major: a other that has any in class of others the the students that all than reading than better the better is have is not in who does felicitous student (12b) is Yet one ( 12a) has class. like class sentence each a where For that context readings. observe a relative 2006) ( have which Sharvit not in & do sentences Herdan DPs rare example, indefinite The in grammatical. appear be do to superlatives order adjectival in article definite a by preceded Ivan 2). fn. (see focus (10) contrastive as interpreted be only can 21) and on 22 pitch-accent examples The case. either in available (-at) longer marker definite the when However, Ivan (9) h iuto ihnndfiiemarked non-definite with situation The be generally must superlatives adjectival which in English, with contrasts This least Ivan Ia e oesuet rmLno hnh i rmayohrcity.’ other any from did he than London from students more met ‘Ivan Ia e one tdnsfo odnta eddfo n te city.’ other any from did he than London from students younger met ‘Ivan Ivan ‘vnmtyugrsuet rmLno hnh i rmayohrcity.’ other any from did he than London from students younger met #‘Ivan Ivan .Ti ls a etCEITYstudent. CHEMISTRY best a has class This b. ‘vnmtmr tdnsfo odnta eddfo n te city.’ other any from did he than London from students more met #‘Ivan Ivan r ncetbea onmdfir.Teei xeietleiec that evidence experimental is There modifiers. noun as unacceptable are REFL se REFL se REFL se REFL se most met zapozna met zapozna met zapozna met zapozna ,and (3), in illustrated reading majority the with associated is with s with s with s with s SUP-many naj-mnogo SUP-young naj-mladi SUP-young-DEF naj-mladi-te SUP-many-DEF naj-mnogo-to 6 3 sadd h Pitra edn sno is reading NP-internal the added, is ot least most, student.PL studenti student.PL studenti London student.PL studenti student.PL studenti and from ot from ot fewest (ibid., (11) and (10) in London. LONDON. from ot London. LONDON. from ot smr complex. more is London. LONDON London. LONDON E.C.Wilson fewest early access # # # XXXX XXX X X are possible for some speakers, it NP-external rel. NP-internal rel. ) most ) )## 7 ) ) (Kotek et al. 2015) — specifically in subject ) ) )## biggest NP ) a naj-mladi NP the biggest NP naj-mladite NP most of the naj-mnogo NP the most NP most NP naj-mnogoto NP the least and the fewest , b. #Ay¸sepicked most GREEN apples. Non-Q superlatives ( BULGARIAN Indefinite Q-superlatives ( ENGLISH Definite Q-superlatives ( ENGLISH Indefinite Q-superlatives ( Non-Q superlatives (( BULGARIAN Definite Q-superlatives ( Non-Q superlatives ( Non-Q superlatives ( The behavior of English q-superlatives is exceptional. It is only these that gen- The pattern of relative readings in Bulgarian and English shown in the table be- reading in Flemish. erate NP-internal relative readingsthe in definite English article and — in they contrastBulgarian do both superlatives in so to general. when English While non-quantity preceded Iin superlatives by mostly section and focus 6 to on we English will in see what that follows, certain definite-marked q-superlatives also have this briefly return to this issue in section 3.2. low, which illustrates the different interactionin of the definiteness two with languages. type of superlative (14) Definite vs. Indefinite Superlatives seems likely that elision of a semantically active definite article is involved. I will Other authors have claimedquantity that superlatives relative readings in are objectrelevant in position examples fact for as both available well, external with and (Szabolcsi degraded. bare internal2012 ). relative However, readings the in (13) are quite (13) a. %AY¸SEpicked most green apples. The most the majority reading of position where the non-partitive definite q-superlative is judged ungrammatical. To the extent that these readings of bare early access ‘SUP- hnte olwtedfiieatce ttesm iei hudecuethese exclude should it time same the At article. definite the follow they when n tes sueta rdbepeiae aerfrnet cls For scales. to reference make predicates gradable that assume I others, and (2001) aito–h otatbtenBlainadEgih n diinleiec from evidence additional and English, and Bulgarian between contrast variation–the aams con o h viaiiyo Pitra ednsfrqatt superlatives quantity for readings English NP-internal the of availability of the analysis for an account contrast must But the data superlatives. and adjectival DPs, Slavic indefinite and and English on definite between focused Slavic has between readings relative contrast NP-internal the of capturing phenomenon the on work Existing Summary 1.3 eogt h eeatsae huhfrbeiyIoi hsi htfollows. what in this omit I brevity for for though scale, illustrated relevant As the individuals. to of belong properties to scale particular big a on degrees from set that on ordering an dimension, given a Kennedy ), 2006 (1984, Stechow von (1976), Cresswell of tradition the Following Preliminaries superlatives quantity and 2.1 superlatives ordinary of readings Relative 2 concludes. 7 Section English. to similar strikingly is which Dutch Flemish the for proposal this account of the implications with the dicto consistent discuss I are 5 data section the In that 3. see section will in relative we given NP-internal cases generate both to In q-superlatives second containing and readings. intervals, DPs scalar the subject of to of counter-example predicates failure a degree the first not (2009, problems: are Solt potential non-q-adjectives two and that semantics discuss claim (2006) I the Schwarzschild 4 to by section approach inspired In interval-based 2014). is an that with expressions along quantity syntax of novel a on based NP. the functional of silent projection semantic a extended and by the introduced in syntactic are head as q-adjectives of well adnominal as evidence that adjectives, discuss proposals other recent and then adjectives English quantity I adnominal in possible. between superlatives differences be quantity not of incorrectly readings also these relative should of NP-internal both that the show that I predict English. in superlatives adjectival for out. readings that born are account that an predictions gives additional paper makes and This criteria English. these in meets superlatives adjectival for readings nscin3Ipoiea con o h nxetdrltv edns hsis This readings. relative unexpected the for account an provide I 3 section In relative NP-internal of absence the for accounts two review I section next the In ,tedge htstrtsteajciesfis rueti rspoe to presupposed is argument first adjective’s the saturates that degree the (15), in ednso ueltvs eto drse h usino cross-linguistic of question the addresses 6 Section superlatives. of readings ’ nsitu in ess‘U-oeet eae seilywt epc o‘upstairs to respect with especially debate, ‘SUP-movement’ versus ’ DIM h D scale, a , d , ≤ DIM i rdbeajcieitoue function a introduces adjective gradable A . S DIM ossso e fdgeso type of degrees of set a of consists , 8 E.C.Wilson d µ and DIM de early access )]]] y ( )]] y SIZE )( µ d ( ≤ R [ d d ∧ ∃ [ ) y C ( ∈ big ] apple]]]]] . y ) 1 x t apple ( [ ] ∧ ∀ x ] DIM x µ v DegP [ → ¬ 0 6= x 1 x y [ NP 6= → C ) y )] 0 and, if defined, picks out the unique 4 [ ∈ y ) is important to the proposal in section 3. x C y ( x )] )( x ( P x ∈ d [ 9 ( v ( 0 ∧ ∃ y 0 x P R x SIZE [ C x µ ∧ ∀ ∃ ∧ ∀ SUP-C [ 1 [ ∈ ) ≤ 1 → ¬ 2 x x ( : d x . NP α ) = 6= x SIZE x SIZE y ( λ µ [ t the [ S P α 5 C , ≤ ) ∈ d x DP ∈ d ( R d y is defined iff : P ∧ λ the least . t ) ) x x α x x ∧ ∀ ι λ ( . ( C ) and d P P x λ . λ λ x )( ι = d = apple = ( K [ K K d R Ay¸sepicked [ [ ∃ the fewest d SUP x the big IP , ∃ [ J J J λ individual such that . Where Accounts of superlatives differ with respect to the derivation of relative read- The superlative morpheme takes a comparison class, C, as its first argument, then (19) this morpheme that is captured by the relation While it is morethe conventional right, to I put will the generally measuredenotes give a the function set equivalent on formula of the with degrees left reversedThe that order and comprise function so an the as of interval degree to ranging variable picking emphasizesuperlative up properties, on that to out since it the a superlative maximal itselfof will a individual have unique/maximal is specified individual a before generally property the that definite redundant can article in only is merged, be combination but true with the mereological basis of that picks out the unique individual that satisfies it; the full proposition asserts that adjective-noun complex as in (18). Here,of C, SUP is and constrained by by thecomposes the discourse with presuppositions context the to NP be a have the set truth of conditions relevant apples. in The (19). (18) superlative ings, but they generally agree on how absolute readings are derived (Heim 1999). that it reaches a certain degreeindividual on in the the ordering comparison encoded class bythe reaches. the definite Finally, predicate I article that adopt in no a (17). other standard definition of (17) C is constrained by thesome presupposition degree that by everything the it degree containsthat predicate. can the The be comparison superlative mapped also class to contains carriesthat the the is external presupposition distinct argument from and it. at If least defined, one element the resulting expression asserts of an individual (15) a degree predicate, and finallytype an the individual comparison argument (or class an contains), argument as of in whatever (16)( Heim 1999). (16) The most The definite article takes this superlative property and forms a referential expression The superlative morpheme moves minimally within the DP to take scope over the Ay¸sepicked that ‘absolute’ biggest apple. 4 5 early access 6 ihfclpthacn on pitch-accent focal With Ay¸se. presupposi- morpheme’s SUP the by constrained is C readings, absolute the with As ,telcto fafcsoeao ly nipratrl ndisambiguation, in role important an plays operator focus a of location the (1999), ( h ‘SUP The .Tecnucinof conjunction The (23). in shown as with, merges operator the that IP the of value 2)A¸epce h igs pl yesterday. apple biggest the Ay¸se picked (20) and focus to one. sensitive absolute are the (20) than superla- of conditions of readings truth treatment relative weaker proper The have the debated. that be readings to relative continues so-called tives for accounting in is It superlatives non-quantity of readings Relative 2.2 ocle eas h ueltv opeede o as u fteD htcnan t tdoes It it. contains that complex. adjective-noun DP the the over of scope out to raise DP not the within does minimally morpheme move superlative the because called So C (22) to alternative relevant a Ay¸se or either by yesterday some picked of were apples that only size contain focus of to the degree class from comparison the constructed constrains is presuppositions set these alternative This S. set, alternative the operator of focus covert union the by introduced are constraints additional but (22), in tion (21) itself morpheme superlative LF. The at (21). for DP in constituent the shown appropriate inside is an remains This create over. to scope DP to the operator of this movement covert Heim subset require by may the outlined and but As apples, context. on always depending is varies compared consideration under being dependency, apples context is of of What result the focus. primarily by be constrained to readings different the take 2002) The 2.2.1 picked have she need case neither In apple. days. largest relevant absolute other adjunct, the on the picked to she switched those is focus and If people. relevant of group yesterday a of out apple largest ∼ .I re o hst edfie,Cms easbe ftegrand the of subset a be must C defined, be to this for order In 1985). (Rooth ) [[ DP { ⊆ h oprsni ewe h ieo plsta ys ikdyesterday Ay¸se picked that apples of size the between is comparison the , nsitu in h [-C[1[t the nsitu in x : apple approaches ’ approach ( 1 x ) big ∃ ∧ Ay¸se a d pple]]]][ 6 [ d Savt&Stateva & Sharvit , 2000 Kiss & Farkas 1999, (Heim h etnemyb ugdtu fsepce the picked she if true judged be may sentence the , ≤ µ SIZE ∼ [ S ( 10 x )] IP } 2[[Ay¸se] F picked t 2 yesterday]]] ] E.C.Wilson early access ] S 2 ∪ ] 8 2    ... apple]]]] 2 Ay¸sepicked t derivation cannot compose F apple]]] 2 Ay¸sepicked t F yesterday yesterday in situ x x yesterday x operator must scope over the focused big] [[green] 11 ∼ 1 big] [[green] 1[[t 1 NP Annick picked : Ay¸sepicked Alan picked x S[ ∨ ∨ ∼    7 = F K the least IP J the [SUP-C] 1[[t and DP the [SUP-C] ⊆ ∪ S S[ DP [ ∼ [ [ , then the comparison class will contain only apples that Ay¸sepicked. The ⊆ ∪ the fewest , b. ‘yspce a#‘Ay¸sepicked bigger green apple yesterday than any other color of apple’ To generate the relative reading, the comparison class must include apples that Other relative readings are derived based on the same LF, but with different The DP in (21) composes just as it would for the absolute reading. However, C Sharvit &(2002) Stateva observe that an additional effect of focus is the implicature that the predicate constituent that contains C. But the value of C depends on theholds identity of of no S. individual Inserting otherFor than a the more focused thorough one. treatmentto including those additional outlined configurations here which see fail —are for altpancheva2012cross. in the I a similar diverge subset from reasons relation them rather in than assuming one that of C identity. and For focus association toconstituent, but succeed, it the must alsohigh be position discontinuous as with in C. (25a), Ifinfinite then the regress. the operator The derivation is identity will inserted of crash in the because a alternative it set, contains S, a depends loop on of the focus value of a merge point for the focus operator that will generate an appropriate restriction on C. (25) a. Pancheva &(2012) Tomaszewicz show that the Here I summarize their reasoning using (5) (repeated here as(24) (24)) as illustration. Ay¸sepicked the biggest GREEN apple yesterday. (23) C picked that apple yesterday. comparison classes constructed depending onyesterday the location of focus. Ifalternatives focus included is in on the set arethat those she apples picked on that relevant she alternative picked days. yesterdayFailure and to those generate NP-internal relative readings does not include ‘unpicked’ apples.just The among DP those refers picked to by the relevant unique people, apple and that the is sentence is largest true just in case Ay¸se The most The LFs in (25) represent two options for where to merge the focus operator. Ay¸sepicked of various relevant colors. The problem is that there is no possible when the superlative and the focus are both contained within a definite-marked DP. 7 8 early access Pi usd h cp ftefcsoeao,ti opnn snticue nthe in included not is component this operator, focus the of scope the outside is VP hspeldsteebigayclr fape te hngeni h comparison the in green than other apples of colors any being there precludes This the match that conditions truth generate not will C this that is problem first The eie h variation the derives 1999 ) Heim 1986 , (Szabolcsi approach ‘SUP-movement’ The 2)C (26) configuration This problems. different (26). creates in (25b), class in comparison as the produces position, lower a in it na [[Ay¸s on (20) of reading (28) subject-relative the of LF (28). The in it. shown below is out derivation in raising movement tuck morpheme focused to superlative the DP the by the and derived scope, of is clausal take This to yesterday. raising picked constituent apple-size that of asserting degree highest people, the (20) but of apples reading subject-relative not The compares ambiguity. syntactic from readings relative in approach movement The 2.2.2 definite- for readings superlatives. NP-internal quantity with movement marked pattern the unavail- English that is show the derive will movement cannot I this approach Indeed, that present. argue is They definite-marking Slavic. whenever able the in in marking the superlatives definite derive non-quantity of and to absence quantity this both use of readings (2012) relative Tomaszewicz NP-internal & Pancheva superlatives. unavailable. of is focus readings that on depends that focus reading by relative introduced the variation and the cancelled, operator, is the over scopes SUP-C Whenever class. the C satisfy must C So (27) defined: SUP-C. be of to expression sister the the for of order in value presuppositions requirement (ordinary) the following above, the reading on NP-external based superlative the the for are of saw presuppositions we the is As by which itself. erased colors morpheme alternative essentially over is variation focus the via that introduced is problem the second because The compared; restriction. being Ay¸se are by picked apples those only that intuition eo,Irve h oewdl cetd‘U-oeet con o relative for account ‘SUP-movement’ accepted widely more the review I Below, ∪ ⊆ { ⊆ e x S ] F : ∪ ⊆ green [SU [ [[ NP ( P x C [ -C] ) ]] ∧ F apple = IP    [ 2 [ 1 ∨∃ ( x ∨∃ x ) dx ∃ ∧ : dx ∃ t sa is 2 dx d sa is ikd[ picked 12 [ d sa is d ≤ bggle apple golden -big d bggenapple green -big d µ bgrdapple red -big SIZE DP Ay¸se ( h [ the x )] } steoeascae with associated one the is t 1 i pl] ]]]] apple]] big ...    E.C.Wilson early access )] z ( After predicate 9 )] )] SIZE z z ( ( µ ≤ SIZE SIZE d µ µ ) z ∧ ( ≤ ≤ ) z d d ( SIZE ∧ ∧ µ ) ) z z )] ≤ ( ( z apple ( d ∧ Another innovation of his approach is ∧ ) x SIZE 10 ) apple apple , z µ z ( ∧ ∧ ( move with the superlative morpheme (while the 13 ) ) ≤ y y , , d z z the apple ( ( ∧ picked ) ∧ . z ) z ( x ∃ , [ z picked picked d . . ( z z ∃ . apple ∃ ∃ x [ [ ∧ λ ) a picked . , → ¬ → ¬ z the least z ) = ( x a ∃ K x IP and 6= 6= λ J y y d ( [ [ K λ picked C C . z ∈ ∈ ∃ [ ]] = y y the fewest d , IP SUP-C ∃ J ∧∀ of size, and for noapple other that relevant individual reaches is that it degree the of case size. that they picked an [[ ∧∀ There is some degree such that Ay¸sepicked an apple that reaches that degree A persistent criticism of this approach is the exceptional treatment of the definite The comparison class argument is constrained to be a set of individuals that can For English, this derivation depends in part on the assumption that the definite (31) Pancheva &(2012) Tomaszewicz argue that iferally the available, movement it derivation were would gen- allow the unattestedSzabolcsi(1986)’s NP-internal original relative derivation readings has toadjective stays be low). But since theseassumed do instead that not the form movement a approachor constituent, should else(1999)Heim treat and replaced the others by definite since an article as have existential ‘semantically quantifier. vacuous’ of space, I do not discuss this variant of the movement approach in detail here. In Over/under-generation of NP-internal relative readings in DP-languages article as vacuous. Bumford(2017)decompositional approach provides to a the definite solution article, to on which this its problem two semanticevaluated with at functions different a points in the derivation. that the definite article composes directly with the superlative adjective. For reasons (30) be mapped to some degreeof by these this arguments predicate. to The return superlativereaching the will a property combine higher of with degree being both of anfocused individual size DP that than directly picked any saturates an other the apple individual external did. argument, Finally yielding the the moved truth conditions in abstraction over both the individual anddenotation, degree-arguments, which the is IP the hasdegree-predicate correct the argument. following type for the superlative morpheme to take(29) as its The most article is either vacuous or an allomorph of the existential operator. (selecting an individual from a set and verifying the uniqueness of that individual) are (31). what follows I argue that onlywith a the quantity definite superlative article may form that a is syntactic separable constituent from the noun. 9 10 See Coppock & Beaver 2014, 2015 for another approach to this problem. early access eiainbsdo xrcino h ueltv ssml nvial hnthe when unavailable simply is superlative the of extraction on based derivation A eaieraig u o Pitra ns hs hn a xli h atr of pattern the explain can NP-external derive then, can This, that ones. section, NP-internal previous not the in but saw readings the we relative as only and, that cases means these This in present. is article not. may definite operators which degree from but constituent escape, a may island’, individuals ‘degree of a predicates creates and head individuals reason D this definite For a Bulgarian. that and assume they English in constructions definite-marked in derived htteetato ftoeeet rmtenu haei osbei Bulgarian in possible is phrase noun the from elements predicts two approach of an extraction Such the ‘DP-languages.’ of that like presence behave of the they ‘NP- in marking absence for whereas definite the extraction, overt diagnostics left-branch the in allowing pass that, example languages for structure shows these languages’, in DP She nominals full structures. definite marking, affixal both definite or have overt for NP that Bulgarian evidence bare as exhibit such only languages articles have particular, In languages board. individual the across that Tali However, case account. the this not on surprising is language’) [gre hatch. (33) extract escape to single position a a for in compete phase both to the have are at not they (Boškovi do Therefore already layer and morpheme. is DP superlative modifier a the NP-internal of is absence focused as the edge, a in languages, phase such a In is itself 2008). NP the because possible is [gre clause. the over (32) (*t scope by to indicated raise (as cannot superlative through move the to so That DP. SUP-C and Spec for (32) in free in trace longer no intermediate own therefore must its is it leaving position then edge, NP-internal, below phase is in this constituent tuck through focused to extract extract way the may its if However, SUP-C on subject. and trace DP, raised intermediate the the an to external behind already leaving DP, is edge Spec subject the through the through (28) be In Impenetrability always phase. Phase must the The extraction of phase. that a requires always is 2001) languages (Chomsky such Condition account, in his DP On the English. because like is languages this in readings relative NP-internal for derivation for readings relative NP-internal of blocking the non-q-superlatives. as English well as Bulgarian, in readings h atta Pitra eaieraig r osbei ugra a‘DP- (a Bulgarian in possible are readings relative NP-internal that fact The extraction double this Polish like languages Slavic article-less in that argues Shen movement a of unavailability the for account alternative an has 2015) (2014, Shen e e n n F F [[SU [[SU P P C[2 [A¸epce [ Ay¸se picked 1[ 2[ -C][ [ 1[Ay¸se picked 2[ -C][ 14 DP NP * [ t t 2 2 t i ][ big 1 nsitu in [ h [ the a rudi is it argued has (2020) c ´ t 1 NP apple]]]]]]] eiaini possible is derivation t 2 big][ t 1 apple]]]]]]] E.C.Wilson 2 c ´ ) early access has the many . . F F in (35) does not generate an [biologija] biology. linguistics-GEN. [lingwistyki] po of inteligentni 15 ˇ cenitsi u students studentow students ´ c’s hypothesis that Bulgarian is an intermediate stands for a measure function that maps an individual # µ naj-inteligentni SUP-smart.PL the least naj-mlodszych SUP-young and poznal met poznava knows . Importantly, a simple extension of either account to quantity superlatives the fewest , Ivan ‘Ivan met the youngest students#‘Among of the linguistics.’ students that Ivan met, the youngest are of linguistics.’ #Ivan knows smarter students of biology than students of other subjects. Ivan in situ Assuming that there is indeed no DP-layer at all in Bulgarian indefinite NPs, then The phenomenon of NP-internal relative readings provides its own test for Tali”s denotation in (36) where in English leads to the wrong predictions, as we will see below. 2.3 Relative readings of quantity superlatives Following Hackl (2009), Pancheva &(2012) Tomaszewicz assume that NP/DP-language, Shen’s account of the constraintspattern on of SUP-movement available can readings cover in the thatrelative readings language, for as English well non-q-superlatives. as AccordingNP-external the to relative absence this readings of approach, may NP-internal English be derivedapproach, by English SUP-movement, relative while readings on may P&T’s onlySUP be derived by focus-association with the availability of NP-internal relative readingsMeanwhile, in it these is constructions is predicted unsurprising. thatthere is the an derivation overt will definite beis suffix blocked (the a in DP whose phase, Bulgarian presence when andEnglish). is In signaled the combination by double with this Tali element extraction through its edge is impossible, just as in If Bulgarian, too, has aNP-internal bare relative NP-structure readings for should indefinites,judgements then not from it three be is Bulgarian generated informants, predictedthe this that in complement prediction these of is the born cases. noun out.NP-internal Based modified Focus reading. on by on (35) Ivan hypothesis. Shen(2014) observes that whenever NPconstraint itself blocks is extraction a of phase, noun-complements. thePolish This anti-locality example explains the (34) failure to of generate his an NP-internal reading: (34) Iwan The most are already at the phase edge, just as in other Slavic languages. when there is no overt definite marker: the NP is a phase in this case and the modifiers early access 11 ilb ujc otesm ytci osrit.Teaalblt fNP-internal of availability The constraints. syntactic same the to subject be will h prahwrsnal o h atr bevdi lvclnugs Since languages. Slavic in observed pattern the for neatly works approach The ti aeu f hsi nln ihataiini h ieaueta osbc to back goes that literature the (36) in tradition a with line atoms (1984). of in Hoeksema number and is the (1973) This to Bresnan of. corresponds up that made scale is cardinality the it on degree the to sum o eetoeve fti literature. this of overview recent a for additional for (2020) 2018 al. Wilson et See Coppock ( 1981). and Cooper alternatives & the Barwise of of discussion Theory Quantifier to Generalized approaches the number is a course, of gradable are, of There kind different a as q-adjectives below. treat understood 3 discussed that Table better expression, in approaches is readings pattern of NP-internal the context on (36), the data in in English as The words possible. Hence, quantity be phase. to not DP should approach the adjectival of an out take superlative extracting we the both prevents if from which element movement hatch’ focused The ‘escape the with. single and operator the morpheme focus of the problem merge the to has constituent approach of kind right an the on create generated be cannot reading definite-marked for reading relative If English in DPs definite of readings Relative (37) the repeats fact explanation: table in requires following that is The (14) present. reading from is relative data article English definite NP-internal the the case discovered, in just have available we As predicted. as quantity for predicted therefore is DPs definite not superlatives. but indefinite in readings they relative type, same the of basically are superlatives adjectival and superlatives quantity many h atr o nls sqiedfeet n uniyspraie ontbehave not do superlatives quantity and different, quite is English for pattern The o- ueltvs( superlatives Non-Q ( Q-superlatives Definite J many n t i r ie najcia ramn nEgih hnteNP-internal the then English, in treatment adjectival an given are kin its and K = λ d h otNP most the d λ P et h igs NP biggest the λ x 11 e . P ) ( x ) ∧ h otNP most the nsitu in d ot least most, ≤ ) 16 µ Petra e.N-nenlrel. NP-internal rel. NP-external # eiainbcueteei owyto way no is there because derivation ( x ) speitdt euaalbe The unavailable. be to predicted is n hi l,tems aoso which of famous most the ilk, their and X X X # E.C.Wilson early access of apart little and (i)b is impossible. can be pseudoclefted many is also syntactically have a much wider little green apples and many, few, much is also unacceptable in (i)c. much/many : one the fewest , the constituent 17 most 12 many, much, few , as in (i)a, while the equivalent construction with the least of and the fewest , b. Ay¸sepicked many apples but Annick picked *few ones/few. . Notice that (unambiguously non-adverbial) b. *It is GREENc. apples that Ay¸sepicked many yesterday *It is GREEN apples that she picked the fewest yesterday. In adnominal position, the phrase containing many the NP can be pseudoclefted.is Interestingly, when pronounced they as are part separated of inin the this the remnant way, unclefted NP construction in (39a). the lower position,A although reviewer it observes is that absent with the superlative (i) a. It is GREEN apples that Ay¸sepicked the most yesterday more independent from the noun than an adnominal adjective phrase. In (39b) and First let us consider thefrom syntactic other differences gradable that adjectives, set even onthat, their while adnominal adjectives uses. generallyKayne(2005) cannot observes standand alone indeed as are arguments, incompatible q-adjectives with may, pronominal Evidence for the distinct syntaxsubsection. and This semantics will of form the q-adjectives foundationreadings is on of reviewed which q-superlatives in is my this built. proposal for deriving relative 2.4.1 Syntactic differences 2.4 Differences between quantity and non-quantity adjectives distribution than ‘ordinary’ adjectives. Evennoun as modifiers, in they their show most evidence adjective-like of(2006)Schwarzschild use an has as underlyingly linked different these syntactic syntactic structure. difference differences between to q- a and significant non-q-adjectives semantic with respect to measure-monotonicity. (38) a. Ay¸sepicked big apples but Annick picked small ones/*small. The most This follows if (i)a is based on an adverbial construction which is incompatible with non-adverbial without pronouncing the (39c), we see that either the quantity word (and its modifier) or the lower portion of As , Solt(2009 2014) observes, 12 early access 13 tak’te(otxulyrelevant (contextually the ‘tracks’ n ‘stratified and 2006) 2002, Schwarzschild 1987 , (Lønning ‘monotonicity’ 1989), rca eatcdfeec ewe -detvsadnnqajcie ocrsa concerns non-q-adjectives and q-adjectives between difference semantic crucial A Solt silent. is head Mon the q-adjective a with expressed is quantity when whereas n tes rpss ntels ato hsscinI section this of part last the In proposes. others) and (1977) Jackendoff (following ulso h dao ietMnha,pooigta naddition in that proposing head, Mon silent a of idea the on builds 2015) (2009, ftepedpriie(oP tutr for structure (MonP) pseudopartitive the of yesterday. apples green many that Ay¸se picked a. (39) o an for (2018) parthood. Wilson dimensional not and of issue, otherwise notion this the are an addresses on for depth that based 2017 reference alternative and Champollion stratified See width of entities. terms length, three-dimensional in as of implementation structure such mereological measures the on because monotonic important is proviso This as out spelled is this is noun) phrase unit measure a the projec- by (where extended headed constructions the lexically measure in pseudopartitive Mon, In head, NP. functional of a tion by is presupposition requirement a monotonicity as the introduced that hypothesizes He structures. pseudopartitive and adnominal an the not. by is to introduced ‘large’ respect measure as size with such the monotonic adjective while is ‘manyness’ individuals, of measure plural degree ‘many cardinality of lower of the domain a pile Hence, have a necessarily whole. have will I the it if than same of contrast, the sub-part By have proper whole. will the a subset as apples’ the ‘largeness’ distributive, apple) is (per ‘large’ of Since degree apples. those of two or one Monotonic( (40) (40): in as defined be can monotonicity Formally, domain. its that one nominal is its measure to monotonic respect a with terminology, Schwarzschild’s function Adopting measure domain. a of 2015 ) (Champollion reference’ (Krifka ‘extensivity’ as identified been variously has which property higher-order differences Semantic 2.4.2 layer. functional assume additional will this I by Schwarzschild, introduced following is which, presupposition semantic the discuss h mysterious The ik h rpryo oooiiyt h ytxo partitive of syntax the to monotonicity of property the links (2006) Schwarzschild be will ‘apples’ still is that it of sub-part proper a apples’, ‘large of pile a have I If .I a htmn htAy¸se picked that many that was It c. .I a re plsta ys ikdta many that Ay¸se picked that apples green was It b. P of , DIM a etkna vdnefrtepresence the for evidence as taken be may (39) in surfaces that iff ) ∀ x , y 13 ∈ atwoesrcueo h niyo niisin entities or entity the of structure part-whole ) P . y 18 @ x → of ayNP many µ re apples. green DIM ( of y ) sin as , (2006 ) Schwarzschild that < of µ . DIM v onso apples of pounds five ( x ) E.C.Wilson , early access little and derivation for in situ , can be extracted and many, few, much the most as degree quantifiers across all of few and 19 . The entire phrase, i t , as degree predicates of intervals as proposed by Solt d forms part of a separate subconstituent in a covert mea- h ), rather than by the q-adjective. This enables her to provide little much, many, little the least many and MEAS and the fewest , ‘yspce bigger#‘Ay¸sepicked green apples yesterday than any other kind of apple’ A¸eikdmore‘Ay¸sepicked green apples yesterday than any other kind of apple’ What is novel on my account is that the definite article forms a subconstituent In this section I put forward a particular approach to raised into a configuration in which focus association can occur. While others have many, much, few modifying the NP, sure pseudopartitive structure. I adopt (2006)’sSchwarzschild pseudopartitives. analysis While of an measure attributive adjectivethe introduces derivation, a Schwarzschild’s Mon degree head variable introducesslightly into an from interval Schwarzschild’s variable. I original diverge proposalMonP directly in saturates that this I argument. I assume also the adopt specifier an of analysis of the quantity words I propose that NP-internal relative readingsEnglish are precisely generated because for they quantity are superlatives not in like ordinary adjectives. Rather than directly (42) Ay¸sepicked the biggest GREEN apples yesterday. as quantity words and showtheir how superlatives this that makes gives possible rise a to SUP- the NP-internal relative readings. Ilike then (42). explain 3.1 Overview of the proposal (41) Ay¸sepicked the most GREEN apples yesterday. phrases containing quantity superlatives with NP-internalgrammar focus, cannot as generate in such (41). relative readings Yet this for non-quantity superlatives, as in a unified treatment of their uses, and to account for certain split scope phenomena on3 their adnominal uses. Proposal The most to the presupposition, the measure function itself is introduced by this morpheme val — something of type varieties of English can generate the relative readings of definite-marked noun The empirical landscape makes clear that the syntax and semantics of at least some (2009, 2014). (42). (which she labels with the superlative q-adjective. This ‘inner’ DP refers to a unique scalar inter- why the same derivation is not possible with non-quantity superlatives in sentences early access sbtneN’floigShazcidstriooy.Te‘esr DP’, ‘measure The terminology). Schwarzschild’s following NP’ ‘substance ihteNsta hymdf,a hyaeo h rn yet atcpt nthe in participate to type wrong the of are they as modify, they that NPs the with Pitra focus. SUP- NP-internal the allows that structure pseudopartitive directly merged exclusively are superlatives, is constituency Non-quantificational q-superlatives. such for assume possible I the 2017 ), across Bumford adjectives superlative 2012, (Krasikova with board article definite the of constituency proposed vreeyhn xettedfiiemaueprs hc hnr-egsabove. re-merges scope then take which to phrase merge this measure then create definite can to the operator DP except focus indefinite everything larger the over the (44) within in compose, from illustrated to extracts As focus that constituent. a NP-internal DP For creating measure with. the scope, merge is clausal to it take operator focus to the raise for must constituent DP superlative-containing entire the DP DP’. ‘substance the form (43) pseudopartitive to entire determiner The existential head. silent Mon a the with of merged specifier finally NP the is label as NP merged I then (which is focus (43), bears in that NP the of exclusion the to superlative apples h nta ytci tutr ftedrc beti (41), in object direct the of structure syntactic initial The ealta o the for that Recall sgvnblw h ent ril om osiun ihtequantity the with constituent a forms article definite The below. given is , D ∃ QP the DP subs meas many SUP-C hh h nsitu in e d , , t t hh i i , t d i , t MonP i , eiaino Petra eaieraig oconverge, to readings relative NP-external of derivation t i h e , NP Mon t i Mon 20 hh 0 [GREEN] d , t i nsitu in , h e , t subs ii F h eiaint ops with compose to derivation e apples , t i h otGREEN most the E.C.Wilson h most the subs for early access ) and , ≤ 2 14 i apples t i , t e , h e F h VP NP 2 Ay¸sepicked t iii t , e [GREEN] h , i t t , d hh , i t , e 21 hh i t Mon 1IP , i t , e i t S hh , ). d h ∼ v 1 DP t , @ ∃ derivation gives rise to NP-internal relative readings for the D the least i t , and d -C many h in situ DP SUP the fewest the , This SUP- For clarity, I distinguishordering between on total intervals orderings as segments onsquared of degrees symbols such that for scales by the structure using later scales angled ( and symbols for the the partial former (<, individuals in the sets denoted by ordinary count nouns. Hence,make there reference is to something mereological orderings may combineor either sets with of sets intervals, of but individuals notand with not sets a of mereological degrees, part/whole since ordering these have associated only with a them. total ordering Implicit in Schwarzschild’s systemare is monotonic) the have notion theirdenote own that sets mereological scales of structure. intervals (at that For least may example, be those unit pluralized that and nouns combine with numbers just like quantity superlative. At the samelack time of it NP-internal leaves relative intact readings previous with explanationspresent non-q-superlatives. for the In technical the the details next of subsection theof I proposal. the I contrast return to to non-q-superlatives a in more section generalized 3.3. discussion 3.2 Details of the proposal (44)IP The most ‘entity-like’ about an interval introduced by Mon. I assume that determiners that 14 early access hc tcmie.Iipeetti yhvn h o edecd function, a encode head Mon the having by this implement I combines. it which identifies Schwarzschild head. Mon the is analysis this of component essential An h oPpoeto spr fteetne rjcino P bv attributive above NP, of projection extended the of part is projection MonP The hsmyb ieepeso,like expression, size type a of be argument may an This by filled is MonP of specifier the in QP The ewe h cl htteitra spr fadteetnino h Pwith NP the of extension the and of part is interval the that measure-monotonicity in- of It scale phrase. presupposition the noun the the with between of along projection variable extended interval the an in troduces morpheme functional a as this projection MonP The 3.2.1 ieso.I a nta eaqatt xrsinsc as such expression quantity question. a fewest in be instead substance may the It of dimension. ‘measure’ the to corresponding interval scalar the DP (47) DP. the below but modifiers (46) M contextually (45) the to a respect of extension). (with segment its NP a of the structure be on monotonic mereological must relevant is interval which The dimension dimension. that a for interval that scale positive on the extent to its individual to an corresponds maps that dimension, for parameterized nwihcs o svle o h adnlt dimension. cardinality the for valued is Mon case which in , fdfie,mp nitra otepoet fbiga niiulin individual an being of property on the in monotonic to measure is interval that an dimension maps some defined, of If scale the of part individuals, is interval of property a for Defined J . MonP D P Mon ( DIM x ) ∧ K measure ( DIM x M e = ) / QP hh DIM = e DIM , t λ i λ ( , d t x i P = ) [ et d seult h interval the to equal is λ NP Mon ≤ I I h dt Mon e µ , λ t DIM i x e hh 0 NP DegP ( . x d Monotonic : , )] t ih e e inches few a , t ii h e 22 substance , t i h ( I P e P . , t n ninterval, an and , , i DIM hc ausMnfrtelength the for Mon values which ) ∧ I v S three DIM h I d uti aethe case in just , , , omany so t i htdenotes that E.C.Wilson P P . whose or the M , early access ]] x v . The 0 to give x → apples 3 three is merged in the ) = 0 x . This MonP may ] ( 3 # 3 µ ≤ ) = ∧ , since for any group of ]] d x ) . the most 0 ( x d x # ( µ v λ 0 will have a measure that is a x apples -type arguments of an ordinary e → )] = [ x ]]]] ) *apples 0 ( [ 0 x apples # x ( . The entire measure DP is merged in µ i P [ t 0 ≤ ∧ ∀ , apples x d 23 3 d h . NP d ∧ ∀ [ ) λ ) = 0 [ x x ( 3 ∧ ( Mon P # ) [ ][ ≤ x µ x ( ι . d ∧ . as in (49), as the interval of the cardinality scale ranging ) )] # three x x S ( ( the most ∈ P *apple QP [ composes with the cardinal interval denoted by three . , a subpart that is also [ x d e I 0 the least x : ∃ : λ d MonP *apples et [ and [ λ the three apples = x P . Mon ι # I = λ the K K = = DP K [ K the fewest MonP DP three , the J J J b. the cardinality dimension is equal to the interval from zero to three. J The set of sums of apples such that the interval from zero to their measure on The presuppositions of Mon will be satisfied by the plural NP 3.2.2 Composition of DP are replaced with intervals of type Now let us consider thespecifier more of complex MonP. derivation, As where indicated atin the (52) beginning to of this this constituent. section, In I this assign measure-DP, the the structure merge with a definite ordefinite indefinite article, determiner. In whose our denotation example, issition it repeated that combines here there with for exists the convenience. something Ifgenerates that the the satisfies presuppo- DP the in MonP (51) propertythat that is the met, refers cardinality then to measure this the function unique maps individual to that three. is a sum(17) of apples cardinality scale is monotonic onapples the that extension measures of sub-interval of us (50). (50) I represent the numeral from zero to the degree 3, following a suggestion in (49) Solt 2011. Composition of Before considering superlative quantity words, letfor us a DP observe how containing this a system simple works cardinal expression, as in(48) (48). a. the three apples (51) The most The second conjunct of this is logically reducible to early access frsc napoc omdfidnumerals modified to approach an such for 2011 Solt See 15 while hr ti merged. is it where eoainiscmaio ls rueti e fitras ahrta e of set a than rather intervals, following of the thereof. set properties In a or type-flexible. is individuals, argument is class morpheme comparison superlative its the denotation that assumed have I to items degrees lexical from functions The as intervals. words of quantity sets representing in 2014) (2009, Solt follow I (54) DP (53) DP (52) point the at interpreted be will cannot we DP As DP. the substance because indefinite necessary larger is the movement of this out see, extraction block to nothing that is observe may reader The force to (53). hh mismatch in type as no trace heads is that a there quantifier behind existential leaving the DP, under substance from the extracts but MonP, of specifier the (55) d , t i , many J J D QP the h much/many little/few e ∃ , t ii subs and meas t many SUP-C oee,Iasm htsc oeeti reyaalbesnethere since available freely is movement such that assume I However, . h d , t hh i h K few e d MonP , = , t t i hh i K NP Mon , t d λ r pcfidfrcardinality. for specified are i = , t d Mon i λ h , d t e i λ , d t i d I dt hh 0 λ [GREEN] d I : , dt t d i , h : ∈ e d , t 15 much ii D DP ∈ . DIM h e D F meas , t DIM i apples ∧ and 24 I orie ti type is It raise. to ∧ v little I S v DIM S r ne-pcfidfrdimension, for under-specified are DIM . ¬ I . ( I d ( d ) ) h d , t i n Mon and E.C.Wilson 0 stype is early access ) ) i t , the , so i ]]] t I , d v hh 0 many I assertion ( → )] presupposition d ( ( J )] d )]] → ¬ ( J 0 J I )( d 6= ( → ¬ J R [ [ I d C derivation of NP-internal readings ]] 6= ∃ I ∈ C J [ J v )] ∈ C 0 J I J ∧ ∀ in situ ∈ )( ) d J → d 25 ( ∧ ∀ ( as in (59). ) 0 R 0 C I ∧ ∀ I [ ( ) ∈ d d D ∃ I [ ( → ¬ most [ 0 : 0 I I I [ I d dt ∀ I [ 6= ∃ ∧ ∀ . λ C J ) [ dt I I ∈ dtt ( C , I λ d D ι ∈ [ R I = J ι λ the least . K ) = dtt K ∧ ∀ dtt C and ) D I λ λ )( most = J d will point to the unique interval that is the largest of these. = ( ( K K K R [ the fewest d the the , SUP SUP-C-many ∃ J J J . J the most In order for this measure DP to be interpreted, the comparison class must be of adjectival superlatives does not arise. configuration, the operator takes scope over the focused element, but is discontinuous conflict with presuppositions that blocks the clausal scope above this operator. Insubstance the DP next and subsection the I rest describe of how the the clause remnant compose to have the3.2.3 appropriate denotations. Composition of IP and the comparison class assigned a value. The comparisontion class without argument further cannot movement. be A valuedindividual focus by argument operator focus of must associa- the be substance inserted DPan above is alternative where set existentially the of closed the in rightpretable order type derivation to will (a generate be set one of in sets which of the intervals). measure Hence DP the extracts only and inter- raises to take DP in part-whole relationship with eachsets other, of so intervals the with definite respect articleis to may given this be in mereology. defined (58). The for It interval-based composes denotation with of returns the unique member ofsuch the an set individual that exists). is As the we sum have of observed, all intervals its of elements a (just monotonic in scale case are (56) Once it has combined withdegree-predicate the of comparison class intervals argument, as the its[SUP-C] superlative second takes can argument. a combine This with is the the quantity-word type directly of to form the(57) QP in (57). (58) (59) The most The definite article takes a set that is associated with a mereological ordering and will be discussed below. Thewhich is focus formed operator by merges predicate with abstraction an over the IP trace of of type with the the measure comparison DP. In class this argument of SUP, so focus association is successful. The With the measure DP extracted, the clause has the structure in (60). The max operator Whenever the comparison class is valued as a set of positive intervals, the measure early access ihtevlei (63). in value the with h ou au fti osiun sasto eso intervals: of sets of set a is constituent this of value focus The hscmie ihtermatI otiigteV.Atrlmd xrcinof extraction lambda After VP. the containing IP remnant the with combines This IP (60) (63) type of something is IP the of value ordinary the argument, interval the (62). (62) in shown is DP the of value ordinary The determiner. (61) MonP: as for here value it ordinary value following again the will us the I gives satisfy simplicity This would for cardinality. that but dimensions Mon, several of are presupposition there Monotonicity principle In focused. is GREEN interval h nieD sidfiie oteDha sfildwt ietexistential silent a with filled is head D the so indefinite, is DP entire The in as composes MonP J ∼ J J MonP IP DP [ S λ K d K O O . 1 d = # = K ≤ O λ λ Max I = 3 dt P ] et ∃ hr sataeo type of trace a is there , λ ∃ x x e x e . e . D genapple *green genapple *green . genapple *green ∃ he apples three t DP 1 NP Mon ( ( x ( x ) x ) ) ∧ 26 ,wt w ifrne.Isedo the of Instead differences. two with (50), ∧ ∧ [GREEN] picked [ λ [ λ d d . h d . d d ( ≤ , x ≤ t , i µ a F n eody h adjective the secondly, And . µ ) # apples # ( ∧ ( x x ]= )] [ λ ]= )] d . d t 1 t 1 ≤ VP 2 ∧ µ P # ( ( ys ikdt Ay¸se picked x x ) ]= )] E.C.Wilson hh I d , t i , t 2 i early access    ... I I I )] = )] = x )] = x ( x ( # ( # # µ µ µ ]]] ≤ 2 ≤ ≤ t d . d d . . d d d . It also includes every λ ] [ λ λ [ [ 7 ∧ is modified in (65) to work ∧ ∧ ) ≤ ) ) a 16 a , a d , x , . ] x Ay¸sepicked ( x I d [ ( ( 2 λ ] v [ 0 , ] I 4 I picked picked picked → ∧ ≤ apples ∧ ) ∧ ) 0 27 ) = ) d x ) I F . x ( D ( x ( d ( ( D λ [ 0 [ I , ] max . 3 i t ∧ ∀ , i ≤ ) t , I Mon green ( d d . *red apple 1 hh . t D *green apple d . x . D ∃ I x λ *golden apple ∃ ι [ . λ I D ∃ i x I t λ the least , ∃ DP λ d I [ ) = h I I λ and IP ( λ ][    1 = = K F K Max t the fewest [ Max IP , 1 J J [ where max Buccola & Spector(2016)’s silent Max operator However, merging the squiggle operator at this point would not yield exactly the In their account for upper boundeda readings number of of modified approaches numerals toBuccolais maximality. & The syntactically Spector(2016) ‘SMax’ independent, compare approach but adopted lacks here the involves additional an power operator of that an informativity-based maximality this operator applies: (66) intervals, rather than with a set of sets of degrees. rather than degrees. (65) denoted by the IP isitself still a a set set of of sets,is since degrees. needed each It for individual has negative interval superlatives is been in Stateva by argued general2002). definition (Heim By previously2002, introducing that Hackl such a2000, singleton anSharvit maximality sets, operator & we operator and ensure converting that the the alternatives focus to operator will only have its requirement met leads to the correct truthscope conditions of for the the existential positive is quantitysubtle words, a issue this problem that effect for arises of negative even the quantity withcomes words. with positive There quantity the is superlatives. requirement a The that more focusis its operator in sister fact be trivially a satisfied non-singleton evenlocation set. in This of the presupposition the absence existential of focus quantifier. alternatives In because the of absence the of focus, the set of intervals (64) three of color C. Theincludes comparison class the of intervals intervals correspondingpositive to interval their that measures is aexistential quantification sub-part and of the one factthen that of she if those, necessarily Ay¸sepicked seven by also of virtue picked one six of color of apples the that low color scope apples and of so on. While this still correct comparison class for thethe following reason. following For scenario: concreteness, Ay¸sepicked seven let apples us imagine of color A, five of color B and The most which is not necessary for our purposes. An additional movement of the measure phrase creates a clause-level trace to which when focus is in fact present, and that it will combine with a set ofwithin singleton my sets own of assumption that measure phrases and their traces denote intervals, 16 early access 17 ecnnwvrf htpeupstoso U r e yti oprsnclass comparison this by met are SUP of presuppositions that verify now can We ttepittesugl prtri egd n h oprsncasi audas valued is class comparison the and merged, is operator squiggle the point the At hscnetdtaecmie ihteI sfollows: as IP the with combines trace converted This (68) .. utn ttogether it Putting 3.2.4 abaetato hnpoue e rpryo nevl hc stesingleton the is which intervals of property new a produces then extraction Lambda (67) ovrec nasnl ieso htstse rspoiin fbt U n Mon. is and there SUP as both long of as presuppositions do, satisfies will that requirement dimension monotonicity single the a meets on that convergence dimension any then, principle, In word The denotation: following undefined. of of be parameter that the will dimension to superlative by the matched the degree forces be some what to SUP is to head This of Mon mapped with. the presupposition be combines other can it The class that (71). word comparison quantity in the satisfied in is everything set that is the in element one than to denotation a assign and of value focus the by (71) defined as S, in alternatives the of union grand the held. (69) IP original the which of interval maximal the containing set (70) intervals: of sets singleton of set a is value focus the Now ,tespraiemaueD a the has DP measure superlative the (71), in as valued class comparison the With C J . J J J P a t Max Max IP IP most ∪ ⊆ ( x 2 2 ) K K K ∧ F S = tefi miuu stespraieo ohunderspecified both of superlative the as ambiguous is itself ( 1 t = picked K { ⊆ 1 λ ( = ) IP    I 0 I = ) λ . 0 max λ I ( max : λ 0 D x λ . I , max max hh 0 I a ( . 0 max λ d ) . , max ∧ ( h most the t I i ( ( λ ∃ , λ λ t M i x I ( . I I ∃ . λ ( max ( genapple *green ∃ ∃ λ P x I x x = ) ∃ I . . { ∈ 17 ∃ *golden-ap genapple *green x h ueltv’ eurmn htteeb more be there that requirement superlative’s The . ( . x D *green-ap . I gena,*e-p *golden-ap *red-ap, *green-ap, *red-ap = ) = ) many 28 t I 1 0 ( } x ( o n te au fteparameter, the of value other any For . ( ) x ( x ) ( x ∧ ) x ) ∧ ∧ ) picked ∧ picked ∧ picked picked picked ( x ( ( , x ( x a , ( x , a ) x , a , a ) ∧ ) a ) ∧ ∧ ) M much ∧ M ∧ M ( M x M ( ( x = ) ( x n cardinal and = ) ( x = ) ... x = ) = ) I } )= ]) I IP I )= ]) E.C.Wilson I )= ]) )= ]) I 2 )= ]) . I 0 I I many 0 I 0 t 0 ... 1    . early access ] I v 0 I stands in for → I ι )] d ( AY¸SEpicked most I J ι → ¬ )] = 0 x I derivation which requires ( relative reading of quantity 6= DIM J [ µ C in situ ≤ ∈ d J . de dicto approach. Here I will point out that it d will contain intervals that represent the λ ∧ ∀ [ ) C ∧ d , 29 ( ) in situ 0 a I [ , x d Ay¸se ( ∃ [ 0 to I ∀ [ picked C green ∧ ∈ ) I x ι ( . It makes use of the SUP- the least ) = K and fewest most J . To the extent that this is true for some speakers, it might be accounted ( and K *green apple . e the fewest the x , J picked, the unique one that contains all the others.’ ∃ ‘Of all the intervals denoting quantities of apples of some color that Ay¸se It is worth noting that, because the superlative will always return a singleton In section 5 we will see that the upstairs In our scenario, Ay¸sepicked 7 apples of color A and smaller quantities of apples to NP-internal relative readings in English. constituent. This derivation is possibledirectly because quantity with superlatives the are not substancepseudopartitive merged NP, structure but higher instead up in are thedifferent merged semantics tree. within Importantly, from non-q-adjectives quantity a have words. covertordinary As measure adjectival I superlatives show cannot in participate what in follows, the this construction means that that gives rise most, least movement of a definite-marked DP-constituent, but no extraction from within such a reduced to that of anmost iota-operator. Recall can the give claim rise by to(2012)Szabolcsi green that relative apples bare readings in afor sentence if like the (13): relative emptiness ofan the acceptable definite environment article’s for semantics elision in for this those context speakers. provides 3.3 Adjectival superlatives revisited the focus is switched from maximal measures corresponding to greenpicked apples by picked by each her alternative and person.intervals green is It apples the will one be representing true the just measure in of green case apples theset that largest containing Ay¸sepicked. of the largest those interval, the function of the definite article is essentially did not pick a quantity of green apples whose measuresuperlatives equals can that also interval. be derived ongives us this external relative readings of quantity superlatives as well as internal ones. If of other colors. If colorinterval in A the is comparison green, class then does the equal the sentence measure is of true, some because green the apples that largest (72) conditions of the NP-internal relative readingthe are referent returned. of In (72). (73), (73) The most The proposal outlined above generates the elusive NP-internal relative readings of Ay¸sepicked. If color A is red or golden, etc. then the sentence is false, because Ay¸se When this argument is fed back into the ordinary value of the clause, then the truth early access ’ con,i sntal od obcuethe because so do to able not is it account, 2015)’s 2014, ( Shen on Alternatively, hr uha detv saprnl ore noapeiaeo nevl u oits to due intervals of predicate a into coerced apparently is adjective an such where superlative the contains that DP the internal is element focus the whenever And DP (74) nor SUP-movement a neither because SUP- con- reading, a this relative NP, a modified generate the cannot inside figuration constituent focused a With adjectives. superlative oiini noetmauesrcue emyasm htasn uhepii cues explicit such possible. absent not that is assume interpretation may coerced We a structure. measure overt an in position Mon type of of argument open The MonP. of specifier in type predicates of as constituent type appear a adjectives superlative create when to of case constructions) adjective the copular an likely for is structure (as MonP adjective the an in position no is It type there non-q-superlatives. that for structure clear reading measure be NP-internal pseudopartitive an should this generate that to verify ‘exploited’ us be Let cannot article. definite the and SUP merged. be NP may most operator the the which in position such no element. is focused there the itself a over adjective in scopes merged still be yet C, must with operator discontinuous focus is the it succeed, where to position this For association. focus by DP the inside interpreted the is So superlative phase. the the which of constituent. in edge one the is degree-operators. derivation through possible raised for covertly only island already have an must XP creates focused which able not article is definite (74) the in shown past configuration extract the to in morpheme superlative the because lutae ycnetoa supin bu h ytxof syntax the about assumptions conventional my illustrates (74) in tree The ntepeiu eto aepooe eydfeetsnatccngrto for configuration syntactic different very a proposed have I section previous the In SUP- This fails derivation movement the account, (2012)’s Tomaszewicz & Pancheva On h hh d e the nsitu in , , h h t e d i , , , t t t n hc nldsasln o edadatp-eil eoainfor denotation type-flexible a and head Mon silent a includes which one , ii i est-C i But . nsitu in h ueltv n ent ril ih obn ietywt such with directly combine might article definite and superlative The . eiaino uharaigcnsucceed. can reading a such of derivation rataeteef nscin4Iwl ics necpinlcase, exceptional an discuss will I 4 section In thereof. trace a or h biggest the NP d-big eiainrqie httecmaio ls ruetb valued be argument class comparison the that requires derivation ... ssc antreplace cannot such as [XP] F ... 30 0 a nyb le yaconstituent a by filled be only can e h most the rasitdcnttetof constituent shifted a or , ftype of h d E.C.Wilson , t i nthe in early access could merge ) may do so (see ii t . It does so with a , the most d h , d h the least (type and much 31 the most, the fewest is that the interval-denoting constituent the least and approach to relative readings. This makes use of the focus-association the fewest , b. Maria ate the smallest handful of WALNUTS. b. That’s about two small handfuls of walnuts. in situ the most intelligent In short, the account proposed here explains the fact that NP-internal relative Another possible route, which suggests itself especially with analytic superlatives prediction is born out. In the survey described in sectiontheir 2, dialect. almost all respondents (76) a. John added the most generous spoonfuls of BROWN sugar. Presumably, the overt measure pseudopartitive structureings allows to the be adjectival coerced mean- inthe this NP-internal way. relative My readings of analysis q-superlatives predicts in a these relative just reading instances, parallel and that to intervals, I so far predict thatit adjectives seems should to not be be the ableattributive case to modifiers that modify of adjectives these. such occasionally However, measure appear nouns, inside as measure in phrases (75). as (75) a. Three generous spoonfuls of brown sugar was all the sweetener I added. In certain special cases,semantics adjectives just of like size quantity do appear words. to On have the interval-modifying assumption that ‘unit’ nouns denote elements of the proposal areinnovation being based that on the fairly definite conventionalthe assumptions, article observation the itself that is main due type-flexible. toproperty This its of follows semantics, the from NP the it definiteProperties merges article of with presupposes is scalar that based intervals satisfy the on this entities requirement. with mereological structure. 4 Two apparent problems 4.1 Superlatives inside overt measure pseudopartitives readings are not availablereadings for are non-q-superlatives, available as for modified well version of as(2006)’sSchwarzschild the MonP projection,SUP- fact in that combination with these a mechanism of Rooth(1985) as first proposed by ).Heim(1999 Thus, all of the directly with the adjective insideand the degrees DegP. Here is the crucial. distinction The between adjectivesaturated intervals has by an a open definite degree interval. argument, TheSolt but trace2011, this of 2015) cannot but be the full measure DP cannot. The most like (15/18) judged the sentences in (76) true in the appropriate contexts, regardless of early access 7)a h otgnru pofl,h de fBONsugar. BROWN of added he spoonfuls, generous most The a. (77) measure a of individuals. part than form rather can provides intervals English This out in noun. picking article measure phrase, the definite with the adjective, constituent that the a evidence only forms additional not article that definite indicating the grammatical, also are but (77) in sentences The ization. 7)Tepormacpe h otAEIA students. AMERICAN most the accepted program The (78) a readings. is relative there NP-internal that for shows asymmetry with (79) subject-object the and constructions significant of (78) like position between argument is contrast the The it is DP. superlative-containing factor respect Another this operators. focus-sensitive In other locus sentence. and the the to sensitive in its highly pitch-accent on is constraints of interpretation quan- linguistic prosody–the of is some reading factor nevertheless relative One are availability. NP-internal there the natural, find superlatives who tity English of speakers those For English in constraints Syntactic 4.2 relative generated. NP-internal be an can of equivalent superlatives the their degree and of as occur reading structure can where pseudopartitive they cases intervals, measure exceptional of a those predicates of In inside itself. appear NP de- the instead as to relativeadjectives internal generate directly focus cannot NPs superlatives on their based modify hence readings adjectives and individuals, Normally of here. predicates gree presented analysis any of the did to she than walnuts of handful smaller a nuts. more ate of a person type used the other (77b) question case Likewise, sweetener. in in other just person any true the of is than that sugar is brown substance (77a) of the teaspoon of to generous-sized internal reading focus salient by most generated The reading NP. relative a sentences to These themselves reading. lend relative ‘substance-internal’ the facilitating NP, substance h osiunyo h ueltv esr Pcnb eosrtdb topical- by demonstrated be can DP measure superlative the of constituency The h vdnefo ueltv-oie esr on ed diinlsupport additional lends nouns measure superlative-modified from evidence The the within focus the strengthen to serves DP measure the of Topicalization Tepormacpe oeAeia tdnsta tdnso n other any of students than students American more accepted program ‘The nationality.’ .Tesals adu,seaeo WALNUTS. of ate she handful, smallest The b. 32 E.C.Wilson only early access becomes a subject is much better than 33 the least and Of whom did a sister buy the picture? the most AMERICAN students ?? The most AMERICAN students enrolled in the program. the fewest Of whom was a picture bought at the auction? , The most AMERICAN students were accepted by the program. ? ?? b. ? by the program.’ the program’ ‘More American students than students of any other nationality were accepted ‘More American students than students of any other nationality enrolled in The ban on extraction from adjuncts is robust, both within English and across If the infelicity of the NP-internal relative readings of superlative-modified If this is the correct explanation for the infelicity of NP-internal focus, then we We may hypothesize that the construction in (79) is infelicitous for the same This is reminiscent of the asymmetry that has been observed for overt Wh- (82) languages (Stepanov 2007). Aspossible expected, when the the NP-internal quantity relative superlative appears reading inside is an not adjunct: subjects is due to generalimproved constraints for on subjects movement, of then passive the sentences. construction As should predicted, be the passive counterpart to can make a further prediction. passive(2008)Chomsky subjects observes that is Wh-movement much out more of acceptable than out ofextraction active out subjects. of Notice an that agentive subject. (81) reason that (80b) is. Wheremovement. overt movement I out have of argued subjectsdepends that is on barred, the covert so extraction derivation is of of covert thephrase. the interval-denoting The DP NP-internal unacceptability out relative of of reading such thesubject larger position, constructions nominal as when in the (79) nominal is phrase therefore is not unexpected. in subject are significantly degraded. Compare80a) ( with (80b): (80) a. Of whom did John’s sister buy a picture? (79) movement in English. Whileallowed, movement questions of that a are Wh-word out formed of by a extraction DP of is an generally argument from within a The most (78), where (79) and it clearly has the NP-internal relative reading: (81) which is the passivization of (80) is much better than the example above with early access 18 hc novsmvmn fbt h ueltv opeeada NP-internal an and morpheme superlative the both of movement involves which with yeo eaieraigta a enpolmtcfrteSUP- ‘upstairs the the for dubbed problematic been 1999) ( has Heim that what reading relative of type A )ta obeetato snt o hsrao,aderivation a reason, this For not. is extraction double that (2014)) Shen (following hspooa eed nan on depends proposal This audb soito ihacas-ee ou prtr oeeto hssingle this of Movement operator. focus clause-level a with association by valued per ohv t orei oegnrllinguistic general more in source its have to appears ( 83) of and infelicity (79) the However, like context. cases and in prosody to construction the (83) )Irfrthe refer I 2017)) ( 2019 ). Sauerland (Wilson readings & relative snippet: Ahn NP-internal this (cf. of to measures availability reader relative the of on readings constraints non-conservative movement related of and effect the the the on all more Of For climb. to number. want highest they the that fill gave mountains to John of asked surveyed, were number people Individuals the scenario: indicating following survey the a in out uttered as (84) in sentence ‘Upstairs 5.1 endorsing of short stop but superlatives, approach. adjectival an for such that readings first such show superlatives of quantity problem will of the I readings relative are. attested limits the ‘upstairs its of including what all derive and can extends approach support this this far how about support of indirect readings provides relative here an these proposed for of analysis problem the the therefore, to superlatives, In solution quantity superlatives. alternative adjectival an or of quantity absence either the for available never is assume element focused I but possible, is edge phase the through DP larger the of out constituent constituent DP a inside remains superlative The superlatives. quantity of readings SUP- the Revisiting 5 English. in adjuncts and subjects of out movement on constraints hs ugmnsaesbl,adaecmlctdb h eea estvt of sensitivity general the by complicated are and subtle, are judgements These many ‘h tdnsatn rgasi oeErpa onre hni countries in continent.’ than other countries any European of more in programs attend students #‘The nsitu in ?? h tdnsatne rgasi h otERPA countries. EUROPEAN most the in programs attended students The n hsetr osiun oe oalwtecmaio ls obe to class comparison the allow to moves constituent entire this and , praht eaieraig nEgihi eea.Ltm eexplicit be me Let general. in English in readings relative to approach edicto de edicto de eaieraig fqatt superlatives quantity of readings relative ’ nsitu in edns hnIdsusapsil xeso osolve to extension possible a discuss I Then readings. ’ nsitu in essSPmvmn debate SUP-movement versus praht eieteN-nenlrelative NP-internal the derive to approach edicto de 34 edn.Ti seepie ythe by exemplified is This reading. ’ nsitu in 18 h otNP most the prahis approach E.C.Wilson early access ∧ ) j , x ( w ]]]]] 2 climb ∧ ) style derivation. climb t x ( i w to take matrix clausal PRO in situ [ 2 ’ reading with NP-internal ] mtns *mountain . x de dicto given an adjectival treatment, this ∃ [ reading, John may be indifferent to Mon w 1 t λ ∃ many the most mountains = [ D 35 P de dicto DP [ ∧ ) IP j [ )( P ( 1 needs w i reading is achieved through an approach, with John needs [ IP I the least in situ ][ λ ]) 1 de dicto ( t w and ] I max Max ) = [[ = x 1 ( I [ . # S I the fewest , M λ that John climbs in all of the words satisfying his desires.’ ∼ greater than the quantity such thatthat any many other mountains.’ person wants to climb at least [ ‘The set of intervals that corresponds to the maximal measure of mountains ‘The quantity such that John wants to climb at least that many mountains is I predict that there should also be an ‘upstairs The comparison class is based on substitution of relevant alternatives to John, The approach I have proposed in the previous section does not run into these On a traditional focus, and this is thecalls case. for In 10 a green scenario apples, whereutter 5 Ay¸seis picking (87). red apples apples for and a 3 pie yellow that apples, it would be accurate to so it will consist ofclimbs the some maximal mountains interval measuring for that each quantity individual in such all that of that their person the desire the worlds. numbers In people other indicated on their surveys. The largest one of these intervals problems. The measure DP containing the superlative can take scope above the modal definite article picks out athe specific IP interval, that but not the a superlative DP specific re-merges individual. with The is LF shown of (85) in (85). scope would result in the definitebut article John’s picking desire out is a not specific linkedthe plurality to modal of any verb mountains, would such generate entity. Leavingnumber the the meaning of DP that mountains below John’s than desire the any is scopeit other to of not relevant climb person. the a This intended greater is one.other a On climbers’ possible the achievements. reading, upstairs but (84) JOHN wants to climb the most mountains. reading cannot be derived. Raising the DP The most (86) verb, while existential closure over the set of mountains remains low. Meanwhile the This composes such that the ordinary value of IP is given by the formula in (86). (86). The ‘upstairs words, it will contain all of the the singleton setswill with the be intervals the corresponding referent of the superlative DP, and this is fed back into the formula in early access hl hshsbe eetdb oedet h atta trqie non-standard a requires it that fact the to due some by rejected been has this While . ‘Upstairs 5.2 apples. GREEN most the pick to Ay¸se needs (87) optbewt h urn rpsl ev h nerto fti prahto approach this of integration quite the is leave interval) I scalar work. proposal. (or future individual current unique the a with than compatible rather that property, idea unique the a article, out definite the for denotation upstairs non-movement the alternative the to to revisit only approach to is applies solution approach possible interval-based independent One would the any superlatives. assume quantity Pending verb adjective. I modal the triggering, in such the shift for of evidence type NP-internal this presence of absence trigger absence The the somehow the superlatives. in to for have so account these do to for to difficult adjective readings is an it relative pseudopartitive then for noun, possible overt measure is an any it inside of that nouns assume we measure If with structure. scalar appear of they degree-modifiers as when function intervals exceptionally may adjectives that 3.4.2 section to exploited (88). be in can individuals, section reading than the in derive rather discussed intervals adjectives modify head adjectives of Mon where denotations the 3.4.2, with type-shifted structure the pseudopartitive Perhaps the what supplies. exactly is this and mountains, mountain. highest the climb to wants JOHN (88) is superlative adjectival an unified with a example of (1999): classic for Heim cases The from allow all article. and cover definite superlatives the to adjectival of (86) treatment for and readings (85) relative in of analysis derivation the extend to try upstairs to tempting is It oee,teei esnt ewr fsc oe aedmntae in demonstrated have I move. a such of wary be to reason is there However, actual than rather height, of measures is compared being is what that clear is It Tehih,sc htJh at ociba es hthg famuti is mountain a of high that least at climb to wants John that such height, ‘The is apples green many that least at pick to Ay¸se needs that such number ‘The rae hntehih uhta n te esnwnst lm tlatthat least at climb to wants person mountain.’ other a any of that high such height the than greater apples many that least at pick to kind’ needs other she any that of such number the than greater edicto de edicto de ednsi nls.Ti ol bit h edframovement a for need the obviate would This English. in readings ednso o-uniysuperlatives non-quantity of readings ’ edicto de (2002). Stateva & Sharvit by proposed readings 36 the stp-eil n a pick may and type-flexible is E.C.Wilson early access de ´ c(2020) naj-mladi readings of are possible. in situ de dicto approach for definite- in situ readings of such superlatives. de dicto as a superlative measure DP. While this approach to upstairs 37 ’ reading of quantity superlatives fall out in situ the most de dicto the least and derivation fails when focus is inside the superlative-modified NP approach provides an account for the absence of NP-internal relative in situ the fewest , readings, cannot generate NP-internal relative readings in a DP-language. The in situ possible in this case. When the DP containing a non-q-superlativeonly such NP-external as relative readings derived by focus association because there is no appropriate position for a focus operator to merge. However, the adjectival superlatives in Slavic languages, andthat I this have account argued can based be on In extendedTali to the Bulgarian absence as of an definite-marking,SUP-movement. intermediate the Extraction NP/DP-language. NP-internal of both relative reading the focused is NP derived and by the superlative morpheme is relative readings in Bulgarian and English. This proposal basically leaves intact Shen In this section I firstEnglish. tackle I then the introduce problem evidence ofexists that the the in difference construction some between we varieties Bulgarian have ofconstituency been and Dutch, investigating of providing additional the evidence definiteproposal. for article the syntactic and q-superlative that is at the6.1 heart of this Bulgarian marked DPs across the board.non-quantity An superlatives is therefore toreader be to preferredSharvit for & DP-languages(2002) Stateva and for I one refer such to account. 6 Beyond English readings for English non-quantity superlatives, itously is account not for clear the that availability of itOn upstairs can the simultane- other hand thedicto SUP-movement approach, which can generatefact the that upstairs there is asuperlatives split in in English the therefore interpretive lends possibilities support for to quantity the and non-quantity 5.3 Summary superlatives in English. The various NP-internaland and even NP-external the relative readings elusivestraightforwardly ‘upstairs from treating SUP- The most The SUP- The analysis proposed here is able to account for all relative readings of quantity (‘youngest’) is definite, just as in English the SUP morpheme cannot extract, so (2014, 2015)’s explanation for the availability of NP-internal readings for indefinite An important question remains with respect to the differences in availability of these early access 21 ihtenu,cnrr ofact. to contrary noun, the with o type (of Ivan here: (11) repeated are is definite-marking this illustrating of datum absence The the possible. readings in relative in only NP-internal Bulgarian as superlatives: in just adjectival superlatives quantity Bulgarian with that in pattern is marking evidence empirical definite the with However, English. DPs in q-superlatives for available for readings relative as NP-internal such superlatives allow quantity not definite-marked does Bulgarian why remains question ,ti ol lopeitteaalblt fpootoa (‘more proportional of availability the predict also would of this readings (2020 ), half’) al. than on et superlative,Coppock focus by quantity with discussed available a As becomes by reading replaced relative is NP-internal adjective the the that observes when exampleShen But relevant (89)). (the shown Bulgarian in have in repeated I non-q-superlatives is phase. indefinite a for true is also NP relative this because when that NP-internal NP-languages position this in the from blocked extraction that is prevents noun-complement 2.3 anti-locality the ordinary section on in with focus with evidence than reading the superlatives range Recall quantity wider ones. a with for adjectival constituents possible in focus are that readings NP-internal observes relative of languages’, (2014) ‘NP Shen other non-q-superlatives. and than are Polish NP Bulgarian, extended including the languages, in Slavic higher in superlatives quantity that evidence article. definite is the expressions q-superlative of definite-marked position Bulgarian merge below, of the argue case I the As in involved. difference, is the structure covert-pseudopartitive similar a and as intervals such words quantity languages Slavic agreement with phi-feature compatible show be should like they should and more they interpretations, be instance, measure to non-monotonic For them expect respects. would other we however, in case, non-q-adjectives the were have this them words If to unsurprising. quantity ascribe Slavic 2012) ( Tomaszewicz the & If Pancheva intervals. that scalar denotations adjectival of predicates the than counterparts: rather English their individuals than of adjectives non-quantity like Bulgarian that more is fact readings relative NP-internal generate to rm facie Prima h hnmnno Pitra eaieraig rvdsadtoa empirical additional provides readings relative NP-internal of phenomenon The definite-marked of failure the for explanation possible One ‘vnmtmr tdnsfo odnta eddfo n te city.’ other any from did he than London from students more met #‘Ivan Ivan h d , REFL se h e , t yacutpeit htN-nenlrltv ednssol be should readings relative NP-internal that predicts account my , ii ,te hi atrigwt o-uniyajcie ol be would adjectives non-quantity with patterning their then ), naj-mnogo met zapozna with s (2015). Pancheva also See Bulgarian. in absent fact in are which 21 SUP-many-DEF naj-mnogo-to hrfr sueta nBlainadother and Bulgarian in that assume therefore I 38 mnogo/malo naj-mnogoto 20 student.PL studenti r lodge rdctsof predicates degree also are temost). (the mnogo from ot a-ngt NP naj-mnogoto and London. LONDON malo E.C.Wilson r in are early access , is the ). i t , d to a unique h i ´ c(2020), that t to , i i t t , , . d i t F , hh d . hh F , with raising of the entire [biologija] biology. in situ po of [biologija] biology. po of 39 ˇ cenitsi u students ˇ cenitsi u students naj-mnogo SUP-many naj-inteligentni SUP-smart.PL the least , that in English is accomplished with the morpheme i t and , d h poznava knows poznava knows the fewest , Ivan knows more students of biology than students of other subjects. #Ivan knows smarter students of biology than students of other subjects. Ivan Ivan As for Bulgarian, I have argued above, building on work by Tali Therefore, I propose that in Slavic, just as in English, NP-internal relative is only interpretable via focus association with an NP-external element: overt determiner signals the presenceDP of and a NP arguments DP in layerformer, the and it language, given makes and sense the the that coexistence role Bulgarianprojection of of speakers of overt parse the articles this overt in as noun, signaling a rather the D-head than in as the part extended of the measure phrase constituent. phrase constituent from ainterval, singleton type set of intervalsinstead of achieved type by the iotaNP-languages type (generalized shift to that instantiate is a generally shift assumed from to type be available in (90) Ivan readings of q-superlatives are derived not by raising of theq-superlative superlative constituent morpheme from Spec MonP. Itin is a straightforward how language this like would Polish work which has no definite articles: the shift of the measure contain at least one functional layerlanding above place the minimal for NP, the providing an nounlocality. intermediate complement On to the extract through oneq-adjectives without in hand, violating Slavic, the just anti- as presencethis in of is English, the involve an a case extra MonP then layer.it the layer On is specifier the follows unavailable of as other if MonP a hand, is adnominal landing if already site occupied for by complement that extraction. q-adjective, so The most the noun complement in Polish.my And informants, this who is find also the the paraphrase case given for for Bulgarian) (90 according quite to (89) natural. Ivan The definite-marked DP in (11) is thus parsed with with the structure in91), ( which (the movement derivation), but by focus-association with respect to the NP/DP parameter Bulgarian is an ‘intermediate’ language. An According to Shen, this asymmetry show that nominals containing q-superlatives early access ihtearen determiner agreeing the with adverbial its on does it as form neuter the instead taking noun, mass or plural the with DP (91) ril utarewt h lrl omngne noun common-gender plural, the with agree must article Jan (2013): (92) Roelandt from temporal are or below events (93) of and than (92) rather NP, examples substance The the intervals. by denoted entity the of quantities English with as Yet, use. agree to proposed fails have superlative I quantity that definite-marked structure the hidden constructions, the these articles, for In Dutch the here. of for paradigm evidence agreement additional especially richer provides is slightly it This the superlatives. to quantity due of gives because, reading which interesting relative construction NP-internal a the has Dutch to Flemish rise that observes 2016) (2013, Roelandt Flemish 6.2 semantically thus is which DP substance the in scope when definite. high generated has not this are readings because These present morpheme. definite overt phrase an measure containing the with but English, for proposed ob nrmaia.The ungrammatical. be to (92) in sentence the judge Dutch Northern of Speakers have we as derivation same the using generated are then, readings, NP-internal Jnhslsee omr eod yZpata yayohrband.’ other any by than Zappa by records more to listened has ‘Jan Jan D= -to has heeft naj- subs the.N.SG het MonP 1 h otNP most the t 1 NP most.AGR meeste -mnogo IOTA de meas sacpe ysekr falvreiso uc,but Dutch, of varieties all of speakers by accepted is h nepeaini lal oprsnof comparison clearly is interpretation the , NP Mon music.PL platen 40 Mon tdnio London ot studenti naj-mnogo by van 0 Zappa ZAPPA platen subs oasitdrte than rather iota-shifted h etnei ( 93) in sentence The . listened.to beluistered. E.C.Wilson -to is early access the most beluistered. listened.to beluistered. listened.to beluistered. listened.to ZAPPA Zappa ZAPPA Zappa van by ZAPPA Zappa van by van by is pronounced when the definite platen music.CG.PL platen music.CG.PL platen music.PL 41 de meeste is identical to that proposed for English meeste most.AGR beeste best.AGR beeste best.AGR het meeste the least het the.N.SG de the.CG.PL de the.CG.PL and Hence, the Flemish dialect provides morphological evidence from a 22 heeft has heeft has heeft has the fewest , Jan Jan a. #‘Jan has listened tob. more ‘Jan records has by listened Zappa to than the by majority any of other records band.’ by Zappa.’ Jan a. #‘Jan has listened tob. better ‘Jan records has by listened Zappa to than the by best any records other by band.’ Zappa (that exist).’ The current proposal does without that extra covert element. I assume that the In order to explain the apparent failure to check phi features in (92), Roelandt Importantly, Flemish patterns like English in that the non-agreeing construc- language closely related to English,relative in support readings of in a which structuresuperlative generating the rather NP-internal than determiner being forms merged with a the constituent entireRecall substance with that NP. the the ‘agreement’ in quantity syntactic Bulgarian agreement is on phonologically determiners. triggered (cf. fn 3), while Dutch has true section 3). The neuter singular isany default nominal agreement inside that the is measure triggeredcontrast, DP in Flemish to the (and value absence the Northern of phi-features Dutch) article on is the merged determiner. in By the extendedfor projection Bulgarian. of the overt plural noun, just as I propose duces a DP that isalso projected posited by by a(2018). Wilson null NP. A silent noun within the measurestructure DP for is Flemish on the derivation that yields an NP-internal relative reading (i.e., the proposal in tion that gives rise tosuperlatives. NP-internal The relative equivalent sentence readings in is (94)Flemish only is and possible considered Northern with equally Dutch, quantity ungrammatical whilerise in the to agreeing NP-internal construction relative in readings. (95) does not give (94) *Jan The most it only has a majorityreading reading if of the the focus quantity is superlative shifted (or to the the NP-external(93) subject). relative Jan (95) Jan (2013) proposes that the neuter determiner in the non-agreeing construction intro- 22 early access 23 ihNrhr uc.Temcoprmtrhsamr ctee itiuinwithin distribution scattered more a has micro-parameter The Dutch. Northern with thne nwehro o noetdtrie utb asda ato the of parameter part this as of setting parsed Flemish, and The be Dutch precedes. Northern must it between determiner divided noun grammar. clearly overt overt is the an the of not of micro-parameter projection or genuine extended whether a on on inter- hinges this based that It be suggests It may English. variation of speakers speaker for construction the of acceptability opiaint h usino aito.Frteesekr,tecntuto ihNP-internal plurals. for with not construction and the NPs mass speakers, for these additional acceptable For an only variation. was add readings that of relative judgements question with the author the to provided complication region Brabants parameter. the DP/NP from the speakers Two to the respect micro- and with the DP-languages, languages in between of variation construction nature of the the spectrum of availability illuminate the can governs languages that other parameter varieties and in Slavic constructions nature similar Germanic, the and and of these domain into nominal research the Future adjectives. of quantity structure of the of understanding our to contribute that definite to but of least needed NP-languages, interpretations in is the non-q-superlatives generate derivation and cannot SUP-movement q- derivation both The for modify. readings from they these readings relative generate NPs generate to the superlatives inside quantity for focus order in phrases. grammar measure the DP to in merged further be to It least predicates ( 2006). at these — individual-like Schwarzschild allow sense to and some so in (2014) enough are Solt intervals themselves, of unlike that lines degree-predicates suggests as the words quantity along treat phenomenon intervals that the of models for to account support The lends supported Dutch. here is and presented This English DPs. in measure evidence definite novel independent a of by proposed inside have q-superlatives I places constructions, which definite-marked syntax these to extended reading. be the cannot allow have do I that paper varieties this those in for, from evidence accounted the the be to on to respect focused remains which with readings variation the cross-dialectal of availability and the inter-speaker just significant for is arises there reading This reading Dutch. relative’ and ‘NP-internal superlatives English of quantity of kind varieties a some that in available evidence is presented have I paper, this In Conclusion 7 English. h lms/otenDthslti loifraiewt epc otevariable the to respect with informative also is split Dutch Flemish/Northern The nte motn ocuini htteSUP- the that is conclusion important Another languages Slavic in readings relative NP-internal derive that proposals the As o hc aepoie nacuthr.Tedt n nlsspeetdhere presented analysis and data The here. account an provided have I which for ot least most, and fewest 42 adterDthcutrat) While counterparts). Dutch their (and nsitu in eiainms eavailable be must derivation h ot h fewest the most, the 23 n ugra patterns Bulgarian and E.C.Wilson and the early access Ken 34(2). , 177– , 261–292. Linguistics North East Linguistics 41(3-4). 109–149. https: The Linguistic Review Montague grammar 96(3). 471–506. https://doi.org/ , 241–301. Springer Netherlands. 40(6). 549–593. https://doi.org/10. Current Studies in Linguistics (45), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Language 43 39(3). 151–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988- Theoretical Linguistics Semantics and Linguistic Theory (WCCFL) 24 Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between , vol. 66. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10. , 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10. 1, 101–114. 4(3). 275–343. the least 38(5). 377–435. Linguistics and Philosophy and the fewest ´ c, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In , and Philosophy Universals in superlative semantics. Elsevier. theory of definiteness. In aspect, and measurement. aspect and measurement 016-9187-2. descriptions. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2727-8_10. 215–248. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0001. 7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004. Society (NELS) 37 //doi.org/10.1515/tl-2015-0008. Linguistics and Philosophy Linguistic Inquiry Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud Towards a syntax of non-conservative construals. Philosophy, language, and artificial intelligence Hale: A life in language 10.1353/lan.2020.0039. 133–166. Cambridge,MA: MIT press. 196. . https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v24i0.2432 . 1093/oso/9780198755128.001.0001 1007/s10988-017-9210-2. Coppock, Elizabeth, Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten & Golsa Nouri-Hosseini. 2020. Cresswell, Max J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2014. A superlative argument for a minimal Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Champollion, Lucas. 2015. Stratified reference: the common core of distributivity, Champollion, Lucas. 2017. Bumford, Dylan. 2017. Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and haddock Boškovi Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause constructionBuccola, in English. Brian & Benjamin Spector. 2016. Modified numerals and maximality. References Ahn, Dorothy & Uli Sauerland. 2017. Measure constructions with relative measures: Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In The most early access rns tvn 01 h nenlsrcueo lvcnu hae,wt spe- with phrases, noun Slavic of structure internal The readings absolute 2001. and Steven. comparative Franks, the On 2000. Kiss. E Katalin & F Donka Farkas, syntax. after operations Movement 2001. Noyer. Rolf & In David Bulgarian. Embick, the in marking Definiteness 2006. Gribanova. Vera & Er Dost, rskv,Sea 02 entns nspraie.In superlatives. in Definiteness 2012. Sveta. Krasikova, meanings Most 2011. Hackl. Martin & Howard Edwin Sudo, Yasutada Hadas, Kotek, investigations Experimental 2015. Hackl. Martin & Sudo Yasutada Hadas, Kotek, ‘degrees’. of ontology the English. and in opposition quantity Polar of 2001. Christopher. syntax Kennedy, the On 2005. S. Richard Kayne, 1977. R. Jackendoff, Partitives. 1984. npi Jacob. and Hoeksema, superlatives nondefinite and Definite 2006. Sharvit. Yael & Simona Herdan, presuppositions. for problem projection the On 2002. Irene. Heim, In scope. and operators Degree 2000. Irene. Heim, superlatives. on Notes 1999. Irene. Heim, matters. related and comparatives on Notes 1985. Irene. Heim, quantifiers: proportional of processing and grammar the On 2009. Martin. Hackl, 2000. Martin. Hackl, SL)10 (SALT) ea,Austin Texas, University os ofrneo omlLnusis(CF 25) (WCCFL Linguistics Formal on Conference Coast . //doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9039-x Inquiry fsuperlatives. of meaning 9781780523750_005. superlative. are . most. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9113-0 of case the ambiguity: of Philosophy and guistics Press. MIT MA: Cambridge, (2). Monographs licensing. ch10. Readings Essential The tics: . most dissertation. ogy In morphosyntax Bulgarian. to reference cial versus 24.555–595. 32(4). . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_42 Springer. 411–420. , https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.2722. 40–64. , Syntax . oeta half than more . 53–69. , aua agae&Lnusi Theory Linguistic & Language Natural ytxadSemantics and Syntax . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00082.x 1–31. 9(1). oprtv quantifiers Comparative ytx td fprs structure phrase of study A syntax: X 41.33–70. 24(1). . https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335. 249–260. aua agaeSemantics Language Natural s,Uiest fGroningen of University ms., eeaielnusisi oad ytxand Syntax Poland: in linguistics Generative aua agaeSemantics Language Natural 44 s,MsahstsIsiueo Technology of Institute Massachusetts ms., https://doi.org/10.1163/ 101–145. 37. ascuet nttt fTechnol- of Institute Massachusetts : eatc n igitcTheory Linguistic and Semantics . , 83.417–455. 18(3). oi,lnug and language Logic, https: 63–98. 17(1). igitcInquiry Linguistic s,Uiest of University ms., 250. 32.119–156. 23(2). omlSeman- Formal s e York New ms, Linguistic E.C.Wilson West Lin- early access Univer- Journal of , 565–579. Journal of Language and Semantics and : City University of , 409–418. Cascadilla ,. West Coast Conference on Linguistics and Philosophy 21(1). 29. Sinn und Bedeutung 15 : University of Massachusetts, Amherst , 75–116. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10. ’s? In 45 Annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic , 292–302. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. most : University of Leuven dissertation. , 225–245. . https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v12i0.2870 25(4). 453–504. 9(1). 14–32. . https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12101 Most or the art of compositionality. Dutch de/het meeste at The semantics of adjectives of quantity the least Association with focus and , 214–232. Springer. 3(1-2). 1–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1. 32(2). 221–273. . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft018 9(1). 67–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x. the fewest , Student sessions at the European Summer School in Logic, Language and sity of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics New York dissertation. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press. Proceedings Project. dissertation. In the syntax-semantics interface its cross-linguistic implications. In in superlative movement out of nominal phrases. In in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Information Semantics Semantics Syntax Society (CLS) 49. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society Semantics and contextual expression Linguistics Compass Linguistics and Philosophy Linguistic Theory (SALT) 12 Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 30 1515/9783110877335-005. 10(1). 1–52. . https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00603391 West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31 Solt, Stephanie. 2014. Q-adjectives and theSolt, semantics Stephanie. of 2015. quantity. Measurement scales in naturalvon language. Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Solt, Stephanie. 2009. Solt, Stephanie. 2011. How many Sharvit, Yael & Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, andShen, focus. Zheng. 2014. On the relative readings with NP internal focus of superlatives. In Shen, Zheng. 2015. The third reading of the most expensive photo of Abby. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. The grammar of measurement.Schwarzschild, Roger. In 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Roelandt, Koen. 2013. (The) most in Flemish Dutch: Definiteness and specificity. Roelandt, Koen. 2016. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Pancheva, Roumyana & Barbara Tomaszewicz. 2012. Cross-linguistic differences Lønning, Jan Tore. 1987. Mass terms and quantification. Pancheva, Roumyana. 2015. Quantity superlatives: The view from Slavic and The most Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification early access zbls,An.21.Cmoiinlt ihu odbudre:te more boundaries:(the) word without Compositionality 2012. Anna. Szabolcsi, In domains. superlatives. Comparative extraction 1986. and Anna. Szabolcsi, minimalism CED? of end The 2007. Arthur. Stepanov, degrees: as Times 2006. Arnim. Stechow, von [email protected] Germany Berlin, Wilson Cameron E. English. in readings non-conservative on Constraints 2019. Cameron. E Wilson, 2018. Cameron. E In Wilson, reading. relative internal most the Deriving 2015. Cameron. E Wilson, 2015. Maria. Barbara Tomaszewicz, Tali eetn 20 Bedeutung //doi.org/10.3765/salt.v0i0.2629. Snippets Linguistics. in Papers Working MIT 245–266. 8, vol. Syntax n haeavrs nulse manuscript. Unpublished adverbs. phrase and iyo e okdissertation. York New of sity spective 11) FDSL from papers selected on In beyond. In most. (the) and ,Ad.22.Afia-ril agae n tutrlprleimi lvcand Slavic in parallelism structural and languages Affixal-article 2020. Aida. c, ´ . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.x 80–126. 10(1). nvriyo otenClfri dissertation. California Southern of University : . https://doi.org/10.7358/snip-2019-037-wils 114–115. 37. urn eeomnsi lvclnusis wnyyasafter:(based years twenty linguistics. Slavic in developments Current 779–797. , eatc n igitcTer SL)22 (SALT) Theory Linguistic and Semantics mutspraie n esr phrases measure and superlatives Amount ueltv miute:Acmaaieper- comparative A ambiguities: Superlative ee Lang. Peter , 46 früh(er) aesi hoeia linguistics theoretical in Papers ‘early(er)’, spät(er) https: 1–25. , iyUniver- City : E.C.Wilson inund Sinn ‘late(r)’, ,