Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions

This paper argues for a particular semantic decomposition of morphological definiteness. I propose that the meaning of ‘the’ comprises two distinct compositional operations. The first builds a set of witnesses that satisfy the restricting noun phrase. The second tests this set for uniqueness. The motivation for decomposing the denotation of the definite determiner in this way comes from split-scope intervention effects. The two components—the selection of witnesses on the one hand and the counting of witnesses on the other—may take effect at different points in the composition of a constituent, and this has non-trivial semantic consequences when other operators inside the DP take action in between them. In particular, I analyze well-known examples of mutually recursive definite descriptions like ‘the rabbit in the hat’ (when there are two rabbits and two hats but only one rabbit in a hat and only one hat with a rabbit in it) as examples of definites whose referent-introducing and referent-testing components are interleaved rather than nested. I further demonstrate that this picture leads to a new theory of relative superlative descriptions like ‘the kid who climbed the highest tree’ (when there is no highest tree per se, only a highest tree-climbing kid), which explains the previously mysterious role of the definite determiner in licensing such readings.

[1]  C. Barker,et al.  Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding , 2008 .

[2]  Floris Roelofsen,et al.  Logic, Language and Meaning , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Sveta Krasikova,et al.  Definiteness in Superlatives , 2011, Amsterdam Colloquium on Logic, Language and Meaning.

[4]  P. Stateva,et al.  Superlative Expressions, Context, and Focus , 2002 .

[5]  Y. Sharvit The Onliest NP: Non-definite Definites , 2015 .

[6]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Weak Definites , 1994 .

[7]  Edwin Martin Howard Superlative degree clauses : evidence from NPI licensing , 2014 .

[8]  D. Farkas,et al.  On The Comparative And Absolute Readings Of Superlatives , 2000 .

[9]  David I. Beaver Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics , 2001 .

[10]  Maribel Romero Modal superlatives: a compositional analysis , 2013 .

[11]  Nirit Kadmon,et al.  On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification , 1987 .

[12]  A. Kratzer,et al.  Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese , 2017 .

[13]  Adrian Brasoveanu,et al.  STRUCTURED NOMINAL AND MODAL REFERENCE , 2008 .

[14]  Shoichi Takahashi,et al.  More than Two Quantifiers* , 2006 .

[15]  Johan Bos,et al.  Computing Genitive Superlatives , 2009, IWCS.

[16]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Bridging , 1975, TINLAP.

[17]  Robert May,et al.  Inverse Linking , 2002 .

[18]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Cumulation is Needed: A Reply to Winter (2000) , 2000 .

[19]  Alexandra Teodorescu,et al.  Adjective Ordering RestrictionsRevisited , 2006 .

[20]  Malte Zimmermann,et al.  Pluractionality and Complex Quantifier Formation , 2003 .

[21]  Klaus von Heusinger Alternative Semantics for definite NPs , 2007 .

[22]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type‐shifting Principles , 2008 .

[23]  Elizabeth Coppock,et al.  Definiteness and determinacy , 2015 .

[24]  F. Schwarz How weak and how definite are Weak Definites , 2012 .

[25]  Thomas W. Stewart Universals in comparative morphology: suppletion, superlatives and the structure of words , 2015 .

[26]  Godehard Link The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice‐theoretical Approach , 2008 .

[27]  Vincent Homer,et al.  Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals , 2015 .

[28]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Compositionality without word boundaries: (the) more and (the) most , 2012 .

[29]  Yael Sharvit,et al.  Definite and Nondefinite Superlatives and NPI Licensing , 2006 .

[30]  Martin Hackl,et al.  On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half , 2009 .

[31]  L. McNally Existential Sentences without Existential Quantification , 1998 .

[32]  J. Hawkins Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction , 1978 .

[33]  D. Beaver,et al.  Weak Uniqueness: The Only Difference Between Definites and Indefinites , 2012 .

[34]  Peter Ludlow,et al.  Intensional 'transitive' verbs and concealed complement clauses: 2709 , 1996 .

[35]  Robert Rodman SCOPE PHENOMENA, “MOVEMENT TRANSFORMATIONS,” AND RELATIVE CLAUSES , 1976 .

[36]  Robert May and,et al.  Chapter 36. Inverse Linking , 2007 .

[37]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Constraint Processing , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[38]  Kai-Uwe Von Fintel,et al.  Restrictions on quantifier domains , 1994 .

[39]  E. Prince The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[40]  Chris Barker,et al.  Continuations and Natural Language , 2014, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.

[41]  K Abels,et al.  A unified approach to split scope , 2010 .

[42]  R. Bhatt The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival Modification , 2002 .

[43]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter , 2000 .

[44]  Ewan Klein,et al.  A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives , 1980 .

[45]  Attributive Wrong , 2006 .

[46]  D. Beaver,et al.  A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness , 2014 .

[47]  D. Beaver,et al.  Exclusivity , uniqueness , and definiteness , 2012 .

[48]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic predicate logic , 1991 .

[49]  Christopher Kennedy A "de-Fregean" semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals , 2015 .

[50]  P. Stateva,et al.  How different are different degree constructions , 2002 .

[51]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[52]  Lucas Champollion,et al.  Move and accommodate: A solution to Haddock's puzzle , 2011 .

[53]  I. Heim Degree Operators and Scope , 2000 .

[54]  Matthew Stone,et al.  Textual Economy Through Close Coupling of Syntax and Semantics , 1998, INLG.

[55]  Adrian Brasoveanu Modified Numerals as Post-Suppositions , 2013, J. Semant..

[56]  Jonathan David Bobaljik,et al.  Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words , 2012 .

[57]  Richard K. Larson,et al.  Scope and comparatives , 1988 .

[58]  Nicholas J. Haddock,et al.  Incremental Interpretation and Combinatory Categorial Grammar , 1987, IJCAI.

[59]  B. Russell II.—On Denoting , 1905 .

[60]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[61]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Measurement and Interadjective Comparisons , 2011, J. Semant..

[62]  Mats Rooth On the Interface Principles for Intonational Focus , 1996 .

[63]  Chris Barker,et al.  Possessive Weak Definites , 2004 .

[64]  C. Barker Possessives and relational nouns , 2008 .

[65]  R. May The grammar of quantification , 1978 .

[66]  DOV M. GABBAY,et al.  BRANCHING QUANTIFIERS, ENGLISH, AND MONTAGUE-GRAMMAR , 1974 .

[67]  D. Cresti Extraction and reconstruction , 1995 .

[68]  I. I. N. Kamp Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation , 1996 .

[69]  B. Partee 15 Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-shifting Principles , 2022 .

[70]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Some Puzzles of Predicate Possessives , 2008 .

[71]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  The Dynamics of Description , 1993, J. Semant..