Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-fnvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T22:32:24.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universals in Superlative Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Elizabeth Coppock ,
Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten  and
Golsa Nouri-Hosseini
Elizabeth Coppock*
Affiliation:
Boston University
Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten*
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg
Golsa Nouri-Hosseini*
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg
*
Coppock, Boston University, Linguistics Department, 621 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, [eecoppock@gmail.com]
[elizabethba@gmail.com]
[golsa.nouri.h@gmail.com]
Get access

Abstract

This article reports on the results of a broad crosslinguistic study on the semantics of quantity words such as many in the superlative (e.g. most). While some languages use such a form to express both a relative reading (as in Gloria has visited the most continents) and a proportional reading (as in Gloria has visited most continents), the vast majority do not allow the latter, though all allow the former. It is argued that a degree-quantifier analysis of quantity words is best suited to explain why proportional readings typically do not arise for quantity superlatives. Based on morphosyntactic evidence, two alternative diachronic pathways through which proportional quantifiers may develop from quantity superlatives are identified.

Keywords

quantity wordssuperlativesmeasurementuniversalstypologyfieldworksemantics

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 471 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was carried out under the auspices of the Swedish Research Council project 2015-01404 entitled ‘Most and more: Quantity superlatives across languages’, awarded to PI Elizabeth Coppock at the University of Gothenburg. We would like to thank audiences at the 93rd meeting of the LSA, SALT 28, and TripleA 4 for helpful comments. We in particular thank Alexis Wellwood, Rajesh Bhatt, Jon Ander-Mendia, and Neil Myler for helpful discussion. We also thank all language consultants and linguists who helped us to gather and understand the data presented here. Any errors are our own. We thank in particular Teofilo Laime Ajacopa, Edwin Banegas-Flores, Matt Coler, and Roger Gonzalo Segura (Aymara); Nima Nasjian (Azeri); Jon Ander Mendia (Basque); Kevin Cruz Cruz (Chatino); Alicia Gregorio Velasco (Chinanteco); Nino Amiridze, Lena Borise, Alice Harris, Medea Kikabidze Beal, Aleksandre Maskharashvili, Nana Shavtvaladze, and Mariam Tsiskarishvili (Georgian); Umma Aliyu Musa (Hausa); Malin Petzell (Kagulu); Tahsin Osmani (Kurdish); Bernadine Red Bear (Lakota); Jeyhun Amirkhanrin (Lezgian); Lawrence Were (Luo); Liljana Mitkovska (Macedonian); Hsin-Lun Huang (Mandarin); Lety Hernandez and Miguel Ángel Ramírez Ramírez (Nahuatl); Ellavina Perkins (Navajo); Lobsang Shastri and Shoko Mekata (Tibetan); Neil Myler (Quechua); Mamadou Bassene (Wolof); and Adebimpe Adegbite (Yoruba).

References

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane; and Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. (Studies in generative grammar 71.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2004. Most. Language 80(4). 658–706. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2004.0162.Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard I. 1990. Georgian: A reading grammar. Corrected edn. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay, and Levinson, Stephen. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika; and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.) 1995. Quantification in natural languages. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 54.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4). 407–44. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-007-9021-y.10.1007/s10988-007-9021-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219. DOI: 10.1007/BF00350139.10.1007/BF00350139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, and Krahmer, Emiel. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10. 147–82. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008371413822.10.1023/A:1008371413822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, Krasikova, Sveta, Fleischer, Daniel, Gergel, Remus, Hofstetter, Stefan, Svaelsberg, Christiane, Venderelst, John; and Villalta, Elisabeth. 2010. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009. 1–66. DOI: 10.1075/livy.9.01bec.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Takahashi, Shoichi. 2007. Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the direct analysis of phrasal comparatives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 17. 19–36. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v17i0.2958.10.3765/salt.v17i0.2958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Takahashi, Shoichi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 581–620. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1.10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9069.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37. 101–14.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko, and Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39. 121–34.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177775.Google Scholar
Bumford, Dylan. 2017. Split-scope definites: Relative superlatives and Haddock descriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(6). 549–93. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-017-9210-2.10.1007/s10988-017-9210-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumford, Dylan. 2018. Binding into superlative descriptions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 28. 325–44. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v28i0.4412.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint. 1998. Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 3(28). 385–412.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and Ladusaw, William A.. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2016. Typological database of superlative constructions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Dataverse. DOI: 10.7910/DVN/71WHWY.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2019. Quantity superlatives in Germanic, or, ‘Life on the fault line between adjective and determiner’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 31(2). 109–200. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542718000089.10.1017/S1470542718000089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Beaver, David. 2014. A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 24. 177–96. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v24i0.2432.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Ganem, Elias. 2018. Most vs. more than half vs. the majority. Paper presented at Language and Quantity in Thought, held in conjunction with ESS-LLI 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Josefson, Christian. 2015. Completely bare Swedish superlatives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19. 179–96.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 2009. Measure phrases and the syntax of Romanian nouns and adjectives. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 11(1). 35–66.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1997. Much support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1). 119–64. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178967.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max J. 1977. The semantics of degree. Montague grammar, ed. by Partee, Barbara, 261–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
de Boer, Minne Gerben. 1986. Il superlativo italiano. Revue Romane 21(1). 53–64.Google Scholar
Diop, Bamba. 2012. Aay naa ci Wolof! Trainee Wolof manual. Dakar: Peace Corps Senegal.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Giurgea, Ion. 2015. Quantity superlatives vs. proportional quantifiers: A comparative perspective. Paper presented at the 25th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Bayonne.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1887/19731.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Online: https://wals.info.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F., and Kiss, Katalin É.. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 417–55. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006431429816.10.1023/A:1006431429816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark. 1995. Comparatives, superlatives, and resolution. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(4). 333–80. DOI: 10.1007/BF00984929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2011. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gorshenin, Maksym. 2012. The crosslinguistics of the superlative. Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte, ed. by Stroh, Cornelia, 55–159. Bremen: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, ms.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hackl, Martin. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17. 63–98. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-008-9039-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2016a. Superlatives in Syrian Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 1281–1328. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-016-9332-1.10.1007/s11049-016-9332-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2016b. Universal quantification as degree modification in Arabic. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1):26. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.131.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2000. Word order harmonies and word order change in Georgian. Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, ed. by Sornicola, Rosanna, Poppe, Erich, and Sisha-Halevy, Ariel, 133–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Austin: University of Texas, ms. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M/Comparatives%2085.pdf.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TI1MTlhZ/Superlative.pdf.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10. 40–64. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v10i0.3102.10.3765/salt.v10i0.3102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2006a. Little. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 16. 35–58. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v16i0.2941.10.3765/salt.v16i0.2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2006b. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mJiMDBlN/comparatives%20as%20GQs.pdf.Google Scholar
Herburger, Elena. 1997. Focus and weak noun phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5. 53–78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008222204053.10.1023/A:1008222204053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, George B. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983a. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 403–34. DOI: 10.1007/BF00142472.10.1007/BF00142472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983b. Superlatieven. Tabu 13. 101–6. Online: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_tab001198301_01/_tab001198301_01_0006.php.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: http://linguistics.ucla.edu/images/stories/Horn.1972.pdf.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2006. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von and Turner, Ken, 21–48. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080462608_006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study in phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard S., 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195136517.013.0001.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1997. The semantics of determiners. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 41–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris. 1997. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris. 2007a. Modes of comparison. Chicago Linguistic Society 43. 141–65.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris. 2007b. Standards of comparison. Handout of paper presented at the Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP), October 2007. Online: http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/docs/cssp07.pdf.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris, and McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–81. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0071.10.1353/lan.2005.0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, Sudo, Yasutada; and Hackl, Martin. 2015. Experimental investigations of ambiguity: The case of most. Natural Language Semantics 23(2). 119–56. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-015-9113-0.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, Sudo, Yasutada, Howard, Edwin; and Hackl, Martin. 2011a. Most meanings are superlative. Syntax and semantics, vol. 37: Experiments at the interfaces, ed. by Runner, Jeffrey T., 101–46. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9781780523750_005.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, Sudo, Yasutada, Howard, Edwin; and Hackl, Martin. 2011b. Three readings of most. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 21. 353–72. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v21i0.2621.Google Scholar
Krasikova, Sveta. 2012. Definiteness in superlatives. Logic, language and meaning, ed. by Aloni, Maria, Kimmelman, Vadim, Roelofsen, Floris, Sassoon, Galit W., Schulz, Katrin, and Westera, Matthijs, 411–20. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_42.Google Scholar
Krasikova, Sveta, and Champollion, Lucas. 2011. Two many modifiers? Paper presented at the Workshop on Modification (with and without modifiers), Madrid, December 15–16, 2011.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. The generic book, ed. by Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 125–75. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. Semantics and contextual expression, ed. by Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and van, Peter Boas, Emde, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2004. Indefinites and the type of sets. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 302–23. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110852820.302.Google Scholar
Loccioni, Nicoletta. 2018. Getting ‘the most’ out of Romance. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dr0r9bk.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4). 369–415. DOI: 10.1086/429207.10.1086/429207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(4). 353–92. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005389330615.10.1023/A:1005389330615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007a. Formal properties of measurement constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110198485.10.1515/9783110198485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007b. Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2). 235–76. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-007-9016-8.10.1007/s10988-007-9016-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2015. Quantity superlatives: The view from Slavic and its cross-linguistic implications. Chicago Linguistic Society 49.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana, and Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2012. Cross-linguistic differences in superlative movement out of nominal phrases. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 30. 292–302. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/30/paper2826.pdf.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, de Jongh, Dick, and Stokhof, Martin, 115–43. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1989. Many quantifiers. ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Powers, Joyce and de Jong, Kenneth, 383–402.Google Scholar
Petzell, Malin. 2008. The Kagulu language of Tanzania: Grammar, texts and vocabulary. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Potts, Chris. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2006. How many maximizes in the Balkan sprachbund. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 16. 190–207. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v16i0.2939.10.3765/salt.v16i0.2939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2008. Degree modification in natural language. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. DOI: 10.7282/T3WH2Q8C.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2014. The polysemy of measurement. Lingua 143. 242–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.001.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2018. The semantics of many, much, few, and little. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(1):e12269. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12269.10.1111/lnc3.12269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohena-Madrazo, Marcos. 2007. Superlative movement in Puerto Rican Spanish and General Spanish. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 1. Online: https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/linguistics/documents/nyuwpl/rohena-madrazo-2007-nyuwpl.pdf.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2017. Attributive uses of many. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 27. 480–503. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v27i0.4213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2009. Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill's Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1. 106–45. DOI: 10.1163/187666309X12491131130783.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2017. Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9780511734830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruys, E. G. 2014. Two Dutch many's and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, ms. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WQwOTBkN/DutchMany.pdf.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1944. Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11. 93–116. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/184355.10.1086/286828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2004. Interpreting superlatives. Handout of talk given at University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9(1). 67–110. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, Gregory. 2013. Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23. 549–69. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v23i0.2656.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael, and Stateva, Penka. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(4). 453–504. DOI: 10.1023/A:1020875809794.10.1023/A:1020875809794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2009. The semantics of adjectives of quantity. New York: The City University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2011. How many most's? Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15. 565–80.Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2015. Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics 32(2). 221–73. DOI: 10.1093/jos/fft018.10.1093/jos/fft018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2016. On measurement and quantification: The case of most and more than half. Language 92(1). 65–100. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0016.Google Scholar
Steinert-Threlkeld, Shane, and Szymanik, Jakub. 2019. Learnability and semantic universals. Semantics and Pragmatics 12:4. DOI: 10.3765/sp.12.4.10.3765/sp.12.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2010. Structurally defined alternatives and lexicalizations of XOR. Linguistics and Philosophy 33(1). 31–36. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-010-9074-1.10.1007/s10988-010-9074-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Papers in Theoretical Linguistics) 8. 245–65.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2012. Compositionality without word boundaries: (The) more and (the) most. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22. 1–25. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v22i0.2629.10.3765/salt.v22i0.2629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teodorescu, Viorica Alexandra. 2007. Attributive superlatives in Romanian. Pitar Mos: A building with a view: Papers in honour of Alexandra Cornilescu, ed. by Avram, Larisa, Alboiu, Gabriela, Avram, Andrei, and Isac, Daniela. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Google Scholar
Teodorescu, Viorica Alexandra. 2009. Modification in the noun phrase: The syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of adjectives and superlatives. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/6893.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2003. On the syntax and semantics of content questions in Yucatec Maya. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on American Indian Languages (WAIL), 106–22.Google Scholar
van Benthem, Johan. 1986. Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4540-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25. 139–201. DOI: 10.1515/TLIR.2008.004.10.1515/TLIR.2008.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1–2). 1–77. DOI: 10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1.10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2005. Temporal comparatives: Früher ‘earlier‘/später ‘later‘. Handout of talk presented at Tense and Mood, Stuttgart, and QP Structure, Nominalizations, and the Role of DP, Saarbrücken. Online: http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Handouts/frueher.pdf.Google Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis. 2014. Measuring predicates. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation. DOI: 10.13016/M2J30N.Google Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis. 2015. On the semantics of comparison across categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(1). 67–101. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-015-9165-0.10.1007/s10988-015-9165-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. Cameron. 2016. Deriving the most internal reading. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20. 779–97.Google Scholar
Živanović, Sašo. 2007a. Kvantifikacijski vidiki logične oblike v minimalistični teoriji jezika [Quantificational aspects of LF]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana dissertation.Google Scholar
Živanović, Sašo. 2007b. Varieties of most: On different readings of superlative determiners. Studies in formal Slavic linguistics: Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, ed. by Marušič, Franc and Žaucer, Rok, 337–54. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Coppock et al. supplementary material

Coppock et al. supplementary material
Download Coppock et al. supplementary material(File)
File 216.8 KB