Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 24:2 (2023) ► pp.216–268

The anatomy of Chinese Superlative Modifiers

The case of Q-adjectives

ORCID logo | National Chengchi University
This paper studies the morpho-semantics of a particular class of scalar focus adverbs called Superlative Modifiers (SMs). One key feature of these scalar focus adverbs is that they bear degree morphology, along with gradable adjectives involved. Most analyses of SMs in the market do not take into consideration the semantic contributions of their morphology. However, the cross-linguistic facts strongly suggest that the morphological makeup of SMs cannot simply be a linguistic coincidence. Thus, SMs have posed a long-standing and intriguing morpho-semantic puzzle: Why do SMs morphologically involve a quantity adjective (Q-adjective) and the superlative morpheme? What is the role of Q-adjectives and the superlative morpheme inside SMs? How are these morphological pieces of SMs connected with their semantics? This paper is dedicated to these questions by focusing on two expressions of Mandarin SMs, zui-duo and zui-shao (which morphologically consist of only the superlative morpheme zui and a quantity adjective duo ‘many/much’ or shao ‘few/little’), and presents a decompositional analysis of both expressions as modified superlatives.
If the proposed analysis is on the right track, it shows that insights and tools developed in studies on gradability (Kennedy 1999) can be applied to those on scalarity. Recently, Greenberg (2016; 2017) has argued for a gradability-based semantics of English even. This paper contributes to this growing research agenda, through a detailed case study of SMs, a class of scalar focus adverbs but bearing degree morphology and gradable adjectives. Moreover, this paper also deepens our understanding of the semantics of Q-adjectives. By studying SMs, this paper shows that the measured domain of Q-adjectives need not be structured by the part-of relation, but rather the natural ordering on the relevant domain. Crucially, this updated view on Wellwood’s (2014; 2015) semantics of Q-adjectives leads us to their differential uses and ultimately a unified account of Q-adjectives.
Keywords: Superlative Modifiers, scalarity, focus, alternative semantics, superlatives, degree semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic facts
  • 3.Theoretical assumptions
    • 3.1The representation of focus
    • 3.2The semantics of Q-adjectives
    • 3.3The theory of superlatives
    • 3.4The Containment Hypothesis
  • 4.The proposal
    • 4.1The anatomy of zui-duo
      • 4.1.1Compositions: Superlative Modifiers (zui-duo)
      • 4.1.2Compositions: Quantity Superlatives (zui-duo)
    • 4.2The anatomy of zui-shao
      • 4.2.1Compositions: Superlative Modifiers (zui-shao)
      • 4.2.2Compositions: Quantity Superlatives (zui-shao)
  • 5.Implications
    • 5.1Two types of semantic parallels
    • 5.2Toward a “unified” semantics of Q-adjectives
    • 5.3SMs in languages beyond Mandarin Chinese
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 9 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00130.che
References (77)
References
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balcerak Jackson, Brendan & Penka, Doris. 2017. Number word constructions, degree semantics and the metaphysics of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(4). 347–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Google Scholar
Buccola, Brian & Spector, Benjamin. 2016. Modified numerals and maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy 39(3). 151–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2007. Cross-polar nomalies. In Friedman, Tova & Gibson, Masayuki (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 17, 37–52. Storrs: University of Connecticut. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The least at least can do. In Chang, Charles B. & Haynie, Hannah J. (eds.), WCCFL 26: Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 114–120. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2009. More or less. In Elliott, Malcolm & Kirby, James & Sawada, Osamu & Staraki, Eleni & Yoon, Suwon (eds.), CLS 43-2: Proceedings from the panels of the Forty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 3–17. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Bylinina, Lisa & Nouwen, Rick. 2018. On “zero” and semantic plurality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1). 1–23. (Article no. 98.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Yi-Hsun. 2018. Superlative modifiers: Ignorance and concession. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2016. Superlative modifiers as modified superlatives. In Moroney, Mary & Little, Carol-Rose & Collard, Jacob & Burgdorf, Dan (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26, 471–488. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David I. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31(3). 371–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Brochhagen, Thomas. 2013. Raising and resolving issues with scalar modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics 61. 1–57. (Article no. 3.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub & Nouwen, Rick. 2016. The comparative and degree pluralities. Natural Language Semantics 24(1). 45–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Ewan & Wellwood, Alexis. 2016. Addressing the ‘two interface’ problem: Comparatives and superlatives. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1). 1–29. (Article no. 5.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Micheal Yoshitaka. 2007. A new syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Master’s thesis.)
Farkas, Donka F. & Kiss, Katalin É. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18(3). 417–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart, & Nouwen, Rick. 2007. At least et al.: The semantics of scalar modifiers. Language 83(3). 533–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Yael. 2016. A novel problem for the likelihood-based semantics of even . Semantics and Pragmatics 91. 1–28. (Article no. 2.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A revised, gradability-based semantics for even . Natural Language Semantics 26(1). 51–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hackl, Martin. 2001. Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Jackson, Brendan & Matthews, Tanya (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 101, 40–64. Ithaca: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Little. In Gibson, Masayuki & Howell, Jonathan (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 16, 35–58. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Toward a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(2). 117–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The short answer: Implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa). Language 92(2). 331–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjectives: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Routledge. (First published by Garland Publishing Inc.)Google Scholar
. 2009. Modes of comparison. In Elliot, Malcolm & Kirby, James & Sawada, Osamu & Staraki, Eleni & Yoon, Suwon (eds.), CLS 43-1: Proceedings from the Main Session of the Forty-third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 139–163. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 2015. A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 81. 1–44. (Article no. 10.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krantz, David H. & Luce, R. Duncan & Suppes, Patrick & Tversky, Amos. 1971. Foundations of measurement, volume 1: Additive and polynomial representations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 607–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Situations in natural language semantics. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Summer 2014 edn. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department, Stanford University. ([URL]) (Accessed 2022-10-19.)
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate & van Benthem, Johan & van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In Turner, Kenneth P. (ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view (Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface 1), 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.Google Scholar
Li, Xiao. 2009. Degreeless comparatives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Lin, Jo-wang. 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Language Semantics 17(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The adjective of quantity duo ‘many/much’ and differential comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(2). 163–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2011. The Chinese bi comparative. Lingua 121(12). 1767–1795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Two notes on Chinese bi comparatives. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38(1). 69–91.Google Scholar
. 2018. Projecting adjectives in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 27(1). 67–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mendia, Jon Ander. 2016a. Focusing on scales. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 31, 11–24. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GLSA), Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Known unknowns: Epistemic inferences of superlative modifiers. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
Mihoc, Teodora. 2019. Decomposing logic: Modified numerals, polarity and exhaustification. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007. Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2). 235–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nouwen, Rick. 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 31. 1–41. (Article no. 3.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Modified numerals: The epistemic effect. In Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Menéndez-Benito, Paula (eds.), Epistemic indefinites: Exploring modality beyond the verbal domain, 244–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2008. Degree modification in natural language. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2014. The polysemy of measurement. Lingua 1431. 242–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Fred S. 1985. Measurement theory: With applications to decisionmaking, utility, and the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2012[1996]. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 51. 1–69. (Article no. 6.) (Originally published in 1996.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In Lappin, Shalom & Fox, Chris (eds.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sassoon, Galit Weidman. 2010. Measurement theory in linguistics. Synthese 174(1). 151–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2016a. Consistency preservation in quantity implicature: The case of at least . Semantics and Pragmatics 91. 1–47. (Article no. 1.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. At least and ignorance: A reply to Coppock & Brochhagen 2013. Semantics and Pragmatics 91. 1–17. (Article no. 10.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2005. Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 341. 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9(1). 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Yael & Stateva, Penka. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(4). 453–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie. 2009. The semantics of adjectives of quantity. New York: The City University of New York. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2015. Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics 32(2). 221–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 425–449.Google Scholar
Stateva, Penka. 2003. Superlative more . In Young, Robert B. & Zhou, Yuping (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13, 276–291. Seattle: University of Washington. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaszewicz, Barbara Maria. 2015. Superlative ambiguities: A comparative perspective. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. (Doctoral dissertation.)
von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2002. A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In Kamp, Hans & Partee, Barbara (eds.), Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, 137–175. Elsevier. Oxford.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1-2). 1–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis. 2014. Measuring predicates. College Park: University of Maryland, College Park. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 2015. On the semantics of comparison across categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(1). 67–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The meaning of more. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wellwood, Alexis & Hacquard, Valentine & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2012. Measuring and comparing individuals and events. Journal of Semantics 29(2). 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Yimei. 2016. Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)