Superlative 'More'

No abstract

Two “many”-words in Slovenian

Slovenian features at least two lexical items that are potential semantic counterparts of the English many, namely veliko and precej, whose meaning appears close to identical. Yet speakers are certain that the two items are not equivalent, although they find intuitively felt differences hard to pinpoint. We argue that precej and veliko are lexically synonymous, but their meanings are pragmatically strengthened under relevant conditions, which leads to subtle interpretative differences. Specifically, we extend Krifka’s (2007) analysis of double negatives and propose that veliko is assigned the stereotypical interpretation of a quantity degree word, whereas precej is identified with the non-stereotypical one and consequently relates to moderately big amounts. To support this claim, we report the results of an experiment involving a sentence-picture verification task, which highlight the similarities and contextually-determined differences in the use of both determiners. Our results suggest that the interpretation of precej is not consistent with relations in the upper part of the proportional scale and is dependent on whether or not it is in direct competition with veliko in the appropriate contexts

Two “many”-Words in Italian? On Molto-Tanto and Cross-linguistic Differences in Quantification

This article investigates the variability in the meaning of vague quantifiers across different languages, focusing on Italian’s m(any)-words molto and tanto. The aim was to replicate a previous analysis conducted on Slovenian m-words – precej and veliko – examining whether the Italian ones exhibit a similar pragmatic strengthening effect. Using a sentence-picture verification task, we tested 88 Italian monolingual participants on their evaluation of sentences of the form “Quantifier X are Y”. Our results showed that, unlike Slovenian speakers, Italian speakers do not exhibit a difference in the evaluation of molto and tanto, suggesting that the two words have the same numerical bound and are interchangeable as amount modifiers. Our analysis suggests that there are underlying semantic distinctions between molto and tanto that require further investigation. These findings contribute to our understanding of the variability in the use of quantifiers across languages and highlight the importance of examining subtle differences in meaning when studying vague quantifiers

Against 'Long' Movement of the Superlative Operator

It is a matter of considerable debate whether degree operators are interpreted in their base position or in some higher position. Kennedy ( 1 997) has shown that degree operators (e.g., the comparative operator) do not interact scopally with quantified expressions. On the other hand, Heim ( 1 999) and Stateva (to appear) have presented evidence that the superlative operator (as in the highest grade) interacts scopally with intensional predicates. This paper argues that despite the fact that the superlative operator seems to interact scopally with intensional predicates, the facts receive a better account under an in situ analysis, rather than a movement analysis, of the operator. This point will be made by (a) looking at examples where a superlative expression is embedded under a propositional attitude verb, and focussing on readings which are neither de re (in the strict sense) nor de dicto (in the strict sense); and (b) examining negative superlatives (e.g., the least high grade) in extensional contexts. Our conclusion will be that Kennedy' s claim that degree operator movement is highly restricted is correct

Cross-Linguistic Variation in the Meaning of Quantifiers: Implications for Pragmatic Enrichment

One of the most studied scales in the literature on scalar implicatures is the quantifier scale. While the truth of some is entailed by the truth of all, some is felicitous only when all is false. This opens the possibility that some would be felicitous if, e.g., almost all of the objects in the restriction of the quantifier have the property ascribed by the nuclear scope. This prediction from the standard theory of quantifier interpretation clashes with native speakers’ intuitions. In Experiment 1 we report a questionnaire study on the perception of quantifier meanings in English, French, Slovenian, and German which points to a cross-linguistic variation with respect to the perception of numerical bounds of the existential quantifier. In Experiment 2, using a picture choice task, we further examine whether the numerical bound differences correlate with differences in pragmatic interpretations of the quantifier some in English and quelques in French and interpret the results as supporting our hypothesis that some and its cross-linguistic counterparts are subjected to different processes of pragmatic enrichment

Two “many”-Words in Italian? On Molto-Tanto and Cross-linguistic Differences in Quantification

This article investigates the variability in the meaning of vague quantifiers across different languages, focusing on Italian’s m(any)-words molto and tanto. The aim was to replicate a previous analysis conducted on Slovenian m-words – precej and veliko – examining whether the Italian ones exhibit a similar pragmatic strengthening effect. Using a sentence-picture verification task, we tested 88 Italian monolingual participants on their evaluation of sentences of the form “Quantifier X are Y”. Our results showed that, unlike Slovenian speakers, Italian speakers do not exhibit a difference in the evaluation of molto and tanto, suggesting that the two words have the same numerical bound and are interchangeable as amount modifiers. Our analysis suggests that there are underlying semantic distinctions between molto and tanto that require further investigation. These findings contribute to our understanding of the variability in the use of quantifiers across languages and highlight the importance of examining subtle differences in meaning when studying vague quantifiers

Scalar vs. Epistemic Vagueness: Evidence from Approximators

n/

Linguistic transfer in the pragmatic domain

n this talk I will present work in progress that aims to explore a previously uncharted area of multilingual language acquisition, which concerns negative linguistic transfer in the domain of pragmatics. The research is part of a larger program in experimental pragmatics which aims to identify points of cross-linguistic diversion that affect meaning. We investigate the impact of language variation on bilingual acquisition of grammatical number in pairs of languages like Lebanese Arabic and French, and Slovenian-Italian, in which the interpretation of plural morphology within each pair is different depending on whether the number paradigm also includes dual number or not