33.1776, Calls: Romance; Semantics/Spain

Wed May 18 19:31:10 UTC 2022

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1776. Wed May 18 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.1776, Calls: Romance; Semantics/Spain

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Billy Dickson
Managing Editor: Lauren Perkins
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Goldfinch, Nils Hjortnaes,
      Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson, Amalia Robinson, Matthew Fort
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:29:34
From: Anna Gavarró [anna.gavarro at uab.cat]
Subject: Going Romance Workshop on Superlatives and Definiteness

Full Title: Going Romance Workshop on Superlatives and Definiteness 
Short Title: SuperDef 

Date: 30-Nov-2022 - 30-Nov-2022
Location: Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain 
Contact Person: Anna Gavarró
Meeting Email: anna.gavarro at uab.catt.fr
Web Site: http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/going-romance-2022/ 

Linguistic Field(s): Semantics 

Language Family(ies): Romance 

Call Deadline: 20-Jul-2022 

Meeting Description:

Convenor: Lucia M. Tovena (Université Paris Cité)

Our current knowledge on superlatives stems from Szabolcsi (1986) and Heim
(1999), who have solidly established the crucial distinction between absolute
and relative/comparative readings. Concentrating on English, Heim (1999) has
proposed several possible semantic compositions, which differ depending on the
choice we make regarding the position of the superlative (SUP)
marker/functional head at LF (Logical Form): should it be interpreted in situ
or instead should we assume that it raises to a position inside the DP (for
absolute readings) and even further, outside the DP (for relative readings)?
The debate is still ongoing.

A central problem in the literature of the past 20 years is the fact that
despite their indefinite-like interpretation (Szabolcsi 1986), relative
superlatives require the definite article in English. Krasikova (2012)
proposed THE is not interpreted in D° but rather inside the DegP that in
relative superlative readings. Krasikova’s analysis is however questioned by
empirical evidence coming from languages like French or Romanian, which have a
DegP-internal THE that co-exists with THE in D° (Croitor & Giurgea 2016,
Dobrovie-Sorin 2021). Also problematic is the fact that in certain languages
THE is absent for the relative superlative reading of quantity adjectives, but
possible (or even obligatory) with quality superlatives (Coppock 2019,
Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2021). Another particularly difficult issue is the
analysis of genuinely indefinite DPs that embed superlatives, e.g. This class
has a best student. It is yet not clear whether the SUP appearing in this type
of indefinite DP, which only allows absolute readings, has the same type of
denotation as the SUP occurring in definite DPs (Herdan & Sharvit 2006). It is
interesting to observe that indefinite superlatives seem to be allowed only in
prenominal position and only if the superlative is expressed by a dedicated
form (which can be affixal as -EST in English, Germanic or Scandinavian, or a
phrasal constituent [SUP cel mai] in Romanian, formed with the definite marker
cel followed by the comparative (CMPR) marker mai)).

With very few exceptions, the literature on superlatives has mostly
concentrated on languages with dedicated superlative morphemes of the -EST
type. It is only very recently that theoreticians got interested in those
languages that lack dedicated superlative markers and where superlative
meanings are conveyed by combining definiteness marking and a comparative
(CMPR) form. All Romance languages exhibit this pattern – not exclusive to
them – but it has been shown that this morphological uniformity corresponds to
quite different syntactic configurations, depending on whether the definite
article is part of a superlative constituent (as in French postnominal
superlatives and in Romanian, see Croitor & Giurgea 2016, Dobrovie-Sorin 2021,
Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2021) or instead realizes the determiner of the
overall nominal projection (as in Ibero-Romance and Italian, see Loccioni
2018). On the semantic side, attempts have been made of building superlative
meanings based on comparatives (see Dunbar & Wellwood 2016) but definiteness
plays no part in them.

It has been recently observed that the investigation of Romance languages is
particularly interesting for predicative superlatives, which have so far
received less attention (see Loccioni 2018, 2019 on Italian, Spanish, and
French, and Croitor & Giurgea 2016 on Romanian).

2nd Call for Papers:

(corrected from previous call)

Topics include:

1. Crosslinguistic variation. 
(i) We would like to find out whether the difference between dedicated
superlatives versus superlative meanings based on comparatives is accompanied
by other constraints in the distribution and range of meanings available for
superlatives. 
(ii) We would like to know whether the constraints on the relative superlative
readings are different in languages with articles versus languages without
articles (Slavic) or languages in which the definite article has been
introduced relatively recently (Bulgarian).  

2. Differences between adnominal and predicative superlatives

3. Modal superlatives (see Schwarz 2005, Romero 2013, Loccioni 2019): their
syntax and semantic composition, and their adnominal vs predicate position

4. Compositional semantics. 
(i) What is the semantics of superlatives in those languages (e.g. French and
Romanian) in which the definite article is a ‘superlative marker’ directly
attached to the adjective in the comparative? How to get it compositionally? 
(ii) What is the compositional semantics of superlatives in those languages
(e.g. Italian and Ibero-Romance) in which the definite article is the
determiner of the nominal projection (noun modified by adjective in the
comparative) rather than a ‘superlative marker’? For these languages, do we
need to postulate a null counterpart of the superlative marker that surfaces
as a definite in Romanian and French? 
(iii) How is the compositional semantics of adnominal vs predicative
superlatives build?

Submission guidelines– Abstracts should be anonymous and no longer than two
pages A4, including references and examples, with 2.5 cm margins, font size
12, single-spaced. The file should be anonymous both in the body of the text
and in the filename. It will not be possible to introduce changes in
authorship after submission. Please indicate in your submission that your
abstract should be considered for the workshop. Abstracts should be submitted
in PDF format through EasyChair
(https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=gr20220) no later than July 20, 2022
(UTC+2).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-1776	
----------------------------------------------------------