Running head: ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 1

An Investigation into Absolute and Comparative-Superlative Meaning

Sarah van Nostrand

Colorado State University

ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 2

Introduction

English superlatives often prove challenging for English language learners (ELLs). There are

several reasons for this. Perhaps best known is the fact that the majority of the worlds languages,

save for English and a handful of other Germanic languages, do not maintain distinct

comparative and superlative forms. Instead, these languages express superlative meaning largely

by placing a definite determiner with a comparative morpheme (Larsen-Freeman, Celce-Murcia,

Frodesen, White, & Williams, 2016). Beyond the syntactic struggles ELLs face when learning

superlatives, semantically there is a growing sentiment among linguists that the superlative form

itself can be interpreted in more than one way. This goes against the widely held belief that the

superlative form maintains a single absolute meaning (Szabolcsi, 1986). This paper will attempt

to investigate these claims in order to gain a better understanding of the different ways the

superlative can be interpreted, and how it is possible, through the use of a singular superlative,

that two or more distinct meanings can be extracted (Farkas & Kiss, 2000). The subject of

superlative use has come up often in the ESL classes that I have observed. As a future language

teacher, I believe it is important to have a strong understanding of the superlative form to be able

to effectively teach it in my classes.

Superlative Meaning and Use

Szabolcsi (1986) notes that many native English speakers, linguists among them, have

made the popular assumption that all superlatives are created equal in the sense that they are only

able to express absolute meanings. To back up this claim, Larsen-Freeman et al., (2016) state

that, The superlativeconcerns itself with the extremes of a given scale with regard to a

specific set (p. 801). Here, Larsen-Freeman and colleagues do not address even the possibility

of superlatives expressing multiple meanings, and therefore it can be assumed that Larsen-
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 3

Freeman et al., refer to its absolute meaning that concerns itself only with the outside fringes of a

given scale. What happens, then, when superlatives fall somewhere in the middle of that scale?

Claridge (2007), who extensively studied the superlative meaning in spoken British

English through the use of the British National Corpus, tackles this question by arguing that

superlatives can be used in various ways and with the ability to fall anywhere on a given scale,

not just on the extreme ends. When superlatives fall somewhere in the middle, the meaning will

tend to be more relative and factual, known as the comparative-superlative reading (Claridge,

2007). She offers the following to illustrate both meanings:

1. Comparative superlative interpretation: a person can be the tallest of a specific group

2. Absolute superlative interpretation (p. 121): the tiniest scratch.

Claridge (2007) describes the absolute superlative meaning as having the ability to express

more than is warranted often in the form of an overstatement (p. 121). Consider also, in

addition to the tiniest scratch, the example Youre the greatest to show how absolute superlatives

maintain a looser, more evaluative interpretation that lacks sufficient comparative context

(Claridge, 2007).

Interestingly, to briefly digress into superlative usage, through Claridges analysis of

superlative use in spoken British English using the British National Corpus, she was able to

determine that the use of the comparative degree was double that (in terms of frequency) of the

superlative degree, at least in regard to everyday conversation in British English. She argues that

this can and should be seen as a sign that English superlative use is declining. Larsen-Freeman et

al., (2016) defend this claim and elaborate that many languages have discarded their superlative

form and have simply extended the semantic domain of their comparative forms (p. 798).

Despite the evidence that the superlative form in English, or at the very least spoken British

English, is slowly being replaced by the increasingly flexible comparative form, a clear
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 4

distinction must still be drawn between the comparative superlative reading and the comparative

degree. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on superlative interpretations only.

Before delving further into the distinctions between the absolute and comparative

interpretations of the superlative, it is important to note that there is an additional argument

claiming that such a strong distinction can be seen as an overstatement and simply may not be

necessary, according to Heim (1999).1 She instead attributes the varying semantic meaning to

context dependency. She argues, It is a truism that quantifiers in natural discourse are subject to

implicit restrictions on their domain (Heim, 1999, p. 3). For instance, consider the following

examples provided by Heim (1999, p. 3):

3. Everyone had a good time.

4. John climbed the highest mountain.

In example #3, Heim (1999) notes that the receiver of this sentence understands the intended

meaning and is well aware that it is not a claim about all of humanity, but rather it is referring to

a specific group of people at a particular event.

In example #4, Heim (1999) points out that the sentence can only correctly be interpreted in

the absolute sense if John had climbed Mt. Everest, which of course is factually the highest

mountain in the world. She continues what if John just climbed the highest mountain out of

anyone in his family? If that were the case, it would have to be interpreted as having a

comparative meaning (Heim, 1999, p. 4). Herdan and Sharvit (2006) help to break this example

down further by suggesting that the absolute interpretation would involve comparing mountains

(where Mt. Everest is the actual highest mountain) and the comparative interpretation would

involve comparing mountain climbers (where John climbed the highest mountain in relation to

all of the other climbers within a given set). This, of course, leads to varying truth conditions.

1 Please note that the Heim (1999) article, although highly regarded in its field, remains an
unpublished draft, and therefore no further information is available for citation.
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 5

Finally, Farkas and Kiss (2000) weigh in on this idea of context dependency as well by

solidifying Heims argument. They note that context dependency is the key difference between

comparative-superlative meaning and the absolute because under the comparative, the height of

the mountain climbed is being compared with the height of other mountains climbed by more

than one climber (Farkas & Kiss, 2000).

Continuing with Heims discussion of context dependency, she moves to her next main

argument regarding comparative-superlative meaning which emphasizes the importance of focus.

She argues that without placing special focus through intonation and pronunciation, comparative-

superlative meanings are ambiguous. In other words, depending on where the stress, or focus, is

placed within a sentence, the interpretation can change entirely (Heim, 1999). To further this

point, Tomaszewicz (2013) also examines focus as it pertains to the vagueness of superlative

meaning through her argument that superlative expressions are extremely sensitive where focus

comes into play. Due to the multiple interpretations that are allowed, focus is obligatory when

interpreting comparative-superlatives. Tomaszewicz (2013) provides an example to illustrate this

point:

5. John bought Mary the most expensive cake (p. 226).

Here, there is flexibility in the interpretation. The emphasis could, for example, be placed on the

buyer of the most expensive cake, John, or the receiver of the most expensive cake, Mary. With

regard to absolute meaning, Tomaszewicz (2013) remarks that the absolute interpretation would

occur only if cakes themselves were being compared, leading to different truth conditions.

Role of Determiners

When discussing the different pragmatic interpretations of superlatives, one cannot go

any further without addressing the important role that determiners, both definite and indefinite,
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 6

play. According to Larsen-Freeman et al., (2016), superlatives are inclined to pair with the

definite determiner, the. It is important to remember, however, that Larsen-Freeman et al., does

not make the distinction between the two pragmatic interpretations. Therefore, by default, they

are referring to the absolute meaning with regard to the exclusive use of the definite determiner.

Multiple linguists have chimed in on this issue. Matushanksy (2000) agrees with Larsen-

Freemans explanation by making the overarching claim that all superlatives must appear with a

definite determiner. Szabolcsi (1986), on the other hand, offers a slightly more balanced, yet still

black and white explanation of determiner use by proposing that the absolute superlative is

always used with the definite determiner while the comparative superlative is easy to identify

because it is always paired with an indefinite determiner. Herdan and Sharvit (2006) agree with

Matushanksy and Larsen-Freeman et al. elaborate with the following examples, noting that the

result of placing an indefinite determiner with a superlative appears to be ungrammatical:

6. The longest book I read is War and Peace.

*A/some longest book I read is War and Peace (p. 1).

However, Herdan and Sharvit (2006) also later remark that the role of the superlative is to form a

particular set of individuals, each of which ranking highest with respect to some salient set of

individuals that ranks highest within that given set (p. 4). With this in mind, one can conclude

that if a definite determiner precedes the superlative, there will only be one of these individuals

being examined in the given set. However, if an indefinite determiner precedes the superlative,

there is then the possibility that there will be more than that one individual (Herdan & Sharvit,

2006). Having the possibility of multiple individuals within a set brings back the ambiguity

argument of comparative-superlative meaning. Farkas and Kiss (2000) reinforce Herdan and

Sharvits remarks and take it a step further by explicitly making the connection between
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 7

indefinite determiners and the comparative-superlative meaning. The note that one of the main

distinctions between the absolute and comparative forms is the fact that absolute superlatives

pattern with ordinary definites while comparative-superlatives do not (p. 430). Farkas and

Kiss do not stop there, though, and go on to provide counterevidence to Larsen-Freeman et al.

and Matushanksy by showing that an indefinite determiner can in fact be used grammatically

with the superlative. It results in a comparative interpretation, certainly, however it is a

superlative interpretation nonetheless. This is illustrated in the following example, where the

words a and child are both capitalized to emphasize focus, as opposed to the assumed emphasis

on the:

7. A CHILD climbed the highest mountain (p. 421).

Matushanksy (2008), who argues that all superlatives must be paired with a definite

determiner, justifies this claim. She does this in part by stressing that the semantics of

superlatives presupposes uniqueness (p. 29). Herdan and Sharvit (2006) agree with this idea of

uniqueness, stating that it is commonly known that while the definite determiner presupposes

uniqueness, the indefinite determiner does not. She continues going as far as saying that if a

superlative does presuppose uniqueness through identifying a particular characteristic within a

specific set, then the presence of a definite determiner is seen as superfluous and should not be

needed at all (Herdan, 2006). Along these same lines of uniqueness, in regard to definite

determiners, Farkas and Kiss (2000) complicate things further by introducing a possible third

semantic interpretation of superlatives. They argue the presence of what they call dependent

absolute superlatives and offer an example to demonstrate:

8. Every student climbed the highest mountain (Farkas & Kiss, 2000, p. 443).
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 8

According to Farkas & Kiss, this interpretation pits the absolute and comparative-superlative

meanings against one another to the point where they both end up sharing the same field of

comparison. It is this field of comparison that elicits the implicit constraints (Farkas & Kiss,

2000).

Polarity

Lastly, the semantic relationship between positive and negative polarity and superlative

interpretations was investigated. Larsen-Freeman et al., (2016), not making the distinction

between absolute and comparative-superlative meaning, only goes so far as to say that

superlatives in general tend to have negative polarity, meaning that they tend to be more marked

than their comparative degree counterparts. Herdan (2006) relates this markedness to

superlatives by stating that they can appear in both definite and indefinite environments,

however, the superlative can only act as a Negative Polarity Item (NPI) licensor when in a

definite environment. To help clarify this, Herdan (2006) states that NPIs can only be

operationalized with a definite determiner. Note the following example:

9. This class has the best student with any knowledge of French.

*This class has a best student with any knowledge of French. (Herdan, 2006, p. 1)

In the ungrammatical portion of this example (marked with an asterisk), the meaning is not only

not absolute because of the lack of a definite determiner, but it also ungrammatical because the

presence of the indefinite determiner is not allowing for the NPI to be licensed.

Conclusion

I am now confident that there are two distinct semantic interpretations of the superlative:

absolute and comparative. The distinction stems from multiple factors including context

dependency and ambiguity, focus, the presence of either definite or indefinite determiners,
ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 9

uniqueness, and briefly, polarity. With regard to English Language Learners, I have a better

understanding of why the superlative can be so challenging to learn. Not only is there the

possibility that their native language does not overtly express the superlative, but, to make

matters worse, the English superlative itself can convey multiple meanings. This is why, for

language instructors, I believe it is valuable to have a strong working knowledge of superlative

meaning in order to effectively meet English language learners needs.

ABSOLUTE AND COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE MEANING 1
0
References

Claridge, C. (2007). The superlative in spoken English. Language and Computers, 62(1),

121-148.

Farkas, D. F., & Kiss, K. . (2000). On the comparative and absolute readings of

superlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 18(3), 417-455.

Heim, I. (1999). Notes on superlatives1.*

Herdan, S., & Sharvit, Y. (2006). Definite and nondefinite superlatives and NPI licensing.

Syntax, 9(1), 1-31.

Larsen-Freeman, D., Celce-Murcia, M., Frodesen, J., White, B., & Williams, H. A.

(2016). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for English language teachers (3rd ed.).

Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.

Matushansky, O. (2008). On the attributive nature of superlatives. Syntax, 11(1), 26-90.

Szabolcsi, A. (1986). Comparative superlatives. MIT Working papers in Linguistics, 8,

245-265.

Tomaszewicz, B. M. (2013). Focus association in superlatives and the semantics of-est. In

Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation,

ed. Maria Aloni, Michael Franke, and Floris Roelofsen (pp. 226-233).