The Presupposition-Modifier Analysis and Stacking

The second problem with assuming that the for-PP doesn't combine with a DegP is that it cannot account for the comparison of deviation readings of stacked positive and comparative adjectives. This is an additional problem to the one discussed in section 3.4.5 that arose from putting the measure function inside of the adjective. According to the analysis under question, for-PP's modify the

presuppositional structure of the adjective. To this modified AP structure, one of two different Deg heads can be stacked on top: the POScomp morpheme or the COMP

morpheme (-er/more).

(290) a. John is more tall for a basketball player than Bill. b. John is tall for a basketball player compared to Bill..

Under the modifier analysis of for-PP's, their meanings should be the same as the sentence in (291), with the added caveat that both John and Bill are presupposed to be basketball players.

(291) John is taller than Bill.

To see that these are the predictions of the presupposition-modifier analysis, consider the structure below for the comparative in (290).

(292) IP 2 DP I' ! 2 John I VP ! 2 is V DegP qp Deg' XP 3 6 Deg AP than Bill ! 3

COMP AP PP

! 5

A for a basketball player !

tall

In this structure, the Deg head is a comparative morpheme, and the for-PP combines with the AP to produce another AP that has its presuppositional structure modified. Let's assume that the meaning of the phrasal comparative morpheme COMP is as in

(293) COMP = λGλyλx. G(x) > G(y)

Now, if the for-PP simply modifies the AP denotation (i.e., it modifies a measure phrase of type <e,d>, producing another measure phrase of type <e,d>), we would derive the following truth conditions. I will assume that the copula and than are vacuous.

(294) a. ||John (is) taller for a basketball player (than) Bill|| = 1 iff

b. (john)[[||COMP||] ([(||tall||) [||for a basketball player||]]) (bill)] = 1 iff

c. (john)[[||COMP||] ((λx. TALL(x)) [λGλx: basketball player(x). G(x)]])

(bill)] = 1 iff

d. (john)[ [||COMP||] (λx: basketball player(x). TALL(x)) (bill)] = 1 iff

e. (john)[[λGλyλx. G(x) > G(y)](λx: basketball player(x). TALL(x))

(bill)] = 1 iff

f. (john)[λyλx: basketball player(x) & basketball player(y). TALL(x) > TALL(y) (y)](bill)] = 1 iff

g. TALL(john) > TALL(bill) = 1

The resulting truth conditions are the same truth conditions of the sentences in (291) with the added presupposition that John and Bill are basketball players. But, as discussed in section 3.4.5, this is not what the sentences in (290) mean.

The sentences in (290) should receive comparison of deviation readings. Recall that comparison of deviation readings entail that the things being compared must have the property in its positive sense. So, in (290), both John and Bill must be

tall for a basketball players. But, if they are to be understood as in (294), i.e., as John is taller than Bill, then they should be true even if John and Bill are not very tall in

general.

The point of this discussion is that in order to compare the extents to which John and Bill are tall for a basketball players, there must be a measurement between the normal height of wrestlers and John and Bill's heights. That is, the there must be a standard degree computed from the for-PP from which we can measure the

deviation of John's height and Bill's height. Under the assumption that adjectives are simply measure functions, this can only happen if there is a Deg head. And, the presupposional modification analysis does not supply a Deg head for the for-PP. This isn't, however, a fatal flaw: we could maintain the analysis if there were a POS

Deg head introduced above the AP, in addition to the COMP morpheme. However, the

sentence in (295), indicates that this isn't enough.

(295) John is tall for a basketball player compared to Bill.

This sentence, too, seems to require (or at least allow) a comparison of deviation reading. That is, both John and Bill need to be tall for basketball players. If this is correct, then it would also seem to require that there be a standard degree computed over the for-PP that can provide a comparison between the John's deviation from the

standard and Bill's deviation from the standard. This requires that there be a POS

operator between the for-PP and the compared-to phrase in addition to the operator that introduces the compared-to phrase and compares the deviations.

Hence, we are again forced into having two different DegP's, one on top of aP for compared-to and the other on top of AP for for-PP's. It should be pointed out that the presuppositional modifier analysis of for-PP's proposed by Kennedy could be maintained. All we would have to do is posit a POSfor morpheme that selects the AP-

for-PP combination that does not take a comparison class as one of its arguments.

(296) DegP ! DegP wo Deg' PP 3 6 Deg aP compared-to ! 3 POScomp PPθ a' 3 a DegP ! Deg' 3 Deg AP ! wo POSfor AP PP ! 5 A for-PP

However, it is not necessary to go to these lengths to maintain the presupposition- modifier analysis. I will now offer evidence that the presupposition analysis is too strong. Rather, the fact that in sentences of the form x is A for an NP we have a

strong inclination to think that x is an NP looks more like an implicature than a presupposition.