| Summary: | First and last have been variously described as ordinals, superlatives, or both. These descriptions are generally not accompanied by extensive argumentation, and those who label first and last as superlatives do not present and argue for a particular decomposition. Thus, first and last’s status as ordinals vs. superlatives and their internal composition remain open issues. In this paper, I argue that first and last are superlatives, in particular the superlative forms of before and after. To argue that first and last are superlatives, I show that they pattern like superlatives and unlike ordinals (second, third, etc.) with respect to plurality, modifier choice, “modal superlatives” with possible, and the ordinal superlative construction. I next argue that the relations between before and first and between after and last show themselves overtly in many languages and in English paraphrases; furthermore, first and last semantically differ in ways that before and after have also been noted to differ. While I acknowledge one observation that prima facie counterexemplifies these claims, I argue that it constitutes a genuine counterexample only if one formalizes my decomposition of first/last using a standard Heimian (Heim in Notes on superlatives. Manuscript, MIT (1999)) entry for -est. The counterexample, which concerns the “upstairs de dicto” reading of superlatives, ceases to be an issue if one treats before and after as simplex and formalizes my decomposition using a Containment Hypothesis-inspired semantics (Bobaljik in Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012) for -est.
|
|---|