Conclusion

In the four types of MC and TSM comparative constructions (bi-comparative, transitive comparative, guo-comparative, and intransitive comparative), the comparative morphemes such as geng ‘even-more’ in MC and khah ‘more’ in TSM are responsible for the comparative meaning and required in comparative constructions. Moreover, comparative morphemes can be either overt or covert in MC and TSM. On the one hand, the covert comparative

morphemes can provide the comparative semantics. On the other hand, the overt comparative morphemes may have different functions other than providing the comparative semantics. For instance, geng ‘even-more’ not only bears the comparative meaning but also has the

presupposition that both the compared objects’ properties are true in the absolute sense (C.-S.

Liu 2010b). Besides, hai ‘even-more’ not only provides the comparative meaning but also functions as a counter-expectation marker (Wu 2004, Wu 2009, and Tsai 2013) and bears the notion of subjectivity (Wu 2009 and Tang 2009). Note that some overt comparative

morphemes such as khah ‘more’, like their covert counterpart, can only provide the comparative meaning. Based on the above observations, I suggest that that the overt comparative morpheme in MC is a preferred choice for the speakers who wish to express some additional meanings other than the comparative semantics. Thus, while the comparative morpheme in MC is often in a covert form, the TSM counterpart is usually in an overt form.

Bibliography

Chang, J.-L. 2012. Analysis of types of comparative clauses in Taiwanese Southern Min. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.

Chen, F.-J. 1982. Minnan Fangyan de Liangzhong Bijiaoju [Two kinds of comparative constructions in Southern Min]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 1: 62-65.

Cheng, Y. & You, M.-T. 2010. Cong fangyan jiecu kan tongyi binglieshi de cihuihua. [The observation of the lexicalization of the synonym-coordinated constituent from the perspective of dialects contact] Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on

Chinese Linguistics (NACLL-22) & the 18th International Conference on Chinese

Linguistics (IACL-18).Vol 1. Clemens, L.E. & C.-M. L. Liu, eds. Harvard University,

Cambridge, MA. 1-16.

Chung, H.-J. 2006. Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.

Erlewine, M. 2007. A new syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative. M.A. Thesis, University of Chicago.

Grano, T. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory.

Grano, T. & Kennedy, C. 2012. Mandarin transitive comparatives and the grammar of

measurement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21.3:219-266.

Hsu, C.-C. & Ting, J. 2007. The light verb COMPARE in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented

at the 5th Conference of the European Association of Chinese Linguistics (EACL-5),

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.

Huang, C.-T. 2006. Resultatives and unaccusatives: a parametric view. Bulletin of the Chinese

Linguistic Society of Japan 253:1-43.

Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3:335-391.

Li, J.-C. & Lien, C.-F. 1994. Lun Minnanyu bijiaoshi – leixing ji bishi de tantao [Comparative Construction in Southern Min - A Diachronic and Typological

Perspective]. Minnanyu Yantaohui Lunwenji [The Symposium Collection of the Southern

Min], ed.by Tsao, Feng-Fu. & Tsai, Mei-hui. 23. 1-3 Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua

University.

Li, L. 2003. Xiandai hanyu fangyan chabiju de yuxu leixing [The word order types of the comparatives in contemporary Mandarin dialects]. FangYan [Dialect]. 2003.3:214-232 Lin, B.-Q. 1992. Minnanhua Jiaocheng [A course in Southern Min]. Xiamen: Xiamen

University Press.

Lin, J.-W. 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Language

Semantics 17.1:1-27.

Liu, C.-M. 2010. Mandarin Chinese as an Exceed-type Language. Proceedings of the 22nd

North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) & the 18th

International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18). Vol 2. Clemens, L.E. &

C.-M. L. Liu, eds. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 271-286.

Liu, C.-S. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 26:215-235.

Liu, C.-S. 2007. The weak comparative morpheme in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies

in Linguistics 33.2:53-89.

Liu, C.-S. 2010a. The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua 120.4:1010-1056.

Liu, C.-S. 2010b. The Chinese geng clausal comparative. Lingua 120.6:1576-1606.

Liu, C.-S. 2011. The Chinese bi comparative. Lingua 121.12:1767-1795.

Liu, C.-S. 2012. Two notes on the Chinese bi comparatives. Concentric: Studies in

Linguistics 38.1:69-91.

Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sawada, O. & Grano, T. 2011. Scale structure, coercion, and the interpretation of measure phrases in Japanese. National Language Semantics 19.2:191-226.

Su, W.-C. 2011. Comparatives without Bi. MA thesis, National Chiao Tung University.

Su, C.-C. 2011. Comparative Deletion: A Comparative Study of Chinese and Taiwanese

Southern Min. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.

Svenonius, P, and Kennedy, C. 2006. Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli. Vol. 91 Studies in

generative grammar, 133-161. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Tang, M. 2009. Fuci hai de fanyuqi yuyong gongneng ji fanyuqi de yiyuan zhuisu [The

pragmatic function and the semantic origin of counter-expectation of the adverb hai

‘even-more’]. Journal of Jiangsu University. 11.4:69-73

Tsai, P.-F. 2013. A corpus-based study of Chinese adverb hai and geng in the bi construction

from the perspectives of syntax and pragmatics. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung

Normal University.

Tsao, F.-F. 1989. Comparison in Chinese: A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of

Chinese Studies 19.2: 151-189.

Tsao, F.-F. 1989 Cong zhuti-pinglun de guandian tantao zhongwen de bijiaoju [The discussion of the Mandarin comparatives from the perspective of Topic-Comment].

Hanxue Yanjiu [Chinese Studies]. 151-189.

Tsao, F.-F. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective.

Student Book Co., Taipei.

Wu, F.-X. 2004. Shi shuo ‘X bu bi Y Z’ de yuyong gongneng [The discussion about the pragmatic function of ‘X bu bi Y Z’]. Zhongguo Yuwen. 3:222-231.

Wu, G. 2009. Fuci hai de zhuguanxing yongfa [The subjectivity usage of the adverb hai

‘even-more’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World]. 3:322-331.

Xiang, M. 2005. Some topics in comparative constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

Xiong, Z.-R. 2007. Analyses of the syntactic structure of comparative sentences in Mandarin Chinese and its dialects. Language and Linguistics 8.4:1043-1063.

Yang, H.-F. 1991. Taiwan Minnanyu yufagao [The draft of the Taiwanese Southern Min

grammar]. Taipei: Daan Press.

Zhang, Z.-X. 1989. Taiwan Minnanyu fangyan jilue [Notes on Taiwanese Southern Min].

Taipei: Wenshizhe Press.

Zou, C.-J. 1991. Minnanhua yu Putonghua [Southern Min and Mandarin Chinese] Beijing:

Language and Culture Press.

Appendix

*他 還更高我

*他 還高 伊 加較懸

The bi-comparative with measure phrase The bi-comparative

伊擱加比我 較高三公分 伊擱加比我 較高