Before proposing our analysis for Chinese comparative conditionals, we shall introduce Beck’s (1997) semantic analysis on English/German comparative conditionals,
especially the semantics of the German comparative conditional morpheme je, and Cheng and Huang’s (1996) proposal on Chinese bare conditionals as basic concepts relevant to our discussion here.
3.1. Beck (1997)
Beck (1997, 234) follows von Fintel (1994) in analyzing comparative conditionals as in (35a) as correlative constructions. So, (35a) has a syntactic structure as in (35b), in which the je-clause (when the sentence starts with it) is in the same position as a left-dislocated element, presumably adjoined to CP.
(35) a. Je schneller Hans rennt, umso schneller wird er mude.
The faster Hans runs, the faster gets he tired
‘Hans will get tired faster, the faster he runs.’
b. [CP [CP [DegP je [Deg’ schneller]] [C’ Hans rennt]] [CP [DegP umso [Deg’ schneller]]
[C’ wird er mude]]]
In other words, the subordinate clause and the main clause are sentential projections, presumably CPs, and semantically each of them contains a comparative. Their specifier positions (i.e., [Spec, CP]) contain the je-phrase and the umso/desto-phrase,
respectively.17 And Beck (1997, 234) suggests that the same presumably holds for English the-phrases (cf. Thiersch (1982)).
Furthermore, as Beck (1997, 236-237) argues, the semantic interpretations of (36a-c) can be roughly formulated as (37a-c), in which we always have universal
quantification over pairs and parts of the pair can be worlds as in (37a), individuals as in (37b), or times as in (37c).
(36) a. Je besser Otto vorbereitet ist, desto besser wird sein Referat werden.
The better Otto prepared is the better will his talk become
‘The better Otto is prepared, the better his talk will be.’
b. Je schleimiger ein Anwalt asussieht, desto ergolgreicher ist er.
The slimy-er an attorney look the successful-er is he
‘The slimier an attorney looks, the more successful he is.
c. Uli war umso muder, je heiber es war.
Uli was the tired-er the hotter it was
‘The hotter it was, the more tired Uli was.’
(37) a. ∀w1, w2 [Otto is better prepared in w1 than in w2] → [Otto’s talk is better in w1 than in w2].
b. ∀x, y [attorney(x) & attorney(y) & x looks slimier than y] → [x is more successful than y].
c. ∀t1, t2 [it was hotter at t1 than at t2] → [Uli was more tired at t1 than at t2].
(37a-c) imply that the global structure of these interpretations is that of a conditional.
The subordinate clause always enters into the restriction, similarly to the if-clause in conditionals; the nuclear scope is provided by the matrix clause. More interestingly, in comparative conditionals as in other conditional sentences, universal quantification seems to be a default because universal quantification can be overwritten by an overt adverb of quantification (cf. Beck (1997, 238)).
(38) a. Meistens ist ein Kletterer umso besser, je starker er ist.
Mostly is a climber the better the stronger he is
‘The stronger a climber is, the better he usually is.’
b. Otto ist ein Mathebuch umso langweiliger, je dicker es ist.
Often is a math book the boring-er the fatter it is
‘A math book is frequently the more boring, the fatter it is.’
c. Meistens war Otto umso muder, je heiber es war.
Mostly was Otto the tired –er the hotter it was
‘The hotter it was, the more tired Otto usually was.’
So, Beck (1997, 239) suggests that the quantificational force comes from an implicit or overt adverb of quantification, which takes the subordinate clause as its first argument, and the matrix clause as its second argument. Since the comparison in the subordinate clause of (36a) (repeated as (39a)), for instance, is between Otto’s preparedness in two different worlds, the meaning of (39a), under Beck’s (1997) analysis, is given in (39b).18
(39) a. je besser Otto vorbereitet ist, ….
‘The better Otto is prepared, ….’
b. ∃d[d > 0 & the max d1[well(d1, λx[pareparedw1(x)])(Otto)] = d + the max d2[well(d2, λx[preparedw2(x)])(Otto)]]
Beck (1997, 248) further suggests that the comparative conditional morpheme je in (39a) denotes a relation between a pair of possible worlds, the comparative morpheme –er and a relation between worlds and degrees, as shown by (40).
(40) [[je’]] (w1, w2) ([[-er’]]) (D<s, ,d, t>>) iff ∃d[d > 0 & [[-er’]] (D(w1))(d)(D(w2))]
Namely, the je-relation holds just in case there is a difference degree d such that the relation denoted by the comparative morpheme holds between the relational argument applied to the first world in the pair, the difference degree d and the relational argument applied to the second world. So, the transparent LF of (39a) is like (41).
(41) [CP [DegP je + –er]i [C’ Otto ist ti gut vorbereitet]]
‘je’(w1, w2)(-er’)(λwλd[well(d, λx[preparedw(x)])(Otto)]’
Hence, Beck (1997, 249) gives the complete LF for (36a) in (42a), and its interpretation in (42b).
(42) a. [CP ∀ [CP [DegP je’(w1, w2) + -er’]i [C’ Otto ist ti gut vorbereitet]] [CP [DegP je’(w1, w2) + -er]i [C’ Otto’s Referat wird ti gut werden]]]
‘∀ (λw1, w2[je’(w1, w2)(-er’)( λwλd[well(d, λx[preparedw(x)])(Otto)])])) (λw1, w2[je’(w1, w2)(-er’)( λwλd[goodw(d, Otto’s_talk)])])’
b. ∀w1, w2 [∃d[d > 0 & the max d2[well(d2, λx[pareparedw2(x)])(Otto)] = d +
the max d1[well(d1, λx[preparedw1(x)])(Otto)]]] →
∃d’[d’ > 0 & [[the max d2[goodw2(d2, Otto’s_talk)] = d’ + the max d1[goodw1(d1, Otto’s_talk)]]]
Beck’s (1977) proposal not only accounts for English/German comparative conditionals well but also provides a very convincing analysis for the semantics of comparative conditionals, especially that of the comparative conditional morpheme je. However, insightful Beck’s (1997) analysis is, we cannot directly apply her analysis to Chinese comparative conditionals because it is not necessary for Chinese comparative
conditionals to consist of two clauses, for example (22b-c), repeated as (43a-b).
(43) a. [S [NP Yue tian de pingguo] [VP yue hao chi]].
More sweet DE apple more good eat
‘The sweeter an apple is, the more delicious it is.’
b. [Topic/NP Yue hao de shu], [Comment/IP yue duo ren kan].
More good DE book more more people read
‘The better a book is, the more people will read it.’
Since there is no [Spec, CP] position available for yue ‘more’ in yue tian de pingguo
‘more sweet DE apple’ as in (43a) or yue hao de shu ‘more good DE book’ as in (43b), examples like (43a-b) can never be dealt with in a way the same as that Beck (1997) does for (36a) (cf. (42a-b)).19 So, if Beck’s (1997) analysis is on the right track for
English/German comparative conditionals, an analysis for Chinese comparative
conditionals, in addition to being able to give an interpretation for examples like (1a) in a way similar to that Beck (1997) does for (36a), must be able to account for cases like (43a-b).
Given that Chinese comparative conditionals look like bare conditionals, in the following we shall briefly introduce Cheng and Huang’s (1996) analysis on Chinese bare conditionals as preliminary for the proposal we shall make in section 4.
3.2. Cheng and Huang (1996)
Assuming Cheng’s (1991, 1995) proposal that wh-words in Chinese are polarity items – indefinite NPs which do not have inherent quantificational force but instead acquire their quantificational force in context, through the external element(s) that license and/or bind them, Cheng & Huang (1996, 132-133) unifyingly analyze antecedent and anaphoric wh-phrases in bare conditionals like (44a) as indefinite or polarity items introducing free variables (cf. Heim (1982), Nishigauchi (1990), Li (1992), and Tsai (1994)). These wh-phrases, as they suggest, are licensed and unselectively bound by an implicit necessity operator. The left wh-clause of bare conditionals is considered the restriction of an operator, and the right wh-clause the nuclear scope. Hence, (44a) is interpreted as in (44b), in which the default universal operator binds not only the individual variables introduced by the wh-phrases but also the situation variables in the restriction and the nuclear scope.
(44) a. Shei xian lai, shei xian chi.
Who first come who first eat
‘If x comes first, x eats first.’
b. ∀x,s [x comes first in s] → [x eats first in s]
Simply put, Chinese bare conditionals with wh-words are interpreted by universal quantification involving an unselective binder that has scope over both the antecedent and consequent clauses. As Cheng and Huang (1996) argue, this explains why the wh-words must appear in pairs in Chinese bare conditionals – if there is one wh-word in the antecedent clause, there must be another wh-word of the same kind in the
consequent clause. Namely, the number of wh-words in the antecedent clause must match the number of wh-words anaphoric to them. This matching requirement, as Cheng & Huang (1996) suggest, in fact follows from the following two assumptions from DRT:20
(45) a. Quantificational elements create tripartite structures of the form Q [A] [B], where A is the restriction of Q (or its left argument) and B is the (nuclear) scope of Q (or its right argument) (cf. Heim (1982)).
b. If- and when-clauses form the restriction of a (possibly null) adverb of quantification (see Kratzer (1986)).
(46) Prohibition Against Vacuous Quantification (cf. Kratzer (1989, 155))
In a tripartite structure of quantification Q [A] [B], [X1, X2, …, Xn] (where n ≥ 1) are variables in A. For every variable in A, there must be an identical variable in B.
Assuming Cheng and Huang’s (1996) analysis on Chinese bare conditionals, we will immediately encounter the following questions if we consider Chinese comparative conditionals a type of bare conditionals: First, in bare conditionals, wh-phrases
introduce variables bound by the default operator through unselective binding. So, what introduces the variables bound by the default operator in Chinese comparative
conditionals? Moreover, what is the operator?
Second, why is it not necessary for yue’s ‘more’ to occur in different clauses in a Chinese comparative conditional (cf. (43a-b))?
Third, why do Chinese comparative conditionals as well as bare conditionals show the anti-c-commanding effect?
Fourth, why does the situation type of predicate of Chinese comparative
conditionals have to be unbounded (cf. See the contrast between (27a-e) and (28a-e))?