Chapter 3 Literature Review
3.3 Xiang (2005)
similar to an English double-object construction, in the sense that they both have two internal arguments that have to stand in an asymmetric c-commanding relation.1 2 As
1 Larson (1988) argues that the asymmetric c-commanding relation accounts for a number of important asymmetries between two objects, as illustrated in (i), where a bound pronoun must be c-commanded by its binder.
(i) a. I gave every workeri hisi paycheck.
b. *I gave itsi owner every paychecki.
2 Xiang (2005) points out that bare comparatives show variable binding facts that indicate the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison should asymmetrically c-command the differential measure phrase, as illustrated in (i), where half contains an implicit argument.
(i) Zhe-gen shengzi chang na-gen shengzi yiban.
this-CL rope long that-CL rope half
shown in (25), Larson’s (1991) DegP-shell structure for English comparatives looks like the VP-shell analysis of English double-object constructions. Therefore, Larson’s (1991) DegP-shell structure looks promising to capture the structure of bare comparatives. To keep the essence of the DegP-shell structure and at the same time make the degree argument an argument of the adjective, Xiang (2005) proposes a revised Larsonian (1991) style DegP-shell structure for bare comparatives in Chinese, as shown in (26).3
(25) IP
……
DegP
Deg’
Deg DegP -er
AP Deg’
tall
Deg PP t than Bill
‘This ropei is longer than that ropej by half (of that rope*i/j).’
3 Since the adjective tall maps an individual to a degree of height, the sentence John is taller than Bill means John is [-er than Bill] tall, with [-er than Bill] as the degree argument of the adjective. Xiang (2005) points out that the degree head –er and the than-phrase are viewed as a constituent in the DegP-shell structure in (25); however, that [-er than Bill] is an argument of the adjective tall is not reflected in the structure in (25).
(26) IP
I DegP
Deg AP (exceedk)-talli
Lisij A’
A DegP (tall)i
Lisij Deg’
Deg DiffP (exceed)k 2 inches
Xiang (2005) assumes the phonetically null degree morpheme exceed, which merges with the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison and the differential measure phrase first. The phonetically null degree morpheme exceed internally merges with the adjective through head movement, and the referential NP Lisi moves to the [Spec, AP] position for EPP feature checking. Finally, in order to introduce the external argument, the complex head exceed-tall moves to the higher Deg-head through head movement.
Xiang (2005) suggests that the analysis of the bare comparative in terms of a DegP-shell structure has the following consequences. The first consequence concerns
the reduplication of the adjectival predicate. In overt movement, it is usually the highest copy in the chain that is spelled out, and the deletion of other copies is analyzed by Nunes (1996, 1999) as the result of PF linearization considerations.
According to Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), X precedes Y at Pf if X asymmetrically c-commands Y in a syntactic structure. In (27) the higher copy John is asymmetrically c-commanding the lower copy. To spell out both copies in (27)
would lead to a contradictory result that John is preceding John itself because the two are non-distinct copies. However, example (28), in which the adjectival predicate is reduplicated, seems to suggest that more than one copy involved in the head movement of the comparative can be spelled out. This is possible because the lower copy of tall is housed within a reformed word tall-not-particle and LCA does not linearize strings word-internally but at the word level. (cf. Chomsky 1995).
(27) a. John was invited John. (spell out the higher copy) b. * John was invited John. (spell out the lower copy) (28) Zhangsan gao Lisi gao bu liao yi-diandian.
Zhangsan tall Lisi tall not particle a-little ‘Zhangsan isn’t much taller than Lisi.’
The second consequence is related to the fact that the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison in the bare comparative cannot have a generic reading. To account for the ambiguity of the subject DP of a stage-level predicate in (29), Diesing (1992) suggests that there is a mapping between the clausal structure and the logical representation, namely, the VP structure consists of the nuclear scope, and the residue structure is the restriction, as shown in (30). Diesing (1992) assumes that the subject DP in (29) can be mapped to either the restriction to receive the generic reading or the scope to receive the existential reading, as shown by the two subject positions in (30).
(29) Firemen are available.
a.∃x [x is a fireman][x is available]
b. Genx, t [x is a fireman and t is a time][x is available at t]
(30) IP
“outer subject” I”
I VP
“inner subject” V’
V
Restriction Scope
Based on Diesing’s (1992) mapping hypothesis, Xiang (2005) explains the observation in (31). As shown in (32), at LF, the the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison moves to [Spec, XP] to check case, and the adjectival head (plus the phonologically null degree head) moves to the higher functional head X0 position.
The referential NP functioning as the target of comparison always stays within the scope whose boundary is determined by the position of the adjective and will be interpreted existentially. Therefore, the bare comparative does not allow a generic reading of the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison.
(31) a. *Zhe-zhi gang-chusheng de xiao luotuo da ma yi-dian.
this-CL just-born DE little camel big horse a-little ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than a horse.’
b. Zhe-zhi gang- chusheng de xiao luotuo da na-pi ma yi-dian.
this-CL just-born DE little camel big that-CL horse a-little ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than that horse.’
(32) IP
……
XP
NP X’
Lisi
X DegP1
(exceed)-tall
Deg AP tk
t DegP2
Lisi
a little
scope
However insightful Xiang’s (2005) revised Larsonian (1991) style DegP-shell analysis of bare comparatives is, there still exist some problems that Xiang’s (2005) analysis fails to account for. First, Xiang (2005) does not explain why measure phrases are always obligatory in bare comparatives. Second, what triggers the movement of the phonetically null degree morpheme exceed to the adjective and the movement of the complex head exceed-tall to the higher Deg-head?