Chapter 2 Previous Analyses and Their Problems
2.2.2 The analysis of the bi-comparative
In addition to the analysis of the bi-comparative provided by C.-S. Liu (2011), Xiang (2005) and Erlewine (2007) also give their own analysis with tree diagrams to discuss the structure of the bi-comparative.
In Xiang (2005), she suggests that the comparative construction in Mandarin is analogous to the double object construction (DOC thereafter) in English. Thus she uses the concept of VP-shell proposed by Larson (1988) to analyze Mandarin bi-comparative. The related analysis can be found in (14).
(14) a. 張三 比 李四 高 兩 吋
Zhangsan bi Lisi gao liang cun Zhangsan than Lisi tall two inch
“Zhangsan is two inches taller than Lisi.” (Xiang 2005)
b. IP
Spec I’
Zhangsan Deg1P
Deg1 AP
bi Lisii A’
A Deg2P
exceed-tall Lisii Deg2’
Deg2 DiffP
(exceed)k 2 inches
(Xiang 2005)
In the above bi-comparative structure, Xiang (2005) assumes that there is a phonological null element called exceed, which is preceded by the comparison standard Lisi and followed by the differential measure phrase 2 inches. The Deg2 head exceed merges with Lisi and 2
inches and forms Deg
2P. Next, exceed is raised to the head of AP and merges with the adjective. Also, the comparison standard Lisi is required to move to the [Spec, AP] positionfor checking the EPP feature. At last, the head of the Deg1P is occupied by the marker bi
‘than’, which merges with AP to project Deg1P.
Furthermore, the transitive comparative can be derived from the bi-comparative by
as the following tree diagram shows. The word bi ‘than’ is absent in the transitive
comparative thus [Spec, Dep1P] position is empty and exceed-tall is allowed to be moved in this position. Besides, exceed-tall is required to be moved to the Deg1 position to introduce the external argument wo ‘I’ in the [Spec, IP] position.
(15) a. 我 高 李四 兩 吋
wo gao Lisi liang cun
I tall Lisi two inch
“I am 2 inches taller than Lisi.” (Xiang 2005)
b. IP (Xiang 2005)
Spec I’
wo Dep1P
Deg1 AP
(exceed)k-talli Lisij A’
A Deg2P
(tall)i Lisij Deg2’
Deg2 DiffP
(exceed)k 2 inches
However, Lin (2009) provides the following examples of hai ‘more’ to argue that Xiang’s analysis is problematic. In the transitive comparative, the addition of hai ‘more’
before the adjective in (16b) is ungrammatical whereas the insertion of hai ‘more’ prior to the
entire predicate in (17b) is grammatical. Therefore, Lin (2009) discusses why (16b) is ungrammatical to challenge Xiang’s (2005) viewpoint.
(16) a. 他 比 我 還 重 三 公斤
ta bi wo hai zhong san gongjin
he than I more heavy three kilogram
‘He is three kilograms heavier than I am.’ (Lin 2009)
b. *他 重 我 還 三 公斤
*ta zhong wo hai san gongjin
he heavy I more three kilogram (Lin 2009)
(17) a. 他 還 比 我 重 三 公斤
ta
hai
bi wo zhong san gongjin he more than I heavy three kilogram‘He is three kilograms heavier than I am.’ (Lin 2009)
b. 他 還 重 我 三 公斤
ta
hai
zhong wo san gongjin he more heavy I three kilogram‘He is three kilograms heavier than I am.’ (Lin 2009)
The transitive comparative in (16b), according to Xiang’s (2005) analysis, is expected to be derived by moving the adjective zhong ‘heavy’ from the adjective head position to the
position occupied by bi ‘than’ in (16a), the bi-comparative. Nevertheless, adding the word hai
‘more’ into (16) will make (16b) be ungrammatical but (16a) remains grammatical. Therefore,
Lin (2009) bases on the ungrammaticality of (16b) to argue that transitive comparatives are not derived by raising the adjective to the position of bi ‘than’.
Lin (2009) points out that Xiang’s (2005) DegP-shell analysis has a disadvantage that the marker bi ‘than’ and the comparison standard can not form a constituent as suggested by C.-S. Liu (1996). In C.-S. Liu (1996), he provides the sentence below for coordination test and found that the coordination huozhe ‘or’ can take two constituents, bi-Lisi ‘than-Lisi’ and
bi-Wangwu ‘than-Wangwu’. Therefore, bi-Lisi ‘than-Lisi’ is a constituent formed by bi ‘than’
and Lisi. Likewise, bi ‘than’ and Wangwu form a constituent bi-Wangwu ‘than-Wangwu’.
(18) 張三 比 李四 或者
(比) 王五
都 還 高Zhangsan
bi Lisi
huozhe (bi) Wangwu dou hai gaoZhangsan than Lisi or than Wangwu all even-more tall
‘Zhangsan is taller than either Lisi or Wangwu.’ (Lin 2009)
Another problem of Xiang’s (2005) analysis is associated with Tsao’s (1989)
multiple-topic comparison such as double-topic and triple-topic comparison as demonstrated in the following sentences.
Double-topic comparison
(19) 他 英文 比 我 法文 說得 好
Ta yingwen bi wo fawen shuo-de hao
he English than I French speak-part good
‘He speaks English better than I speak French.’ (Lin 2009)
Triple-topic comparison
(20) 他 昨天 在 學校 比 我 今天 在 家裡 開心
Ta zuotian zai xuexiao bi wo jintian zai jiali kaixin he yesterday at school than I today at home happy
‘He was happier at school yesterday than I am at home today.’ (Lin 2009)
According to Lin (2009), the DegP-shell and adjective phrase may become too
complicated in these multiple-topic comparison sentences. The movement of the constituent in multiple-topic comparison is not clear enough because Xiang (2005) does not discuss the adoption of DegP-shell analysis in the multiple-topic comparison. Also, we don’t know if some conditions will be violated when adopting the DegP-shell in the multiple-topic comparison.
Erlewine (2007) also discusses the structures for the bi-comparative and the transitive comparative in the following tree diagrams. In (21), bi ‘than’ is the functional head and takes
v’ as its complement. Also, the correct word order of the bi-comparative is generated by
moving the word bi ‘than’ out of vP. In (22), Øbi is the phonologically-null version of bi
‘than’. Øbi can trigger an adjective to be raised to v. Subsequently, the combination of
adjective and Øbi (A+ Øbi) will be moved out of vP to form the correct word order for the transitive comparative.
(21) S (Erlewine 2007)
Both of the analyses provided Xiang (2005) and Erlewine (2007), as C.-S. Liu (2011) suggests, have the same problem: Their arguments can not explain why the differential measure phrases are obligatory in the transitive comparative, whereas they are optional in the
bi-comparative. Given that their analyses both have the assumption that these two
comparatives share the same structure, differential measure phrases in these two structures should have the same distributions.
In addition, Lin (2009) points out that in both Xiang’s and Erlewine’s analysis, the marker bi ‘than’ and the comparative standard can not form a constituent. Lin also gives his own revision of Xiang’s DegP-shell. Unlike Xiang’s and Erlewine’s analyses where
bi-constituent is treated as a functional projection, Lin suggests that the bi-constituent is an
adjunct which adjoins to the comparative predicate such as kaixin ‘happy’ in the following tree diagram, Lin’s revised DegP-shell structure.
Lin (2009)’s dydadic DegP-shell analysis
(23) 他 昨天 在 學校 比 我 今天 在 家裡 開心
Ta zuotian zai xuexiao bi wo jintian zai jiali kaixin he yesterday at school than I today at home happy
‘He was happier at school yesterday than I am at home today.’ (Lin 2009)
(24) S
In Lin’s dydadic DegP-shell analysis, all elements in the whole DegP form a constituent.
In that DegP, the marker bi ‘than’ moves from the lowest Degree head position to the higheset Degree head position by cyclic movement. Also, the individual argument wo ‘I’ and the time argument jintian ‘today’ are respectively placed in the specifiers of the two recursive DegP.
Besides, the location argument zai jiali ‘at home’ is put in the complement of the lowest Degree head position.