Chapter 3 The Syntactic Analysis of the V-duo Construction
3.2 The Preposed Object as an Internal Topic
Paul (2002) argues that the preposed object is an internal topic, and that the internal topic occupies the specifier position of a functional projection below the subject and above vP. This functional projection FP, as Paul (2002) suggests, hosts the sentence-internal topic and is different from the Focus Phrase postulated for the lian…ye/dou construction (cf. e.g. Shyu (1995)). According to Paul (2002), the internal topic resembles the external topic with respect to the existence of both movement and base-generation as derivational possibilities, as shown by (49) and (50).
(49) Wo [mingtian-de richeng]i anpai-hao-le ti. I tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP
‘I have fixed tomorrow’s program.’
(50) Ta nei-jian shi hai mei zuo jueding ne.
3SG that-CL matter still NEG make decision PART
‘He has not yet come to a decision concerning that matter.’
However, the internal topic position is different from the external topic position in that multiple topics are excluded from the internal topic position, as shown by the contrast between (51) and (52).
(51) Hua, meiguihua, ta zui xihuan flower rose 3SG most like
‘Flowers, roses he likes them best.’
(52) *Ni [huiyuan dahui ] [mingtian-de richeng] anpai-hao-le meiyou?
2SG member meeting tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP NEG
(Paul 2002: 710; (42), (43))
Paul (2002) argues that this major difference between the external and the internal topic position reflect the different nature of the functional categories involved because Topic Phrase allows recursion (cf. Gasde & Paul 1996).
In the following discussion I will pursue Paul’s proposal that the preposed object is an internal topic. However, departing from Paul, I will argue that multiple internal topics are allowed in the V-duo construction, and that like the external topic, the internal topic occupies
the specifier of the Topic Phrase.
As shown in (53), multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic position in the V-duo construction:
(53) a. Ni zhe-pen hua shuii jiao-duo-le ti. 2SG this-CL flower water pour-much-ASP
‘This flower, you watered it quite a lot.’
b. Ni zhounianqing huazhuangpini mai-duo-le ti. 2SG anniversary sale cosmetics buy-much-ASP ‘The anniversary sale, you bought cosmetic products quite a lot.’
c. Ni weiqi bisai yajuni na-duo-le ti. 2SG go game second place obtain-much-ASP
‘The go games, you got the second place quite a lot.’
Note that here multiple internal topics refer to topics which belong to different types.
According to Del Gobbo and Badan (2007), topics in Chinese can be divided into three subtypes, as shown in (54).
(54) a. Hua, wo zui xihuan baihe. (Aboutness Topic)
flower I most like lily
‘As for flowers, I like lilies most.’
b. Zhe-ge reni, wo hen xihuan tai. (Hanging Topic) this-CL person I very like him
‘This person, I like him a lot.’
c. Zhe-ben shui, Geruisen kan-wan-le ti. (Left Dislocation Topic) this-CL book Grissom read-finish-ASP
‘This book, Grissom finished reading it.’
As to the Aboutness Topic, there is no gap in the comment sentence, i.e. the topic is base-generated. Concerning the Hanging Topic, there is always a pronoun co-indexed with it in the comment sentence. Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is also base-generated in its surface position.Regarding the Left Dislocation Topic, this topic is co-indexed with a trace which is left in the comment sentence. Hence, Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is derived by movement.
In sentences (53a-c) above we have an Aboutness Topic followed by a Left Dislocation Topic. The first NP is an Aboutness Topic since it is derived by base-generation. There exists no postverbal position this constituent could have originated by movement. The second NP is a Left Dislocation Topic since it is derived by movement. This constituent is co-indexed with
a trace in the postverbal position. In other words, sentences (53a-c) each contain both a base-generated and a moved topic which co-occur in the internal topic position. Accordingly, departing from Paul (2002), we assume that multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic position in the V-duo construction, provided that they belong to different types.
Since TopP recursion is available IP-internally in the V-duo construction, we assume that like external topics, internal topics are located in the Spec of TopicP, as shown in (55).
Movement of a constituent which is interpreted as a Topic is basically driven by feature checking. One way of implementing this is to assume that the head Top constituent of the Topic Phrase contains an [EPP] feature and an uninterpretable topic feature, and that these attract a maximal projection which carries a matching interpretable topic feature to move to the specifier position within the Topic Phrase (cf. Radford 2004).
(55)
CHAPTER 4
THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION AS AN ATYPICAL COMPARATIVE
CONSTRUCTION
In this chapter, I will first introduce the semantics of the positive form as a way to bring us deep into the heart of this study. Then two modes of comparison (i.e., explicit and implicit comparison) will be introduced. Subsequently, I will provide evidence for analyzing the V-duo construction as an implicit comparison construction. After this, I will argue that the V-duo construction contains a covert positive morpheme pos. Finally, I will answer the following questions. (A) Which element provides the meaning of implicit comparison? (B) What is the target of comparison? (C) Which element introduces the standard of comparison?
(D) Which element provides the dimension of comparison? (E) What is the dimension of comparison?
4.1 The Positive Form
According to Barker (2002), Kennedy and McNally (2005), and Kennedy (2007), there are two apparently universal features of the positive form of gradable adjectives (e.g., expensive). The first one which might be putative is that the positive form of gradable
adjectives such as expensive and tall, in contrast with their comparative form (i.e., more expensive and taller), lacks overt morphology.
The second is a semantic one. The interpretation of the positive form is context dependent (with a few important exceptions). For example, whether (56) is true or not depends in large part on the context in which it is uttered.
(56) The coffee in Rome is expensive.
Example (56) could be judged true if asserted as part of a conversation about the cost of living in various Italian cities, as in (57a), but false in a discussion of the cost of living in Chicago vs.
Rome, as in (57b).
(57) a. In Rome, even the coffee is expensive!
b. The rents are high in Rome, but at least the coffee is not expensive!
One account for this variability is that the positive form expresses a relation between the degree to which the subject of the predicate manifests the relevant property and a contextually variable STANDARD OF COMPARISON, whose value is determined both as a function of the meaning of the predicate and of features of the context of utterance — what is being
talked about, the interests/expectations of the participants in the discourse, and so forth (see e.g. Barker 2002; Kennedy & McNally 2005; Kennedy 2007). As Kennedy (2005, 2007) suggests, one option for the compositional semantics of the positive form is to assume a degree morpheme pos with a denotation along the lines of (58), where s is a context sensitive function that takes a gradable predicate meaning as input and returns a standard of comparison appropriate for the context as output (cf. Cresswell 1977; von Stechow 1984;
Kennedy & McNally 2005).
(58) [[Deg pos]] = λg.λx.g(x) > s(g)
4.2 Explicit vs. Implicit Comparison
Kennedy (2007) further uses this semantic characteristic of the positive form to divide
‘comparison’ in natural languages into two different modes: explicit and implicit comparison.
Many languages use specialized morphology to express arbitrary ordering relations, for example the morphemes more/-er, less and as specifically for the purpose of establishing orderings of superiority, inferiority and equality in English (i.e., explicit comparison), as illustrated by (59a–c), respectively.
(59) a. Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus.
b. This book is less expensive than that one.
c. This book is as expensive as that one.
However, other languages, like Samoan, take advantage of the inherent context sensitivity of the positive (unmarked) form (i.e., implicit comparison), as (60) shows (Staseen, 1985).
(60) Ua tele le Queen Mary, ua la’itiiti le Aquitania.
is big the Queen Mary is small the Aquitania
‘The Queen Mary is bigger than the Aquitania.’
Thus, natural languages, as Kennedy (2007) suggests, use two different modes (i.e., implicit and explicit comparison) to express comparison (Sapir, 1944).
(61) Implicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using the positive form by manipulating the context or context-sensitive function in such a way that the positive form is true of x and false of y.
(62) Explicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using special morphology (e.g., more/-er, less, or as) whose conventional meaning has the consequence that the degree to which x is g exceeds the degree to which y is g.
These two modes of comparison (i.e., explicit and implicit comparison), as Kennedy (2007) further argues, differ from each other in the following ways. First, implicit comparison induced by the positive form of gradable adjectives differs from explicit comparison in acceptability in contexts involving crisp judgments (i.e., very slight differences between the compared objects). For example, explicit comparison in (64a) simply requires an asymmetric ordering between the degrees to which two objects possess the relevant property (i.e., the length of essays); therefore, a crisp judgment is not problematic. However, implicit comparison in (64b) requires the first novel to have a degree of length that that stands out relative to the measure expressed by long in the context; therefore, a fine-grained distinction in degree is not allowed.
(63) CONTEXT: A 600 word essay and a 200 word essay
a. This essay is longer than that one. (explicit comparison) b. Compared to that essay, this one is long. (implicit comparison)
(64) CONTEXT: A 600 word essay and a 597 word essay
a. This essay is longer than that one. (explicit comparison) b. ??Compared to that essay, this one is long. (implicit comparison)
Second, composition of a measure phrase and a gradable adjective generates a predicate that is no longer context dependent. This predicts that implicit comparison should be impossible: once a (non-comparative) adjective combines with a measure phrase, there is no standard of comparison left over to manipulate. This prediction is borne out, as in (65a).
(65) a. ??Compared to Lee, Kim is 10cm tall. (implicit comparison) b. Kim is 10 cm taller than Lee. (explicit comparison)
On the other hand, measure phrases are acceptable with explicit comparatives, and crucially have a specific type of meaning: they denote the difference between two degrees on a scale; in (65b), the difference between Kim’s and Lee’s heights.
Having as background knowledge the semantics of the positive form of (English) gradable adjectives and the semantic distinctions between the implicit and the explicit comparison, now let us look at Chinese examples of explicit and implicit comparatives, as
shown by (66) and (67), respectively.
(66) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao. (explicit comparison) Zhangsan COM Lisi tall
‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’
(67) Zhangsan hen gao. (implicit comparison) Zhangsan HEN tall
‘Zhangsan is tall.’
The Chinese bi comparative has the properties of explicit comparison. First, the Chinese bi comparative uses the comparative morpheme bi for the purpose of establishing the ordering
relation of superiority (cf. Li and Thompson 1981; Lin 2009).
Second, the Chinese bi comparative such as (66) above is acceptable in context (68), which involves a crisp judgment:
(68) Context: Zhangsan is 170 centimeters tall while Lisi is 169 centimeters tall.
Third, differential measure phrases are acceptable with the Chinese bi comparative:
(69) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao yi gongfen.
Zhangsan COM Lisi tall one centimeter ‘Zhangsan is one centimeter taller than Lisi.’
On the other hand, a construction involving a predicative adjective modified by the degree word hen like (67) above has the properties of implicit comparison. First, as Zhang (2002:169) points out, a predicative adjective modified by the degree word hen, for example hen qiong ‘very poor’ in (70a-b), always displays the contextually dependent interpretation as
the positive form of English gradable adjectives does.
(70) a. Ta hen qiong, lian chi fan de qian dou mei you.
3SG HEN poor even eat meal DE money all not have
‘He is poor. He even does not have money to eat meals.’
b. Ta hen qiong, lian xiao qiche dou mai-bu-qi.
3SG HEN poor even small car all buy-not-afford
‘He is poor. He even cannot afford a small car.’
Second, such a construction is unacceptable in contexts which involve crisp judgments,
but acceptable in contexts which do not. For example, sentence (71) is unacceptable in scenario (72A), but acceptable in scenario (72B). In other words, in (71) the implicit comparison implied by the predicate hen gao ‘HEN tall’ requires ‘this tree’ to exceed ‘that tree’ in height by a significant amount.
(71) Gen na-ke shu bi-qilai, zhe-ke shu hen gao.
with that-CL tree compare-qilai this-CL tree HEN tall
‘Compared with that tree, this one is tall.’
(72) Context A: This tree is 15 meters tall while that tree is 13 meters tall.
Context B: This tree is 15 meters tall while that tree is 5 meters tall.
Third, differential measure phrases are unacceptable with such a construction, as shown by (73).
(73) *Zhangsan hen gao san gongfen.
Zhangsan HEN tall three centimeter
Thus, in Chinese the bi comparative involves explicit comparison, whereas a
construction involving a predicative adjective modified by the degree word hen implies implicit comparison.
To sum up, as Kennedy (2007) points out, the distinctions between implicit and explicit comparison stem from the crucial difference between the two modes of comparison: implicit comparison involves the semantics of the positive form; explicit comparison expresses an arbitrary ordering relation.
4.3 The V-duo Construction as an Implicit Comparison Construction
Based on the contextually dependent interpretations of duo, the diagnostics for implicit comparison proposed by Kennedy (2007) (i.e., crisp judgments and differential measurements), and the incompatibility with the word bi, it will be argued that the V-duo construction is an implicit comparison construction.
First, the interpretation of the positive form of the gradable adjective duo is context dependent. For one thing, what counts as duo ‘much’ will vary from one context to the next, as in (74a-b).
(74) a. Zhaji chi-duo le, hui zhang qingchundou.
fried chicken eat-much SFP will produce acne ‘Eating too much fried chicken will cause you to have acne.’
b. Zhaji chi-duo le, hui zhi ai.
fried chicken eat-much SFP will cause cancer ‘Eating too much fried chicken will cause cancer.’
For another, the truth conditions of the V-duo construction depend in large part on the context in which it is uttered. To state it more concretely, sentence (75) could be judged true in context (76A), but false in context (76B):
(75) Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP ‘You drank quite a lot.’
(76) Context A: Zhangsan drank five bottles of wine. Suppose Zhangsan will get drunk with only a bottle of wine.
Context B: Lisi drank five bottles of wine. Suppose Lisi can drink ten bottles of wine without getting drunk.
The context sensitivity is not found in explicit comparatives, which simply establish an ordering between two arbitrary individuals. On the other hand, implicit comparatives express
comparison by taking advantage of the inherent context sensitivity of the positive form (cf.
Kennedy 2007). Thus, it is not unreasonable for us to assume that the V-duo construction involves implicit comparison.
Second, the V-duo construction is unacceptable in contexts involving ‘crisp judgments’.
For example, sentence (77) is unacceptable in context (78A), which involves a crisp judgment, but acceptable in context (78B), which does not:
(77) Zhangsan shui-duo LE.
Zhangsan sleep-much ASP/SFP ‘Zhangsan slept quite a lot.’
(78) Context A: Zhangsan slept for 8 hours and 5 minutes while the normal amount of sleep is around 8 hours per night.
Context B: Zhangsan slept for 14 hours while the normal amount of sleep is around 8 hours per night.
In other words, for (77) to be true, the total amount of sleeping by Zhangsan must exceed the contextually determined standard amount of sleep by a significant amount.
Third, the measure phrase which in most cases occurs in the numeral-measure-unit or
numeral-classifier pattern is obligatory in the Chinese duo-V verbal comparative (an instance of an explicit comparative) and denotes the differential, as shown in (79).
(79) Ni duo he-le (Lisi) *(san-ping jiu).
2SG much drink-ASP Lisi three-CL-IN wine ‘You drank three more bottles of wine than Lisi did.’
However, the V-duo construction is not compatible with a measure phrase, which is interpreted as the differential, as shown by (80).
(80) *Ni he-duo-le san-ping jiu.
2SG drink-much- ASP three-CL-IN wine
Fourth, if the V-duo construction is analyzed as an explicit comparative, it is expected that it can co-occur with the word bi, which implies explicit comparison. However, this expectation is not borne out, as illustrated by (81).
(81) *Ni jiu bi Lisi he-duo LE.
2SG wine COM Lisi drink-much ASP/SFP
These properties lead us to suggest that the V-duo construction is an implicit comparison construction.
4.4 A Covert Positive Morpheme Pos in the V-duo Construction
Before going into the discussion, I shall answer the following question first. Does Chinese have a covert positive morpheme? As demonstrated extensively in Liu (2010), Chinese has a number of constructions in which the positive degree meaning is achieved covertly, including the bu ‘not’ negation sentence, the contrastive focus construction, the ma particle question, the epistemic adjectival small clause, the conditional, and sentences ending with the sentence final particle le, as shown by (82a–f), respectively.
(82) a. Zhangsan bu gao.
Zhangsan not tall
‘Zhangsan is not tall, but the possibility of Zhangsan’s being short is not excluded.’
‘*Zhangsan is not taller.’
b. Zhangsan gao, Lisi ai.
Zhangsan tall Lisi short
‘Zhangsan is tall, but Lisi is short.’
‘*Zhangsan is taller, but Lisi is shorter.’
c. Zhangsan gao ma?
Zhangsan tall SFP
‘Is Zhangsan tall?’
‘*Is Zhangsan taller?’
d. Zhangsan yaoshi linse dehua, jiu bu hui qing ni chi fan.
Zhangsan if stingy PAR then not will invite you eat rice
‘If Zhangsan is stingy, he will not treat you to dinner.’
‘*If Zhangsna is more stingy, he will not treat you to dinner.’
e. Zhangsan xiao ni ben.
Zhangsan deride you stupid
‘Zhangsan derided you as being stupid.’
‘*Zhangsan derided you as being more stupid.’
f. Hua hong le.
flower red SFP
‘The flower got red.’
‘*The flower got redder.’
Liu (2010) argues that in each of these sentences, positive semantics is provided by a
covert positive morpheme pos. According to Liu (2010), the semantic interpretation of a bu
‘not’ negation sentence containing a simple adjectival predicate like (82a) implies that Chinese does have a covert positive morpheme. Liu (2010) suggests that example (82a) means that it is not the case that Zhangsan’s height exceeds the contextually determined standard height of human beings by a significant amount. In other words, Zhangsan’s height might exceed the contextually determined standard height but the difference between the degree value of Zhangsan’s height and the standard height is not significant, and this does not exclude the possibility of Zhangsan’s being short, as the grammaticality of (83) shows.
(83) Zhangsan bu gao, shijishang Zhangsan suan shi ai de.
Zhangsan not tall actually Zhangsan consider is short DE
‘Zhangsan is not tall, and actually he can be considered as being short.’
As Kennedy (2007) points out, in addition to the contextually dependent interpretations, the positive form of gradable adjectives shows another semantic characteristic: it establishes an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g denoted by the positive form, and g(x) must exceed g(y) by a significant amount. One option for the compositional semantics of the positive form of gradable adjectives, as Kennedy (2007) suggests, is to assume a degree morpheme pos (i.e., the covert positive morpheme) with a
denotation along the lines of (58), repeated as (84), where s is a context-sensitive function from measure function to degree which, based on properties of the adjective g and the context of utterance, further returns a value that counts as a significant degree of the relevant property in the context of utterance; namely, g(x) must exceed g(y) by a significant amount.
(84) [[Deg pos]] = λg.λx.g(x) > s(g)
Given this semantic property of the positive morpheme, Liu (2010) argues that the semantic interpretation of (82a) inspires him to analyze (82a) as (85), in which there is a degree projection headed by the pos morpheme above the adjective phrase gao ‘tall’.
Given this semantic property of the positive morpheme, Liu (2010) argues that the semantic interpretation of (82a) inspires him to analyze (82a) as (85), in which there is a degree projection headed by the pos morpheme above the adjective phrase gao ‘tall’.