Chapter 2 Previous Analyses and Their Problems
2.5 The discussion about TSM khah ‘more’
2.5.3 Xiong (2007)
In Xiong (2007), he claims that the comparative constructions in both Mandarin and the other Chinese dialects have three functional categories: Target, Com(parative), and
Deg(ree). These three functional categories have their own projections, TargetP, ComP, and
DegP. Also, all types of comparatives share the same hierarchical structure TargeP > ComP >
DegP > AP. In order to provide a clearer account of Xiong’s structure, I base on Xiong’s analysis and hierarchical structure TargeP > ComP > DegP > AP to draw the tree diagrams for each example provided by Xiong below. (Xiong does not provide the tree structures.)
Xiong (2007) discusses the overt realizations of the Target head, Comparative head, and the Degree head below. These three types of realizations respectively generate the three kinds of comparatives structure – the bi-comparative, the shi-comparative13 and the
guo-comparative. Note that the transitive comparative will be derived only when the Target
head has no overt realization.
The overt realization of the Target head, bi ‘than’ (The bi-comparative)
(130) 張三 比 李四 高 三 釐米
Zhangsan bi Lisi gao san limi
Zhangsan than Lisi tall three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ (Xiong 2007)
(131) a. 張三比李四高三釐米
b. [TargetP[ ][Target’[Target比][ComP[李四][Com’[Com ][DegP[三釐米] [Deg ] [AP[張三高]]]]]]]
[TargetP[張三][Target’[Target比][ComP[李四][Com’[Com高][DegP[三釐米][Deg高]
[AP[張三高]]]]]]] (Xiong 2007)
13 The term shi-comparative is referred to as the comparative construction with the comparative marker shi ‘is’.
(132) TargetP
In the above example, both the Degree head and the Comparative head are empty. Thus, the adjective gao ‘tall’ can move from the AP head position to the head of DegP and is subsequently raised to the head of ComP position. Besides, because of the EPP feature on the Target head position, Zhangsan moves from the [Spec, AP] position to the Spec of TargetP which is headed by the marker bi ‘than’. Therefore, the correct word order is generated. Note that the Target head position may be realized as different words in diverse Chinese dialects, as will be deomonstrated soon later.
No overt realization in the Target head (The transitive comparative)
(133) 張三 高 李四 三 釐米
Zhangsan gao Lisi san limi
Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ (Xiong 2007)
(134) a. 張三高李四三釐米
When the Target head has no overt realization and the Comparative head as well as the Degree head are also unoccupied, the adjective gao ‘tall’ can be raised to the Target head by cyclic movement. Similarly, the word Zhangsan is allowed to be moved to the [Spec, TargetP]
position. After these operations, the sentence will be the transitive comparative defined by Grano and Kennedy (2012).
The overt realization of the Comparative head, shi ‘is’
In the Chinese dialect, Tiantai, the Comparative head has an overt realization, shi ‘is’, as shown below. As illustrated in (136), the comparison standard is Xiaowang intead of Xiaoli.
This is because the comparison standard such as Xiaowang precedes the comparative subject like Xiaoli in Tiantai. Therefore, it is Xiaoli that is taller than Xiaowang in (136). This word order is different from the other types of comparative constructions in MC.
(136) 小王 是 小李 長
Xiaowang shi Xiaoli chang
Xiaowang is Xiaoli tall
‘Xiaoli is taller than Xiaowang.’ (Xiong 2007)
(137) a. 小王是小李長 (=小李高)
TargetP
According to Xiong (2007), the function of the Comparative Phrase is to introduce the comparison standard. The two possible analyses of the realization of shi ‘is’ in Tiantai can be found in the above two examples (137b) and (137c).
The overt realization of the Degree head, guo ‘exceed’ (The guo-comparative)
When the Degree head position is overtly realized as guo ‘exceed’ but the Comparative head as well as the Target head are null elements, the adjective gao ‘tall’ can be raised to the
gao-guo ‘tall-exceed’ can be subsequently moved to the Comparative head position and
finally to the Target head position. These procedures will create the structure of the
guo-comparative as illustrated in (138), (139) and (140).
(138) 張三 高 過 李四 三 釐米
Zhangsan gao guo Lisi san limi
Zhangsan tall exceed Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters than taller than Lisi.’ (Xiong 2007)
(139) a. 張三高過李四三釐米
b. [TargetP[ ][Target’[Target ][ComP[李四][Com’[Com ][DegP[三釐米]
[Deg-過][AP[張三高]]]]]]]
[TargetP[張三][Target’[Target高過][ComP[李四][Com’[Com高過][DegP[三釐米]
[Deg高過][AP[張三高]]]]]]] (Xiong 2007)
(140) TargetP
According to Xiong (2007), based on the research of Li (2003), the word guo ‘exceed’ is the phonetic realization of Degree head. In plenty of Mandarin dialects, common adjectives combine with guo ‘exceed’ instead of bi ‘than’ in that the former is a bound morpheme,
whereas the latter is a free morpheme. If the Degree head is phonetically realized as guo
‘exceed’, the guo-comparative is generated. Otherwise, the Degree head is not phonetically
realized and thus creates the transitive comparative.
In Xiong (2007), he discusses the word khah ‘more’ in the Chinese dialect, Min. In Min
bi-comparative, the Target head is phonetically realized as word pi ‘than’. Thus, Comparative
However, as Xiong (2007) mentioned, this reasoning may be problematic if we assume the discussion in Kayne (1994). In Kayne (1994), he suggests that an adjunct should adjoin to the left of a constituent. Based on this hypothesis, the adjective head such as kuan ‘tall’ in (141), should be raised and adjoin to the left of the word khah ‘more’ in Com or Deg position to create the combination form kuan-khah ‘tall-more’, which is not a possible word order in Min. The correct word order of Min transitive comparative is displayed in (141) below.
(141) 阿榮 較 懸 阿狗 (三 公分)
A-ing
khah
kuan A-kao (sann kong-hun)A-ing more tall A-kao three centimeters
‘A-ing is (three centimeters) taller than A-kao.’
Thus, it is impossible for khah ‘more’ to be a functional category such as Com and Deg because considering khah ‘more’ a functional category will conflict with Kayne’s (1994) hypothesis that all adjuncts must adjoin to the left of a constituent.
In contrast, the adverb khah ‘more’ should be the adjunct which adjoins to the adjective
kuan ‘tall’. The evidence of viewing khah ‘more’ as an adjunct is that khah ‘more’ is optional
in the comparative construction according to Xiong (2007)14. Xiong (2007) provides some
14 I don’t agree with the notion that khah ‘more’ is optional because it is an adjunct. The grammaticality
examples such as the following sentence adopted from Zou (1991) to prove that the khah
‘more’ is optional in Min. Xiong (2007) suggests that we can find the comparative
construction without khah ‘more’. Therefore, khah ‘more’ is indeed an adverb.
(142) 我 矮 伊
gua e i
I short him
‘I’m shorter than him.’ (Zou 1991)
However, the claim that khah ‘more’ is an adjunct conflicts with the preceding
discussion that khah ‘more’ is a comparative morpheme that is obligatory in the comparative sentence. I assume that the comparative morpheme can be either overt or covert but can not be totally absent since it is required to express the comparative meaning.
Note however that the native speakers I consulted with do not agree with the
grammatical judgement indicated by Xiong in (142). In TSM, the comparative morpheme should be overtly realized as khah ‘more’ in (142). The example (142) provided by Zou (1991) might be collected in Mainland China. This sentence may be grammatical in Mainland China but ungrammatical in Taiwan. Since the Southern Min data in this thesis is collected in Taiwan rather than Mainland China, I do not consider khah ‘more’ is an adjunct. Instead, I
will assume khah ‘more’ is an overt comparative morpheme that is obligatory in the
comparative sentence to express the comparative meaning. In other words, a different account of khah ‘more’ is needed because the data collected in my research is different from Xiong’s (2007) data.