漢語與臺灣閩南語比較詞素之對比分析

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 漢語與臺灣閩南語比較詞素之對比分析 A comparative study of Mandarin and Taiwanese comparative morphemes. 指導教授：吳曉虹教授 Advisor: Dr. Hsiao-hung Iris Wu. 研究生：盧立祥 Graduate: Li-hsiang Lu. 中華民國一零三年六月 June, 2014.

(2) 摘要. 在漢語及臺灣閩南語的比較句之中，比較詞素可為隱性或顯性成分。隱性比較詞素及顯性比較詞素如漢語的「更」及臺灣閩南語的「較」在比較句中皆為必要的成分，因為比較詞素主要功能是在比較句中提供比較的語意概念，故不能省略。顯性與隱性比較詞素具有功能上之差異；具體來說，隱性比較詞素只在比較句中表達單純的比較語意，而顯性比較詞素情況較為複雜。某些顯性比較詞素如臺灣閩南語「較」，只有提供比較語意之功能，其他顯性比較詞素則包含其他功能，例如，漢語的「更」不僅能表達比較語意，還能傳遞隱含的前提意味。舉例來說，在「張三比李四更高」之中，「更」帶有一個前提為「張三和李四都是高的人」(C.-S. Liu 2010b)。而漢語「還」同樣也不只具有比較語意，「還」在文獻上也分析為反預期標記 (Wu 2004, Wu 2009, Tsai 2013)，且帶有主觀性 (Wu 2009, Tang 2009)。根據以上敘述，我們認為當漢語使用者不只想表達比較語意，也想表達其他額外的語意時，他們傾向採用顯性比較詞素；否則，他們將選擇使用隱性比較詞素來表達比較語意。因此，漢語比較詞素在中文通常為隱性成分，而臺灣閩南語比較詞素通常為顯性成分。. 關鍵字：臺灣閩南語、比較詞素、比較基準、差值度量詞組、強化修飾語. i.

(3) Abstract. The comparative morphemes in both Mandarin Chinese (MC henceforth) and Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM thereafter) can be either covert or overt. Crucially, in both MC and TSM, either covert comparative morphemes or overt comparative morphemes such as geng ‘even-more’ in MC and khah ‘more’ in TSM are required in the comparative constructions to express the comparative semantics. Overt comparative morphemes differ from covert comparative morphemes in terms of function. On the one hand, the covert comparative morpheme only expresses the comparative meaning in the comparative constructions. On the other hand, while some overt comparative morphemes such as khah ‘more’ in TSM only convey the comparative meaning, others such as geng ‘even-more’ in MC not only provide the comparative meaning but also carry some presupposition. For instance, in ‘Zhangsan bi Lisi geng gao.’ (Zhangsan is even taller than Lisi), geng ‘even-more’ presupposes that both Zhangsan and Lisi are tall (C.-S. Liu 2010b). Moreover, hai ‘even-more’ in MC not only provides the comparative semantics but also functions as a counter-expectation marker (Wu 2004, Wu 2009, and Tsai 2013) and bears some sense of subjectivity (Wu 2009 and Tang 2009). Given these, it is found that the overt form of the comparative morpheme in MC is usually preferred when the speaker wishes to indicate the additional meanings besides the comparative construal. Otherwise, speakers tend to use the covert comparative morpheme in ii.

(4) MC to merely express the comparative meaning. Therefore, while the comparative morpheme in MC is often in a covert form, the TSM counterpart is usually in an overt form.. Key words: Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM), comparative morpheme, comparison standard differential measure phrase, intensifier.. iii.

(5) Acknowledgements. This thesis could not have been completed without the help of many important people in my life of graduate school. I am very grateful to those who help me with effort when I write my thesis. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor, Hsiao-hung Iris Wu, who inspired me to do the research in the field of comparative syntax. Professor Wu is a diligent professor who laboriously instructed me to write a master thesis and patiently checked my draft over and over again. Every time when I encountered difficulties in writing the thesis, she always gave the best solution for me as soon as possible regardless of how hard the problem is. Due to Professor Wu’s excellent instruction, I could finally complete my thesis on time. Moreover, I would like to sincerely appreciate my oral defense committee members, Professor Miao-ling Hsieh and Professor I-ta Hsieh. Professor Miao-ling Hsieh provided plenty of precious suggestions about the outline and the draft of my thesis. Professor I-ta Hsieh also gave his cherished opinions about my thesis. Thanks to their great help, I could strengthen my reasoning and arguments as well as further enrich my thesis with more information. Furthermore, I would like to thank my friends who encouraged me to study iv.

(6) graduate school. In my life of the graduate school, they even helped me in my studies again and again. Their continuous encouragements and helps are essential factors for me to successfully finish my studies. Last but not the least, I am deeply indebted to my beloved family. In my last year of the graduate school, they often offered spiritual support to me when I had some difficulties in the thesis. Without their help, I could not overcome the hardest time in writing the thesis.. v.

(7) Table of Contents. Chinese Abstract…………………………………………………………...............................i English Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..iv Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….…................vi Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………....1 Chapter 2 Previous Analyses and Their Problems………………………………………....2 2.1 Four types of comparative structures………………………………………………...2 2.2 The bi-comparative (X bi Y A D comparative)………………………………………5 2.2.1 The meaning and the function of bi ‘than’……………………………………6 2.2.2 The analysis of the bi-comparative………………………………………….15 2.3 The transitive comparative (X A (Y) D comparative / bare comparative)….............25 2.3.1 The differences between a bi-comparative and a transitive comparative……42 2.4 The guo-comparative (X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative)………………………….......48 2.4.1 The comparison between a guo-comparative and a transitive comparative…48 2.4.2 The comparison between a bi-comparative and a guo-comparative………...65 2.4.3 The comparison between a guo-comparative and a chu-comparative………67 2.5 The discussion about TSM khah ‘more’……………………………………………75 2.5.1 Chang (2012)………………………………………………………………...75 2.5.2 W. Su (2011)………………………………………………………………....84 2.5.3 Xiong (2007)………………………………………………………………...97 2.5.4 C. Su (2011)………………………………………………………………...108 Chapter 3 Comparative Constructions in TSM………………………………………….116 3.1 The bi-comparative (X bi Y A D comparative)……………………………………116 3.2 The transitive comparative (X A (Y) D comparative / bare comparative)………...118 3.3 The intransitive comparative………………………………………………………122 3.4 The guo-comparative (X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative)…………………………….125 Chapter 4 Analysis…………………………………………………………………………130 4.1 The TSM overt comparative morpheme khah ‘more’……………………………..130 4.2 The comparison between the Chinese and TSM overt comparative morpheme…..135 4.3 The comparison between jiao ‘more’ in MC and khah ‘more’ in TSM…………...146 4.4 The comparison between hai ‘even-more’ and khah ‘more’………………………152 Chapter 5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...161 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….....162 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………...167 vi.

(8) Chapter1 Introduction. The comparative constructions have been extensively studied in a great number of languages in the literature. However, the comparative constructions in Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM henceforth) have not been paid enough attention to. The comparative constructions in TSM are similar to those in Mandarin Chinese (MC thereafter). Nevertheless, the comparative constructions in these two languages are not identical. Therefore, the difference between MC and TSM comparative constructions is interesting since it reveals how speakers in MC and in TSM express the comparative meaning in the comparative constructions. In this thesis, I will investigate the comparative morphemes in MC and TSM in four types of comparative constructions (bi-comparative, transitive comparative, guo-comparative, and intransitive comparative) and focus on their similarities and differences, with an aim to provide a satisfactory characterization of the comparative morphemes in these two languages. The rest of the thesis is structured as follows. First, the previous analyses of the four types of comparatives and their problems are introduced in section 2. Second, the comparative constructions in TSM are presented in section 3. Third, the analysis will be discussed in section 4. Last but not the least, I will provide a summary of the comparative morphemes in the two languages in section 5. 1.

(9) Chapter 2 Previous Analyses and Their Problems. In the literature, comparative structures in Mandarin have been widely discussed and have at least four types of comparative structures – the ‘bi-comparative’, the ‘transitive comparative’, the ‘guo-comparative’, and the ‘intransitive comparative’. In this section, I’ll review some important works and introduce some important facts in accordance with the classification of comparative structures.. 2.1 Four types of comparative structures. To begin with, I’ll introduce the definition of the two basic terms (i.e. comparison standard, differential measure phrase) as well as the brief introduction to the classification of the four comparative constructions – the bi-comparative, the transitive comparative, the guo-comparative, and the intransitive comparative. First of all, the meaning of the two basic terms, (i.e. comparison standard and differential measure phrase), are given below.. Comparison standard: Someone or something that is compared to the subject in the comparative constructions such as Lisi in (1). 2.

(10) Differential measure phrase: The difference between the comparison standard and the subject in the sentence like san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ in (1).1. Second, the four types of comparatives are introduced with some typical examples.. The four types of comparatives The bi-comparative (X bi Y A D comparative2) (1) 張三. 比. 李四. 高. (三. 公分). Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. gao. (san. gongfen). Zhangsan. than. Lisi. tall. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ The transitive comparative (‘X A (Y) D comparative’ / bare comparative3) (2) 張三. 高. 李四. *(三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. *(san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ 1. Comparison standard and differential measure phrase are named differently in various works. I’ll use the term comparison standard and differential measure phrase in my research. 2 The bi-comparative is defined as X bi Y A D Comparative in C.-S. Liu (2007). In my research, I use the term, the bi-comparative. Note that the bi-comparative in this thesis is restricted to the bi-comparative with adjectival predicate such as (1), in which the predicate is the adjective gao ‘tall’. In my research, since my aim is not to focus on the bi-comparative but to compare the four types of comparatives, I do not focus on the bi-comparative with verbal predicate or other subtypes of the bi-comparative defined in the literature. 3 The transitive comparative is the term used by Erlewine (2007) and Grano & Kennedy (2012). The transitive comparative is also defined as the X A (Y) D comparative in C.-S. Liu (2007) and called the bare comparative in C.-M. Liu (2010). In my study, I use the term, the transitive comparative. 3.

(11) The guo-comparative (X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative4) (3) 張三. 高過. 李四. (三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao-guo. Lisi. (san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall-exceed. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ The intransitive comparative5 (4) 張三. 高. Zhangsan. gao. Zhangsan. tall. ‘Zhangsan is taller (than someone known from the context).’. As can be seen in (1), the bi-comparative is marked by the word, bi ‘than’ which occurs before the comparison standard Lisi and the optional differential measure phrase san gongfen ‘three centimeters’. As explicitly illustrated in (2), the transitive comparative contains the adjective such as gao ‘tall’, which precedes the comparison standard Lisi and the obligatory differential measure phrase san gongfen ‘three centimeters’. 4. The guo-comparative is called the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative in C.-S. Liu (2007). In my thesis, I use the term, the guo-comparative defined by C.-M. Liu (2010). Note that the term, -guo1 is defined as an overt suffix in C.-S. Liu (2007). The overt suffix -guo1 is grammaticalized as a covert suffix -guo2 in the transitive comparative. Please refer to the section 2.3 for further information. 5 The works related to the intransitive comparative are related to the discourse and are of little relevance to my research. Thus I do not discuss this classification of comparative structures in my research. 4.

(12) As demonstrated in (3), the guo-comparative includes the word guo ‘exceed’, which follows the adjective such as gao ‘tall’. Note that the differential measure phrase such as san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ is optional. As revealed in (4), the intransitive comparative has no comparison standard and differential measure phrase. The comparison standard is supposed to be known in the context. Also, the differential measure phrase is optional. After the brief introduction to the classifications of comparative structures, I’ll introduce each of them except the intransitive comparative with the related discussions and different viewpoints from several studies as follows.. 2.2 The bi-comparative (X bi Y A D comparative). The bi-comparative may be defined as the comparative structure involving the word bi ‘than’ placed before the comparison standard and the optional differential measure phrase. The typical instance of the bi-comparative can be seen in (1), which is repeated as (5) below.. 5.

(13) (5) 張三. 比. 李四. 高. (三. 公分). Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. gao. (san. gongfen). Zhangsan. than. Lisi. tall. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. The bi-comparative structure has been analyzed in several ways in the literature. I’ll introduce some important analyses of the bi-comparative in this section.. 2.2.1 The meaning and the function of bi ‘than’. In the bi-comparative, one of the greatest differences between the bi-comparative and the other types of comparatives is the marker bi ‘than’. I’ll do a brief introduction to the discussion of the marker bi ‘than’ in the literature. To begin with, Lin (2009) suggests that bi ‘than’ can provide the comparative semantics. This function is equal to the function of the English comparative morpheme -er. The marker bi ‘than’ in Lin (2009) is analyzed as a degree word. Nevertheless, C.-S. Liu (2011) mentions that Lin’s analysis will cause some problems. First of all, generally speaking, the adjunct degree modifier in Mandarin should be followed by the gradable constituent immediately. However, C.-S. Liu suggests that dui wo 6.

(14) ‘to me’ in the following example can intervene between the degree phrase bi Lisi ‘than Lisi’ and keqi ‘courteous’.. (6) 張三. 比. 李四. 對. 我. 客氣. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. dui. wo. keqi. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. to. I. courteous. ‘Zhangsan is more courteous to me than Lisi is.’. (C.-S. Liu 2011). Besides, according to C.-S. Liu, a degree phrase can not be placed in the position higher than a locative phrase. Thus the degree adverb geng ‘even-more’ should be lower than the locative phrase zai meiguo ‘at America’ as (7) indicates.. (7) a. 張三. 在. 美國. Zhangsan. zai meiguo. Zhangsan. at. 更. 吃得開. geng. chidekai. America even-more. influential. ‘Zhangsan is even more influential in America.’ b. *張三. 更. *Zhangsan geng Zhangsan even-more. 在. 美國. 吃得開. zai meiguo at. (C.-S. Liu 2011). chidekai. America influential. 7. (C.-S. Liu 2011).

(15) Therefore, C.-S. Liu suggests that the bi-phrase should not precede the locative phrase if it is considered to be a degree phrase. Nonetheless, the bi-phrase can even precede the locative phrase zai meiguo ‘at America’ in the following sentences. C.-S. Liu makes this claim by providing the following examples.. (8) 張三. 比. 李四. 在. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. zai meiguo. Zhangsan. than Lisi. at. 美國. 吃得開 chideki. America influential. ‘In America, Zhangsan is more influential than Lisi.’. (C.-S. Liu 2011). Based on the above discussion, C.-S. Liu suggests that bi ‘than’ is not a degree word. The function of bi ‘than’ is to introduce the comparison standard rather than expressing the comparative meaning that is provided by the English word than. The comparative semantics in the bi-comparative, instead, is provided by the comparative degree adverb such as geng ‘even-more’ in (9a) or its covert version. ‘even-more’ in (9b).. 8.

(16) (9) a. 張三. 比. 李四. 更. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. geng. gao. Zhangsan. than Lisi. even-more. tall. ‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lisi.’ b. 張三. (C.-S. Liu 2010b). 比. 李四. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. gao. Zhangsan. than Lisi. even-more. tall. ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’. (C.-S. Liu 2010b). Furthermore, there is a close relationship between the marker bi ‘than’ and the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ as well as its covert counterpart. ‘even-more’.. According to C.-S. Liu, a gradable adjective in MC can be a predicate only when it co-occurs with a degree term. Also, the marker bi ‘than’ is not a degree word. Based on the above two conditions, C.-S. Liu (2012) suggests that in Mandarin Chinese bi-comparatives that include an adjectival predicate, the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ in (9a) or its covert version. ‘even-more’must be present. Besides, when the. overt or the covert comparative morpheme appears in the bi-comparative with adjectival predicate, the bi-phrase such as bi-Lisi in (9) should be present in the sentence. This implies that the occurrence of the bi-phrase in the Mandarin Chinese 9.

(17) bi-comparative with an adjective predicate guarantees the appearance of an overt or covert comparative morpheme. On the other hand, when the overt or covert comparative morpheme is found in the Mandarin Chinese bi-comparative with adjectival predicate, the bi-phrase is also found in the sentence. We follow C.-S. Liu’s analysis and suggest that seeing the bi-phrase in the TSM bi-comparative with an adjective predicate also entails that an overt or covert comparative morpheme should be present in the sentence. Also, the appearance of an overt or covert comparative morpheme in the TSM bi-comparative with an adjective predicate indicates that the bi-phrase can also be found. This phenomenon can be seen in the following TSM paradigms.. (10) a. 阿榮. 比. 阿狗. 較. 懸. A-ing. pi. A-kao. khah. kuan. A-ing. than. A-kao. more. tall. ‘A-ing is taller than A-kao.’ b. 阿榮. 比. 阿狗. 懸. A-ing. pi. A-kao. kuan. A-ing. than. A-kao. tall. ‘A-ing is taller than A-kao. 10.

(18) As can be seen in (10), the bi-phrase, pi-A-kao ‘than A-kao’ is found in the TSM bi-comparative with the comparative predicate. This entails that the overt comparative morpheme such as khah ‘more’ in (10a) or its covert ccounterpart in (10b) can be found. Besides, the presence of the overt comparative morpheme khah ‘more’ in (10a) or its covert counterpart in (10b) requires the appearance of the bi-phrase, pi A-kao ‘than A-kao’ in (10), the TSM bi-comparative with the comparative predicate. In addition, the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even more’ is associated with presupposition. C.-S. Liu (2010b) suggests that Chinese overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ presupposes that the compared objects’ properties are true in the absolute sense, whereas the covert counterpart. (11) a. 張三. ‘even-more’ does not have this presupposition.. (今天). (在. 家. 裡). Zhangsan. (jintian). (zai. jia. li). Zhangsan. today. at. home. inside. 比. 李四. (昨天). (在學校). 更. 開心. bi. Lisi. (zuotian). (zai xuexiao). geng. kaixin. than. Lisi. yesterday. at. even-more. happy. school. ‘Zhangsan (today) is even happier (at home) than Lisi was (in school) (yesterday), and both of them are happy.’. (C.-S. Liu 2010b) 11.

(19) b. 張三. (今天). (在. 家. 裡). Zhangsan. (jintian). (zai. jia. li). Zhangsan. today. at. home. inside. 比. 李四. (昨天). (在學校). 開心. bi. Lisi. (zuotian). (zai xuexiao). kaixin. than. Lisi. yesterday. at. school. even-more. happy. ‘Zhangsan (today) is even happier (at home) than Lisi was (in school) (yesterday).’. As can be seen in (11a), the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ presupposes that both of the two compared objects, Zhangsan and Lisi, are happy. In contrast, the covert counterpart. in (11b) has no such presupposition that both of them are happy to some. degree. Moreover, both the overt and covert comparative morphemes respectively take two arguments. Both of the compared objects must be greater than the other in some dimension. Take (11a) and (11b) for example, Zhangsan and Lisi are two compared objects. Also, Zhangsan must be happier than Lisi. Therefore, the covert comparative morpheme. , like the English comparative. morpheme -er, can express the comparative meaning in the comparative constructions. In contrast, the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ not only can express the 12.

(20) comparative semantics but can also bear presuppositional meanings. After examining the TSM data with C.-S. Liu’s proposal as above, I suggest that the presupposition that the compared objects’ properties are true in the absolute sense can not be found in the TSM overt and covert comparative morpheme. For instance, the overt comparative morpheme khah ‘more’ and its covert counterpart in (10a) and (10b) do not presuppose that both A-ing and A-kao are tall. Hence, while the overt comparative morpheme geng ‘even-more’ in MC has the presupposition that the compared objects’ properties are true in the absolute sense, the overt comparative morpheme khah ‘more’ expresses no such presupposition. This fact implies that geng ‘more’ and khah ‘more’ does not have the identical semantics. Some further discussions about the syntactic features of bi-comparative in Mandarin Chinese are provided by C.-S. Liu (2010) as follows. First of all, bi ‘than’ and the comparison standard such as Lisi in (12) together create a prepositional adjunct phrase bi Lisi ‘than Lisi’. This adjunct phrase is placed after subject and before the predicate.. 13.

(21) (12) 張三. 比. 李四. 或者. (比) 王五. 都. 還要. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. huozhe. (bi) Wangwu. dou. haiyao. gao. Zhangsan. than Lisi. or. than Wangwu. all. even. tall. ‘Zhangsan is taller than either Lisi or Wangwu.’. In addition, as C.-S. Liu (1996) and Lin (2009) mentioned that the two bi-phrases, bi Lisi ‘than Lisi’ and bi-Wangwu ‘than Wangu’ in the above example can be connected by the coordinator huozhe ‘or’. In general, the coordinator takes two constituents in both its left and right. Hence, the above example shows that bi-phrase such as bi-Lisi and bi-Wangwu can form a constituent by itself. Second, Liu claims that a bi-phrase is an adjunct so it can only be adjoined to the left of the gradable predicate. As can be seen in the following sentences, a bi-phrase is only attached to the left of the predicate.. (13) a. 張三. 比. 李四. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. gao. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. tall. ‘Zhangsan runs faster than Lisi does.’. (C.-S. Liu 2011). 14.

(22) b. 張三. 比. 李四. 跑得. 快. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. pao-de. kuai. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. run-DE. fast. ‘Zhangsan runs faster than Lisi does.’. (C.-S. Liu 2011). 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.” 15. (Xiang 2005).

(23) b.. IP. Spec. I’. Zhangsan. Deg1P Deg1 bi. AP A’. Lisii A. Deg2P. exceed-tall. Deg2’. Lisii Deg2 (exceed)k. DiffP 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 Deg2P. 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] position for 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 raising the combination of exceed and tall (exceed-tall) to the empty [Spec, Dep1P] position 16.

(24) 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.”. b.. (Xiang 2005). IP. (Xiang 2005). Spec. I’. wo. Dep1P Deg1 (exceed)k-talli. AP A’. Lisij A. Deg2P. (tall)i. Deg2’. Lisij Deg2 (exceed)k. 17. DiffP 2 inches.

(25) 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. ta. bi. he. than. 還. 重. 三. 公斤. wo hai. zhong. san. gongjin. I. heavy. three. kilogram. more. ‘He is three kilograms heavier than I am.’ b.. (17) a.. *他重. 我. *ta zhong he. 還. (Lin 2009). 三. 公斤. wo hai. san. gongjin. heavy. I. three. kilogram. 他. 還. 比. 我. 重. 三. 公斤. ta. hai. bi. wo zhong. san. gongjin. he. more. than. I. three. kilogram. more. heavy. ‘He is three kilograms heavier than I am.’. 18. (Lin 2009). (Lin 2009).

(26) b.. 他. 還. 重. 我. 三. 公斤. ta. hai. zhong. wo san. gongjin. he. more. heavy. I. kilogram. three. ‘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’.. 19.

(27) (18) 張三. 比. 李四. 或者. (比) 王五. 都. 還. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. huozhe. (bi) Wangwu. dou hai. gao. Zhangsan. than Lisi. or. than Wangwu. all. tall. even-more. ‘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. Ta. zuotian. zai xuexiao bi. wo. jintian. zai jiali. kaixin. he. yesterday at. I. today. at. happy. school. than. ‘He was happier at school yesterday than I am at home today.’ 20. 家裡. 開心. home. (Lin 2009).

(28) 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), Ø bi is the phonologically-null version of bi ‘than’. Ø bi can trigger an adjective to be raised to v. Subsequently, the combination of adjective and Ø bi (A+ Ø bi) will be moved out of vP to form the correct word order for the transitive comparative.. 21.

(29) (21). S. (Erlewine 2007). target bi. vP standard. v’ v. v’. bi. v voice. (22). VP predicate of comparison. S. (Erlewine 2007). target (Ai+Ø bi)j. vP standard. v’ v. v’. Ai+Ø bij. v voice. VP Ai. differential measure. 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. 22.

(30) 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. Ta. zuotian. he. yesterday at. 學校. zai xuexiao school. 比. 我. 今天. bi. wo jintian. zai jiali. kaixin. than. I. at. happy. today. 在. ‘He was happier at school yesterday than I am at home today.’. 23. 家裡. home. 開心. (Lin 2009).

(31) (24) NP ta he. S AP NP zuotian yesterday PP zai xuetiao at school. AP AP DegP. Degi. AP kaixin happy. DegP. bi NP wo I. Deg’ Deg ti. DegP NP jintian today. Deg’ Deg ti. PP zai jiali at home. 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.. 24.

(32) 2.3 The transitive comparative (X A (Y) D comparative / bare comparative). The transitive comparative can be considered as the comparative structure expressed by the transitive predicate followed by the comparison standard and the obligatory differential measure phrase. The canonical example of the transitive comparative is (2) and repeated as (25) below.. (25) 張三. 高. 李四. *(三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. *(san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. The research of a transitive comparative is often compared to a bi-comparative in the literature. One of the influential works relating to this matter is Xiang (2005)’s “DegP Shell” analysis for Mandarin comparatives. Her analysis is discussed in the previous section 2.2.2 with the tree diagrams in (14) and (15). Grano and Kennedy (2012) base on her analysis to discuss some phenomenon in the transitive comparative. Grano and Kennedy (2012) discuss the transitive comparative from the aspect of the case assignment. They suggest that Mandarin comparative constructions have at least two 25.

(33) case assigners for comparison standards. The first case assigner is bi ‘than’ in the bi-comparative. The second case assigner is the covert morpheme μ in the transitive comparative. In their research, they focus on the second case assigner – the covert comparative morpheme μ. The aim of their research is to account for the following two constraints stated by Xiang (2005). First, why is the differential measure phrase obligatory in the transitive comparative? As (26) shows, the lack of differential measure phrase in (26a) will cause the sentence become ungrammatical, whereas the presence of differential measure phrase yi dian ‘one dot’ or san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ in (26b) will make the sentence grammatical.. 高. 李四. *Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. (26) a. *張三. Intended: ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’ b. 張三. (Grano and Kennedy 2012). 高. 李四. 一. 點. /. 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. yi. dian. /. san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. one dot. /. three. centimeters. ‘Zhangsan is a bit/three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ (Grano and Kennedy 2012) 26.

(34) Second, why should the gradable predicate in the transitive comparative use the scale with the conventional measurement system such as inches and centimeters? As (27) demonstrates, the gradable predicate gao ‘tall’ in (27a) uses a scale of height, which is one of the conventional measurement system. Thus san cun ‘three inches’ or san ge shouzhi ‘three fingers’ in (27a) can be compatible with gao ‘tall’. In contrast, piaoliang ‘beautiful’ uses the scale of beauty, which is not the conventional measurement system. Therefore, san du ‘three degree’, the conventional measurement system, is not compatible with piaoliang ‘beautiful’ in (27b).. (27) a. 張三. 比. 李四. 高. 三. 公分. /. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. gao. san. gongfen. /. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. tall. three. centimeters. /. 三. 吋. /. 三. 個. 手指. san. cun. /. san. ge. shouzhi. three. inches. /. three. CL finger. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters/three inches/three fingers taller than Lisi.’ (Grano and Kennedy 2012). 27.

(35) 比. 李四. 漂亮. 三. 度. *Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. piaoliang. san. du. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. pretty. three. degree. b. *張三. Intended: ‘Zhangsan is three degrees prettier than Lisi.’ (Grano and Kennedy 2012). Grano and Kennedy (2012) claim the above constraints are related to the fact that Mandarin comparison standard should be case-marked. The Chinese comparison standard in the bi-comparative and the transitive comparative are respectively assigned case by the preposition bi ‘than’ and the covert morpheme μ. The features of μ are introduced as follows. Svenonius and Kennedy (2006) propose that the phonologically null head μ can introduce a degree argument. The covert morpheme μ can freely combine with any comparative adjective. However, it is idiosyncratic when it comes to combining with non-comparative adjectives. For instance, μ in German is compatible with schwer ‘heavy’ while μ in English can not be allowed to combine with non-comparative adjective ‘heavy’. As displayed in (28a), the word order 10kg heavy is hot acceptable in English.. 28.

(36) (28) a.. *DegP MP 10kg. b. Deg’. Deg μ. DegP MP. A. 2m. Deg’ Deg μ. heavy. A tall (Grano and Kennedy 2012). In order to account for Xiang’s analysis, Grano and Kennedy (2012) adopt the concept of μ in their study. Their analysis has two steps. The first step adopts the assumption that ‘the move from the measure function to the difference function’ is done by means of the affix or lexical feature. The second step is based on the analysis of Svenonius and Kenndy. Their analysis describes the fact that the differential measure phrase must be present when μ exists, and vice versa. Grano and Kennedy (2012) subsequently hypothesize that the comparison standard’s Case feature is valued either by μ or bi. The possible tree structure of the above analysis can be seen in (29a) and (29b), which demonstrate both the absence and presence of the word bi ‘than’. As can be seen in (29a), the case of the comparison standard Lisi should be valued by μ which is combined with gao ‘tall’. On the other hand, the case of Lisi is assigned by the insertion word bi ‘than’ in (29b).. 29.

(37) (29) a.. DegP. Deg gao+μ [ACC]. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) AP. DP Lisi. A’ ACOMP gao+μ. b.. Deg. DP. μ. liang cun. DegP. Deg bi. DegP. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) AP. DP. A’. [ACC] Lisi. ACOMP gao+μ. DegP Deg. DP. μ. liang cun. In (29a), μ is raised to ACOMP position and combines with gao ‘tall’. Next, the combination of gao ‘tall’ and μ (gao+μ) is moved to the Degree head position and assigns ACC. case to the comparison standard Lisi. In (29b), on the other hand, the combination of gao ‘tall’ and μ (gao+μ) should not be. raised to the Degree head position because it is preoccupied by bi ‘than’ which can value the case of the comparison standard Lisi. 30.

(38) In addition to the above structures, Grano and Kennedy (2012) also provide another implementation of their analysis. In this implementation, μ in Mandarin can not become a head of the functional projection. Instead, it is an affix adjoined to the adjective. This phenomenon in Mandarin is different from those in English. The related structure of this type is presented below.. (30). DegP. Deg. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) AP. DP. A’. Lisi. A ACOMP gao. DP Af. liang cun. μ. Grano and Kennedy (2012) choose the structures (30) in their analysis. They claim the advantage is that the difference of μ between Mandarin and English will become smaller. To make it explicit, μ in English is functional head of AP and that in Mandarin is an affix adjoined to the lexical category. The brief summary of Grano and Kennedy’s analysis is presented as follows. First of all, the presence of differential measure phrase requires the presence of μ. Likewise, the appearance of μ also needs the appearance of the differential measure phrase. Second, μ has 31.

(39) the capacity to case-mark the comparison standard. Moreover, Grano and Kennedy (2012) also suggest that transitive comparatives are allowed in the following two conditions: (1) Only when comparative adjectives are defined with the conventional measurement and (2) only when the differential measure phrase is present. Grano and Kennedy (2012) further add that their analysis can also solve the problem for Xiang (2005) in (14) and (15) in the previous section 2.2. Remember that Lin (2009) does not support Xiang’s (2005) viewpoint that a transitive comparative is derived from a bi-comparative. This is because adding hai ‘even-more’ before the adjective in a bi-comparative and a transitive comparative will only make a transitive comparative be ungrammatical. Grano and Kennedy (2012) provide two solutions as follows. The first solution is assuming Lin’s (2009) viewpoint that hai as an adjunct is right. The word hai ‘more’ can be attached to the Degree phrase in (31a) or the adjective head in (31b) as the following tree diagrams demonstrated.. 32.

(40) (31). a.. DegP. hai. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) DegP. Deg. AP DP. A’. wo. b.. A. DP. ACOMP. Af. zhong. μ. san gongjin. DegP. Deg. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) AP. DP. A’. wo. A hai. DP A. san gongjin. ACOMP. Af. zhong. μ. As stated in (31a), hai ‘more’ adjoins to the DegP. The addition of bi ‘than’ to the Degree head position will create the bi-comparative. In contrast, the raising of zhong ‘heavy’ to the Degree head position will produce the transitive comparative. As for (31b), the structure states the phenomenon that hai ‘more’ is attached to the adjectival head. Adding bi ‘than’ to Degree head position also results in a bi-comparative. On the other hand, the 33.

(41) movement of zhong ‘heavy’ to the Degree head position will make the sentence ungrammatical because this movement will break the combination structure of hai ‘more’ and zhong + μ. The second solution is viewing hai ‘more’ as a Focus head which can be placed above the DegP or AP as (32a) and (32b) respectively demonstrated below.. (32). a.. FocP. Foc hai. DegP Deg. AP DP wo. A’ A. DP. ACOMP. Af. zhong. μ. 34. san gongjin.

(42) b.. DegP. Deg. FocP woi. Foc’ Foc hai. AP DP. A’. woi. A. DP. Acomp. Af. zhong. μ. san gongjin. As stated in (32a), the FocP is placed above the DegP. The Degree head can be occupied by bi ‘than’ to produce the bi-comparative or by zhong ‘heavy’ to create the transitive comparative. On the contrary, FocP in (32b) is put above the AP. In this case, only bi ‘than’ be placed in Degree head position to bring forth the bi-comparative. The word zhong ‘heavy’ can not be raised to the Degree head position in that the Focus hai ‘more’ will block the way. To make it explicit, the movement of zhong ‘heavy’ will violate the Relativized Minimality proposed by Rizzi (1990). In addition, Grano and Kennedy claim that the covert morpheme μ has an overt counterpart chu ‘surpass’ in the transitive comparative. Similarly, chu ‘surpass’ requires the differential masure phrase to be present in the transitive comparative. The following examples explicitly show these facts. 35.

(43) The transitive comparative with chu ‘surpass’6 (33) a. 張三. 高. 出. 李四. 兩. 吋. Zhangsan. gao. chu. Lisi. liang. cun. Zhangsan. tall. surpass. Lisi. two. inch. ‘Zhangsan is two inches taller than Lisi.’. (Grano and Kennedy 2012). 高. 出. 李四. *Zhangsan. gao. chu. Lisi. Zhangsan. tall. surpass. Lisi. b. *張三. (Grano and Kennedy 2012). As can be seen in the above example, chu ‘surpass’, like the covert morpheme μ, is allowed in the transitive comparative only when the differential measure phrase such as liang cun ‘two inches’ in (33a) is present. In contrast, the appearance of chu ‘surpass’ will make (33b) ungrammatical because the differential measure phrase liang cun ‘two inches’ can not be found in the sentence. Eventually, Grano and Kennedy do a briefly summary for the analysis in (34) and (35) and provide some criticisms for C.-S. Liu (2007).. 6. The transitive comparative including the word chu ‘surpass’ is defined as the chu-comparative in C.-M. Liu (2010). However, this construction is simply considered a transitive comparative in Grano and Kennedy (2012). In my analysis, I consider the chu-comparative as the transitive comparative since chu ‘surpass’ can not be placed after the comparative predicate in TSM. In other words, TSM has no chu-comparative. Thus, I do not consider the chu-comparative as a type of comparative construction in my analysis. Please refer to the appendix to see the related comparative sentences. 36.

(44) e.g., gao ‘tall’. (34) Adjectives with measurable scales a. bi DPstnd A [COMP](+μ DPmeans). bi assigns Case to DPstnd. b. A[COMP]+μ DPstnd DPmeans. μ assigns Case to DPstnd. c. *A[COMP] DPstnd. DPstnd does not get Case e.g., piaoliang ‘beautiful’. (35) Adjectives without measurable scales a. bi DPstnd A [COMP]. bi assigns Case to DPstnd. b. *A[COMP]+μ DPstnd DPmeans. μ cannot combine with A. c. *A[COMP] DPstnd. DPstnd does not get Case. In (34a), the Case assigner is bi ‘than’. In (34b), the Case is assigned by μ or chu ‘surpss’, the overt counterpart of μ. In (34c), the sentence is ungrammatical because all the potential case assigners, bi ‘than’, μ and chu ‘surpass’ are absent. In (35), adjectives such as piaoliang ‘beautiful’ or gaoxing ‘happy’ are not related to the measurable scale. As (35b) indicates, those adjectives can not be compatible with μ and chu ‘surpass’. In contrast, they can still be compatible with bi ‘than’ in (35a). Also, (35c) is ungrammatical because the case is not valued. We suggest that Grano and Kennedy’s (2012) analysis is able to capture the relationship between the TSM comparative morphemes and the differential measure phrase. As argued by Grano and Kennedy, in the transitive comparative, the case assigner for the comparison 37.

(45) standard can be the covert morpheme µ and its overt counterpart chu ‘surpass’. Both µ and chu ‘surpass’ should be present only when the differential measure phrase appears, and vice versa. Based on Grano and Kennedy’s case-assigning theory, I suggest that the TSM overt and covert comparative morpheme in the transitive comparative with the intensifier ke ‘add’ should be present only when the differential measure phrase appears. The following examples are provided to illustrate this point.. (36) 阿榮. 加. 較. 懸. 阿狗. 三. 公分. A-ing. ke. khah. kuan. A-kao. sann. kongfun. A-ing. add. more. tall. A-kao. three. centimeter. ‘A-ing is even three centimeters taller than A-kao.’ (37) 阿榮. 加. 懸. 阿狗. 三. 公分. A-ing. ke. kuan. A-kao. sann. kongfun. A-ing. add. tall. A-kao. three. centimeters. ‘A-ing is even three centimeters taller than A-kao.’ (38) *阿榮. 加. 較. 懸. 阿狗. A-ing. ke. khah. kuan. A-kao. A-ing. add. more. tall. A-kao. ‘A-ing is even taller than A-kao.’ 38.

(46) (39) *阿榮. 加. 懸. 阿狗. A-ing. ke. kuan. A-kao. A-ing. add. tall. A-kao. ‘A-ing is even taller than A-kao.’. As can be seen in (36) and (37), both the overt comparative morpheme khah ‘more’ and its covert counterpart are allowed in the sentences because these two sentences contain the differential measure phrase sann kongfun ‘three centimeters’. On the contrary, neither the overt nor the covert comparative morpheme in (38) and (39) is able to occur in the sentence without the differential measure phrase. However, adopting Grano and Kennedy’s analysis may cause a problem: One may doubt why both khah ‘more’ and chu ‘surpass’ should have the same requirement that the differential measure phrase should be present since khah ‘more’ and chu ‘surpass’ are different in some aspects. First of all, khah ‘more’ is a comparative morpheme whereas chu ‘surpass’ is not. Besides, C.-M. Liu (2010) even defines the comparative structure with chu ‘surpass’ as the chu-comparative, which is a type of comparative construction in MC. On the other hand, khah ‘more’ is an overt comparative morpheme that appears in all types of TSM comparatives. Therefore, khah ‘more’ and chu ‘surpass’ may not have the same requirement. Nevertheless, the chu-comparative defined by C.-M. Liu (2010) is only restricted to the 39.

(47) Mandarin Chinese. This construction can not be found in a TSM comparative as the following contrast suggests. Moreover, the fact that chu ‘surpass’ and khah ‘more’ are different can not be used to argue that khah ‘more’ can not have the same requirement that chu ‘surpass’ bears.. (40) 張三. 高. 出. 李四. *(三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao. chu. Lisi. *(san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall. surpass. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi’ 懸. 出. 阿狗. (三. 公分). *A-ing. kuan. tshut. A-kao. sann. konghun. A-ing. tall. surpass. A-kao. three. centimeter. (41) *阿榮. ‘A-ing is three centimeters taller than A-kao.’. Furthermore, some little change in the word order is needed for Grano and Kennedy’s analysis to account for the data in TSM. According to Grano and Kennedy, the covert morpheme μ and its overt counterpart chu ‘surpass’ is placed after gao ‘tall’. However, the TSM overt and covert comparative morpheme is followed by kuan ‘tall’. Therefore, we suggest that while the affix is adjoined to the right of the comparative adjective such as gao 40.

(48) ‘tall’ in MC, the affix can also be attached to the left of the comparative adjective like kuan ‘tall’ in TSM. The different tree structures of the transitive comparatives in MC and TSM are presented below respectively.. The transitive comparative in Mandarin Chinese (42). DegP. Deg. (Grano and Kennedy 2012) AP. DP. A’. Lisi. A ACOMP. DP Af. liang cun. μ (or chu ‘surpass’). gao. The transitive comparative in Taiwanese Southern Min (43). DegP. Deg. AP DP. A’. A-kao. A. DP. Af. ACOMP. khah. kuan. nng tshun. 41.

(49) Taken together, a brief summary is provided below of the overt and covert morpheme in the transitive comparatives in both MC and TSM. First, the presence of the overt or covert comparative morpheme requires the appearance of the differential measure phrase in MC transitive comparative and TSM transitive comparative with ke ‘add’. Second, the covert morpheme μ or its overt counterpart chu ‘surpass’ in MC adjoins to the right of the comparative predicate such as gao ‘tall’. In contrast, both the overt and covert comparative morphemes in TSM can be attached to the left of the comparative adjective such as kuan ‘tall’.. 2.3.1 The differences between a bi-comparative and a transitive comparative. Xiang (2005) suggests that the generic reading of the comparison standard can only be found in the bi-comparative rather than the transitive comparative. This fact can be seen in the following sentences.. 42.

(50) The bi-comparative (44) a. 這. 隻. 剛出生. 的. 小. 駱駝. zhe. zhi gang-chusheng. de. xiao. luotuo. this. CL. just-born. DE. little. camel. 比. 馬. 大. (一點). bi. ma. da. (yidian). than. horse. big (a little). ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than a horse.’ b. 這. 隻. 剛出生. 的. 小. 駱駝. zhe. zhi gang-chusheng. de. xiao. luotuo. this. CL. just-born. DE. little. camel. 比. 那匹馬. 大. (一點). bi. na-pi-ma. da. (yidian). than. that-CL-horse big (a little). ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than that horse.’. 43. (Xiang 2005). (Xiang 2005).

(51) The transitive comparative (45) a. *這. 隻. 剛出生. 的. 小. 駱駝. *zhe. zhi gang-chusheng. de. xiao. luotuo. this. CL. just-born. DE. little. camel. 大. 馬. 一點. da. ma. yidian. big. horse. a little. Intended: ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than a horse.’ b. 這. 隻. 剛出生. 的. 小. 駱駝. zhe. zhi gang-chusheng. de. xiao. luotuo. this. CL. just-born. DE. small. camel. 大. 那匹馬. 一點. da. na-pi-ma. yidian. big. that-CL-horse one-dot. This new-born camel is a little bigger than that horse.’. (Xiang 2005). (Xiang 2005). As shown in (44a) and (45a), the generic reading of the comparison standard ma ‘horse’ is compatible in the bi-comparative in (44a), whereas it is incompatible in the transitive comparative in (45a). In (44a), the comparison standard ma ‘horse’ has the generic reading 44.

(52) that this horse is equal to every horse. In other words, this new-born camel in (44a) is a little bigger than every horse in the world. Also, (44b) means the new-born camel is a little bigger than a specific horse. On the contrary, the generic reading of the comparison standard can not be found in (45a), the transitive comparative. In the transitive comparative, only the specific reading of the comparison standard such as na-pi-ma ‘that horse’ in (45b) is allowed. Besides, both C.-S. Liu (2007) and Grano & Kennedy (2012) discuss the compatibility of geng ‘even-more’ in the bi-comparative and transitive comparative. According to C.-S. Liu (2007), geng ‘even-more’ is compatible with a bi-comparative but incompatible with a transitive comparative.. (46) a. 張三. 比. 李四. 更. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. geng. gao. Zjamgsan. than. Lisi. even-more. tall. ‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lisi.’ 高. 李四. 兩. 吋. *Zhangsan geng. gao. Lisi. liang. cun. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. two. inch. b. *張三. 更. (C.-S. Liu 2007). even.more. 45. (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(53) Grano and Kennedy (2012) claim that that difference between these two comparatives is due to the pheonomenon that geng ‘even-more’ can not be compatible with differential measure phrase as the following instance suggests.. (47) *張三 *Zhangsan Zhangsan. 比. 李四. 更. 高. 兩. 吋. bi. Lisi. geng. gao. liang. cun. than. Lisi. even-more. tall. two. inch. (Grano and Kennedy 2012). However, C.-S. Liu doesn’t agree with this statement by presenting the following sentences. He mentions that geng ‘even-more’ can co-occur with the differential measure phrase yi-xie ‘a little bit’ in the bi-comparative as (48a) indicates.. (48) a. 張三. 比. 李四. 更. 高. Zhangsan. bi. Lisi. geng. gao yi-xie. Zhangsan. than. Lisi. even-more. tall a-little.bit. ‘Zhangsan is a little bit taller than Lisi.’. 46. 一些. (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(54) 高. 李四. 一些. *Zhangsan geng. gao. Lisi. yi-xie. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. a-little.bit. b. *張三. 更. even-more. (C.-S. Liu 2007). C.-S. Liu further states that geng ‘even-more’ can not occur in a transitive comparative in that the phonological null version of dynamic verb, guo ‘exceed’, exists in a transitive comparative and it is incompatible with the stative geng ‘even-more’. In Grano and Kennedy’s (2012) viewpoints, C.-S. Liu’s analysis is problematic because the synchronic and empirical evidence that a transitive comparative has a dynamic reading can not be found. In other words, C.-S. Liu (2007) does not provide enough evidence for the dynamic reading in the transitive comparative. Moreover, Grano and Kennedy (2012) suggest that yi-xie ‘a little bit’ is ambiguous. One interpretation of yi-xie ‘a little bit’ in (48a) is the degree modifier due to the presence of geng ‘even more’. The other reading of yi-xie ‘a little bit’ in (48b) is the differential measure phrase due to the requirement of the transitive comparative. Since yi-xie ‘a little bit’ is ambiguous that it can be either a degree modifier or a differential measure phrase, the fact that geng ‘even-more’ is compatible with yi-xie ‘a little bit’ does not mean that geng ‘more’ is compatible with the differential measure phrase. Therefore, Grano and Kennedy (2012) claim that geng ‘more’ is incompatible with the differential measure phrase. 47.

(55) 2.4 The guo-comparative (X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative). The guo-comparative looks like the mere addition of the word guo ‘exceed’ after the predicate in the transitive comparative as (49), the repetition of (3), demonstrated.. (49) 張三. 高過. 李四. (三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao-guo. Lisi. (san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall-exceed. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. Nevertheless, the structure of the guo-comparative has been analyzed in different ways in the literature. In fact, the guo-comparatives are often compared with the other classifications of comparative in analyzing its structure. One of the most important works related to this matter is C.-S. Liu (2007). He discusses the comparison between the guo-comparative and the transitive comparative.. 2.4.1 The comparison between a guo-comparative and a transitive comparative. In C.-S. Liu (2007), C.-S. Liu examines the guo-comparative and the transitive 48.

(56) comparative. C.-S. Liu suggests that an overt suffix -guo1 exists in the guo-comparative. Also, a covert suffix -guo2 exists in the transitive comparative. According to C.-S. Liu, the transitive comparative is derived from the guo-comparative by grammaticalization. Besides, the covert suffix -guo2 in the transitive comparative is derived from the overt suffix -guo1 in the guo-comparative. In order to prove this argument, C.-S. Liu (2007) discusses some features of the guo-comparative and the association between a guo-comparative with a transitive comparative. First, the suffix -guo1 in the guo-comparative has the the meaning ‘exceed’ or ‘surpass’. Hence, the suffix -guo1 is transitive and takes the comparison standard such as Lisi in (50a) and differential measure phrase like san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ in (50a) as its arguments. Similarly, the transitive comparative such as (50b) provides the meaning ‘exceed’ or ‘surpass’ even though the overt suffix -guo1 can not be found in the sentence.. (50) a. 張三. 高過. 李四. (三. 公分). Zhangsan. gao-guo1. Lisi. (san. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall-guo1. Lisi. thee. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by three centimeters.’. 49. (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(57) b. 張三. 高. (李四). 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. (Lisi). san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by three centimeters.’. (C.-S. Liu 2007). Second, only the adjective with [+pole] feature7 or positive value can be the adjective in the guo-comparative. For instance, chang ‘long’ in (51) has [+pole] feature. Hence, it is compatible with -guo1. On the contrary, duan ‘short’ in (52) does not have such feature. Thus, it is incompatible with -guo1.. (51) 這條. 繩子. 長過. 那條. 兩. 英吋. Zhe-tiao. shengzi. chang-guo1. na-tiao. liang. yingchi. this-CL. rope. long-guo1. that-CL. two. inch. ‘The length of this rope exceeds that of that rope by two inches.’ (52) *這條 *Zhe-tiao this-CL. (C.-S. Liu 2007). 繩子. 短過. 那條. 兩. 英吋. shengzi. duan-guo1. na-tiao. liang. yingchi. rope. short-guo1. that-CL. two. inch (C.-S. Liu 2007). 7. In Liu (2007), [+pole] feature for the adjective describes the adjectives with the positive value. For instance, chang ‘long’ has the [+pole] feature, whereas duan ‘short’ has the [-pole] feature. 50.

(58) On the other hand, adjectives with either [+pole] or [-pole] properties can be the adjectives of transitive comparatives8. Note that the adjectives in the transitive comparative should be the dimension adjectives. The meaning of dimension adjective is the adjective with the dimension which can be measured by the standard measure unit such as gongfen ‘centimeter’, gongjin ‘kilogram’, and gongsheng ‘liter’. As the following instances suggest, the adjective pianyi ‘cheap’ is the dimension adjective. Thus, pianyi ‘cheap’ can be measured by the standard measure unit yi-bai-kuai-qian ‘one hundred dollars’ and can occur in the transitive comparative. In contrast, piaoliang ‘beautiful’ is not dimension adjective. Hence, piaoliang ‘beautiful’ can not be measured by the standard measure unit san du ‘three degree’ and can not present in the transitive comparative.. (53) a. 這本. 書. 便宜. 那本. 書. 一百塊. 錢. Zhe-ben. shu. pianyi. na-ben. shu. yi-bai-kuai. qian. this-CL. book. cheap. that-CL. book one-hundred-CL money. ‘This book is one hundred dollars cheaper than that one.’. (C.-S. Liu 2007). 8. The adjective with [+pole] feature such as chang ‘long’ and the adjective e with the [-pole] feature like duan ‘short’ are compatible with the transitive comparative as the following examples illustrate. (i). 這條繩子長/短那條 zhe-tiao shengzi chang/duan na-tiao this-cl rope long/short that-cl ‘This rope is one meter longer/shorter than that one.’ 51. 一公尺 yi gongchi one meter C.-S. Liu (2007).

(59) b. *這個 *Zhe-ge this-CL. 女孩. 漂亮. 那個. 女孩. 三. 度. nuhai. piaoliang. na-ge. nuhai. san. du. girl. beautiful. that-CL. girl. three. degree. ‘This girl is three more degrees beautiful than that one.’. (C.-S. Liu 2007). Third, in the guo-comparative, only the definite, specific or referential noun phrase can be the comparison standard. On the contrary, only the non-referential constituent can be the differential measure phrase. Besides, the comparison standard should precede the differential measure phrase.9 The following sentences can demonstrate the discussion mentioned above.. (54) a. 張三. 高過. 李四. 十. 公分. Zhangsan. gao-guo1. Lisi. shi. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall-guo1. Lisi. ten. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is ten centimeters taller than Lisi.’ 兩. 米. 十. *Zhangsan gao-guo1. liang. mi. shi gongfen. Zhangsan tall-guo1. two. meter. ten centimeter. b. *張三. 9. 高過. (C.-S. Liu 2007) 公分. (C.-S. Liu 2007). C.-S. Liu (2007) might provide these facts to suggest that the phenomenon that the referential comparison standard precedes the non-referential differential measure phrase in the transitive comparative can also be found in the guo-comparative. In other words, the referential comparison standard precedes the non-referential differential measure phrase in both the transitive comparative and the guo-comparative. The examples can be found in (50a) and (50b) above. Therefore, those features shared by both guo-comparative and transitive comparative can support the possibility that the transitive comparative is derived from the guo-comparative. 52.

(60) c. *張三. 高. *Zhangsan gao Zhangsan tall. 十. 公分. 李四. shi gongfen. Lisi. ten centimeter. Lisi. (C.-S. Liu 2007). As revealed in (54), the comparison standard Lisi in (54a) is the definite, specific or referential noun phrase whereas liang mi ‘two meters’ and shi gongfen ‘ten centimeters’ in (54b) and (54c) are not. Therefore, (54a) is grammatical while (54b) and (54c) are ungrammatical. Besides, the differential measure phrase in (54c) is not shi gongfen ‘ten centimeters’ but Lisi, which is referential rather than non-referential. Hence (54c) is ungrammatical. Fourth, the comparison standard is obligatory in a guo-comparative whereas it is optional in a transitive comparative. On the other hand, the differential measure phrase is optional in a guo-comparative while it is obligatory in a transitive comparative. C.-S. Liu (2007) suggests thst the suffix -guo1 is transitive thus the comparison standard such as Lisi in (55a) is introduced by -guo1.. 53.

(61) (55) a. 張三. 高過. 李四. (十. 公分). Zhangsan. gao-guo1. Lisi. (shi. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall-guo1. Lisi. ten. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ b. 張三. 高過. *(李四) 十. 公分. Zhangsan. gao-guo1. *(Lisi). shi. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall-guo1. Lisi. ten. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ (56) a. 張三. 高. (李四). 十. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. (Lisi). shi. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. ten. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ b. 張三. 高. 李四. *(十. 公分). Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. *(shi. gongfen). Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. ten. (C.-S. Liu 2007). (C.-S. Liu 2007). (C.-S. Liu 2007). centimeter. ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’. (C.-S. Liu 2007). As can be seen the guo-comparative example (55), the optional item is the differential measure phrase shi gongfen ‘ten centimeters’, whereas the obligatory constituent is the 54.

(62) comparison standard Lisi. As illustrated in the transitive comparative instance (56), the optional component is the comparison standard Lisi, while the obligatory unit is the differential measure phrase shi gongfen ‘ten centimeters’. Fifth, a degree adverb can not modify the adjective in both the guo-comparative and the transitive comparative as (57a) and (57b) suggest.. (57) a. *張三. 很/更. *Zhangsan hen/geng Zhangsan very/more b. *張三. 很/更. *Zhangsan hen/geng Zhangsan very/more. 高過. 李四. 三. 公分. gao-guo1. Lisi. san. gongfen. tall-guo1. Lisi. three. centimeter. 高. 李四. 三. 公分. gao. Lisi. san. gongfen. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter (C.-S. Liu 2007). Sixth, if quantifiers involve in both the guo-comparative and the transitive comparative, neither of them is acceptable as (58) indicates.. 55.

(63) 其他/這些. 人. 三. 公分. *Zhangsan gao-guo1 qita/zhexie. ren. san. gongfen.. person. three. centimeter. (58) a. *張三. 高過. Zhangsan tall-guo1 other/these. ‘??Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than everyone else/these persons.’ 其他/這些. 人. 三. 公分. *Zhangsan gao. qita/zhexie. ren. san. gongfen. Zhangsan tall. other/these. person. three. centimeter. b. *張三. 高. ‘?? Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than everyone else/these persons.’ (C.-S. Liu 2007). In his paper, C.-S. Liu (2007) raises four questions and answers them afterwards. First, why must the referential comparison standard such as Lisi must precede the non-referential differential measure phrase like san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ in the transitive comparative as presented in the following examples?. (59) 張三. 高/矮. 李四. 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao/ai. Lisi. san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall/short Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller/shorter than Lisi.’ 56. (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(64) 高. 三. 公分. 李四. *Zhangsan. gao. san. gongfen. Lisi. Zhangsan. tall. three. centimeter. Lisi. (60) *張三. (C.-S. Liu 2007). To answer this question, C.-S. Liu states that the relationship between the comparison standard and the differential measure phrase is similar to the referential theme and non-referential theme. Non-referential theme is placed in V’, while the referential them is put in a higher position such as [Spec, VP]. Second, as the following sentences suggest, why is the differential measure phrase such as san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ obligatory in the transitive comparative?. (61) 張三. 高. 李四. 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. three. centimeters. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ (62) 張三. 高. 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. three. centimeters. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller (than Lisi).’ 57. (C.-S. Liu 2007). (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(65) 高. 李四. *Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. (63) *張三. (C.-S. Liu 2007). According to C.-S. Liu (2007), the semantics of the covert suffix -guo2 in the transitive comparative is bleached thus can not be the predicate to describe or restrict the interval argument of adjectives. Moreover, since the comparison standard such as Lisi in (61) is also not a degree term in the transitive comparative, the differential measure phrase like san gongfen ‘three centimeters’ in (61) and (62) is the only constituent to restrict or describe the interval argument of the adjective gao ‘tall’ in (61) and (62). As a result, a differential measure phrase in the transitive comparative is required. Third, why can’t the adjective such as gao ‘tall’ in (64a) be modified by the degree adverb like geng ‘more’ in (64b) in the transitive comparative?. (64) a. 張三. 高. 李四. 三. 公分. Zhangsan. gao. Lisi. san. gongfen. Zhangsan. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. 58. (C.-S. Liu 2007).

(66) b. *張三. 很/更. *Zhangsan hen/geng Zhangsan very/more. 高. 李四. 三. 公分. gao. Lisi. san. gongfen. tall. Lisi. three. centimeter (C.-S. Liu 2007). In order to answer this question, Liu discusses the structure of both the guo-comparative and the transitive comparative in (65) and (66) below to account for this phenomenon.. The guo-comparative (65) 張三高過李四三公分 Zhangsan [GuolP [Guo1’ [Guo1 gaoi-guo1] [AP Lisi [A’ [A ti] [san gongfen]]]]] Zhangsan. tall-guo1. Lisi. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. three centimeter (C.-S. Liu 2007). The transitive comparative (66) 張三高李四三公分 Zhangsan [Guo2P [Guo2’ [Guo2 gaoi-guo2] [AP Lisi [A’ [A ti] [san gongfen]]]]] Zhangsan. tall-guo2. Lisi. ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’. 59. three centimeter (C.-S. Liu 2007).