The Chinese bi comparative

The Chinese bi comparative

[TD$FIRSTNAME]Chen-Sheng Luther[TD$FIRSTNAME.E] [TD$SURNAME]Liu[TD$SURNAME.E]

*

Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Tahsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan

1. Introduction

According toBresnan (1973), English phrasal comparatives such as (1a) are derived from clausal counterparts (i.e., (1b)) through a complex derivational process, as (2) illustrates (Hankamer, 1973; Chomsky, 1977; Brame, 1983; Hoeksema, 1983; Napoli, 1983):

(1) a. John is taller than Bill. b. John is taller than Bill is.

(2) DS: John is er [than [Bill is what-tall]]-tall.

SS: John is er [whati[than [Bill is ti-tall]]]-tall. (wh-movement)

PF: John is tall-er [whati[than [Bill is ti-tall]]]. (clausal/extraposition/deletion)

John is tall-er [whati[than [Bill is ti-tall]]]. (phrasal/extraposition/deletion)

LF: [-er [whati[than [Bill is ti-tall]]]]jJohn is tj-tall. (QR the er-phrase)

A R T I C L E I N F O Article history:

Received 27 March 2010

Received in revised form 8 July 2011 Accepted 8 July 2011

Available online 26 August 2011 Keywords: Adjunct phrases C-command Clausal comparatives Comparative deletion Comparative subdeletion Degree comparison Embedded standards Individual comparison Parallelism Phrasal comparatives A B S T R A C T

Chinese bi comparatives should be divided into two types: phrasal and clausal. In the former, the prepositional subordinator bi introduces as standard of comparison one syntactic constituent that does not involve comparative deletion; in the latter, however, a clause with more than one standard constituent is introduced and this clause obligatorily involves comparative deletion and a degree operator-variable binding relation in syntax. Among the conditions to which building a Chinese bi comparative is subject, two conditions interact to disallow comparative subdeletion: (A) the bi phrase occurs as an adjunct phrase adjoined to the left of the predicate of comparison and (B) the standard constituent must be minimally c-commanded by its corresponding main clause correlate. ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +886 35726037. E-mail address:csliu@faculty.nctu.edu.tw.

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Lingua

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l i n g u a

0024-3841/$ – see front matterß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.002

Behind this analysis is the idea of degree comparison: in phrasal and clausal comparatives, the morpheme -er requires the maximal degree associated with the matrix adjective to be greater than the maximal degree associated with the adjective in the than clause (Heim, 1985; Kennedy, 1999, 2007).

Recently, studies on Chinese bi comparatives have heatedly debated whether Chinese bi comparatives like (3a and b) are derived from their clausal counterparts (Cheng, 1966; Hashimoto, 1966, 1971; Fu, 1978; Tsao, 1990; Paul, 1993; Liu, 1996; Xiang, 2005; Kennedy, 2007; Erlewine, 2007; Lin, 2009).1

(3) a. Zhangsan zuotian zai xuexiao bi Lisi jintian zai jiali kaixin. Zhangsan yesterday at school than Lisi today at home happy ‘Yesterday, Zhangsan was happier at school than Lisi is at home today’. b. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao.

Zhangsan than Lisi tall ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi’.

On one hand, under the framework of early generative-transformational grammar,Cheng (1966),Hashimoto (1966, 1971), andFu (1978)analyze the bi comparative as a clausal comparative by assuming that what are compared is a pair of degree variables. For example,Fu (1978:86–114)suggests that the deep structure of examples like (3b) consists of three clauses (i.e., DS in (4)), in which the abstract predicate bijiao ‘compare’ takes two parallel propositions (i.e., S1and S2), each

further dominated by an NP. These two compared propositions are further modified by variables of indefinite degree modifiers (i.e., X and Y), and X> Y. Having this deep structure as input, the step-by-step derivational process of (3b) can be succinctly described as follows:

(4) DS: [S0[NP1[S1Zhangsan X gao]] [NP2[S2Lisi Y gao]] [Vbijiao]]

Step 1: [S0’[NP1[S1Zhangsan X gao]] [VP[NP2[S2Lisi Y gao]] [Vbijiao]]]

Step 2: [S0’[NP1Zhangsan X gao] [VP[NP2bi [S2Lisi Y gao]] [Vbijiao]]]

Step 3: [S1[NP1[S1Zhangsan X gao]] [VPbi [NPLisi gao] [Vbijiao] gao]]

Step 4: [S0’[NPZhangsan] [VPbi [NPLisi] bijiao gao]]

SS: Zhangsan bi Lisi gao.

First, NP1undergoes Subject Raising and Chomsky adjunction to S0. Second, an operation adjoins the complementizer-like

marker bi, which does not exist in the underlying structure, to NP2and Y is deleted. Third, the variable degree marker X has

undergone VP lowering and substitutes the VP of S0’. Then, the identical adjective in S2is deleted and S2is replaced by the left

NP. Finally, bijiao is deleted to derive the surface structure.

On the other hand, inspired byBeck et al.’s (2004:325)andKennedy’s (2005:20–21)study on the parametric variations on comparison,Xiang (2005),Erlewine (2007), andLin (2009), though differing from each other in some details of analysis and assumption, argue that the Chinese bi comparative cannot be analyzed as a clausal comparative, asFu (1978)and others suggest. The most important counter-argument provided by them is: If Chinese comparatives are derived via a derivational process similar to what is shown in (4), why does (5a), taken fromLin (2009:7), differ from its English counterpart (5b), in not allowing comparative subdeletion in syntax?

(5) a. *Zhe-zhang shuzhuo [bi na-zhang zhuozi (liang-cun/name) chang] kuan.

This-CL desk than that-CL desk two-inch/that long wide

b. This desk is wider than that table is (*two inches/*that) long. c. Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than Dennis Rodman has

(*two/*many) tattoos.

1 _{In this paper, I gloss the marker bi as ‘than’ simply for ease of exposition. It does not mean I take it for granted that the marker bi has than as its English} counterpart because they differ from each other in many aspects; for example, the marker than can take a manner adverb as complement but bi cannot, as shown below.

(i) He sighs, but more happily than sadly (Lin, 2009:17) (ii) *Wo zhenxinde bi zhenchengde (geng) guanxin ni.

I sincerely than genuinely even-more care-about you

Please see footnote8for further discussion. Abbreviations used in this paper include: ASP: aspect marker, BA: disposal marker, BEI: passive marker, CL: classifier, DE: the verbal suffix or the marker for modifying phrases like genitive phrases, relative clauses, and noun complement clauses, HEN: positive morpheme, QR: quantifier raising, and SFP: sentence final particle.

According toBresnan (1977), in English comparative subdeletion constructions such as (5b-c), an amount or degree term must be omitted from the constituent (i.e., the compared constituent (e.g., long in (5b))) that provides the point of comparison with the morphologically marked phrase in the main clause (i.e., the head of the comparative (e.g., wider in (5b))). Note that this is not a semantic restriction: (5b) could in principle mean something like ‘the width of this desk is greater than the length of that table, and the difference is two inches/that’. However, as the ungrammaticality of (5a) indicates, Chinese does not allow comparative subdeletion, though the grammaticality of (6) indicates that Chinese does allow subcomparison in semantics.2

(6) Zhe-zhang shuzhuo de kuandu bi na-zhang shuzhuo de changdu da

This-CL desk DE width than that-CL desk DE length great

liang-cun. two-inch

‘The width of this desk is greater than the length of that one by two inches.’

Central to this debate are the following two questions: Is the phrasal versus clausal distinction needed in studying the syntax and semantics of Chinese bi comparatives? Does the Chinese bi comparative involve degree comparison (or a degree operator-variable binding relation) in syntax? (To avoid confusion, the bi clausal comparative here is defined as one in which the marker bi introduces a clause obligatorily involving comparative deletion, while the bi phrasal comparative is one in which the marker bi introduces a phrase not involving comparative deletion.)

Assuming that the phrasal versus clausal distinction is needed in studying the syntax and semantics of the Chinese bi comparatives, I argue here for a hybrid analysis to Chinese bi comparatives which consists of the following five assumptions: (A) The marker bi is a prepositional subordinator that takes a (non-)clausal complement, and forms a pre-predicate adjunct phrase with its complement. (B) Not carrying the meaning denoted by the English comparative morpheme -er, the marker bi functions to introduce (a) standard constituent(s) (e.g., Lisi in (3a)) in a contrastive relation to its/their corresponding main clause correlate(s) (e.g., Zhangsan in (3a)) (Lu et al., 1980:61). (Here, the term ‘correlate’ means ‘the main clause counterpart with which the standard constituent is compared’.) (C) The bi comparative where the marker bi introduces as the standard of comparison one constituent that does not involve comparative deletion is analyzed as the bi phrasal comparative; those bi comparatives where more than one standard constituent is contained in the complement clause of the marker bi are analyzed as clausal comparatives, and this clause obligatorily involves comparative deletion and a degree operator-variable binding relation in syntax. (D) The standard constituent, in either the bi phrasal or clausal comparative, not only has to be minimally c-commanded by its corresponding correlate but also has parallel it in category and semantics (Paul, 1993). Additionally, the complement clause of the marker bi must be parallel to the minimal clause containing the bi phrase in the basic syntactic structure. (E) In the bi clausal comparative, comparative deletion obligatorily deletes all the subelements of the clause introduced by the marker bi except those in a contrastive relation to their corresponding correlates. To recover the content of the ‘elided’ site, the ‘elided’ constituent must be e-given (Merchant, 2004). And the ‘salient’ antecedent of the elided site retrieved from the main clause must be as minimal as possible by consisting only of a degree variable and a predicate that can form with the standard constituents a clause the same as the minimal clause containing the bi phrase in the sentence type.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In section2, I thoroughly describe the syntax and semantics of Chinese bi comparatives, and then crystallize the empirical and theoretical questions raised by this construction. In section3, I review two representative analyses from the previous literature, and then point out that neither a pure clausal nor a pure non-clausal analysis can well account for the facts. Section4presents my own analysis. I first propose a hybrid analysis to the syntax and semantics of the Chinese bi comparatives, and then some empirical and theoretical implications are discussed. Finally, the conclusion is stated in section5.

2. The syntactic and semantic properties of bi comparatives

In this section, I first comprehensively describe the syntactic and semantic properties of the Chinese bi comparatives from eight perspectives: the syntactic properties of the bi-standard sequence, the number of standard(s) introduced by the marker

2

One anonymous reviewer provides example (i) to show that Chinese allows subcomparison in semantics. (i) Shuzhuo de kuandu bi xiezi-tai de changdu hai kuan.

Desk DE width than writing-desk DE length even-more wide ‘The width of the desk is even wider than the length of the writing desk.’

Frankly speaking, this is the first time I have heard and seen this kind of sentence. To verify its grammatical status, I checked with twenty-three native speakers. Only eight of them accept it as a grammatical sentence. Nevertheless, in this paper what I study is why Chinese does not allow comparative subdeletion in syntax. So, this example, even if it is grammatical, has no significant impact on my study because it does not involve comparative subdeletion in syntax. Those who accept example (i) as grammatical might allow the main predicate kuan ‘wide’ not only to provide a dimension of ‘width’ but also ‘length’. So the comparison involved becomes possible. The semantics of (i), which is treated as a bi phrasal comparative under my analysis, then can be generated byHeim’s (1985)direct analysis to the semantics of phrasal comparatives. Given this, examples like (i) will not be discussed in the rest of this paper.

bi, the category of the standard, the syntactic and semantic relation(s) among the standards, deletion, the constraints on the standard(s), the explicit comparison, and the function of bi. After this, I clearly point out all the questions that any analysis to the Chinese bi comparative has to deal with.

2.1. The syntactic properties of the bi-standard sequence

From the perspective of the syntactic properties of the bi-standard sequence, the bi comparative has three features. First, a bi-standard sequence can be connected with another one by a coordinator like huozhe ‘or’, or it can occur as an independent fragment, as shown by (7a and b), respectively (Liu, 1996:220;Lin, 2009:25).

(7) a. 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’.

b. Ta-de shengao bi wo haiyao ai, bi Yaoming na geng shi

He-DE height than I even short than Yaoming then even-more is

tian cha di yuan le.

heaven differ ground far SFP

‘He is much shorter than I am. If compared with Yaoming, his height is even like the distance between the heaven and the ground.’

In addition, as the contrast between (8a and b) and (9a and b) indicates, the bi-standard sequence can only be ‘adjoined’ to the left of a predicate that is gradable like gao ‘tall’ in (8a) or that contains a gradable element, as shown by (8b), where the predicate pao-de kuai ‘run-DE fast’ contains the gradable element kuai ‘fast’.

(8) a. Zhangsan [bi Lisi [gao]]. Zhangsan than Lisi tall ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’ b. Zhangsan [bi Lisi [pao-de *(kuai)]].

Zhangsan than Lisi run-DE fast ‘Zhangsan runs faster than Lisi does.’

(9) a. *Zhangsan [[gao] bi Lisi]. Zhangsan tall than Lisi ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’

b. *Zhangsan [[pao-de *(kuai)] bi Lisi]. Zhangsan run-DE fast than Lisi ‘Zhangsan runs faster than Lisi does.’

So the bi-standard sequence forms a syntactic constituent by itself and occurs as an adjunct phrase adjoined to the left of a main predicate that is gradable or contains a gradable element (Paul, 1993; Liu, 1996; Shi, 2001).

Second, the bi phrase, asShi (2001:151)argues, can only occur within a certain domain: after the subject but before the predicate (or the manner/degree adverb if the predicate is modified by a manner/degree adverb).3,4

3 _{One anonymous reviewer says the original (10a) (i.e., (i) taken fromShi (2001:151)) sounds much worse to him/her.} (i) Jinnian Zhangsan bi qunian pang-duo le.

This-year Zhangsan than last-year fat-more SFP ‘Zhangsan gets fatter than he did last year.’

So, I have (i) replaced with the new (10a), and all of the twenty-three native speakers I have consulted accept the new (10a) as a grammatical sentence. Likewise, all these informants accept (ii) as a grammatical sentence.

(ii) Zai xuexiao xuesheng zongshi bi zai jiali tinghua. At school student always than at home well-behaved ‘Students are always more well-behaved in school than at home.’

(10) a. Xianzai wo erzi bi yiqian guai-duo le. Now I son than before well-behaved-more SFP ‘Now my son is more well-behaved than before.’

b. Wo erzi xianzai bi yiqian guai-duo le.

I son now than before well-behaved-more SFP ‘Now my son is more well-behaved than before.’

c. Zhangsan bi Lisi (geng) zhenxinde guanxin ni.

Zhangsan than Lisi even-more sincerely care-about you ‘Zhangsan more sincerely cares about you than Lisi does.’

(11) a. *Xianzai bi yiqian wo erzi guai-duo le.

Now than before I son well-behaved-more SFP

b. *Zhangsan geng bi Lisi zhenxinde guanxin ni.

Zhangsan even-more than Lisi sincerely care-about you c. *Zhangsan zhenxinde bi Lisi guanxin ni.

Zhangsan sincerely than Lisi care-about you

Furthermore, as (10a) indicates, the marker bi is not required to be flanked by the standard constituent and its correlate (i.e., the main clause counterpart with which the standard constituent is compared).

Third, asTeng (1985:472)points out, the distinction between the negated adjectival predicate bu gao ‘not tall’ and the negated adjectival predicate bu-shufu ‘uncomfortable’, as shown below, in fact corresponds to the contradictory (e.g., black versus non-black) versus contrary (e.g., black versus white) distinction (Jespersen, 1924:322;Klima, 1964; Lu, 1984:223– 229).

Thus, the existence of examples like the new (10a) and (ii) should not be neglected. Based on example (iii), another reviewer points out to me that a reason clause can follow a frequency adverb.

(iii) Zhangsan shichang yinwei Lisi queke er shengqi. Zhangsan often because Lisi absent then get-angry ‘Zhangsan often gets angry because Lisi is absent.’

So a reason clause is expected to occur as the standard of comparison, and the fact bears out this expectation, as the grammaticality of (iv), provided by the reviewer, shows.

(iv) Laoban yinwei ta jingchang chidao bi yinwei ta ou’er fan cuo Boss because he often late than because he sometimes make mistake hai geng shengqi.

even more angry

‘The boss is even more angry because he is often late than because he sometimes makes mistakes.’ 4

LaPolla (1990), based on the ‘topic-comment’ constructions like (i), claims that the first of the two compared constituents inLi and Thompson’s (1981) pattern has to be a topic.

(i) Xiang bi xiong bizi chang. Elephant than bear nose long

‘Elephants have longer noses than bears.’

However, example (i) is only a counterexample at first sight becauseTeng (1974)has shown that a Chinese ‘NP NP VP’ structure might allow for two different analyses, as illustrated by (ii) and (iii), respectively (Tsao, 1990; Shi, 2001:153–154;Liu et al., 2004:664).

(ii) [IPSubject [PredicateNP VP]] (iii) Topic [IPSubject VP]

For instance, sentence (iv) might have a syntactic structure like (ii) as evidenced by the acceptability of VP-level adverbs (e.g., ye ‘also’) which are restricted to a position to the right of the subject, as (v) shows.

(iv) Xiang bizi chang. Elephant nose long ‘An elephant has a long nose.’ (v) [IPXiang ye [Predicatebizi chang]].

Elephant also nose long ‘An elephant also has a long nose.’

(12) a. Zhangsan bu gao. ‘Zhangsan not tall

‘Zhangsan is not tall, but it is not necessary for him to be short.’ b. Zhangsan bu-shufu.

Zhangsan un-comfortable ‘Zhangsan is uncomfortable.’

The contradictory terms, asTeng (1985:471–473) argues, are syntactic facts while contrary terms are lexical facts because only contrary terms, like adjectives, can be modified by a degree adverb, as illustrated by the contrast below.

(13) a. *Zhangsan feichang bu gao.

Zhangsan extremely not tall b. Zhangsan feichang bu-shufu.

Zhangsan extremely un-comfortable ‘Zhangsan is extremely uncomfortable.’

In other words, [Abu-shufu] ‘uncomfortable’ in (13b) is a compound word on a par with [Aun-comfortable], in contrast with

the phrasal status of bu gao ‘not tall’ in (13a). Given this distinction, the contrast between (14a) and (14b) implies that the syntactic negation marker bu ‘not’ (i.e., the contradictory negation marker) cannot occur after the bi phrase (Teng, 1985:473).5

(14) a. *Zhangsan bi Lisi bu gao.

Zhangsan than Lisi not tall b. Zhangsan bi Lisi bu-gaoxing.

Zhangsan than Lisi un-happy

‘Zhangsan is more unhappy than Lisi.’ 2.2. The number of standard constituent(s)

AsLiu (1996)andShi (2001:154–155)argue, under the following two contexts, the number of standard constituents introduced by the marker bi is one: The first one, as exemplified by (15a), involves a context where only one standard constituent is introduced. The second one apparently contains ‘more than one standard constituent’, but these ‘standard constituents’ indeed form a subject-predicate relation and belong to a single phrase (i.e., a clause), as (15b) illustrates. (15) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi kaixin. (one)

Zhangsan than Lisi happy ‘Zhangsan is happier than Lisi.’ b. [Ni qu] bi [wo qu] heshi. (one)

You go than I go appropriate

‘It is more appropriate for you to go than for me to go.’

In the second type, the main predicate has to be one that can take a sentential subject. However, the number of standard constituents is more than one in examples like (16a), where the standard constituents (i.e., Lisi and zuotian ‘yesterday’) do not belong to a single phrase, nor do they form a subject-predicate relation, as the ungrammaticality of (16b) shows.

5

One anonymous reviewer provides example (i) and (ii), where the negation marker bu ‘not’ can only be analyzed as a syntactic negation marker for a verb, and then suggests the syntactic negation marker bu ‘not’ can occur after the bi phrase in examples like (iii).

(i) Zhangsan bu tai xiangxin ni. Zhangsan not very believe you ‘Zhangsan does not believe you so much.’ (ii) Ni zheme zuo bu zenme yinggai.

You this do not how should

‘It is not so appropriate for you to do it this way.’ (iii) Zhangsan bi Lisi geng bu (*tai) yinggai.

Zhangsan than Lisi even-more not too should

‘Zhangsan is even more inappropriate than Lisi in doing this way.’

If the negation marker bu ‘not’ in (iii) is a syntactic element, we would expect some syntactic constituent could be inserted between bu ‘not’ and yinggai ‘should’. However, this expectation is not boren out. In addition, the reviewer’s comment can hold only if the possibility of analyzing the negation marker bu ‘not’ in (iii) as a lexical negation marker can be excluded. But, it is very difficult to exclude this possibility.

(16) a. Zhangsan jintian bi Lisi zuotian kaixin. (two) Zhangsan today than Lisi yesterday happy

‘Zhangsan is happier at home than Lisi was in school yesterday.’ b. *Lisi zuotian.

Lisi yesterday

So the number of standard constituents in the bi comparatives can be one or more than one. 2.3. The category of the standard constituent(s)

Since the standard constituent(s) must be parallel to its corresponding main clause correlate(s) in category and semantics, the category of standard constituents can be a subject NP, a temporal NP, a locative PP, a ba disposal ‘phrase’, or an instrument phrase, as illustrated by the standard constituents in (17) in the left-to-right sequential order (Tsao, 1990).6 (17) Zhangsan jintian zai xuexiao ba xigua yong cai dao bi Lisi zuotian

Zhangsan today at school BA watermelon with food knife than Lisi yesterday zai jiali ba nangua yong xigua dao qie-de geng xi.

at home BA pumpkin with watermelon knife cut-DE more small

‘Today Zhangsan uses a knife for food to cut a watermelon into pieces smaller than Lisi used a knife for watermelons to cut a pumpkin yesterday.’

Further, the category of the standard constituent can also be a preposed postverbal object of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected, a bei ‘phrase’ (i.e., a passive structure), a reason clause, or even a clause, as illustrated by (18a–d), respectively (see footnote16andLin, 2009).7,8

6

Please see footnote23for discussion on why the standard constituent(s) must be parallel to its corresponding main clause correlate(s) in category and semantics. The syntactic properties of examples containing the ba disposal structure are discussed in section4.1.

7

Please see example (64) for the syntactic structure of cases containing a bei ‘phrase’. Besides, based on examples (i)–(iii),Tsao (1990:294–295)suggests that comparison of two objects by means of the object fronting topicalization process is possible only when they are both inanimate.

(i) *Wo Zhangsan bi Lisi xihuan. I Zhangsan than Lisi like

‘I like Zhangsam more than I like Lisi.’ (ii) ?Wo mao bi gou xihuan.

I dog than cat like ‘I like dogs more than I like cats.’ (iii) Wo daishu bi jihe xihuan.

I algebra than geometry like ‘I like algebra more than geometry.’

However, this description is not without problems because a sentence involving a comparison between two fronting human object NPs like (18a) is possible. That is, besides the prominent interpretation (with the prime minister Zhou Enlai and the vice prime minister Deng Xiaoping as subjects and terms of comparison: With respect to Chair Maoi, Zhou Enlai trusts himimore than Deng Xiaoping), we can also obtain a pragmatically induced/preferred interpretation with both Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping as (fronted) objects for (18a): Chair Mao has more confidence in Zhou Enlai than in Deng Xiaoping).

8_{As one anonymous reviewer points out, examples like (i) show that manner adverbs might occur as the standard constituent in the bi comparative.} (i) Shengri manmande bi kuaikuaide dao geng ling ren qidai.

Birthday slowly than quickly arrive even-more make people anticipated ‘For your birthday to come more slowly than quickly is even more anticipated.’

As is well accepted, a bi phrase can only be adjoined to a predicate that is gradable or contains a gradable element. However, the position to which the bi phrase bi kuaikuaide ‘than quickly’ is adjoined in (i) is the VP headed by the non-gradable dynamic predicate dao ‘arrive’. So, we have strong reason to believe that example (i) is a form reduced of a sentence like (ii).

(ii) [[Shengri manmande dao] [[bi [shengri kuaikuaide dao]] geng ling Birthday slowly arrive than birthday quickly arrive even-more make ren qidai]].

people anticipated

‘For your birthday to come more slowly than quickly is even more anticipated.’

(18) a. Mao zhuxi Zhou Enlai bi Deng Xiaoping haiyao xinren. Mao chair Zhou Enlai than Deng Xiaoping even-more trust

i. ‘Zhou Enlai trusts Chair Maoimore than Deng Xiaoping trusts himi.’

ii. ‘Chair Maoitrusts Zhou Enlai more than hei trusts Deng Xiaoping.’

b. Zhangsan bei Lisi bi bei Wangwu da-de geng qican.

Zhangsan BEI Lisi than BEI Wangwu hit-DE even-more pitifully

‘Zhangsaniwas beaten more pitifully by Lisi than heiwas beaten by Wangwu.’

c. Beigao yinwei fan du hui bi yinwei qiangjie er geng

Accused because sell drugs will than because rob then even-more youkeneng bei pan zhong xing.

possible BEI judge severe penalty

‘It is more possible for the accused to be given a severe penalty because he sold drugs than because he robbed.’

d. [Ni qu] bi [wo qu] heshi. You go than I go appropriate

‘It is more appropriate for you to go than for me to go.’ 2.4. The relation among the standard constituents

Suppose more than one standard constituent is involved; then among the standard constituents three restrictions exist: First, none of the standard constituents can be a preposed postverbal object NP of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected, as shown by the contrast below.

(19) a. Zhangsan shuxue bi wuli xihuan.

Zhangsan mathematics than physics like ‘Zhangsan likes mathematics more than physics.’

b. *Zhangsan (xianzai) shuxue bi Lisi (yiqian) wuli xihuan. Zhangsan now mathematics than Lisi past physics like ‘Zhangsan likes mathematics more than Lisi liked physics.’

However, one anonymous reviewer points out this claim might be challenged by the following two examples.

(20) a. Zhangsan xianzai shuxue bi Lisi yiqian wuli xue-de

Zhangsan now mathematics than Lisi before physics learn-DE

geng hao.

even-more good

‘Now Zhangsan learns mathematics even better than Lisi learned physics in the past.’

b. Zhangsan xianzai wuli bi Lisi yiqian shuexue hua-le geng

Zhangsan now physics than Lisi before mathematics spend-ASP more duo shijian yandu.

more time study

‘Now Zhangsan spends more time in studying physics than Lisi did in mathematics.’

Although both (20a and b) are acceptable, I want to argue that it is not necessary for the so-called ‘preposed object’ NP here to be analyzed as the real postverbal object of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected.

Significantly crucial to (20a) is that this sentence is a descriptive V-de complement construction. According toTang (1990)andHuang (1992, 2006), in the descriptive V-de construction, for instance (21), the ‘V NP’ sequence of the ‘V NP V-de Result’ sequence is a pre-predicate adjunct, V-de is the main verb, the ‘Result’ is the complement of V-de, and the V of ‘V NP’ sequence must be the same as V of V-de in phonetic value.

(21) Zhangsan [[[Vchang] [NPge]] [[V-dechang-de] [Resulthao]]].

Zhangsan sing song sing-DE good

So it is possible for us to analyze the main clause of (20a) (i.e., (22a)) as one with a syntactic structure like (22b), in which the first verb xue ‘learn’ is deleted.

(22) a. Zhangsan (xianzai) shuxue xue-de geng hao.

Zhangsan now mathematics learn-DE even-more good ‘Now Zhangsan learns mathematics even better.’

b. Zhangsan xianzai [[Vxue] [NPshuxue]] [V xue]-de [Resultgeng hao]].

Zhangsan now learn mathematics learn-DE even-more good

‘Zhangsan now learns mathematics even better.’

In other words, the so-called ‘preposed object NP’ shuxue ‘mathematics’ in (20a) in fact can be analyzed as the reduced form of the pre-predicate adjunct phrase xue shuxue ‘learn mathematics’. Since the NP shuxue ‘mathematics’ occurs as object in the pre-predicate adjunct phrase xue shuxue ‘learn mathematics’, the ‘compared constituent’ shuxue ‘mathematics’ can be understood as ‘object’. But, this ‘object’ is not one preposed from the postverbal position of the main verb. Although such an analysis involves backward deletion, backward deletion indeed is not impossible in Chinese, especially in constructions with a subordinated structure like (23a and b).9

(23) a. Yinwei ni ye yao qu, suoyi wo cai yao qu.

Because you also will go so I then will go ‘Because you will go, so I will go.’

b. Yinwei ni ye keyi liu xialai, suoyi ta cai keyi liu xialai. Because you also can stay down-come so he then can stay down-come ‘Because you also can stay here, so he can stay here too.’

On the other hand, I argue that example (20b), raised by the reviewer, can actually be analyzed as a coordinated structure containing two clauses, as (24) shows.

(24) [S1Zhangsan xianzai wuli bi Lisi yiqian shuxue hua-le geng

Zhangsan now physics than Lisi before mathematics spend-ASP more duo shijian] [S2Pro yandu Pro].

more time study

Having (20b) analyzed as (24) gets support from the grammaticality of (25), in which the verb hua ‘spend’ already takes the NP hen duo shijian ‘very much time’ as object.

(25) Zhangsan xianzai wuli hua-le hen duo shijian.

Zhangsan now physics spend-ASP very much time ‘Now Zhangsan spends a lot of time in physics.’

Given that the possibility of analyzing the NP wuli ‘physics’ in (25) as a based-generated adjunct topic cannot be excluded, it is difficult to say that the NP wuli ‘physics’ can only be analyzed as a preposed object of the verb hua ‘spend’ in (25). So, (20a and b) cannot be used as irrefutable counter-arguments to the claim that none of the standard constituents in a bi comparative with more than one standard constituent can be a preposed postverbal object NP of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected.

Second, the word order among the standard constituents must be in the canonical ‘subject-temporal adjunct-locative adjunct(-pre-predicate adjunct)’ order, as illustrated by the contrast between (26a) and (26b–d).10

9

Among the twenty-three native speakers with whom I have checked on (23a and b), only five of them find (23a and b) marginal. 10

As one anonymous reviewer points out, the ‘subject-temporal adjunct-locative adjunct(-pre-predicate adjunct)’ order restriction might be challenged by (i), where a ‘subject-temporal adjunct-object’ order is found.

(i) Zhangsan xianzai shuxue bi Lisi yiqian wuli xue-de geng hao. Zhangsan now mathematics than Lisi past physics learn-DE even-more good ‘Now Zhangsan learns mathematics even better than Lisi learned physics in the past.’

As I argued above, the so-called ‘object’ NP here in fact can be considered as a reduced form of a pre-predicate adjunct. So (i) is not necessarily a counterexample to my observation.

(26) a. Zhangsan jintian zai xuexiao bi Lisi zuotian zai jiali kaixin. Zhangsan today at school than Lisi yesterday at home happy ‘Zhangsan today is happier in school than Lisi yesterday was at home.’ b. *Jintian Zhangsan bi zuotian Lisi kaixin.

Today Zhangsan than yesterday Lisi happy c. *Zai xuexiao Zhangsan bi zai jiali Lisi tinghua.

At school Zhangan than at home Lisi obedient

d. *Zhangsan zai xuexiao jintian bi Lisi zai jiali zuotian kaixin. Zhangsan at school today than Lisi at home yesterday happy

Third, the standard constituents (e.g., Lisi, zuotian ‘yesterday’, and zai jiali ‘at home’), as (27) shows, have to be c-commanded by their corresponding correlates in the main clause (i.e., Zhangsan, jintian ‘today’, and zai xuexiao ‘at school’) (Paul, 1993; Liu, 1996; Shi, 2001:155).

(27) [Zhangsan [jintian [zai xuexiao [[[bi [Lisi zuotian zai jiali]]] kaixin]]]]. Zhangsan today at school than Lisi yesterday at home happy ‘Zhangsan is happier in school than Lisi was at home yesterday.’ 2.5. Deletion

AsTsao (1990:297–308)suggests, deletion (or ellipsis) in the Chinese bi comparative that contains only one standard constituent, as shown by (28a–c), can be forward or backward, depending on the (idiosyncratic) properties of the standard constituent or its correlate, and deletion here is optional.11

(28) a. THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE

Ta (de) jixing bi wo (de) jixing hao-de duo. He DE memory than I DE memory good-DE many

‘Speaking of him and speaking of me, (his) memory is much better than mine.’ b. THE PRESENT-TIME DELETION PRINCIPLE

Zhangsan xianzai bi gangcai kaixn. Zhangsan now than a-while-ago happy ‘Zhangsan is happier than (he was) a while ago. c. THE SECOND COMPARED CONSTITUENT GENITIVE DELETION PRINCIPLE

Zhangsan-de toufa bi wo-de chang. Zhangsan-DE hair than I-DE long ‘Zhangsan’s hair is longer than mine.’

2.6. The constraints on the standard constituent(s)

From the perspective of constraints on the standard constituents, the Chinese bi comparative shows the following properties: First, the Chinese bi comparative cannot compare directly over a direct object in its postverbal position, although the English comparative can (Hashimoto, 1966, 1971).

11_{Tsao (1990:297–308)proposes a general principle of comparative deletion, namely, the Primary Principle, with two minor deletion principles (i.e., the} Present-time Deletion Principle and the Second Compared Constituent Genitive Deletion Principle), as illustrated by (i)–(iii), respectively.

(i) The Primary Principle

Any compared topic, primary or non-primary, can be deleted if it is identical to another topic of an equal rank. Only forward deletion, however, is allowed. (ii) The Present-time Deletion Principle

The topical constituents referring to the present time can be deleted. (iii) The Second Compared Constituent Genitive Deletion Principle

When a possessive NP occurs as the second of a paired compared constituents, and the possessed NP is identical with that of the first compared constituent, then the possessive marker can be optionally deleted after the possessed NP is deleted by the rule of Identical Elements in a Compared Constituent Deletion.

(29) a. *Zhuli bi laoshi geng hui ma xiaozhang. Assistant than teacher even-more able scold president

‘The assistantiis even better in scolding the president than s/heiis good in scolding the teacher.’

b. John bought more books than Bill sold magazines.

That is, it is unacceptable in the intended sense of comparing objects (i.e., The assistantiis even better in scolding the

president than s/heiis good in scolding the teacher), but it is acceptable as comparison of subjects: The assistant is even better in

scolding the president than the teacher is.

Second, although both Chinese and English, as (30a and b) illustrate, display subcomparison in semantics, Chinese does not allow comparative subdeletion in syntax, as shown by the grammatical contrast between (31a) and (31b-c) (Tsao, 1990:310–311).

(30) a. Zhe-zhang shuzhuo de kuandu bi na-zhang shuzhuo de changdu da.

This-CL desk DE width than that-CL desk DE length great

‘The width of this desk is greater than the length of that one.’ b. The width of this desk is greater than the length of that desk.

(31) a. *Zhe-zhang shuzhuo [bi na-zhang zhuozi (liang-cun/name) chang] kuan.

This-CL desk than that-CL table two-inch/that long wide

b. This desk is wider than that table is (*two inches/*that) long. c. Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than Dennis Radman has

(*two/*many) tattoos.

Third, the contrast between (32a) and (32b) seems to imply that the Chinese bi comparative does not allow an embedded standard (i.e., long-distance comparison), although the English clausal comparative does (Liu, 1996:219;Xiang, 2005; Erlewine, 2007; Lin, 2009).

(32) a. *Zhangsan jintian bi [Lisi renwei [Wangwu zuotian]] kaixin. Zhangsan today than Lisi think Wangwu yesterday happy

‘Today Zhangsan is happier than Lisi thinks that Wangwu was yesterday.’ b. John is taller than Bill thinks that Jack is.

2.7. The explicit comparison

AsShi (2001:137–138)points out, a bi comparative that does not contain the degree adverb geng ‘even more’, for example (33), does not require any pre-established degree of height on the part of Zhangsan or Lisi, as verified by (34a).

(33) Zhangsan (xianzai) bi Lisi (yiqian) gao. Zhangsan now than Lisi past tall ‘Now Zhangsan is taller than Lisi was.’

(34) a. Suiran Zhangsan (xianzai) bi Lisi (yiqian) gao, danshi liang-ge dou Although Zhangsan now than Lisi past tall but two-CL all bu gao.

not tall

‘Although Zhangsan is taller than Lisi, but both of them are not tall.’

b. Zhangsan hen gao.

Zhangsan HEN tall ‘Zhangsan is tall.’

c. Suiran Zhangsan bi Lisi gao, buguo jihu kan bu chulai. Although Zhangsan than Lisi tall but almost see not appear ‘Although Zhangsan is taller than Lisi, it is almost imperceptible.’

That is, (33) does not presuppose (34b), which contains the overt positive morpheme hen ‘HEN’ (Kennedy, 2007; Liu, 2010a). So no matter how tall or short Zhangsan or Lisi is, example (33) will be true as long as Zhangsan exceeds Lisi in height. Furthermore, Zhangsan’s height and Lisi’s height, as the grammaticality of (34c) indicates, can be so close that the difference is neither significant nor discernible. Hence, in a bi comparative, an ordering relation between the degrees is simply posited, and a ‘crisp judgment’ might be yielded. In addition, asKennedy (2007)andErlewine (2007)point out, the explicit measure shi gongfen ‘ten centimeter’ in a bi comparative like (35a) corresponds to a differential while in a bi comparative like (35b) it may be confused with an absolute degree.

(35) a. Zhangsan (jinnian) bi Lisi (qunian) gao shi-gongfen. Zhangsan this-year than Lisi last-year tall ten-centimeter

‘This year, Zhangsan is ten centimeters taller than Lisi was last year.’ b. *Gen Lisi (qunian) bi-qilai, Zhangsan (jinnian) gao shi-gongfen.

With Lisi last-year compare-qilai Zhangsan this-year tall ten-centimeter

Since the crisp judgment and the differential measurement are intrinsic features of the explicit comparison construction, Kennedy (2007)suggests the Chinese bi comparative is an explicit comparative (Erlewine, 2007).

2.8. The function of bi

According toLin (2009:19–23), the meaning of comparison in the bi comparative is provided by the word bi. In other words, the word bi has the function the English comparative morpheme -er has. SoLin (2009)analyzes the marker bi as a degree word and the phrase headed by it as a degree phrase. This analysis, however, encounters the following empirical and theoretical problems. First, in Chinese, an adjunct degree modifier must precede and be adjacent to the gradable constituent modified by it, as shown by the contrast below.12

(36) a. Wo dui ni hen keqi.

I to you very courteous ‘I am very courteous to you.’ b. *Wo hen dui ni keqi.

I very to you courteous

Suppose bi is a degree word; no other syntactic constituent should then intervene between the degree phrase headed by it and the gradable constituent modified by it. However, as the grammaticality of (37) indicates, the prediction is not borne out. (37) Zhangsan bi Lisi dui wo keqi.

Zhangsan than Lisi to I courteous

‘Zhangsan is more courteous to me than Lisi is.’

Second, syntactically a degree phrase cannot occur in a position hierarchically higher than a locative phrase, as shown by the contrast below.

(38) a. Zhangsan zai meiguo geng chidekai.

Zhangsan at America even-more influential ‘Zhangsan is even more influential in America.’

b. *Zhangsan geng zai meiguo chidekai.

Zhangsan even-more at America influential

So it is expected that a bi phrase, if it is analyzed as a degree phrase, cannot occur in a position higher than a locative phrase. But, this expectation is not borne out, as illustrated by (39).

12

One might challenge this by pointing out that a negation marker like bu ‘not’ can be inserted between a degree modifier and the gradable predicate modified, as shown below.

(i) Ni zhe-yang zuo tai bu yinggai. You this-way do too not should

‘It is too much inappropriate for you to do in this way.’

However, this claim can hold only if the possibility of analyzing the negation marker bu ‘not’ in (i) as a lexical negation marker can be excluded. But, it is not easy to exclude this possibility, as noted in footnote5.

(39) Zhangsan bi Lisi zai meiguo chidekai. Zhangsan than Lisi at America influential

‘In America, Zhangsan is more influential than Lisi.’

Given these facts, I suggest that the word bi simply functions to introduce the standard constituent(s) and the meaning of comparison in the bi comparative is provided by the comparative degree adverb like geng ‘even-more’ or the covert comparative morpheme (i.e.,geng), as shown by (40a and b), respectively.13

(40) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi geng gao.

Zhangsan than Lisi even-more tall ‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lisi.’ b. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao.

Zhangsan than Lisi tall ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’

Furthermore, the word bi and a comparative degree morpheme like geng ‘even-more’ form a pair of correlative words. Hence, the occurrence of bi entails the occurrence of the comparative degree morpheme, and vice versa. So it is not necessary for both of them to occur in the bi comparative simultaneously. However, since the covert comparative morphemegengdoes not have the phonetic form, it must co-occur with the word bi.14

All in all, the basic syntactic and semantic characteristics of the Chinese bi comparatives can be briefly summarized as follows: (A) the marker bi and the standard constituent introduced by it form an adjunct phrase adjoined to the left of the predicate providing the dimension of comparison or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison. (B) Chinese bi comparatives should be divided into two types, depending on whether the number of standard constituents is one or more than one, because of the following distinction: The latter requires the standard constituent not to be a preposed postverbal object NP of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected; however, the same restriction does not hold in the former. (C) The standard constituents must be c-commanded by their corresponding main clause correlates. (D) Chinese allows subcomparison in semantics but does not allow comparative subdeletion in syntax. (E) The Chinese bi comparative is an explicit comparison construction, and the marker bi is not a degree word.

These syntactic and semantic properties, at least, bring us the following questions that any analysis of the Chinese bi comparatives has to deal with: First, why do examples that contain more than one standard constituent not allow a preposed postverbal object of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected to occur as the standard constituent? This question can be

13

To get the meaning of comparison for examples like (40b), one might resort to the suggestion made byXiandai Hanyu Xuci Lishi (1982:243–244)and Sybesma (1999:26–27); that is, Chinese adjectives differ from their European counterparts in that the latter choose the unmarked option for the positive degree but the former choose the unmarked option for the comparative. Namely, in European languages the comparative is morphologically marked whereas in Chinese the positive degree is marked by the most neutral ‘positive degree marker hen’, as shown by the contrast below.

(i) a. John is taller. b. John is tall.

(ii) a. (Zhangsan han Lisi, shei gao?) Zhangsan gao. Zhangsan and Lisi who tall Zhangsan tall

‘(As for Zhangsan and Lisi, who is taller?) Zhangsan is taller. b. Zhangsan *(hen) gao.

Zhangsan HEN tall ‘Zhangsan is tall.’

However, this suggestion is not without problems because the language fact is more complex than whatXiandai Hanyu Xuci Lishi (1982)andSybesma (1999)indicate. AsZhu (1982)andLiu et al. (2004)point out, in Chinese it is possible for a positive-degree-denoting ‘unmarked’ gradable adjective to occur as predicate, in for example, the bu ‘not’ negation sentence, the contrastive focus construction, the ma particle question, the epistemic adjectival small clause, and the conditional. SeeLiu (2010a)for further discussion.

14

The correlative relation between the word bi and the comparative degree morpheme in the bi comparative also explains the question raised by one anonymous reviewer; that is, why can we not understand (i) as a comparative construction with the covert comparative morpheme?

(i) Ni qingchu-le ma? You clear-ASP SFP ‘Is it clear to you?’

The occurrence of the covert comparative morphemegengis possible only if the sentence also contains the word bi. But, (i) does not; so example (i) cannot get the meaning of comparison.

further interpreted as this: How do examples with more than one standard constituent differ from those with one standard constituent in nature?

Second, what makes the standard constituents have to be in the canonical ‘subject-temporal adjunct-locative adjunct (-pre-predicate adjunct)’ order in cases with more than one standard constituent?

Third, why does Chinese not allow comparative subdeletion? 3. A brief review on previous analyses

There are at least five competing analyses for bi comparatives: the clausal analysis (e.g.,Cheng, 1966; Hashimoto, 1966, 1971; Fu, 1978; Liu, 1996; Shi, 2001; Hsing, 2003; Chung, 2006); the multiple-topic analysis (i.e., Tsao, 1990); the coordination analysis (e.g.,Hong, 1991); the complementation analysis (e.g.,Xiang, 2005; Erlewine, 2007); and the phrasal analysis (e.g.,Paul, 1993; Lin, 2009). Due to space limitations, it is impossible to review all of them here; some previous analyses likeChung (2006)andLin (2009)have already provided an excellent review on many of the previous literatures. To see whether a pure clausal or a pure non-clausal analysis can adequately explain all the properties of the bi comparatives, in this section I examine only two representative previous analyses: one belonging to the group of clausal analyses (i.e.,Liu, 1996), and the other the group of phrasal analyses (i.e.,Lin, 2009), pointing out the merits and shortcomings of each.15 3.1. The clausal analyses

FollowingLarson and May’s (1990:119–120)analysis of English (clausal) comparatives,Liu (1996)analyzes the Chinese bi comparative as an instance of an antecedent-contained deletion (i.e., ACD) construction by concentrating on the following four questions:

(41) a. Does the Chinese bi comparative involve coordination? b. Does the Chinese bi comparative contain any gap inside? c. How can negative polarity items get licensed in the Chinese bi

comparative?

d. Why does the anti-additive effect come out?

Liu (1996:221)first argues againstHong’s (1991:54–55)claim that the marker bi is a coordinator by pointing out that a temporal adverb like yizhi ‘always’ in (42) can occur between the two ‘conjunct’ phrases (i.e., Zhangsan and Lisi ‘Lisi’). (42) Zhangsan yizhi bi Lisi yonggong.

Zhangsan always than Lisi diligent

‘Zhangsan is always more diligent than Lisi.’

Then, by further pointing out that a bi-standard sequence (e.g., bi Lisi ‘than Lisi’ in (43a)) can be connected with another one (e.g., bi Wangwu ‘than Wangwu’ in (43a)) by a coordinator like huozhe ‘or’,Liu (1996:220–221)offers a basic syntactic configuration in which the marker bi and the standard constituent form a prepositional adjunct phrase with this syntactic distribution: after the subject but before the verbal/adjectival predicate (or the degree adverb if the predicate is further modified by a degree adverb).

(43) a. Zhangsan yinggai bi Lisi huozhe bi Wangwu dou haiyao gao yixie. Zhangsan should than Lisi or than Wangwu all even tall a-little-bit ‘Zhangsan should be even taller than either Lisi or Wangwu.’

b. (*bi Lisi) Zhangsan (bi Lisi) geng (*bi Lisi) gao (*bi Lisi). than Lisi Zhangsan than Lisi more than Lisi tall than Lisi

Second,Liu (1996:222–224)argues that the temporal adverbial zuotian ‘yesterday’ in (44) should not belong to the main predicate; otherwise, (45a) is expected to be grammatical, contrary to fact.

(44) Zhangsan jintian bi Lisi zuotian kaixin. Zhangsan today than Lisi yesterday happy

‘Today Zhangsan is happier than Lisi was yesterday.’

15_{SeeChung (2006:16–22)for discussion on the empirical and theoretical problems thatHashimoto (1966, 1971),Fu (1978),Hong (1991), andHsing}

(2003)might encounter. For the multiple-topic analysis proposed byTsao (1990), the clausal analysis made byShi (2001), and the complementation analysis likeXiang (2005)andErlewine (2007), seeLin (2009)for discussion. SeeErlewine (2007)for the discussion onChung (2006).

(45) a. *Zhangsan jintian zuotian kaixin. Zhangsan today yesterday happy b. *Lisi zuotian.

Lisi yesterday

Furthermore, neither can Lisi and zuotian ‘yesterday’ in (44) form a modifee–modifier relation because a modifier for a nominal must occur before it in Chinese, nor can they form a subject–predicate relation as evidenced by the ungrammaticality of (45b). AssumingTravis’s (1988)adjunct licensing theory,Liu (1996)argues that the temporal adverbial zuotian ‘yesterday’ in (44) needs a head licenser; in other words, in (44) an ‘invisible’ predicate with a head that can license it is needed in the bi phrase. The fact that the complement clause of the preposition bi cannot include a dummy auxiliary like shi ‘is’ further leads Liu (1996:234) to suggest that (44) involves stripping (i.e., I’-ellipsis). Without a local I node, the grammaticalized preposition bi, therefore, can exceptionally case mark the standard constituent Lisi across a clausal boundary. So example (44) is not ruled out by the Case Filter, but (46) is, because the embedded standard constituent (i.e., Wangwu) is too far away from the marker bi to get case-checked.

(46) *Zhangsan jintian [bi Lisi renwei [Wangwu zuotian ___]] kaixin. Zhangsan today than Lisi think Wangwu yesterday happy ‘Today Zhangsan is happier than Lisi thinks that Wangwu was yesterday.’

Added to these,Liu (1996:229–230)further points out that, in examples like (47a and b), the bi phrase not only provides a downward entailing environment to license the negative polarity item but also shows the anti-additive effect (Ladusaw, 1979; Pinkal, 1989).

(47) a. Zhuzi kaihua bi Zhangsan zhan-guo ban-di jiu geng keneng occur

Bamboo blossom than Zhangsan touch-ASP half-drop wine more possible fasheng. ‘That bamboos blossom occurs more often than that Zhangsan drinks any wine.’ b. Zhangsan bi Lisi huo Wangwu haiyao gao.

Zhangsan than Lisi or Wangwu even more tall i. ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi AND Wangwu.’ ii. ‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi OR Wangwu.’

SoLiu (1996:229-23)suggests that the bi phrase and the degree adverb geng ‘even more’ form a unit that functions like a generalized quantifier over degree and undergoes quantifier raising (i.e., QR) at LF (Ladusaw, 1979; Pinkal, 1989; Larson and May, 1990; Moltmann, 1992).

With these assumptions, the reconstruction of phonetic value for the elided site in examples like (48a), asLiu (1996) suggests, can be treated as a case similar to the QR solution to ACD problems, as (48b) illustrates (Larson, 1988; May, 1985). (48) a. Zhangsan jintian [I’[PPbi [Lisi zuotian [I’___]]] kaixin].

Zhangsan today than Lisi yesterday happy

‘Today Zhangsan is happier than Lisi was yesterday.’

b. [PPbi [Lisi zuotian [I’t kaixin]]]i[Zhangsan jintian [I’tikaixin].

However, asXiang (2005),Erlewine (2007)andLin (2009:7)point out, the clausal analysis proposed byLiu (1996)is not without problems. First,Liu (1996) has difficulties in explaining why English allows a comparative with comparative subdeletion like (49a), where the main clause and the than clause are both full clauses. But its Chinese counterpart (49b) is ungrammatical.

(49) a. This desk is wider than that table is (*two inches) long.

b. *[IPZhe-zhang shuzhuo [AP[bi na-zhang zhuozi (liang-cun) chang] kuan]]

This-CL desk than that-CL desk two-inch long wide

Moreover, clausal analyses, including those ofCheng (1966),Hashimoto (1966, 1971),Fu (1978), andLiu (1996), also fail to explain why (50) is ungrammatical.

(50) *Zhangsan shuxue [bi Lisi wuli] xihuan. Zhangsan mathematics than Lisi physics like

‘Zhangsan likes mathematics more than Lisi likes physics.’

Still another problem which the clausal analysis needs to deal with is why the relative order among the standard constituents in examples with more than one standard constituent, as the contrast between (26a) and (26b–d) shows, has to be in the canonical ‘subject-temporal adjunct-locative adjunct(-pre-predicate adjunct)’ order.

3.2. The phrasal analyses

The impossibility of comparative subdeletion in the Chinese bi comparative leads studies likeXiang (2005),Erlewine (2007), andLin (2009)to considerBeck et al.’s (2004)andKennedy’s (2007)parametric study on comparatives in natural languages.

Kennedy (2007)assumes withBeck et al. (2004)that the impossibility of comparative subdeletion in Japanese indicates that Japanese does not allow standards to be degree abstraction structures, while the possibility of comparative subdeletion in English indicates that English allows this. This typological distinction in making comparison, asKennedy (2007:149) suggests, can be described as follows:

(51) a. Complex standards in Japanese are (only) type e. b. Complex standards in English are (potentially) type d.

Although this distinction could be due toBeck et al.’s (2004)Degree Abstraction Parameter (i.e., DAP),Kennedy (2007) suggests that it could also result from a difference in the semantics of the comparative morphology in the two languages: whether the language selects a standard of type e or type d (i.e., whether it expresses individual or degree comparison). Assuming this way to account for the impossibility of comparative subdeletion in Japanese,Kennedy (2007)points out that the semantics of the comparative morpheme MOREDthat he gives in (52) for the English comparative will not work for

Japanese if standards are always individual denoting in Japanese, because it expects a standard of type d. (52) [[MORED]] =

λ

λ

λ

In spite of this, there is strong evidence that (52) is not the only option even in English. As noted originally byHankamer (1973), English standards may be either degree abstraction structures or simple DPs; that is, there exists a ‘phrasal’ versus a ‘clausal’ distinction in English comparatives, as illustrated by the contrast below (Hoeksema, 1983; Heim, 1985; Kennedy, 1999).

(53) a. Kim doesn’t know who1Lee is taller [PPthan t1]

b. *Kim doesn’t know who1Lee is taller [PPthan [CPt1is]]

Namely, the fact that we can extract the interrogative word who in (53a) suggests that it is the complement of a preposition rather than the subject of an embedded wh-construction, as in the ungrammatical (53b).

Thus,Kennedy (2007:150)hypothesizes two lexical entries for the explicit comparative morpheme MORE: one with the denotation in (52), which expresses degree comparison, and the other with the denotation in (54), which expresses individual comparison (Hoeksema, 1983; Heim, 1985; Kennedy, 1999; Bhatt and Takahashi, 2007).

(54) [[MOREI]] =

λ

λ

λ

That is, both individual comparison and degree comparison have the same core meaning (i.e., encoding asymmetric ordering relations between arbitrary degrees, and introducing interpretations that are independent of the semantics of the positive form), but differ in the semantic type of their standards. On the one hand, individual comparison involves a syntactic standard of type e, and derives a standard degree by applying the meaning of the gradable adjective to this individual; on the other hand, degree comparison expects a syntactic standard that is already type d.

Relevant here, in Chinese as in Japanese, comparative subdeletion is impossible. SoKennedy (2007:152)assumes with Xiang (2005)that Chinese has only individual comparison, while English has both types. This assumption then entails a corresponding difference in the syntactic expression of standard arguments: Standard arguments in Chinese would have to be individual denoting expressions, while standards in English could denote either individuals or degrees.

Along the line developed byKennedy (2007),Lin (2009)proposes a phrasal analysis to the Chinese bi comparative by making the following three assumptions to generate the syntactic structure and its corresponding semantic interpretation. First, the Chinese bi comparative is a phrasal rather than a clausal comparative; that is, it does not have degree comparison in syntax (Beck et al., 2004:325;Kennedy, 2007).

Second, the word bi is a dyadic comparative degree word that might take one or more than one argument, either individuals, times, locations, instruments, or even propositions, as long as they are arguments of the predicate of comparison. This assumption, asLin (2009:17–18)argues, predicts that adjuncts, like manner adverbs or reason clauses, cannot be the comparable constituent.

Third, the phrase headed by the degree word bi is an adjunct degree phrase adjoined to the left of the predicate of comparison.

Assuming these,Lin (2009)gives example (55a) a syntactic structure like (55b), in which the degree word bi ‘than’ takes three arguments (i.e., the individual argument Lisi, the time argument jintian ‘today’, and the location argument zai jiali ‘at home’) and must be flanked by constituents of the same type. And the whole DegP-shell headed by the degree word bi ‘than’ occurs as an adjunct degree phrase adjoined to the predicate of comparison (Tsao, 1990).

(55) a. Zhangsan zuotian zai xuexiao bi Lisi jintian zai jiali kaixin. Zhangsan yesterday at school than Lisi today at home happy ‘Zhangsan was happier yesterday at school than Lisi is at home today.’ b. [SZhangsan [AP[NPzuotian] [AP[PPzai xuexiao] [AP[DegPbii[DegP[NPLisi]

[Deg’[Degti] [DegP[NPjintian] [Deg’[Degti] [PPat jiali] [APkaixin]]]]]]]]]].

Semantically, the degree word bi ‘than’ with a denotation like (56), asLin (2009)suggests, has a semantic function similar to whatHeim’s (1985)direct analysis does for the English comparative morpheme -er.

(56) ǀǀbiǀǀ= (

λ

λ

λ

λ

λ

λ

λ

λ

λ

[

i

i

Highly influential thoughLin’s (2009)analysis is, it still encounters some problems. First, assuming that Chinese is a dyadic argument comparison language and that only arguments of the predicate of comparison can be the standard constituents, Lin (2009) would expect (57a and b), where two reason clauses are compared with each other, to be ungrammatical, but the fact does not bear out this expectation.16_{(Example (57b) was provided by one of the anonymous} reviewers.)

(57) a. Mama yinwei Xiaomingishuo huang bi baba yinwei taitou dongxi

Mother because Xiaoming say lie than father because he steal thing haiyao shengqi.

even angry

‘Hisimother gets angry more because Xiaomingilies than hisifather gets angry because

heisteals things.’

b. Laoban yinwei ta jingchang chidao bi yinwei ta ou’er fan Boss because he often late than because he sometimes make

cuo hai geng shengqi.

mistake even more angry

‘The boss is even more angry because he is often late than because he sometimes makes mistakes.’ Second, even though all the standard constituents in (58) are arguments of the predicate of comparison xihuan ‘like’, this example, which takes the preposed postverbal object NP of the verb xihuan ‘like’ (i.e., wuli ‘physics’) as one of the standard constituents, is unexpectedly ill-formed.

(58) *Zhangsan shuxue bi Lisi wuli xihuan.

Zhangsan mathematics than Lisi physics like

‘Zhangsan likes mathematics more than Lisi likes physics.’

16

One anonymous reviewer reminds me that s/he checked some native speakers about (57a and b), and all the native speakers checked say that (57a) is understandable but unnatural and (57b) provided by one anonymous reviewer is even worse than (57a). I have checked intuitions of twenty-three native speakers for these two sentences. All of them accept (57a) as a natural, understandable and grammatical sentence, and (57b) sounds marginal to nine of them but understandable and grammatical to others. As the anonymous reviewer further points out,Lin’s (2009)analysis can cover example (57a and b) by making one of the following two adjustments. One is to assume that it is somehow true that referential expressions or arguments, but not non-referential adjuncts, can be more easily compared. However, if so, the argument- versus non-argument-dependent parameter of comparison proposed byLin (2009) will be challenged. The other is to adjustLin’s (2009)semantics of bi by adding one more argument with an appropriate semantic type – the type of a reason clause. However, this raises the question of what cannot be an argument.

Third,Lin (2009, 23) requires the comparative degree word bi to be flanked by standard constituents and their semantically/syntactically corresponding correlates (Tsao, 1990). However, as (59a and b) show, such is not necessarily required.17_{(See also footnote3.)}

(59) a. Xianzai wo erzi bi yiqian guai-duo le.

Now I son than before well-behaved-more SFP ‘Now my son is more well-behaved than before.’ b. Zai xuexiao xuesheng zongshi bi zai jiali tinghua.

At school student always than at home well-behaved ‘Students are more well-behaved in school than at home.’

Still further, in a Chinese pivotal construction like (60a), the pivotal verb rang ‘let’, asTang (2010:184–187)suggests, selects a VP as complement. And (60a) is very difficult to analyze as one with a syntactic structure like (60b), where the predicate zhu san-tian ‘live three-day’ takes the sentence wo rang ni ‘I let you’ as subject.

(60) a. Wo [VP[V’rang [VPni [V’zhu san-tian]]]].

I let you live three-day

‘I let you live here for three days.’ b. [S[SWo rang ni] [VPzhu san-tian]].

I let you live three-day

Given this,Lin’s (2009)analysis is challenged by (61a) with a structure like (61b), because, under his analysis, the degree word bi takes the non-argumental pivotal verb rang ‘let’ as argument.

(61) a. Wo rang ni [bi ni rang ta] duo zhu-le san-tian.

I let you than you let he many live-ASP three-day ‘I let you stay for three more days than you let me.’

b. Wo rang ni [VP[DegPbii[DegP[NPni] [Deg’[Degti] [DegP[Vrang] [Deg’[Degti]

I let you than let

[NPta]]]]]] [VPduo zhu-le san-tian]]

he many live-ASP three-day

As we have seen, neither a pure clausal nor a pure non-clausal analysis can well adequately explain the syntactic and semantic properties of Chinese bi comparatives. In what follows, I provide evidence to show that a hybrid analysis might successfully account for bi comparatives.

4. The proposal

I start constructing a hybrid analysis by distinguishing the Chinese bi comparatives that contain more than one standard constituent from those containing one standard constituent in terms of the following property: in the former, the standard constituent cannot be a preposed postverbal object of the main verb from which the predicate providing the dimension of comparison (or containing the element that provides the dimension of comparison) is projected; however, this restriction does not hold in the latter.

17_{One might sayLin (2009)can get out of this problem by assuming that the temporal adverb xianzai ‘now’ in (59a) is moved from a position adjacent to} the bi phrase bi yiqian ‘than before’ to sentence-initial position, as (i) shows.

(i) Xianzaiiwo erzi tibi yiqian guai-duo le. Now I son than before well-behaved-much SFP ‘Now my son is more well-behaved than before.’

However, this raises the question of why (ii), in which the NP gou ‘dog’ is moved from the position adjacent to the bi phrase bi mao ‘than cat’, is ungrammatical.

(ii) *GouiZhangsan tibi mao xihuan. Dog Zhangsan than cat like ‘Zhangsan likes dogs more than cats.’

Significantly here, this distinction leads us to analyze examples like (62), which involves the Chinese long bei passive construction, as one containing more than one standard constituent.

(62) Zhangsanibei tai-de mama [bi Lisijbei taj-de baba] da-de geng qican.

Zhangsan BEI his mother than Lisi BEI his father hit-DE more pitiful

‘Zhangsaniwas beaten more pitifully by hisimother than Lisijwas beaten by hisjfather.’

According toHuang et al. (2009:137), a Chinese long bei passive construction like (63a) has a syntactic structure like (63b), in which the main verb bei selects a complement clause which undergoes null-operator movement and type-shifts into a property predicated on the experiencer subject (i.e., Zhangsan); that is, the verb bei and the bei NP (i.e., the agent NP) Lisi, as the coordination test in (63c) shows, do not form a constituent (Huang, 1999; Huang et al., 2009:117).

(63) a. Zhangsan bei Lisi da-le. Zhangsan BEI Lisi hit-ASP ‘Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.’

b. Zhangsan bei [IPOpi[IPLisi [VPda-le ti]]].

Zhangsan BEI Lisi hit-ASP

‘Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.’

c. (?)Ta bei Lisi ma-le liang-sheng, Wangwu ti-le san-xia. He BEI Lisi scold-ASP two-CL Wangwu kick-ASP three-time ‘He was scolded twice by Lisi and kicked three times by Wangwu.’

Instead, the agent NP (i.e., Lisi) forms a clausal constituent with the VP that follows it, to the exclusion of the preceding bei. AssumingHuang et al.’s (2009)analysis to the Chinese long bei passive construction, I suggest that (62) has a syntactic structure like (64), which involves comparative ellipsis and a degree operator-variable binding relation in syntax, because the verb bei following Lisi has to take a clause rather than an NP as complement.

(64) [Zhangsani[bei [tai-de mama [[Opk[bi [Lisijbei [IPtaj-de baba da-de tk

Zhangsan BEI his mother than Lisi BEI his father hit-DE

can]]]] [da-de geng can]]]]]. pitiful hit-DE more pitiful

One anonymous reviewer reminds me of example (65a and b) taken fromShi (2006), and says thatHuang et al.’s (2009) analysis to the Chinese bei passive might not be correct.

(65) a. Zhengfu cong Shanghai diaolai-le yaowu, Beijing diaolai-le Government from Shanghai transfer-ASP medicine Beijing transfer-ASP zhangpeng.

tent

‘The government transferred medicine from Shanghai and tents from Beijing.’ b. Yi huir, zhe meimiao-de shengyin bei shu, bei cao, bei yi-ge

A while the beautiful voice BEI tree BEI grass BEI one-CL guangmo de kongjian tunshi.

spacious DE space swallow

‘In a while, the beautiful voice has been swallowed by trees, by grass and by a wide space.’

As the reviewer notes, on the one hand, the second bei in (63c), perhaps just like the second preposition cong ‘from’ in (65a), is simply deleted later in the derivation. However, treating the marker bei as a preposition, asShi (2006:327)himself points out, would force us to analyze (66) as a structure involving preposition stranding.

(66) Zhangsan bei da-de hen can. Zhangsan BEI beat-DE very pitiful ‘Zhangsan was pitifully beaten.’

But, (66) is unexpectedly perfect in grammaticality. On the other hand, (65b), where three ‘bei agent’ sequences are coordinated with one another, implies that the marker bei and the agent NP might form a constituent. However, in addition

to analyzing (65b) in a way as whatShi (2006) suggests, this sentence can also be analyzed as a shared constituent coordination construction as the English sentence (67a and b) are (Radford, 1988:77–78).

(67) a. I fixed and my mother painted the chair you bought yesterday. b. I consider John and believe him to be a genius.

In (67a and b), what are shared (i.e., the chair you bought yesterday in (67a) and to be a genius in (67b)) are constituents, but what are not are not (i.e., I fixed and my mother painted in (67a) and I consider John and believe him in (67b) are not constituents). So, like (67b), (65b) can be analyzed as a shared constituent coordination construction with a syntactic structure where the verb bei takes a complement clause and the predicate tunshi ‘swallow’ is shared by the three ‘bei agent’ sequences. And, these three ‘bei agent’ sequences are not syntactic constituents.

4.1. The hybrid analysis

Judging from the above, I propose a hybrid analysis for the bi comparatives with the following four assumptions: First, I analyze examples containing only one standard constituent as the bi phrasal comparative and those containing more than one standard constituent as the bi clausal comparative.

Second, similar to the prepositional subordinator yin(wei) ‘because’ in selection, the marker bi is a prepositional subordinator taking as complement a (non-)clausal constituent, and forms with it a pre-predicate adjunct phrase (i.e., the bi phrase). (68) a. Zhangsan shichang [yinwei [SLisi queke]] er shengqi.

Zhangsan often because Lisi absent then angry ‘Zhangsan often gets angry because Lisi is absent.’ b. Zhangsan [yinwei [NPni]] cai mei lai.

Zhangsan because you then not come ‘Because of you, Zhangsan did not come here.’ c. Zhangsan [yinwei [PPdui ni]] cai hui zheme keqi.

Zhangsan because to you then will so polite ‘Because of you, Zhangsan becomes so polite.’

Not carrying the meaning of comparison denoted by the English comparative morpheme -er, the marker bi, on the one hand, functions to introduce only one standard constituent in a contrastive relation to its correlate in the bi phrasal comparative, and this constituent cannot involve comparative deletion. On the other hand, a clause containing more than one standard constituent in a contrastive relation to its corresponding main clause correlates is introduced in the bi clausal comparative. And this clause obligatorily involves comparative deletion in syntax. This way of dividing the bi comparatives into phrase versus clausal comparatives is exemplified in (69a and b), respectively.

(69) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi kaixin.

Zhangsan than Lisi happy ‘Zhangsan is happier than Lisi.’

b. Zhangsan jintian [bi [Lisi zuotian kaixin]] (geng) kaixin. Zhangsan today than Lisi yesterday happy (even-more) happy ‘Today Zhangsan is even happier than Lisi was yesterday.’

One anonymous reviewer questions this assumption by asking why the deletion operation in (69b) differs from other deletion operations in not being optional. As is well known, comparative deletion in natural languages differs from other deletion operations, for example, VP deletion or gapping, in that the former is obligatory while the latter is optional (Lees, 1961; Bresnan, 1973, 1977; Sag, 1976; Chomsky, 1977).

(70) a. The galaxy contains more stars than the eye can see (*stars). b. At that time, sea level was not as high as it later became (*high). c. My sister drives as carefully as I drive (*carefully).

(71) a. John will buy a car, and Bill will (buy a car), too. b. John bought a book, and Bill (bought) a magazine.

Thus, the optionality shown by other deletion operations cannot be used as evidence to argue against the existence of comparative deletion in examples like (69b).