國
立
交
通
大
學
外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班
碩
碩
碩
碩
士
士
士
士
論
論
論
論
文
文
文
文
漢語中帶一點兒/一些的超越型比較句
The Exceed Comparative with Yi-dianer/Yi-xie in Mandarin Chinese
研 究 生：陳鈴宓
指導教授：劉辰生 教授
中
中
中
中
華
華
華
華
民
民
民
民
國
國
國
國
九
九
九
九
十
十
十
十
八
八
八
八
年
年
年
年
六
六
六
六
月
月
月
月
漢語中帶一點兒/一些的超越型比較句
The Exceed Comparative with Yi-dianer/Yi-xie in Mandarin Chinese
研 究 生：陳鈴宓 Student：Ling-Mi Chen
指導教授：劉辰生 教授 Advisor： Dr. Chen-Sheng Liu
國 立 交 通 大 學
外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班
碩 士 論 文
A Thesis
Submitted to Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures Graduate Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics
National Chiao Tung University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master
in
Graduate Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics
June 2009
Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
漢語中帶一點兒/一些的超越型比較句 學生：陳鈴宓 指導教授：劉辰生 教授 國立交通大學外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班 摘要 摘要摘要 摘要 本篇論文主要探討漢語的「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句在句法上的表 現與語意上的詮釋。這類比較句具有其獨特的表現。例如，度量詞組「一點兒/ 一些」和程度副詞「稍微」之間有選擇限制，但是彼此不相鄰。此外，度量詞組 「一點兒/一些」必須出現，而程度副詞「稍微」和作為比較對象的指示名詞組 可以被刪略。 本篇論文主要討論下列幾個問題。第一，如何在結構中呈現度量詞組「一點 兒/一些」和程度副詞「稍微」之間的選擇限制以及不相鄰性。第二，為什麼在 「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句中度量詞組「一點兒/一些」必須出現。第三， 為什麼在「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句中程度副詞「稍微」可以被刪略。 第四，為什麼在「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句中作為比較對象的指示名詞 組可以被刪略。
本篇論文採用 Bhatt & Pancheva (2004)對英語比較句的分析方法和 Liu (2007) 對漢語「X A (Y) D」比較句的分析方法，並且提議度量詞組「一點兒/一些」應 被視為變量而由一個加接至 ExP 的隱形量化運符所約束，之後程度副詞「稍微」 以反循環的方式合併成為隱形量化運符的補語。與否定極項和 A-不-A 運符的干 涉效應有關的證據支持了此項提議。此外，程度副詞「稍微」作為隱形量化運符 的論元可以被刪略。接著，本篇論文採用 Liu (2007) 對漢語「X A (Y) D」比較 句的分析方法，並且提議「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句帶有隱形動詞後 綴 –ex，這個動詞後綴是由與之相對應的顯形動詞後綴「-過」語法化而來。語 法化使得隱形動詞後綴 –ex 的語意內容被消除以致於 –ex 無法做一個夠強的謂 語來限制形容詞的間距論元，而且 –ex 的及物性也變弱。因此，在「X 稍微 A Y 一點兒/一些」比較句中，度量詞組「一點兒/一些」作為可以限制間距論元的唯 一可能候補者必須出現，而作為比較對象的指示名詞組可以被刪略。最後，本篇 論文認為雖然表示程度淺的第二類程度副詞和表示程度深的第三類程度副詞在 格式 I 至格式 IV 的比較句式中都可以和度量詞組「一點兒/一些」共現，但是這 些程度副詞在此真正的作用是在限制形容詞的間距論元，所以和度量詞組「一點 兒/一些」之間並不存在真正的選擇關係(參照 Lu & Ma 1999)。相同的現象也出 現在帶有「比」-成分和度量詞組「一點兒/一些」的「比」字比較句中。
The Exceed Comparative with Yi-dianer/Yi-xie in Mandarin Chinese
Student: Ling-Mi Chen Advisor: Dr. Chen-Sheng Liu
Graduate Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics National Chiao Tung University
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to study the syntactic representation and semantic interpretation of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. This type of comparative has its unique syntactic and semantic properties. More specifically, there are selectional restrictions between the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’, but it is not possible for yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and shaowei ‘slightly’ to appear together. Beside, yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ is obligatorily required while shaowei ‘slightly’ and the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison are optionally required.
In this thesis, we deal with the following questions that any analysis of the X
shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative must address: First, how can we
accommodate the selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and
shaowei ‘slightly’ as well as the obligatory nonadjacency between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a
little’ and shaowei ‘slightly’ in a single structure? Second, why is yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ obligatorily required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative? Third, why is shaowei ‘slightly’ optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative? Fourth, why is the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative?
Following Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004) analysis of English comparatives and Liu’s (2007) analysis of the X A (Y) D comparative, we propose that shaowei ‘slightly’ is merged countercyclically as the complement of the covert quantificational operator binding yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, which is treated as a variable, after the covert quantificational operator adjoins to ExP. This proposal is supported by the evidence related to intervention effects on NPIs and A-not-A operators. Moreover,
shaowei ‘slightly’, which is the syntactic argument of the covert quantificational
operator, is optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. Then, following Liu’s (2007) analysis of the X A (Y) D comparative, we propose that the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative contains the covert verbal suffix –ex, which is grammaticalized from its overt counterpart –guo ‘exceed’.
Grammaticalization makes the semantic content of –ex bleached to such an extent that –ex cannot function as a predicate strong enough to restrict the interval argument of the adjective. This makes yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, which is the only expression available to restrict the interval argument of the adjective, obligatorily required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. Grammaticalization also makes the semantic content of the covert verbal suffix –ex so bleached that the transitivity force of –ex is weak. This makes the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. Finally, we argue that although both degree adverbs belonging to the weak group of the second type and degree adverbs belonging to the strong group of the third type can take
yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ as a post-adjectival pseudo-object in Type I-IV comparative
constructions, these degree adverbs restrict the interval argument of the adjective instead of having a selectional relation with yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ (see Lu and Ma 1999). Likewise, in Chinese bi comparatives which contain the bi-constituent and
yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, the degree adverb saturates the interval argument of the
adjective rather than have a selectional relation with yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’.
Keywords: measure phrase; degree adverb; countercyclic merger; covert verbal suffix; interval argument
誌
謝
在這三年的碩士班求學生涯中，承蒙師長、同學、以及家人的協助與鼓勵， 才得以順利完成我的學業及論文，心中充滿著無限的感激。首先，我要感謝我的 指導教授劉辰生老師。劉老師對於追求學問所擁有的熱忱，以及對於做研究所抱 持的嚴謹態度令學生深感敬佩，也是學生學習效仿的對象。由於劉老師的悉心指 導與諄諄教誨，爲我開啟了研究之門，並指引我正確的方向。此外，我要感謝林 若望老師及蔡維天老師在百忙之中撥冗擔任我的口試委員，並在口試時提供許多 寶貴的意見，使我的論文能更臻完善。同時，我要感謝許慧娟老師、潘荷仙老師、 以及劉美君老師的教導，使我在音韻學、語音學和功能句法學等不同的語言學領 域中獲得許多知識。 我還要感謝在語言學的道路上陪伴我度過許多難關的同學、學弟妹及學長 姐。謝謝黃惠瑜和吳縉雯帶領我認識耶穌基督並誠心地向祂禱告以消除心中的不 安及焦慮；謝謝洪詩楣、吳佳霖、黃舜佳、吳佳芬、葉怡君和劉美玲總是在我需 要幫助的時候不吝伸出援手；謝謝陳奕勳學弟和楊謦瑜學妹在論文上給予我的建 議；謝謝王文傑學長、楊中玉學長、李釗麟學長和邱力璟學姐總是不厭其煩地和 我討論問題。 最後，我願將此論文獻給我最摯愛的家人，表達我最真誠的謝意。謝謝爸爸 媽媽無私的付出與鼓勵，使我在遇到瓶頸時，能有信心堅持下去。也謝謝弟弟妹 妹適時的關懷與加油打氣，使我在面對壓力時，能有勇氣繼續前進。
Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract ...i
English Abstract...iii
Acknowledgement ...v
Table of Contents ...vi
Chapter 1 Introduction ...1
Chapter 2 The Characteristics of the X Shaowei A Y Yi-dianer/Yi-xie Comparative ...4
Chapter 3 Literature Review ...11
3.1 Introduction...11 3.2 Chao (2005) ...11 3.3 Xiang (2005) ...14 3.4 Erlewine (2007) ...19 3.5 Liu (2007) ...23 Chapter 4 Proposal ...30 4.1 Introduction...30
4.2 The syntactic analysis of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative..30
4.2.1 Preliminary: Late merger of degree clauses...30
4.2.2 Late merger of shaowei ‘slightly’ ...37
4.2.2.1 Selectional restrictions despite nonadjacency...37
4.2.2.2 Obligatory nonadjacency between shaowei ‘slightly’ and yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ ...38
4.2.2.3 Late merger of shaowei ‘slightly’ resolves the conflict ...39
4.2.2.4 Evidence related to intervention effects on NPIs...46
4.2.2.5 Evidence related to intervention effects on A-not-A operators ...49
4.2.2.6 The optional occurrence of shaowei ‘slightly’...53
4.2.2.7 Summary ...55
4.3 The semantic analysis of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative..55
4.3.1 Preliminary: The semantics of adjectives and comparatives ...55
4.3.1.1 The semantics of adjectives ...55
4.3.1.1.1 Degree adverbs...56
4.3.1.1.2 Measure phrases...59
4.3.1.2 The semantics of comparatives ...60
4.3.2 The obligatory occurrence of yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the optional occurrence of the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison ...62
Chapter 5 Apparent Selectional Restrictions ...65
5.1 Introduction...65
5.2 The apparent selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb ...65
5.2.1 Preliminary: Degree adverbs in Mandarin Chinese ...65
5.2.2 The apparent selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb belonging to the weak group of the second type ...69
5.2.3 The apparent selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb belonging to the strong group of the third type ...73
5.3 The apparent selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the bi-constituent...77
5.4 Summary ...79
Chapter 6 Conclusion...81
Refeerences ...84
Chapter 1 Introduction
Almost all the previous studies on Chinese comparatives concentrate on examples like (1), which contains the marker bi ‘compare’ (cf. Chao 1968, Li and Thompson 1981, Tsao 1989, Hong 1991, Paul 1993, Hsing 2003, and many others).
(1) Lisi bi Wangwu gao wu gongfen. Lisi compare Wangwu tall five centimeter ‘Lisi is five centimeters taller than Wangwu.’
However, in Mandarin Chinese there exists another type of comparative like (2), which is seldom studied by scholars (henceforth the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative).
(2) Lisi shaowei gao Wangwu yi-dianer/yi-xie. Lisi slightly tall Wangwu a-little/a-little ‘Lisi is a little bit taller than Wangwu.’
This type of comparative has its unique syntactic and semantic properties. More specifically, the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, as (3) shows, cooccurs with the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’. In other words, there are selectional restrictions between the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’.
Lisi very/the.most/even.more/a.bit/comparatively/slightly tall Wangwu yi-dianer/yi-xie.
a-little/a-little
‘Lisi is a little bit taller than Wangwu.’
Besides, the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ is obligatorily required while the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’ and the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison are optionally required, as examples in (4) illustrate.
(4) a. Lisi shaowei gao Wangwu *(yi-dianer/yi-xie). Lisi slightly tall Wangwu a-little/a-little ‘Lisi is a little bit taller than Wangwu.’
b. Lisi (shaowei) gao (Wangwu) yi-dianer/yi-xie. Lisi slightly tall Wangwu a-little/a-little ‘Lisi is a little bit taller than Wangwu.’
The purpose of this thesis is to study the syntax and semantics of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. We propose that the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’ is merged late as the complement of the covert quantificational operator binding yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, which is treated as a variable, after the covert quantificational operator adjoins in a scope position. In addition, we propose that the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative contains the covert verbal suffix –ex, which is grammaticalized from its overt counterpart –guo ‘exceed’.
This thesis proceeds as follows. In Chapter 2, we will discuss the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative, and then point out the questions that any analysis of this construction has to account for. We
then undertake a literature review of previous works on the Chinese comparative construction without the marker bi ‘compare’ in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, we propose the syntactic and semantic analyses of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. In Chapter 5, we account for the cooccurrence of the measure phrase
yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and degree adverbs belonging to the weak group of the
second type and the strong group of the third type in Type I-IV comparative constructions, and that of the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and
bi-constituents in Chinese bi comparatives (see Lu and Ma 1999). Finally, the
Chapter 2
The Characteristics of the X Shaowei A Y Yi-dianer/Yi-xie Comparative
The X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative has the following syntactic and semantic characteristics. First, as Chao (1968: 314, 690-691) points out, the predicative adjective (or predicative stative quality verb) in this type of comparative takes two complements: an indirect-object-like referential NP complement (e.g.
Zhaoying in (5a)), and a quantity-/extent-denoting cognate object (henceforth the
measure phrase) (e.g. yi-dianer ‘a little’ in (5a)).
(5) a. Wangwu showei gao/ai Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu alightly tall/short Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller/shorter than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu shaowei pan/shou Zhaoying yi-xie.
Wangwu slightly fat/thin Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter/thinner than Zhaoying.’
The indirect-object-like referential NP complement functions to provide the target of comparison, and the measure phrase shows the differential between the two compared degree values along the scale denoted by the adjectival predicate.
Second, the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ cooccurs with the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’, as shown in (6). In other words, there are selectional restrictions between the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’. Since selectional restrictions are the hallmark of head-argument relationships, it is reasonable to conclude that the degree adverb
little’.
(6) a. Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie.
Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’
c. *Wangwu hen/zui/geng/youdianer/bijiao gao Zhaoying Wangwu very/the.most/even.more/a.bit/comparatively tall Zhaoying yi-dianer.
a-little
d. *Wangwu hen/zui/geng/youdianer/bijiao pan Zhaoying Wangwu very/the.most/even.more/a.bit/comparatively fat Zhaoying yi-xie.
a-little
However, it is not possible for the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’ to appear together.
(7) a. *Wangwu gao Zhaoying [yi-dianer shaowei]. Wangwu tall Zhaoying a-little slightly b. *Wangwu pan Zhaoying [yi-xie shaowei].
Wangwu fat Zhaoying a-little slightly
the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative, as examples in (8-9) illustrate.
(8) a. Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. *Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying.
Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying (9) a. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie.
Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter than Zhaoying.’ b. *Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying.
Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying
Fourth, the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’, which functions to weaken the differential between the compared degree values (see Zhang 2002: 145), is optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative, as examples in (10-11) indicate.
(10) a. Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu gao Zhaoying yi-dianer.
Wangwu tall Zhaoying a-little
‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ (11) a. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie.
‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu pan Zhaoying yi-xie.
Wangwu fat Zhaoying a-little
‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter than Zhaoying.’
Fifth, the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison is optionally required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative, as examples in (12-13) indicate.
(12) a. Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu shaowei gao yi-dianer.
Wangwu slightly tall a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller.’
(13) a. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie. Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu shaowei pan yi-xie.
Wangwu slightly fat a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter.’
Sixth, the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative involves explicit comparison. Kennedy (2007) broadly identifies two different possible strategies that a language can employ to make comparisons. Following Sapir (1944), Kennedy (2007) calls these strategies implicit comparison and explicit comparison, defined as follows.
(14) a. Implicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using the positive form by manipulating the context in such a way that the positive form true of x and false of y.
b. Explicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using a morphosyntactic form whose conventional meaning has the consequence that the degree to which x is g exceeds the degree to which y is g.
English constructions involving the comparative morpheme more/–er, such as (15), are examples of explicit comparison; while those involving taking advantage of the inherent context sensitivity of the positive form adjective, such as (16), are examples of implicit comparison.
(15) Bill is taller than John.
(16) Compared to John, Bill is tall.
By means of a number of distinctions between implicit comparison and explicit comparison that Kennedy (2007) outlines, the following set of facts shows that the X
shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative involves explicit comparison. (A) Explicit
comparison in (17a) simply requires an asymmetric ordering between the degrees to which two articles are long while implicit comparison in (17b) requires that the degree to which the first article is long should exceed the degree to which the second article is long by a significant amount; therefore, (17a) is felicitous in the context involving a crisp judgment while (17b) cannot possibly be true in the context
involving very slight differences between the compared objects. The X shaowei A Y
yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative is a type of explicit comparative construction since it is
felicitous in crisp judgment contexts. For example, (17c) is a perfectly good way of describing the relation between a 300 word article and a 296 word article.
(17) Context: A 300 word article and a 296 word article a. This article is longer than that one.
b. ??Compared to that article, this one is long.
c. Zhe-pian wenzhang shaowei chang na-pian wenzhang yi-xie. this-CL article slightly long that-CL article a-little ‘This article is a little bit longer than that one.’
(B) Measure phrases are acceptable with explicit comparatives rather than implicit comparatives since composition of a measure phrase and a gradable adjective generates a predicate that is not context-dependent, as (18a-b) illustrate. The example in (18c) allows the measure phrase yi-dianer ‘a little’, which is assigned the differential interpretation. This fact again points to the conclusion that the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative involves explicit comparison.
(18) a. ??Compared to John, Bill is 5cm tall. b. Bill is 5cm taller than John.
c. Wangwu shaowei gao Zhaoying yi-dianer. Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’
analysis of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative has to address: First, how can we accommodate the selectional restrictions between the measure phrase
yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’ as well as the
obligatory nonadjacency between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and shaowei ‘slightly’ in a single structure? Second, why is the measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ obligatorily required in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative? Third, what is the reason that the degree adverb shaowei ‘slightly’ is optionally required in the X
shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative? Fourth, why is the referential NP
functioning as the target of comparison optionally required in the X shaowei A Y
Chapter 3 Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, previous works on the Chinese comparative construction without the marker bi ‘compare’ are reviewed. Section 3.2 begins with Chao’s (2005) analysis that the structure of the Chinese comparative construction without the marker
bi ‘compare’ is similar to the structure of English double-object constructions
proposed by Larson (1998). In section 3.3, Xiang’s (2005) proposal of a revised Larsonian (1991) style DegP-shell structure for the Chinese comparative construction without the marker bi ‘compare’ is presented. In section 3.4, Erlewine’s (2007) claim that the syntax of the bi-comparative can be extended to the Chinese comparative construction without the marker bi ‘compare’ is introduced. Finally, Liu’s (2007) analysis that the X A (Y) D comparative contains a covert weak comparative morpheme grammaticalized from the verbal suffix –guo1 ‘exceed’ in the X A-guo1Y (D) comparative is presented in section 3.5.
3.2 Chao (2005)
According to Chao (2005), comparative constructions like (19) are termed comparatives with a double-object-like construction. This type of comparative contains a gradable adjective which functions as the main predicate, and the two NPs following it denote the target of comparison and the differential between the two compared degree values respectively.
(19) a. Zhangsan gao Lisi san gongfen. Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ b. Zhangsan da Lisi san sui.
Zhangsan old Lisi three year
‘Zhangsan is three years older than Lisi.’
Chao (2005) proposes that the adjective in (19a) projects as an “extended functional structure” whose head is Deg, as (20) below shows (cf. Abney 1987).
(20) IP NP …DegP Zhangsan Spec Deg’ Deg AP gao NP1 A’ Lisi A NP2 t san gongfen
The referential NP functioning as the target of comparison occurs in [Spec, AP] and the measure phrase denoting the differential between the two compared degree values is inside A’. The adjectival head overtly moves to the head position of DegP due to some kind of feature checking.
Despite the similarity between the syntactic structure of comparatives with a double-object-like construction proposed by Chao (2005) and that of English double-object constructions proposed by Larson (1998) in (21), there exist some distinctions between them. First, the two internal arguments of English double-object
constructions are NP and PP respectively while those of comparatives with a double-object-like construction are both NPs. Second, both internal arguments of English double-object constructions cannot be omitted while in comparatives with a double-object-like construction the internal referential argument is optionally required and the internal non-referential argument is obligatorily required, as shown in (22-23).
(21) a. John sent a letter to Mary. b. IP NP …VP John Spec V’ V VP send NP V’ a letter V PP t to Mary (22) a. John sent *(a letter) to Mary.
b. John sent a letter *(to Mary). (23) a. Zhangsan gao (Lisi) san gongfen. Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ b. Zhangsan gao Lisi *(san gongfen).
Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’
double-object-like construction is, there remain some problems that Chao’s (2005) analysis fails to account for. First, Chao (2005) does not point out explicitly what feature is checked when the adjective moves to the head position of DegP. Besides, Chao (2005) does not explain why the occurrence of the internal referential NP is optional while that of the internal non-referential NP is obligatory.
3.3 Xiang (2005)
Xiang (2005) calls the type of superiority comparative like the sentence in (24a) the bare comparative. Xiang (2005) points out that in the bare comparative the measure phrase denoting the differential is obligatorily required, as shown by the contrast between (24a) and (24b).
(24) a. Wo gao Lisi liang-cun. I tall Lisi two-inch
‘I am two inches taller than Lisi.’ b. *Wo gao Lisi.
I tall Lisi
Xiang (2005) suggests that the argument structure of bare comparatives is similar to an English double-object construction, in the sense that they both have two internal arguments that have to stand in an asymmetric c-commanding relation.1 2 As
1
Larson (1988) argues that the asymmetric c-commanding relation accounts for a number of important asymmetries between two objects, as illustrated in (i), where a bound pronoun must be c-commanded by its binder.
(i) a. I gave every workeri hisi paycheck. b. *I gave itsi owner every paychecki.
2 Xiang (2005) points out that bare comparatives show variable binding facts that indicate the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison should asymmetrically c-command the differential measure phrase, as illustrated in (i), where half contains an implicit argument.
(i) Zhe-gen shengzi chang na-gen shengzi yiban. this-CL rope long that-CL rope half
shown in (25), Larson’s (1991) DegP-shell structure for English comparatives looks like the VP-shell analysis of English double-object constructions. Therefore, Larson’s (1991) DegP-shell structure looks promising to capture the structure of bare comparatives. To keep the essence of the DegP-shell structure and at the same time make the degree argument an argument of the adjective, Xiang (2005) proposes a revised Larsonian (1991) style DegP-shell structure for bare comparatives in Chinese, as shown in (26).3 (25) IP …… DegP Deg’ Deg DegP -er AP Deg’ tall Deg PP t than Bill ‘This ropei is longer than that ropej by half (of that rope*i/j).’
3 Since the adjective tall maps an individual to a degree of height, the sentence John is taller than Bill means John is [-er than Bill] tall, with [-er than Bill] as the degree argument of the adjective. Xiang (2005) points out that the degree head –er and the than-phrase are viewed as a constituent in the DegP-shell structure in (25); however, that [-er than Bill] is an argument of the adjective tall is not reflected in the structure in (25).
(26) IP I DegP Deg AP (exceedk)-talli Lisij A’ A DegP (tall)i Lisij Deg’ Deg DiffP (exceed)k 2 inches
Xiang (2005) assumes the phonetically null degree morpheme exceed, which merges with the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison and the differential measure phrase first. The phonetically null degree morpheme exceed internally merges with the adjective through head movement, and the referential NP Lisi moves to the [Spec, AP] position for EPP feature checking. Finally, in order to introduce the external argument, the complex head exceed-tall moves to the higher Deg-head through head movement.
Xiang (2005) suggests that the analysis of the bare comparative in terms of a
DegP-shell structure has the following consequences. The first consequence concerns the reduplication of the adjectival predicate. In overt movement, it is usually the highest copy in the chain that is spelled out, and the deletion of other copies is analyzed by Nunes (1996, 1999) as the result of PF linearization considerations. According to Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), X precedes Y at Pf if X asymmetrically c-commands Y in a syntactic structure. In (27) the higher copy
would lead to a contradictory result that John is preceding John itself because the two are non-distinct copies. However, example (28), in which the adjectival predicate is reduplicated, seems to suggest that more than one copy involved in the head movement of the comparative can be spelled out. This is possible because the lower copy of tall is housed within a reformed word tall-not-particle and LCA does not linearize strings word-internally but at the word level. (cf. Chomsky 1995).
(27) a. John was invited John. (spell out the higher copy) b. * John was invited John. (spell out the lower copy) (28) Zhangsan gao Lisi gao bu liao yi-diandian.
Zhangsan tall Lisi tall not particle a-little ‘Zhangsan isn’t much taller than Lisi.’
The second consequence is related to the fact that the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison in the bare comparative cannot have a generic reading. To account for the ambiguity of the subject DP of a stage-level predicate in (29), Diesing (1992) suggests that there is a mapping between the clausal structure and the logical representation, namely, the VP structure consists of the nuclear scope, and the residue structure is the restriction, as shown in (30). Diesing (1992) assumes that the subject DP in (29) can be mapped to either the restriction to receive the generic reading or the scope to receive the existential reading, as shown by the two subject positions in (30).
(29) Firemen are available.
a.∃x [x is a fireman][x is available]
(30) IP
“outer subject” I”
I VP “inner subject” V’ V Restriction Scope
Based on Diesing’s (1992) mapping hypothesis, Xiang (2005) explains the observation in (31). As shown in (32), at LF, the the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison moves to [Spec, XP] to check case, and the adjectival head (plus the phonologically null degree head) moves to the higher functional head X0 position. The referential NP functioning as the target of comparison always stays within the scope whose boundary is determined by the position of the adjective and will be interpreted existentially. Therefore, the bare comparative does not allow a generic reading of the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison.
(31) a. *Zhe-zhi gang-chusheng de xiao luotuo da ma yi-dian. this-CL just-born DE little camel big horse a-little ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than a horse.’
b. Zhe-zhi gang- chusheng de xiao luotuo da na-pi ma yi-dian. this-CL just-born DE little camel big that-CL horse a-little ‘This new-born camel is a little bigger than that horse.’
(32) IP …… XP NP X’ Lisi X DegP1 (exceed)-tall Deg AP tk t DegP2 Lisi a little scope
However insightful Xiang’s (2005) revised Larsonian (1991) style DegP-shell analysis of bare comparatives is, there still exist some problems that Xiang’s (2005) analysis fails to account for. First, Xiang (2005) does not explain why measure phrases are always obligatory in bare comparatives. Second, what triggers the movement of the phonetically null degree morpheme exceed to the adjective and the movement of the complex head exceed-tall to the higher Deg-head?
3.4 Erlewine (2007)
Syntactically, Erlewine (2007) argues that bi in the bi-comparative such as (33) is a verbal functional head subcategorizing for a voice v’ which, in turn, subcategorizes for the predicate of comparison, as shown in (34). The lower bi in (34) undergoes head movement to derive the correct surface word order.
John bi Mary like Tom
‘John likes Tom more than Mary does.’ (34) S bi vP target of v’ comparison v v’ bi v VP voice predicate of comparison
Erlewine (2007) provides evidence for the vP-shell structure of the
bi-comparative. First, bi and the referential NP functioning as the target of
comparison do not seem to form a constituent since the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison cannot be dislocated with or without stranding bi, as shown in (35).
(35) a. *Mali, Yuehan bi gao. Mary, John bi tall b. *Bi Mali, Yuehan gao.
bi Mary, John tall
Second, negation normally occurs right before the verb phrase (or the adjective phrase) in Mandarin Chinese, as shown in (36), where the adjunct dui-phrase is involved. If bi were in an adjunct position, a negation marker would be expected to surface immediately before the predicate of comparison. The position of negation,
however, is crucially before bi, as shown in (37).
(36) Yuehan *bu dui Mali √bu diu qiu. John *Neg toward Mary √Neg throw ball ‘John does not throw balls toward Mary.’ (37) Wo √bu bi ta *bu gao.
1sg √Neg bi 3sg *Neg tall ‘I am not taller than him.’
The third piece of evidence concerns the distribution of the distributive quantifier ge ‘each’. Based on Soh’s (2005) assumption that ge ‘each’ can adjoin to a VP or vP node, Erlewine (2007) has shown that ge ‘each’ may appear before either the bi-phrase (vP) as in (38a) or the predicate of comparison (VP) as in (38b).
(38) a. Women ge bi san-ge ren gao wu fen. 1pl each bi three-CL person tall five point
‘Each of us was five points higher than three people.’ b. Wo bi tamen ge gao wu fen.
1sg bi 3pl each high five point
‘I was five points higher than each of them.’
Fourth, Erlewine (2007) argues that the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison c-commands the predicate of comparison since an argument in the predicate of comparison can be bound by the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison, as shown in (39).
(39) Yuehani bi Malij xihuan zijii/j.
Johni bi Maryj like selfi/j
‘Johni likes himselfi more than Maryj likes herselfj.’
‘Johni likes himselfi more than Maryj likes himi.’
Finally, Erlewine (2007) indicates that the comparison operates above voice and voice may not act above comparison because comparison and passivization may cooccur on condition that the bi-phrase surfaces before the bei-phrase, as the contrast between (40a) and (40b) shows.
(40) a. Yuehan bi Tangmu bei Mali zunjing. John bi Tom bei Mary respect
‘John is respected by Mary more than Tom is.’ b. *Yuehan bei Mali bi (bei) Tangmu zunjing. John bei Mary bi bei Tom respect
intended: ‘John is respected by Mary more than by Tom.’
Erlewine (2007) further argues that the syntax of the bi-comparative can be extended to the transitive comparative like (41). Erlewine (2007) proposes that there is a phonologically-null version of bi which has approximately the same semantics as
bi but triggers the A to v movement in the transitive comparative. Thus, the syntactic
configuration of the transitive comparative is as shown in (42).
(41) Yuehan gao Mali *(shi gaongfen). John tall Mary ten centimeter
(42) S (Ai+ Øbi)j vP target of v’ comparison v v’ Ai+ Øbi j v VP
voice Ai measure phrase
Erlewine (2007) notes that in the transitive comparative the measure phrase is obligatorily required. However, Erlewine (2007) does not give any explanation with regard to this property of the transitive comparative. In addition, Erlewine (2007) does not state explicitly the motivations for the movement involved in the bi-comparative and the transitive comparative.
3.5 Liu (2007)
Liu (2007) proposes that the comparative construction such as (43a) (henceforth the X A (Y) D comparative) contains the weak covert verbal suffix –guo2, which is grammaticalized from the verbal suffix –guo1, meaning ‘exceed’, in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative like (43b). Liu (2007) underlines the affinity between these two types of comparatives in syntax and semantics.
(43) a. Zhangsan gao (Lisi) san gongfen. Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by three centimeters.’ b. Zhangsan gao-guo1 Lisi (san gongfen).
Zhangsan tall-guo1 Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by three centimeters.’
First of all, in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative, the verbal suffix –guo1 ‘exceed’, being a three-place predicate syntactically, denotes a four-place relation semantically: A relation between two comparison items (i.e. X and Y of the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative), a dimension and a measure phrase; therefore, the two comparison items and the measure phrase can be considered the arguments of –guo1 ‘exceed’. Although no verbal suffix –guo1 ‘exceed’ is found in the X A (Y) D comparative, semantically this type of comparative also expresses the meaning of ‘X exceeds/surpasses Y by D in the dimension denoted by A’.
Second, the adjective in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative must be a [+pole] dimensional adjective or a positive value adjective since the exceeding or surpassing meaning of –guo1 ‘exceed’ implies the “upward ordering” along the scale, as the contrast below illustrates (cf. Bierwisch 1989).
(44) a. 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.’ b. *Zhe-tiao shengzi duan-guo1 na-tiao liang yingchi.
this-CL rope short-guo1 that-CL two inch
Nevertheless, the adjective in the X A (Y) D comparative must be a dimensional adjective, either [+pole] or [-pole], with a dimension measurable by a standardized measure unit fixed as a gauge for measuring the scale, as examples in (45) illustrate (cf. Bierwisch 1989).
(45) a. Zhe-ben shu gui/pianyi na-ben yi-bai-kui qian. this-CL book expensive/cheap that-CL one-hundred-CL dollar
‘This book is one hundred dollars more expensive/cheaper than that one.’ b. *Zhe-ge nuhai piaoliang na-ge nuhai san du.
this-CL girl beautiful that-CL girl three degree ‘This girl is three more degrees beautiful than that one.’
Third, in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative, the internal comparison item must be a definite/specific (or referential) noun phrase whereas the measure phrase must be non-referential, as the contrast in (46) illustrates. Furthermore, the internal referential comparison item must precede the non-referential measure phrase in the linear order.
(46) a. Zhangsan gao-guo1 Lisi shi gongfen. Zhangsan tall-guo1 Lisi ten centimeter ‘Zhangsan is ten centimeters taller than Lisi.’ b. *Zhangsan gao-guo1 liang mi shi gongfen. Zhangsan tall-guo1 two meter ten centimeter c. *Zhangsan gao-guo1 shi gengfen Lisi.
Zhangsan tall ten centimeter Lisi
Fourth, in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative, the presence of the internal comparison item is obligatory while the presence of the measure phrase is optional; however, the occurrence of the internal comparison item is optional while the occurrence of the measure phrase is obligatory in the X A (Y) D comparative, as shown by the contrast below.
(47) a. Zhangsan gao-guo1 Lisi (shi gongfen). Zhangsan tall-guo1 Lisi ten centimeter
‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ b. Zhangsan gao-guo1 *(Lisi) shi gongfen.
Zhangsan tall-guo1 Lisi ten centimeter ‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ (48) a. Zhangsan gao (Lisi) shi gongfen.
Zhangsan tall Lisi ten centimeter
‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’ b. Zhangsan gao Lisi *(shi gongfen).
Zhangsan tall Lisi ten centimeter
‘Zhangsan’s height exceeds Lisi’s by ten centimeters.’
Fifth, in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative, the adjective cannot be modified by a degree adverb, and the same obtains in the X A (Y) D comparative.
(49) a. *Zhangsan hen/geng gao-guo1 Lisi san gongfen. Zhangsan very/even.more tall-guo1 Lisi three centimeter b. *Zhangsan hen/geng gao Lisi san gongfen.
Zhangsan very/even.more tall Lisi three centimeter
Sixth, quantifiers (or plural NPs) are not allowed to serve as internal comparison items in the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative and the X A (Y) D comparative, unless in some specific context where all elements denoted by the quantifier (or the plural NP) share the same degree value, as (50) illustrates.
(50) a. *Zhangsan gao-guo1 qita/zhexie ren san gongfen. Zhangsan tall-guo1 other/these person three centimeter
‘??Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than everyone else/these persons.’ b. *Zhangsan gao qita/zhexie ren san gongfen.
Zhangsan tall other/these person three centimeter
‘??Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than everyone else/these persons.’
Liu (2007) suggests that –guo1 ‘exceed’ projects as Guo1P, in which the adjectival head, triggered by the affixal feature of –guo1 ‘exceed’, overtly moves to the guo head (i.e. –guo1) position, as (51a) shows. With a full-fledged lexical meaning, -guo1 ‘exceed’ requires that the referential NP serving as the target of comparison should be present. Besides, since -guo1 ‘exceed’ functions as a predicate “strong” enough to restrict the interval argument of the adjective (cf. Schwarzchild and Wilkinson 2002), the measure phrase, which indirectly restricts the interval argument of the adjective, is optionally required.
(51) a. Zhangsan [Guo1P [Guo1’ [Guo1 gaoi-guo1] [AP Lisi [A’ [A ti] [san gongfen]]]]].
Zhangsan tall-guo1 Lisi three centimeter ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’
b. ∃I∃K [gao’(Zhangsan, I) & gao’(Lisi, K) & san gongfen’ ([I－K])].
‘There is an interval I on the height scale such that Zhangsan is I-tall, there is another interval K such that Lisi is K-tall, and I differs from K by three centimeters.’
comparative and the X A (Y) D comparative, Liu (2007) suggests that the X A (Y) D comparative such as (52) has a syntactic structure like (53a), in which the covert verbal suffix –guo2 is derived from -guo1 ‘exceed’ through grammaticalization. As (53a) indicates, the covert verbal suffix –guo2 projects as GuoP2, in which gao ‘tall’, triggered by the affixal feature of –guo2, overtly moves to –guo2.
(52) Zhangsan gao Lisi san gongfen. Zhangsan tall Lisi three centimeter
‘Zhangsan‘s height exceeds Lisi’s by three centimeters.’
(53) a. Zhangsan [Guo2P [Guo2’ [Guo2 gaoi-guo2] [AP Lisi [A’ [A ti] [san gongfen]]]]].
Zhangsan tall-guo2 Lisi three centimeter ‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’
b. ∃I∃K [gao’(Zhangsan, I) & gao’(Lisi, K) & san gongfen’ ([I－K])].
Grammaticalization bleaches the “semantic content” of -guo2 (i.e. the
exceeding meaning) to such an extent that –guo2 places a less strict restriction on the
selection of the adjective than –guo1 ‘exceed’ does and cannot function as a predicate strong enough to restrict the interval argument of the adjective. Since the measure phrase is the only possible candidate to restrict the interval argument of the adjective, it is obligatorily required in the X A (Y) D comparative. Besides, the “semantic content” of -guo2 is so bleached that the “transitivity” force of –guo2 becomes weaker than that of –guo1. This makes the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison not necessary to be overtly realized in the X A (Y) D comparative.
Liu’s (2007) analysis of the X A (Y) D comparative has two empirical and theoretical consequences. First, the relative order between the internal referential NP and the measure phrase can be regarded as a reflection of the more general
hierarchical relationship between the referential theme and the non-referential theme object.
Second, the agglutinated form deriving from the overt movement of the adjective to –guo1 or –guo2 is a variant form of the dynamic verb exceed. A degree adverb like hen ‘very’ or geng ’even more’ cannot modify a dynamic verb; therefore, (54a-b) are ungrammatical.
(54) a. *Zhangsan hen/geng gao-guo1 Lisi san gongfen. Zhangsan very/even.more tall- guo1 Lisi three centimeter b. *Zhangsan hen/geng gao-guo2 Lisi san gongfen. Zhangsan very/even.more tall-guo2 Lisi three centimeter
While Liu (2007) has provided a fairly complete analysis of the X A (Y) D comparative, there exists a problem that may weaken Liu’s (2007) analysis. Under Liu’s (2007) analysis, the incompatibility of the adjective in the X A (Y) D comparative with a degree adverb follows from the claim that a degree adverb cannot modify the dynamic verb composed of the adjective and –guo2. However, Liu’s (2007) analysis does not capture the fact that the adjective in the X A (Y) D comparative is compatible with the degree adverb showei ‘slightly’, as shown in (55).
(55) Zhangsan shaowei gao-guo2 Lisi yi-dianer/yi-xie. Zhangsan slightly tall-guo2 Lisi a-little/a-little ‘Zhangsan is a little bit taller than Lisi.’
Chapter 4 Proposal
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is composed of the syntactic and semantic analyses of the X
shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative. In section 4.2, Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004)
proposal that degree clauses can be merged late is first introduced as preliminaries. Then we propose that shaowei ‘slightly’ is merged countercyclically as the complement of the covert quantificational operator binding yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’, which is treated as a variable, after the covert quantificational operator adjoins in a scope position. In section 4.3, we first introduce the semantics of gradable adjectives and comparatives as preliminaries. Then the obligatory occurrence of yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and the optional occurrence of the referential NP functioning as the target of comparison in the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative are accounted for.
4.2 The syntactic analysis of the X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative Before proceeding to the syntactic issues regarding the X shaowei A Y
yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative, we briefly introduce Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004)
analysis of English comparatives as preliminaries.
4.2.1 Preliminary: Late merger of degree clauses
English comparatives manifest characteristics that cannot be easily accommodated in a single structure. Syntactically, the degree head -er cooccurs with the degree clause introduced by than, as shown in (56). In other words, there are selectional restrictions between –er and than. Since selectional restrictions are the hallmark of head-argument relationships, it is reasonable to conclude that the degree
clause is the syntactic argument of the degree head. Semantically, -er and the degree clause form a degree phrase that is interpreted as a degree quantifier argument of the matrix gradable predicate, as in (57b) (see Cresswell 1976, von Stechow 1984, Heim 1985, 2000). The degree quantifier [-er + degree clause] may be analyzed as moving to a scope position within the clause from where it binds the degree variable in argument position, as in (57c). In a nutshell, it is reasonable to posit that the degree head and the degree clause form a constituent to the exclusion of the gradable predicate.
(56) Simon drank fewer beers than/*as/*that Alex did. (57) a. John is taller than 6 feet.
b. John is [AP [DegP –er than 6 feet] tall]
c. [DegP –er than 6 feet]1 John is [AP [ t1 tall]
Despite the convincing syntactic and semantic evidence that the degree clause is the complement of –er, there is morphological evidence that –er forms a constituent with the gradable predicate to the exclusion of the degree clause. One reason for positing that –er and the gradable predicate form a constituent has been the existence of fully and partially suppletive forms, as in (58) and (59).
(58) a. [-er good] → better b. [-er bad] → worse (59) [-er tall] → taller
Moreover, not only are –er and the degree clause nonadjacent in the majority of cases, more often than not they may not even appear together as a constituent that excludes
the gradable predicate.
(60) *Ralf is [more than Flora is] tall. cf. Ralf is taller than Flora is. (61) *Ralf is [more than her] tall. cf. Ralf is taller than her. (62) *Ralf is [more than he is fit] tall. cf. Ralf is more tall than he is fit. (63) *Ralf is [more than fit] tall. cf. Ralf is more tall than fit.
In order to reconcile the conflicting evidence regarding constituency in degree constructions, Bhatt and Pancheva (2004) propose that the degree head and the degree clause form a constituent not at the point where the degree head is merged, but after QR of the degree head and countercyclic merger of the degree clause. The selectional restrictions between –er and the degree clause obtain because the degree clause is merged as an argument to the QR-ed and right-adjoined –er. The lack of adjacency effects between the degree clause and the degree head follows from the fact that only the tail of the –er-chain is pronounced.
In its essentials, Bhatt and Pancheva’s proposal follows Fox and Nissenbaum’s (1999) analysis of relative clause extraposition. Developing Lebeaux’s (1990) proposal that relative clauses can be merged countercyclically, Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) propose that relative clause extraposition involves countercyclic merger of the relative clause to an unpronounced copy of a QP that has undergone QR. Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004) analysis not only extends the idea of countercyclic merger to the domain of comparatives, it also shows that not only adjuncts but complements as well
can be merged late (cf. Ishii 1997).
The architecture of English comparatives is illustrated in some more detail as follows. As shown in (64), -er is the head of a DegP which is the specifier of the gradable predicate. Being a quantificational expression, the DegP headed by –er undergoes QR to right-adjoin to a node of type〈t〉(indicated as XP in the trees in (65) and (66)), leaving behind a copy. The degree clause is then merged as an argument to the QR-ed -er (see (65) and (66) for an illustration). The degree head –er is interpreted in its scope position, but is pronounced in its base position (cf. Bobaljik 2002). (64) AP DegP A Deg tall -er (65) XP …XP DegPi … Deg AP… -er DegPi A Deg tall -er
(66) XP …XP DegPi … Deg’ AP… Deg degree clause DegPi A -er Deg tall -er
The interaction of extraposition with the scope of the comparison provides evidence that degree clauses are merged late, following QR of the degree head –er. Fox (2002: 19) has articulated the extraposition-scope correlation as in (67).
(67) William’s Generalization
When an adjunct β is extraposed from a “source DP” α, the scope of α is at least as high as the attachment site of β (the extraposition site).
The contrast between (68) and (69) illustrates the generalization as articulated in (67), that is, it shows that the scope of the degree head is at least as high as the surface position of the degree clause.
(68) John read more books than Mary published in her life before you did. a. Reading 1: before > -er…d-many books
[before you did [VP △]]
ii. John PAST [VP read [[ti many books] [-er [than Mary published in her
life]]i]] [before you did [VP read [[ti many books] [-er [than Mary published
in her life]]i]]]
John read more books than Mary published in her life before you read more books than Mary published in her life.
b. Reading 2: -er…d-many books > before
i. John [[VP read ti] [before you did [VP △]]] [[tj many books] [-er [than Mary
published in her life]]j]i
ii. John [[VP read ti] [before you did [VP read ti]]] [[tj many books] [-er [than
Mary published in her life]]j]i
The number of books that John read before you read them exceeds the number
of books that Mary published in her life.
c. *Reading 3: -er > before > d-many books, the Heim-Kennedy Constraint (69) John read more books before you did than Mary published in her life. a. *Reading 1: before > -er…d-many books
b. Reading 2: -er…d-many books > before
i. John [[VP read ti] [before you did [VP △]]] [[tj many books] [-er [than Mary
published in her life]]j]i
ii. John [[VP read ti] [before you did [VP read ti]]] [[tj many books] [-er [than
Mary published in her life]]j]i
The number of books that John read before you read them exceeds the number of books that Mary published in her life.
c. *Reading 3: -er > before > d-many books, the Heim-Kennedy Constraint (70) The Heim-Kennedy Constraint
that DegP itself. (Heim 2000: (27))
(68) and (69) contain the weak DP more books than Mary published in her life. In contrast to (68), (69) is unambiguous. In Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004) account of the contrast, in (68) the degree clause is merged low within the source DP that contains the degree head it is associated with. The whole DP can take scope either below or over the before-clause, as shown in (68a) and (68b). However, the degree clause in (69) is merged late at a position higher than the before-clause. By Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2004) assumptions, this indicates that –er is in a position above before. Yet, given the Heim-Kennedy Constraint in (70), the before-clause cannot intervene between the degree quantifier (the degree head and the degree clause) and the degree predicate (d-many books). Therefore, the whole DP must have scope higher than the
before-clause. Consequently, the reading available is the one given in (69b).
Bhatt and Pancheva (2004) further argue for a stronger version of the correlation between extraposition and scope than the one expressed in (67), at least as far as degree expressions are concerned.
(71) The Extraposition-Scope Generalization (for degree expressions)
When a degree clause β is extraposed from a degree head α, the scope of α is exactly as high as the merger site of β.
The following examples illustrate the generalization as articulated in (71), that is, they show that the scope of the degree head is exactly as high as the surface position of the degree clause.
John is required [to publish fewer papers this year [than that number] in a major journal] [to get tenure].
Simplified LF structure: required > [fewer [than n]]
required [fewer [than n] λd [PRO publish d-many papers]] b. Degree clause outside the matrix clause
John is required [to publish fewer papers this year in a major journal] [to get tenure] [than that number].
Simplified LF structure: [fewer [than n]] > required
fewer [than n] λd [required [PRO publish d-many papers]]
The availability of the –er > required reading in (72b) shows that the structure involving a degree abstraction that crosses required is semantically well formed. The absence of this reading in (72a) indicates that the scope of -er is marked exactly by the surface position of the degree clause; in other words, the degree quantifier in (72a) cannot move further.
In a word, the interaction of extraposition with the scope of comparison provides strong support for the proposal that degree clauses are overt indicators of the scope of the comparison and that they are merged late, after QR of the degree head.
4.2.2 Late merger of shaowei ‘slightly’
4.2.2.1 Selectional restrictions despite nonadjacency
One of the clearest syntactic pieces of evidence that shaowei ‘slightly’ forms a constituent with yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ is the selectional restrictions between the two. As shown in (73), yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ cooccurs with shaowei ‘slightly’.
Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie. Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’
c. *Wangwu hen/zui/geng/youdianer/bijiao gao Zhaoying Wangwu very/the.most/even.more/a.bit/comparatively tall Zhaoying yi-dianer.
a-little
d. *Wangwu hen/zui/geng/youdianer/bijiao pan Zhaoying Wangwu very/the.most/even.more/a.bit/comparatively fat Zhaoying yi-xie.
a-little
In other words, there are selectional restrictions between yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and
shaowei ‘slightly’. Since selectional restrictions are the hallmark of head-argument
relationships, it is reasonable to conclude that shaowei ‘slightly’ is the syntactic argument of yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’.
4.2.2.2 Obligatory nonadjacency between shaowei ‘slightly’ and yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a
little’
One piece of evidence against the constituency of yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and
shaowei ‘slightly’ comes from the fact that it is not possible for the two to appear
together, as the following examples illustrate.
Wangwu slightly tall Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit taller than Zhaoying.’ b. *Wangwu gao Zhaoying [yi-dianer shaowei]. Wangwu tall Zhaoying a-little slightly (75) a. Wangwu shaowei pan Zhaoying yi-xie. Wangwu slightly fat Zhaoying a-little ‘Wangwu is a little bit fatter than Zhaoying.’ b. *Wangwu pan Zhaoying [yi-xie shaowei]. Wangwu fat Zhaoying a-little slightly
It appears that yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ and shaowei ‘slightly’ can never form a constituent at the position in which yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ is initially merged.
4.2.2.3 Late merger of shaowei ‘slightly’ resolves the conflict
The X shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative exhibits properties that can not be easily accommodated in a single structure. In particular, there is convincing syntactic evidence that shaowei ‘slightly’ is the complement of yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’. However, there is also strong evidence that shaowei ‘slightly’ and
yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ never appear together as a constituent.
Before we illustrate the architecture of the shaowei A Y yi-dianer/yi-xie comparative in some more detail, one point deserves particular clarification in connection with yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’. The measure phrase yi-dianer/yi-xie ‘a little’ is interpreted as a quantificational expression which measures part of the scale associated with the adjective (cf. Schwarzchild and Wilkinson 2002). Under fairly standard assumptions, quantificational expressions undergo QR; similarly,
