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
漢語中的V-多結構
The V-duo Construction in Mandarin Chinese
研 究 生：陳美名 Mei-Ming Chen
指導教授：劉辰生 博士 Dr. Chen-Sheng Liu
漢語中的V-多結構
The V-duo Construction in Mandarin Chinese
研 究 生：陳美名 Mei-Ming Chen
指導教授：劉辰生 博士 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 ThesisSubmitted 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 2013
Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
漢語中的V-多結構 研究生: 陳美名 指導教授: 劉辰生 博士 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 本論文旨在討論漢語中的V-多結構。V-多結構有幾個特性，其中之一是事件的量不 能 被 固 定 住 。 本 文 認 為 其 原 因 是 因 為 標 準 的 事 件 的 量 會 隨 著 語 境 而 有 所 不 同 (context-sensitive)。而標準的事件的量之所以會隨著語境而改變跟「多」的語意是有關 的。根據Kennedy (2007)提出的隱性比較(implicit comparison)的判斷標準，即簡明判斷 (crisp judgments)和差值度量(differential measurements)，以及V-多結構中不能放「比」的 這個特性，本文認為V-多結構是隱性比較句。Kennedy (2007)提到隱性比較關涉到原級 (positive form)的語意，而原級的語意可假定有程度詞素(degree morpheme) pos的存在， 而且pos會引介隨著語境而改變的標準。此外Liu (2010)認為漢語有pos這個不具語音形式 的原級詞素(covert positive morpheme)。因此，本文認為V-多結構，作為隱性比較句，帶 有 pos 這個不具語音形式的原級詞素。因為V-多是複合詞，所以我們認為pos在詞彙層 次(lexical level)就併入(incorporate into)「多」了。
關鍵詞︰V-多結構、隱性比較、不具語音形式的原級詞素
The V-duo Construction in Mandarin Chinese
Student: Mei-Ming Chen Advisor: Dr. Chen-Sheng Liu
Graduate Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics
National Chiao Tung University
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses several syntactic and semantic characteristics of the V-duo
construction. One important property of the V-duo construction is that the event denoted by
the VP cannot be telic, bounded, or quantized. This paper argues that the reason why the event
must be atelic (unbounded, cumulative) is attributed to the context dependence property of the
standard, which is implied by the semantics of duo.
With regard to the preposed object in the V-duo construction, I pursue Paul’s (2002)
proposal that the preposed object is an internal topic rather than a focus, but departing from
Paul (2002), I argue that in the V-duo construction, multiple topics are allowed in the internal
topic position, provided they belong to different types. Since Topic Phrase allows recursion
(cf. Gasde & Paul 1996), I suggest that like the external topic, the internal topic in the V-duo
construction is located in the Spec of TopicP. Movement of a constituent which is interpreted
as a Topic is basically driven by feature checking.
comparison proposed by Kennedy (2007) (i.e., crisp judgments and differential measurements)
and the incompatibility with the word bi, this paper argues that the V-duo construction is an
implicit comparison construction. According to Kennedy (2007), implicit comparison
involves the semantics of the positive form. One option for the compositional semantics of the
positive form, as Kennedy (2007) suggests, is to assume a covert positive morpheme pos with
a denotation along the lines of (i), where s is a context sensitive function that takes a gradable
predicate meaning as input and returns a standard of comparison appropriate for the context as
output (cf. Cresswell 1977; von Stechow 1984; Kennedy & McNally 2005).
(i) [[Deg pos]] = λg.λx.g(x) > s(g)
In addition, according to Liu (2010), Chinese has a covert positive morpheme. Thus, it is
not unreasonable for us to assume that the V-duo construction, as an implicit comparison
construction, contains the covert positive morpheme pos, which is merged with or
incorporated into the morpheme duo at lexical level because V-duo is a compound verb. The
assumption that the semantics of duo is derived by merging pos with duo or by incorporating
pos into duo at lexical level accounts for why the standard event quantity in the V-duo
Keywords: the V-duo construction, telicity, boundedness, context sensitivity, implicit
誌
謝
論文完成的此刻，心中有無限的感謝。首先，我要感謝我的指導教授，劉辰生老師。 老師課堂上的深入淺出的解說，激發了我對句法學的興趣。老師做學問嚴謹的態度，更 是學生學習的楷模。在老師的身上，學生總能感受到老師對我們的用心和關心。寫論文 的這段期間，老師更是騰出許多寶貴的時間與我討論，還記得每每當我的論文卡住時， 老師總能拉我一把，指引我方向，心中對老師的感謝無法用言語來形容。 再者，我要感謝林若望老師和廖秀真老師，感謝兩位老師在百忙之中出席我的資格 考和口試。林老師是我碩士班語意學的老師，林老師上課時敏捷的思考、精闢的分析令 學生十分敬佩。廖老師則是十分親善的老師。感謝兩位老師在資格考跟口試時提出許多 寶貴的意見，讓我了解論文的不足和需要改進的地方。 我還要感謝研究所期間教過我的老師，劉美君老師、許慧娟老師、賴郁雯老師、黃 漢君老師，以及曹逢甫老師，謝謝你們的教導，讓我看到語言學的不同面貌。感謝碩班 同學以及曾經幫助我的許許多多人。 最後我要感謝我最親愛的家人，感謝父母親支持我留職停薪回校園進修，感謝父母 親無私的奉獻。我還要感謝我的妹妹，謝謝妹妹的貼心和細心，讓我能暫時忘卻寫論文 的辛苦。謝謝你們幫我加油打氣，讓我有繼續奮鬥的勇氣。
Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract………..i English Abstract………..ii Acknowledgements……….v Table of Contents………...vi Chapter 1 Introduction………....1Chapter 2 The Properties of the V-duo Construction……….5
2.1 V-duo as a Resultative Verb Compound or a Verb-Complement Compound…...5
2.2 The Incompatibility of Duo with Individual-level Verbs………. 9
2.3 The Morpheme Duo Modifying the Quantity of Events………..12
2.4 The Unacceptability of Telic (Bounded, Quantized) Events………. .15
2.5 The Context Sensitivity of the Standard………..24
Chapter 3 The Syntactic Analysis of the V-duo Construction………..27
3.1 Against the Preposed Object as a Focus………..28
3.1.1 Object Preposing vs. the Lian…Ye/Dou Construction………....28
3.1.2 Object Preposing vs. the Shi…De Focus Clefts………..32
3.1.3 Tests of Exhaustive Identification………...34
3.2 The Preposed Object as an Internal Topic………....38
Chapter 4 The V-duo Construction as an Atypical Comparative Construction………....43
4.1 The Positive Form………....43
4.2 Explicit vs. Implicit Comparison……….45
4.3 The V-duo Construction as an Implicit Comparison Construction………..52
Chapter 5 Concluding Remarks………....66 References……….69
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A typical comparative (an EXPLICIT comparative in the sense of Kennedy 2007)
involves comparing two entities along some dimension, and the meaning of comparison in a
typical comparative is provided by a comparative morpheme. For example, the Chinese bi
comparative like (1) compares two entities “Zhangsan” and “Lisi” with regard to the height
dimension, and the meaning of comparison in the Chinese bi comparative, as Li and
Thompson (1981) and Lin (2009) suggest, is provided the word bi.1
(1) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao.
Zhangsan COM Lisi tall
‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’
1
Abbreviations used in this paper include: COM: compare, ASP: aspect marker, SFP: sentence final particle, CL_IN: individual classifier, CL_KD: kind classifier, DE: the verbal suffix or the marker for modifying phrases like genitive phrases, relative clauses, and noun complement clauses, HEN: the degree word hen used as the overt positive morpheme.
The V-duo construction like (2), which means ‘the total amount of sleeping by Zhangsan
exceeds the contextually determined standard amount of sleep by a significant amount’, is
different from typical comparatives in the following ways.
(2) Zhangsan shui-duo LE. 2 Zhangsan sleep-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan slept quite a lot.’
First, in a typical comparative such as the Chinese bi comparative, the standard of
comparison is introduced by the word bi; however, in the V-duo construction the standard of
comparison is neither introduced by specific syntactic categories nor overtly manifested.
Second, a typical comparative like the Chinese bi comparative uses the comparative
morpheme bi to express the ordering relation of superiority; however, the V-duo construction
cannot co-occur with the word bi, as shown by (3).
2
Actually, the function of a postverbal ‘‘le’’ at the end of the sentence is still controversial. It could be the sentence-final particle le, in which cases the sentences must have a current relevant meaning. It could be the perfective aspect marker –le, in which cases the sentences must have a perfective meaning (cf. Li & Thompson 1981). In this paper, I simply regard ‘‘le’’ at the end of a sentence as ambiguous between the two readings.
(3) *Ni jiu bi Lisi he-duo LE.
2SG wine COM Lisi drink-much ASP/SFP
Third, the Chinese bi comparative such as (1) is acceptable in context (4), which
involves a crisp judgment (i.e., a very slight difference between the compared objects):
(4) Context: Zhangsan is 170 centimeters tall while Lisi is 169 centimeters tall.
In contrast, the V-duo construction like (2) is unacceptable in context (5A), which involves a
crisp judgment, but acceptable in context (5B), which does not:
(5) Context A: Zhangsan slept for 8 hours and 5 minutes while the normal amount of sleep
is around 8 hours per night.
Context B: Zhangsan slept for 14 hours while the normal amount of sleep is around 8
hours per night.
However, we cannot say that the V-duo construction is not a comparative construction
just because it differs from typical comparatives significantly. Actually, according to Kennedy
main goal of this paper is to argue that the V-duo construction is an atypical comparative
construction, or more precisely, an implicit comparison construction.
The linguistic data in this paper was mainly collected from the modern Chinese corpus
developed by the Center for Chinese Linguistics (CCL Corpus) at Peking University and
Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese (Sinica Corpus).
This paper is organized as follows. In chapter 2, several syntactic and semantic
properties of the V-duo construction will be presented. Chapter 3 argues that the preposed
object in the V-duo construction serves as an internal topic rather than a focalized element,
and that the internal topic occupies the specifier of TopP because multiple internal topics are
allowed in the V-duo construction. In chapter 4, I will argue that the V-duo construction is an
implicit comparison construction, and that the meaning of implicit comparison in the V-duo
construction is provided by the covert positive morpheme pos, which is merged with or
incorporated into the morpheme duo at lexical level. Finally, the conclusion is stated in
CHAPTER 2
THE PROPERTIES OF THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION
In this chapter, I will discuss the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the V-duo
construction.
2.1 V-duo as a Resultative Verb Compound or a Verb-Complement Compound
The most straightforward evidence in support of the view that V-duo is a compound verb
comes from (6):
(6) a. Wo zai zhe-zhong changhe he-duo-guo san ci.
I on this-CL_KD occasion drink-much-ASP three time
‘On an occasion of this kind, I have drunk quite a lot three times.’
b. *Wo zai zhe-zhong changhe he-guo-duo san ci.
I on this-CL_KD occasion drink-ASP-much three time
As we can see from (6b), the experiential aspect marker –guo can not be inserted between V
a compound verb.
It should be noted that we cannot say that in (6a) -guo is attached to duo. This is
evidenced by the contrast between (6a) and (7).
(7) Wo de qian gang-gang-hao duo-guo1 ta liang-mao.
I DE money just more-guo1 3SG two cent
‘The amount of my money just exceeds that of his money by two cents.’
(7) is an instance of the X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative, where the verbal suffix -guo1 means
‘exceed’ or ‘surpass’ (cf. Liu 2007). The X A-guo1 Y (D) comparative is a construction that
involves explicit comparison, as evidenced by the acceptability of crisp judgments (i.e., very
slight differences between the compared objects) which, as Kennedy (2007) argues, is the
defining criterion of an explicit comparative, as (7) shows. In contrast, the V-duo construction
such as (6a) involves implicit comparison because it is not acceptable in contexts involving
crisp judgments (this will be argued in section 4.3). Thus, the difference between (6a) and (7)
leads us to claim that –guo is attached to the compound verb V-duo rather than the morpheme
duo.
Although the –guo insertion test indicates that V-duo is a compound verb, a more
subject-predicate compounds, verb-object compounds, parallel verb compounds,
modifier-head compounds, and verb-complement compounds. So which type is V-duo? The
first two types, the subject-predicate and the verb-object compounds, are ruled out. The
reason is that neither V nor duo is a noun morpheme. The possibility that V-duo is a parallel
verb compound is also ruled out. According to Li and Thompson (1981), the two verbs that
constitute a parallel verb compound should either be synonymous or signal the same type of
predicative notions. However, this is not the case for V-duo. The remaining candidates are
modifier-head and verb-complement compounds. The modifier-head compound
(manner-head), as its name suggests, is composed of two elements, whose relation is one in
which the first element stative modifies the second element head and reveals the manner in
which the action is performed. This is not the case for V-duo because V does not server as a
modifier and does not reveal the manner. The only candidate is the verb-complement
compound (or resultative verb compound). This will predict that duo is the complement while
the preceding verb is the head. According to Li and Thompson (1981), the resultative verb
compound, or RVC, is composed of two elements and the second element signals some result
of the action or process conveyed by the first element. The assumption that V-duo is a
verb-complement compound verb or a resultative verb compound is plausible because of the
following reasons. First, according to Li and Thompson (1981) and Packard (2000), RVCs can
to’ or -bu- ‘not able to’ between the two constituents. As seen in (8a-b), the ‘potential infix’
operation can be performed on the compound verb V-duo.
(8) a. Wo jiu he-de-duo.
I wine drink-able-much
‘I’m able to drink quite a lot.’
b. Wo jiu he-bu-duo.
I wine drink-unable-much
‘I’m unable to drink quite a lot.’
The second characteristic of the RVC, as Li and Thompson (1981) suggests, is that
unlike most action verbs in Mandarin, which can be reduplicated to indicate delimitative
aspect, RVCs cannot be reduplicated. For example, we have chang-chang ‘have a taste’, but
reduplicated V-duo is unacceptable: *he-duo—he-duo ‘drink-much—drink-much’. This
suggests that V-duo is an RVC.
In view of the above arguments, it is reasonable to analyze V-duo as a resultative verb
compound or a verb-complement compound verb. The argument structure of V-duo is derived
from the independent argument structure of the head V. For example, he ‘drink’ is a transitive
‘drink’ combines with duo to form a verb-complement compound verb, he-duo ‘drink-much’
is still a two-place predicate. In other words, he-duo ‘drink-much’ is still a transitive verb, as
shown in (9).
(9) Ni he-duo-le jiu.
2SG drink-much-ASP wine
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
2.2 The Incompatibility of Duo with Individual-level Verbs
The morpheme duo is compatible with stage-level verbs but incompatible with
individual-level verbs, as shown by the contrast below:
(10) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE. (stage-level verbs)
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine a lot.’
b. Ni pao-duo LE
2SG run-much ASP/SFP
‘You ran quite a lot.’
door open-much ASP/SFP
‘The door opened quite a lot.’
d. Yu xia-duo LE.
rain fall-much ASP/SFP
‘It rained quite a lot.’
(11) a. *Ni gou xihuan-duo LE. (individual-level verbs)
2SG dog like-much ASP/SFP
b. *Ni zhe-zhong shi zhidao-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_KD thing know-much ASP/SFP
That some state verbs like xiang ‘think’ and kaolu ‘consider’ can be combined with duo
appears to be counterexamples to our assumption that duo is normally incompatible with
individual-level predicates. I will show that the examples in (12) do not contradict, but rather
reinforce our assumption.
(12) a. Ni xiang-duo LE.
2SG think-much ASP/SFP
b. Ni kaolu-duo LE.
2SG consider-much ASP/SFP
‘You think too much.’
Carlson (1977) argues that (most) individual-level predicates are stative, i.e., permanent states,
and that most stage-level predicates are nonstative (or dynamic), but not all of them are, e.g.
temporary states. Following Carlson (1977), we argue that there are indeed two types of states,
namely, individual-level states and stage-level states. One of the linguistic tests that has been
extensively adopted to distinguish stage- from individual-level predicates is the progressive
test proposed by Vendler (1967). State verbs are normally incompatible with the progressive,
as shown in (13b):
(13) a. She was running.
b. *She was knowing the answer.
In Chinese the progressive aspect marker is zai. The verbs xiang ‘think’ and kaolu ‘consider’
can take the progressive zai and are thus judged as stage-level state verbs. Stage-level state
verbs such as xiang ‘think’ and kaolu ‘consider’ denote stative situations, which are ‘‘more
2.3 The Morpheme Duo Modifying the Quantity of Events
At a superficial level, the morpheme duo appears to modify the quantity of internal
arguments, as shown by (14).
(14) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
b. Ni tianshi chi-duo LE.
2SG sweet food eat-much ASP/SFP
‘You ate sweet food quite a lot.’
c. Ni huazhuangpin mai-duo LE.
2SG cosmetics buy-much ASP/SFP
‘You bought cosmetic products quite a lot.’
d. Ni zhe-pen hua shui jiao-duo LE.
2SG this-CL flower water pour-much ASP/SFP
‘You watered this flower quite a lot.’
quantity of internal arguments, as illustrated by (15-16) and (17-18), respectively.
(15) a. Ni gaogenxie chuan-duo LE.
2SG high-heeled shoes wear-much ASP/SFP
‘You wore high-heeled shoes quite a lot.’
b. Ni yedian qu-duo LE
2SG nightclub go-much ASP/SFP
‘You went to nightclubs quite a lot.’
(16) a. Ni men qiao-duo LE.
2SG door knock-much ASP/SFP
‘You knocked the door quite a lot.’
b. Men kai-duo LE
door open-much ASP/SFP
‘The door opened quite a lot.’
(17) a. Ni dianshi kan-duo LE.
2SG TV watch-much ASP/SFP
b. Ni lanqiu da-duo LE.
2SG basketball play-much ASP/SFP
‘You played basketball quite a lot.’
(18) Ni Xianggang qu-duo LE.
2SG Hong Kong go-much ASP/SFP
‘You went to Hong Kong quite a lot.’
In (15) the morpheme duo does not modify the quantity of internal arguments because the
internal argument of V-duo in each sentence can undergo the event more than once. In (15a) a
pair of high-heeled shoes can be worn more than once, and in (15b) one can go to the same
nightclub more than once. In (16) the morpheme duo does not modify the quantity of internal
arguments because the internal argument in each sentence can undergo the event repeatedly.3,4
3
Following Van Valin (1990) and Huang (2007), I regard verbs like kai ‘open’, which Haegeman (1991) labels ergatives, as unaccusatives. At D-structure men ‘door’ in (16b) is the internal argument of kai-duo ‘open-much’. 4
Sentence (16b) means that a certain door opened too many times. To mean that too many doors opened, we can use sentence (i):
(i) Men kai tai duo LE. door open too many ASP/SFP ‘Too many doors opened.’
In (17) the morpheme duo cannot modify the quantity of internal arguments because the
quantity of the internal argument in each sentence cannot be measured. In (17a) the internal
argument dianshi ‘television’ actually denotes ‘‘a TV show/program’’ rather than the concrete
TV set. In (17b) the internal argument lanqiu ‘basketball’ actually denotes ‘‘a basketball
game’’ rather than the physically round-shaped basketball. In (18) the morpheme duo cannot
modify the quantity of the internal argument because the internal argument xianggang ‘Hong
Kong’ is a proper noun referring to a unique entity.
Given these facts, I suggest that the morpheme duo in the V-duo construction, in general,
modifies the quantity of events (or VPs). Under normal circumstances, the quantity of internal
arguments will increase with that of events indirectly, as shown by (14) above. The proposal
that the morpheme duo, in general, modifies the quantity of events (VPs) provides a unified
account. As to what duo evaluates, we postulate that duo can evaluate either the frequency or
the duration of events. Basically, what duo evaluates is primarily determined by pragmatic
factors.
2.4 The Unacceptability of Telic (Bounded, Quantized) Events
In the previous section, it is argued that duo, in general, modifies the quantity of events
(VPs). In this section, it will be shown that the events modified by the morpheme duo must be
As the first step in the discussion, I shall introduce the mass/ count distinction as a way
to bring us deep into the discussion. The example in (19) illustrates the interaction between
quantifying expressions and the mass/count distinction in the nominal system. Whereas much
selects a mass noun (bread), many combines with a count plural (sandwiches):
(19) a. John eats too much bread/*sandwiches for breakfast.
b. John eats too many sandwiches/*sandwich/*bread for breakfast.
Count plurals and mass nouns have a lot in common. The core of their resemblance is the
cumulative reference property. Many is incompatible with quantized forms: *many six
students is ungrammatical. The mass/count distinction for nominals has often been compared
to aspectual differences in the verbal domain. Atelic or unbounded verbs, such as to run, are
compared to mass nouns, and telic or bounded predicates, such as to run into the house, are
compared to count nouns (cf. Doetjes 1997).
Situation types in Chinese, as Smith (1991) suggests, are generally distinguished as
States, Activities, Accomplishments, Semelfactives, and Achievements in terms of how they
differ from each other in the temporal properties of dynamism, durativity, and telicity, as
(20) Basic situation types
States are static, durative (know the answer, love Mary)
Activities are dynamic, durative, atelic events (laugh, stroll in the park)
Accomplishments are dynamic, durative, telic events consisting of a process with
successive stages and an outcome (build a house, walk to school, learn Greek)
Semelfactives are dynamic, atelic, instantaneous events (tap, knock, cough)
Achievements are dynamic, telic, instantaneous events (win the race, reach the top)
Here relevant to our discussion are the features of stativity and telicity. The feature of
stativity bifurcates situation types into the classes of states and events. Of the four event
situation types, Activities and Semelfactives are atelic, while Accomplishments and
Achievements are telic. The feature [± telic] is irrelevant to states. Telic events have a natural
culmination or endpoint, whereas atelic events do not, as illustrated by the contrast below.
(21) a. Edward smoked a cigarette. (Accomplishment: telic)
b. Edward smoked cigarettes. (Activity: atelic)
(Smith 1991: 6)
the cigarette was finished. In (21b) smoking cigarettes is an atelic event that may continue
indefinitely and has no such clear final point. Verkuyl (1972) argues that the situation type of
a sentence is determined by a verb and its associated arguments. Doetjes (1997) also argues
that the reference properties of the internal argument (quantized or cumulative) determine the
boundedness properties of the VP. This phenomenon has been called measuring out by Tenny
(1987, 1994). The examples in (21) show that depending on the form of the internal argument,
the event is understood as atelic or telic. In the context of the bare plural cigarettes, which has
cumulative (unbounded) reference, the event is atelic. In the presence of the quantized
(bounded) form a cigarette, the event is telic. While internal arguments typically affect the
situation type, the question of whether or not external arguments also contribute to the
situation type is controversial. Dowty (1979) and Verkuyl (1972, 1993) claim that the external
arguments have the same effect on the situation type as internal arguments, whereas Tenny
(1994) and Doetjes (1997) argue that they do not. As Doetjes (1997) points out, they ran a lot
does not imply that there were many people who ran, but that there was a lot of running taking
place. Following Tenny (1994) and Doetjes (1997), I assume that in the V-duo construction
external arguments do not play a role in determining the telicity (boundedness) properties of
the events.
Now let us return to the V-duo construction. The V-duo construction is ungrammatical
(22) a. Ni shui-duo LE. (Activity: atelic)
2SG sleep-much ASP/SFP
‘You slept quite a lot.’
b. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
c. Ni zhe-zhong jiu he-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_KD wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank this kind of wine quite a lot.’
(23) a. Ni ke-duo LE. (Semelfactive: atelic)
2SG cough-much ASP/SFP
‘You coughed quite a lot.’
b. Ni men qiao-duo LE.
2SG door knock-much ASP/SFP
‘You knocked the door quite a lot.’
2SG this-CL_IN wine drink-much ASP/SFP
b. *Zhe-kuai bingkuai rong-duo LE.
this-CL_IN ice melt-much ASP/SFP
(25) *Zhe-ge ren si-duo LE. (Achievement: telic)
this-CL_IN man die-much ASP/SFP
When the situation types are activities and semelfactives, which are atelic events, the V-duo
construction is grammatical, as in (22-23). When the situation types are accomplishments and
achievements, which are telic events, the V-duo construction is ungrammatical, as in (24-25).
It should be noted that there are three main classes of Activities (cf. Smith 1991). One
class involves an ongoing process that is unlimited in principle such as [the child sleep],
[laugh]. Other Activities have uncountable internal stages [eat cherries]. There are also
derived Activities, which are iterative, repetitive, or cyclic events. Repetitions of
Semelfactives, Accomplishments, and Achievements may occur in derived Activities, e.g.
[Mary coughed for five minutes], [John found crabgrass in his yard all summer]. In other
words, Semelfactives, Accomplishments, and Achievements may occur in an unbounded
series as a multiple event. Therefore, if an appropriate context is provided, the situation type
series of repeated Semelfactive, Accomplishment, or Achievement events, as shown by
(26-28), respectively.
(26) a. Ni ke-duo LE. (derived Activity: atelic)
2SG cough-much ASP/SFP
‘You coughed quite a lot.’
b. Ni men qiao-duo LE.
2SG door knock-much ASP/SFP
‘You knocked the door quite a lot.’
(27) a. Ni zhe-jian jifu chuan-duo LE. (derived Activity: atelic)
2SG this-CL_IN clothes wear-much ASP/SFP
‘You wore this piece of clothing quite a lot.’
b. Ni zhe-bu dianying kan-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_IN movie watch-duo ASP/SFP
‘You watched this movie quite a lot.’
c. Wo zhe-xie hua ting-duo LE.
I these word hear-much ASP/SFP
d. Ni zhe-ze xiaohua shuo-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_IN joke tell-much ASP/SFP
‘You told this joke quite a lot.’
e. Men kai-duo LE.
door open-much ASP/SFP
‘The door opened quite a lot.’
f. Xue rong-duo LE.
snow melt-much ASP/SFP
‘Too much snow melted.’
(28) a. Nadal Fawang ying-duo LE. (derived Activity: atelic)
Nadal French Open win-much ASP/SFP
‘Nadal won the French Open quite a lot.’
b. Keren lai-duo LE.
guest come-much ASP/SFP
‘Here came too many guests.’
c. Ren qu-duo LE.
person go-much ASP/SFP
d. Shibing si-duo LE.
soldier die-much ASP/SFP
‘Too many soldiers died.’
e. Zhe-zhong qingkuang fasheng-duo LE.
this-CL_KD situation happen-much ASP/SFP
‘This kind of situation happened quite a lot.’
f. Zhe-zhong qingkuang chuxian-duo LE.
this-CL_KD situation occur-much ASP/SFP
‘This kind of situation occurred quite a lot.’
The internal arguments in (26-28) include bare NPs (27f, 28b-d), kind NPs (28e-f), proper
names (28a) and NPs which can undergo the event repeatedly (26b, 27a-e). In the context of
bare NPs and kind NPs, which have cumulative (unbounded) reference, the events are atelic
(unbounded). In (26b, 27a-e) and (28a) the events are atelic (unbounded) because the singular
event can be iterated. It should be noted that following Van Valin (1990) and Huang (2007), I
regard verbs like kai ‘open’ and ronghua ‘melt’, which Haegeman (1991) labels ergatives, as
unaccusatives. Hence, at D-structure men ‘door’ in (27e) and xue ‘snow’ in (27f) are the
internal arguments of kai-duo ‘open-much’ and ronghua-duo ‘melt-much’ respectively.
unbounded, or cumulative. In other words, the V-duo construction must present an Activity or
a derived multiple-event Activity. In the V-duo construction the internal arguments cannot be
quantized or the internal arguments can undergo the event more than once. As to the verbs,
individual-level predicates, i.e., permanent state verbs, cannot be combined with duo. Verbs
that can be combined with duo are stage-level predicates, most of which are activity verbs.
The reason is that individual-level predicates do not contain an event argument, while
stage-level predicated do (cf. Kratzer 1989). Since the morpheme duo modifies the quantity of
events, the presence of an event argument is obligatory. Thus, that individual-level predicates
cannot be combined with duo is due to the lack of an event argument.
2.5 The Context Sensitivity of the Standard
Before going into the details, I shall introduce what a context sensitive standard is. For
example, (29) could be judged true if asserted in Indonesia, where the average height of males
is 158 centimeters, as in (30a), but false in Netherlands, where the average height of males is
184.8 centimeters, as in (30b).5
5
The source of this information is the website Disabled-World. (http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml)
(29) Zhangsan hen gao.
Zhangsan HEN tall
‘Zhangsan is tall.’
(30) a. Zhangsan is 175 centimeters while the average male height in Indonesia is 158
centimeters.
b. Zhangsan is 175 centimeters while the average male height in Netherlands is
184.8 centimeters.
Now let us return to the V-duo construction. We assume that the reason why the events
in the V-duo construction must be atelic (unbounded, cumulative) is attributed to the context
dependence property of the standard. For instance, the capacity for liquor varies with people.
Some people can drink ten bottles of wine without getting drunk, while some people will get
drunk with only a small glass of wine. Even for the same person, the capacity for liquor may
vary on different days depending on the physical condition on that day. If the event quantity
provided by the V-duo construction is bounded, the sentence will fail to cover all possibilities,
as the ungrammaticality of (31) shows. We assume that the reason why the standard event
(31) *Ni zhe-ping jiu he-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_IN wine drink-much ASP/SFP
All in all, the syntactic and semantic characteristics shown by the V-duo construction can
be briefly summarized as follows: (A) V-duo is a verb-complement compound verb and the
argument structure of V-duo is derived from the independent argument structure of the head V.
(B) The morpheme duo is compatible with stage-level verbs but incompatible with
individual-level verbs. (C) The morpheme duo, in general, modifies the quantity of events. To
be more specific, duo can evaluate either the frequency or the duration of events. Basically,
what duo evaluates is primarily determined by pragmatic factors. (D) The events modified by
the morpheme duo must be atelic, unbounded or cumulative. (E) The semantics of duo
implies that the standard event quantity is context-sensitive.
These syntactic and semantic properties shown by the V-duo construction bring us the
following questions that this paper has to deal with. First, what is the preverbal NP in the
V-duo construction? Second, is the V-duo construction a comparative construction? Third,
CHAPTER 3
THE SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION
The preverbal NP in the V-duo construction is a preposed object because there exists
postverbal position the preverbal NP could have originated from by movement:
(32) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
b. Ni he-duo-le jiu.
2SG drink-much-ASP wine
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
In the literature, there are two major proposals for the objects preposed to the
post-subject/pre-verb position. Some linguists consider the preposed object an internal topic,
as opposed to the external topic (e.g. Paul 2002). Differently, some linguists regard the
preposed object as a focus, based on the contrastive interpretation conveyed by the
object in the V-duo construction does not serve as a focus but as an internal topic.
3.1 Against the Preposed Object as a Focus
At first glance, the preposed object in the V-duo construction appears to be a focalized
element because it can be used contrastively, as shown by (33).
(33) Ni rou chi-duo LE, danshi cai chi-shao LE.
2SG meat eat-much ASP/SFP but vegetables eat-little ASP/SFP
‘You ate too much meat, but ate too little vegetables.’
However, I adhere to Paul’s (2002) claim that an element used contrastively does not
automatically qualify as a focus. Topics can be used contrastively, too. The following
discussion will provide evidence against the focus status of the preposed object in the V-duo
construction.
3.1.1 Object Preposing vs. the Lian…Ye/Dou Construction
Shyu (1995) argues that the preposed object in (34) is a focus, just like the one in (35).
The only difference between the two examples is whether the lian…dou/ye focus marker is
(34) Geruisen [NP zhe-ben shu]i kan-wan-le ti.
Grissom this-CL book read-finish-ASP
‘Grissom finished reading this book.’
(35) Geruisen lian [NP zhe-ben shu] dou/ye kan-wan-le.
Grissom even this-CL book all/also read-finish-ASP
‘Grissom even/also finished reading this book.’
However, Paul (2002) argues that “bare” object preposing has to be distinguished from the
obligatory preverbal position of the focalized object in the lian…ye/dou ‘even’ construction
both on semantic and syntactic grounds. Adopting Paul’s arguments, I will argue that ‘‘bare’’
object preposing in the V-duo construction and the lian…ye/dou ‘even’ construction are two
separate constructions with distinct semantic and syntactic properties.
First of all, the semantics of ‘‘bare’’ object preposing in the V-duo construction is
completely different from that of the lian-construction, as shown by the contrast between (36)
and (37). The word lian conveys a feature of polarity which implies the least degree of
possibility. In addition, the lian…ye/dou construction gives rise to an ‘even’ interpretation for
some other elements which hold the same property as that attributed to the quantified element
(Paul 2002:698, cited from Paris 1998:144). However, both properties are not shown in (36).
(36) Ni tianshii chi-duo-le ti.
2SG sweet food eat-much-ASP
‘You ate sweet food quite a lot.’
(37) Ni lian gourou ye/dou chi-duo-le.
2SG even dogmeat also/all eat-much-ASP
‘You even ate dog meat quite a lot.’
Second, this semantic difference is reflected in the different question patterns available.
To be precise, in the lian…ye/dou construction the VP itself, being presupposed, cannot be
questioned and accordingly, an A-not-A question is ruled out. A particle question where the
question operator can have scope over the entire sentence is however acceptable (Paul
2002:698, cited from Paris 1998:142):
(38) a. *Zhangsan lian gourou ye/dou shi-bu-shi chi-duo-le?
b. Zhangsan lian gourou ye/dou chi-duo-le ma?
Zhangsan even dogmeat also/all eat-much-ASP PART
‘Did Zhangsan even eat dog meat quite a lot?’
However, an A-not-A question is acceptable in ‘‘bare’’ object preposing in the V-duo
construction, as shown in (39). This would be exclude if the preverbal NP in the relevant
construction were really a focus, because then the VP would constitute the presupposed part.
(39) Zhangsan tianshii shi-bu-shi chi-duo-le ti?
Zhangsan sweet food be NEG be eat-much-ASP
‘Did Zhangsan eat sweet food quite a lot?’
Third, there is a constraint which holds for the preposed object: personal names and
pronouns cannot be preposed (cf. Hou 1979). However, this restriction does not hold for the
object in the lian…ye/dou construction. This contrast is shown in (40a-b) and (41a-b).
(40) a. *Ta Xiaomingi ma-duo-le ti.
3SG Xiaoming scold-much-ASP
b. Ta lian Xiaoming ye/dou ma-duo-le.
3SG even Xiaomig also/all scold-much-ASP
‘He even scolded Xiaoming quite a lot.’
(41) a. *Ta woi ma-duo-le ti.
3SG I scold-much-ASP
(intended meaning: ‘He scolded me quite a lot.’)
b. Ta lian wo ye/dou ma-duo-le.
3SG even I also/all scold-much-ASP
‘He even scolded me quite a lot.’
Based on the semantic and syntactic properties, there are obvious discrepancies between
object preposing in the V-duo construction and the lian…ye/dou construction.
3.1.2 Object Preposing vs. the Shi…De Focus Clefts
In this section, I will show that the V-duo construction does not involve any focalization
at all by comparing object preposing in the V-duo construction with the shi…de focus cleft
construction.
for the V-duo construction. Accordingly, the VP itself can be questioned, as illustrated by (42).
(42) Zhangsan tianshi shi-bu-shi chi-duo LE?
Zhangsan sweet food SHI NEG SHI eat-much ASP/SFP
‘Was it true that Zhangsan ate sweet food quite a lot?’
The presence of the A-bu-A question indicates that it is the VP that is questioned here. This
would be excluded if the preposed object were really a focus, because then the VP would
constitute the presupposed part.
Second, the lack of a bipartition into focus vs. presupposition can be further illustrated
by the possibility of object preposing in list contexts:
(43) Ni jiu he-duo LE, tianshi chi-duo LE,
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP sweet food eat-much ASP/SFP
dianshi ye kan-duo LE.
TV also watch-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot, ate sweet food quite a lot and also watched TV quite a lot.’
Paul 2002:702, cited from Paris 1998:144), to focalize an element is exactly the opposite of
listing.
Third, the preposed object in the V-duo construction cannot be clefted by means of
shi …de, which would, however, be expected if it really were a focus:
(44) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
b. *Ni shi jiu he-duo de.
2SG SHI wine drink-much DE
3.1.3 Tests of Exhaustive Identification
Focus can be further divided into two types: IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS and
INFORMATION FOCUS (cf. Kiss 1988). Kiss claims that IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS (or
contrastive focus), which performs exhaustive identification on a set of entities given in the
context or situation, must be distinguished from INFORMATION FOCUS, which simply
marks new information. IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS is a function of structural focus: of
the immediately preverbal focus in Hungarian, and of the cleft construction in English. By
(2004) uses two criteria of exhaustive identification (cf. Kiss 1988), coordination and
negation tests, to test whether or not zhi- and lian-constructions involve a contrastive focus.
Following examples illustrate how the two tests work in zhi-construction.
(45) Coordination test: The sentence cannot entail any one of the conjuncts.
Context: red wine, white wine, yellow wine, beer
a. A-kiu zhi he hong jiu han bai jiu.
A-kiu only drink red wine and white wine
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine and white wine.’ －X→ b. A-kiu zhi he hong jiu.
A-kiu only drink red wine
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine.’ －X→ c. A-kiu zhi he bai jiu.
A-kiu only drink white wine
‘A-kiu only drinks white wine.’
(46) Negation test: A negative reply is allowed.
A: A-kiu zhi he hong jiu.
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine’
B: Bu, A-kiu ye he bai jiu.
NEG A-kiu also drink white wine
‘No, he also drinks white wine.’
Zhi-construction passes the coordination test because (45a) cannot entail (45b) or (45c). It
also passes the negation test because a negative reply is allowed, as in (46). Zhi-construction
passes two tests of exhaustive identification; therefore, it involves a contrastive focus.
So it is expected that the V-duo construction, if it involves a contrastive focus, will pass
both the coordination and negation tests. However, this expectation is not borne out, as
illustrated by (47) and (48).
(47) Coordination test:
Context: coffee, tea, cola
a. Zhangsan kafei han cha he-duo LE.
Zhangsan coffee and tea drink-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan drank coffee and tea quite a lot.’
→b. Zhangsan kafei he-duo LE.
‘Zhangsan drank coffee quite a lot.’ →c. Zhangsan cha he-duo LE. Zhangsan tea drink-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan drank tea quite a lot.’
(48) Negation test:
A: Zhangsan kafei he-duo LE.
Zhangsan coffee drink-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan drank coffee quite a lot.’
B: %Bu，Zhangsan cha ye he-duo LE. no zhangsan tea also drink-much ASP/SFP
‘No, Zhangsan also drank tea quite a lot.’
(47a) entails both (47b) and (47c); therefore, the V-duo construction does not pass the
coordination test. It does not pass the negation test, either. We are not sure whether (48A)
excludes other elements in the context. It is possible that Zhangsan also drank tea quite a lot.
Hence, a negative response is improper. Consequently, the V-duo construction expresses no
exhaustive identification. It indicates that the V-duo construction does not involve a
Based on Paul’s arguments and the results from the coordination and negation tests, I
claim that the preposed object in the V-duo construction is not a focalized element.
3.2 The Preposed Object as an Internal Topic
Paul (2002) argues that the preposed object is an internal topic, and that the internal topic
occupies the specifier position of a functional projection below the subject and above vP. This
functional projection FP, as Paul (2002) suggests, hosts the sentence-internal topic and is
different from the Focus Phrase postulated for the lian…ye/dou construction (cf. e.g. Shyu
(1995)). According to Paul (2002), the internal topic resembles the external topic with respect
to the existence of both movement and base-generation as derivational possibilities, as shown
by (49) and (50).
(49) Wo [mingtian-de richeng]i anpai-hao-le ti.
I tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP
‘I have fixed tomorrow’s program.’
(50) Ta nei-jian shi hai mei zuo jueding ne.
3SG that-CL matter still NEG make decision PART
However, the internal topic position is different from the external topic position in that
multiple topics are excluded from the internal topic position, as shown by the contrast
between (51) and (52).
(51) Hua, meiguihua, ta zui xihuan
flower rose 3SG most like
‘Flowers, roses he likes them best.’
(52) *Ni [huiyuan dahui ] [mingtian-de richeng] anpai-hao-le meiyou?
2SG member meeting tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP NEG
(Paul 2002: 710; (42), (43))
Paul (2002) argues that this major difference between the external and the internal topic
position reflect the different nature of the functional categories involved because Topic Phrase
allows recursion (cf. Gasde & Paul 1996).
In the following discussion I will pursue Paul’s proposal that the preposed object is an
internal topic. However, departing from Paul, I will argue that multiple internal topics are
the specifier of the Topic Phrase.
As shown in (53), multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic position in the V-duo
construction:
(53) a. Ni zhe-pen hua shuii jiao-duo-le ti.
2SG this-CL flower water pour-much-ASP
‘This flower, you watered it quite a lot.’
b. Ni zhounianqing huazhuangpini mai-duo-le ti.
2SG anniversary sale cosmetics buy-much-ASP
‘The anniversary sale, you bought cosmetic products quite a lot.’
c. Ni weiqi bisai yajuni na-duo-le ti.
2SG go game second place obtain-much-ASP
‘The go games, you got the second place quite a lot.’
Note that here multiple internal topics refer to topics which belong to different types.
According to Del Gobbo and Badan (2007), topics in Chinese can be divided into three
subtypes, as shown in (54).
flower I most like lily
‘As for flowers, I like lilies most.’
b. Zhe-ge reni, wo hen xihuan tai. (Hanging Topic)
this-CL person I very like him
‘This person, I like him a lot.’
c. Zhe-ben shui, Geruisen kan-wan-le ti. (Left Dislocation Topic)
this-CL book Grissom read-finish-ASP
‘This book, Grissom finished reading it.’
As to the Aboutness Topic, there is no gap in the comment sentence, i.e. the topic is
base-generated. Concerning the Hanging Topic, there is always a pronoun co-indexed with it
in the comment sentence. Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is also base-generated in
its surface position.Regarding the Left Dislocation Topic, this topic is co-indexed with a trace
which is left in the comment sentence. Hence, Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is
derived by movement.
In sentences (53a-c) above we have an Aboutness Topic followed by a Left Dislocation
Topic. The first NP is an Aboutness Topic since it is derived by base-generation. There exists
no postverbal position this constituent could have originated by movement. The second NP is
a trace in the postverbal position. In other words, sentences (53a-c) each contain both a
base-generated and a moved topic which co-occur in the internal topic position. Accordingly,
departing from Paul (2002), we assume that multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic
position in the V-duo construction, provided that they belong to different types.
Since TopP recursion is available IP-internally in the V-duo construction, we assume
that like external topics, internal topics are located in the Spec of TopicP, as shown in (55).
Movement of a constituent which is interpreted as a Topic is basically driven by feature
checking. One way of implementing this is to assume that the head Top constituent of the
Topic Phrase contains an [EPP] feature and an uninterpretable topic feature, and that these attract a maximal projection which carries a matching interpretable topic feature to move to
the specifier position within the Topic Phrase (cf. Radford 2004).
CHAPTER 4
THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION AS AN ATYPICAL COMPARATIVE
CONSTRUCTION
In this chapter, I will first introduce the semantics of the positive form as a way to bring
us deep into the heart of this study. Then two modes of comparison (i.e., explicit and implicit
comparison) will be introduced. Subsequently, I will provide evidence for analyzing the
V-duo construction as an implicit comparison construction. After this, I will argue that the
V-duo construction contains a covert positive morpheme pos. Finally, I will answer the
following questions. (A) Which element provides the meaning of implicit comparison? (B)
What is the target of comparison? (C) Which element introduces the standard of comparison?
(D) Which element provides the dimension of comparison? (E) What is the dimension of
comparison?
4.1 The Positive Form
According to Barker (2002), Kennedy and McNally (2005), and Kennedy (2007), there
are two apparently universal features of the positive form of gradable adjectives (e.g.,
adjectives such as expensive and tall, in contrast with their comparative form (i.e., more
expensive and taller), lacks overt morphology.
The second is a semantic one. The interpretation of the positive form is context
dependent (with a few important exceptions). For example, whether (56) is true or not
depends in large part on the context in which it is uttered.
(56) The coffee in Rome is expensive.
Example (56) could be judged true if asserted as part of a conversation about the cost of living
in various Italian cities, as in (57a), but false in a discussion of the cost of living in Chicago vs.
Rome, as in (57b).
(57) a. In Rome, even the coffee is expensive!
b. The rents are high in Rome, but at least the coffee is not expensive!
One account for this variability is that the positive form expresses a relation between the
degree to which the subject of the predicate manifests the relevant property and a contextually
variable STANDARD OF COMPARISON, whose value is determined both as a function of
talked about, the interests/expectations of the participants in the discourse, and so forth (see
e.g. Barker 2002; Kennedy & McNally 2005; Kennedy 2007). As Kennedy (2005, 2007)
suggests, one option for the compositional semantics of the positive form is to assume a
degree morpheme pos with a denotation along the lines of (58), where s is a context sensitive
function that takes a gradable predicate meaning as input and returns a standard of
comparison appropriate for the context as output (cf. Cresswell 1977; von Stechow 1984;
Kennedy & McNally 2005).
(58) [[Deg pos]] = λg.λx.g(x) > s(g)
4.2 Explicit vs. Implicit Comparison
Kennedy (2007) further uses this semantic characteristic of the positive form to divide
‘comparison’ in natural languages into two different modes: explicit and implicit comparison.
Many languages use specialized morphology to express arbitrary ordering relations, for
example the morphemes more/-er, less and as specifically for the purpose of establishing
orderings of superiority, inferiority and equality in English (i.e., explicit comparison), as
illustrated by (59a–c), respectively.
b. This book is less expensive than that one.
c. This book is as expensive as that one.
However, other languages, like Samoan, take advantage of the inherent context
sensitivity of the positive (unmarked) form (i.e., implicit comparison), as (60) shows (Staseen,
1985).
(60) Ua tele le Queen Mary, ua la’itiiti le Aquitania.
is big the Queen Mary is small the Aquitania
‘The Queen Mary is bigger than the Aquitania.’
Thus, natural languages, as Kennedy (2007) suggests, use two different modes (i.e.,
implicit and explicit comparison) to express comparison (Sapir, 1944).
(61) Implicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using
the positive form by manipulating the context or context-sensitive function in such a
(62) Explicit comparison
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property g using
special morphology (e.g., more/-er, less, or as) whose conventional meaning has the
consequence that the degree to which x is g exceeds the degree to which y is g.
These two modes of comparison (i.e., explicit and implicit comparison), as Kennedy
(2007) further argues, differ from each other in the following ways. First, implicit comparison
induced by the positive form of gradable adjectives differs from explicit comparison in
acceptability in contexts involving crisp judgments (i.e., very slight differences between the
compared objects). For example, explicit comparison in (64a) simply requires an asymmetric
ordering between the degrees to which two objects possess the relevant property (i.e., the
length of essays); therefore, a crisp judgment is not problematic. However, implicit
comparison in (64b) requires the first novel to have a degree of length that that stands out
relative to the measure expressed by long in the context; therefore, a fine-grained distinction
in degree is not allowed.
(63) CONTEXT: A 600 word essay and a 200 word essay
a. This essay is longer than that one. (explicit comparison)
(64) CONTEXT: A 600 word essay and a 597 word essay
a. This essay is longer than that one. (explicit comparison)
b. ??Compared to that essay, this one is long. (implicit comparison)
Second, composition of a measure phrase and a gradable adjective generates a predicate
that is no longer context dependent. This predicts that implicit comparison should be
impossible: once a (non-comparative) adjective combines with a measure phrase, there is no
standard of comparison left over to manipulate. This prediction is borne out, as in (65a).
(65) a. ??Compared to Lee, Kim is 10cm tall. (implicit comparison)
b. Kim is 10 cm taller than Lee. (explicit comparison)
On the other hand, measure phrases are acceptable with explicit comparatives, and crucially
have a specific type of meaning: they denote the difference between two degrees on a scale; in
(65b), the difference between Kim’s and Lee’s heights.
Having as background knowledge the semantics of the positive form of (English)
gradable adjectives and the semantic distinctions between the implicit and the explicit
shown by (66) and (67), respectively.
(66) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao. (explicit comparison)
Zhangsan COM Lisi tall
‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi.’
(67) Zhangsan hen gao. (implicit comparison)
Zhangsan HEN tall
‘Zhangsan is tall.’
The Chinese bi comparative has the properties of explicit comparison. First, the Chinese
bi comparative uses the comparative morpheme bi for the purpose of establishing the ordering
relation of superiority (cf. Li and Thompson 1981; Lin 2009).
Second, the Chinese bi comparative such as (66) above is acceptable in context (68),
which involves a crisp judgment:
(68) Context: Zhangsan is 170 centimeters tall while Lisi is 169 centimeters tall.
(69) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao yi gongfen.
Zhangsan COM Lisi tall one centimeter
‘Zhangsan is one centimeter taller than Lisi.’
On the other hand, a construction involving a predicative adjective modified by the
degree word hen like (67) above has the properties of implicit comparison. First, as Zhang
(2002:169) points out, a predicative adjective modified by the degree word hen, for example
hen qiong ‘very poor’ in (70a-b), always displays the contextually dependent interpretation as
the positive form of English gradable adjectives does.
(70) a. Ta hen qiong, lian chi fan de qian dou mei you.
3SG HEN poor even eat meal DE money all not have
‘He is poor. He even does not have money to eat meals.’
b. Ta hen qiong, lian xiao qiche dou mai-bu-qi.
3SG HEN poor even small car all buy-not-afford
‘He is poor. He even cannot afford a small car.’
but acceptable in contexts which do not. For example, sentence (71) is unacceptable in
scenario (72A), but acceptable in scenario (72B). In other words, in (71) the implicit
comparison implied by the predicate hen gao ‘HEN tall’ requires ‘this tree’ to exceed ‘that
tree’ in height by a significant amount.
(71) Gen na-ke shu bi-qilai, zhe-ke shu hen gao.
with that-CL tree compare-qilai this-CL tree HEN tall
‘Compared with that tree, this one is tall.’
(72) Context A: This tree is 15 meters tall while that tree is 13 meters tall.
Context B: This tree is 15 meters tall while that tree is 5 meters tall.
Third, differential measure phrases are unacceptable with such a construction, as shown
by (73).
(73) *Zhangsan hen gao san gongfen.
Zhangsan HEN tall three centimeter
