Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

Degree heads combine with individual (John is taller than [Mary]) as well as clausal arguments (John is taller than [Mary is]). Does the degree head have the same meaning in these two argument structures? Two kinds of answers have been proposed in the literature: I. there is a single meaning where the 2-place degree head combines with a degree predicate, with a reduction operation that derives the DP argument from a degree predicate denoting clausal argument, and II. there are distinct meanings for each argument structure, one combining with an individual denoting DP (3-place degree head) and the other with a degree predicate denoting clause (2-place degree head). We show that languages vary in which of these answers they choose: English goes for option I and Hindi-Urdu and Japanese for versions of option II. Our account of this variation assumes that the crosslinguistic distribution of 2-place and 3-place degree heads is not in itself subject to crosslinguistic parametrization; they are just syntactic projections of the basic meaning of comparison. We advance a specific proposal which derives the differences between the languages from the morphosyntactic properties of ‘than’ and a preference for minimal structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(4): 407–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Uli Sauerland. 2000. Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13(4): 289–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh, and Veneeta Dayal. 2007. Rightward scrambling as rightward remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merge of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh, and Shoichi Takahashi. 2007. Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the direct analysis of phrasal comparatives. In Proceedings of SALT XVII, eds. Masayuki Gibson and Tova Friedman, 19–36. Ithaca: Cornell University, CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final-Constraint (FOFC). In Proceedings of the incontro di grammatica generativa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bošković, Željko. (1996). Selection and the categorial status of infinitival complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14(2): 269–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brame, Michael. 1983. Ungrammatical notes 4: Smarter than me. Linguistic Analysis 12: 323–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 157–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Linguistic inquiry monographs. 35. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 63–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, ed. Barbara Lust, 151–188. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, Naoki. 1999. An A-over-A perspective on locality. In Linguistics: In search of the human mind—a festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, eds. Masatake Muraki and Enoch Iwamoto, 109–129. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajewski, Jon. 2008. More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. In Proceedings of SALT XVIII, eds. Jon Gajewski, Tova Friedman, and Satoshi Ito, 340–357. Ithaca: Cornell University, Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal projection, heads and optimality. In Rutgers University center for cognitive science technical report, Vol. 4.

  • Hackl, Martin. 2001. Comparative quantifiers. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Why there are two than’s in English? In Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 179–191. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashishita, J.R. 2009. Yori-comparatives: A reply to Beck et al. (2004). Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18(2): 65–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Heim, Irene. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In The Derivation of VO and OV, ed. Peter Svenonius, 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard Stanley. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic inquiry monographs, 25. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, Edward. 1987. Multiply-headed noun phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3): 481–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, Garland, New York. 1997 UCSC PhD dissertation.

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2009. Modes of comparison. In Papers from the 43rd regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Malcolm Elliott, James Kirby, Osamu Sawada, Eleni Staraki, and Suwon Yoon, 141–165. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher, and Jason Stanley. 2008. What an average semantics needs. In Proceedings of SALT XVIII, eds. J. Gajewski, T. Friedman, and S. Ito, 465–482. Ithaca: Cornell University, Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard. 1988. Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(1): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, Paul. 1991. Effects of head movement on theories of subjacency and proper government. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Linguistic inquiry monographs, 50. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Winfried. 2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(4): 683–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1997. Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages. In Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Alan T. Hall, 35–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2009. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9: 134–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 1996. A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14(2): 355–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew, and Pranav Anand. 2003. Some AGREEment matters. In Proceedings of WCCFL 22, eds. Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura, 370–383. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: The Princeton meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pancheva, Roumyana. 2007. Than. Handout of Talk Presented at GLOW XXX, Tromsø, April 14.

  • Pancheva, Roumyana. 2009. More students attended FASL than CONSOLE. Paper presented at Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: 18th Meeting.

  • Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Schwarzschild, Roger, and Karina Wilkinson. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 10(1): 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Clausal comparatives and cross-linguistic variation. In Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speas, Margaret. 1994. Null argument in a theory of economy of projection. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 17, eds. Elena Benedicto and Jeffrey Runner. Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudo, Yasutada. 2009. Invisible degree nominals in Japanese clausal comparatives. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics (MITWPL 58), eds. Ryosuke Shibagaki and Reiko Vermeulen. Cambridge: MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi, Shoichi, and Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A′-distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 387–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1): 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Bhatt.

Additional information

The NLLT reviewers and our editor Marcel den Dikken gave us very useful comments and presentational advice. The paper is much more readable because of their help. We thank audiences at the GLOW conferences in Tromsø and Newcastle, the SALT at the University of Connecticut, the comparatives workshop at the University of Chicago, and colloquia at the Ohio State University, McGill University, Fukuoka University, Kanda University of International Studies, University of Maryland, University of Pennsylvania, University of California at Los Angeles, and Harvard University. For their detailed comments and suggestions, we are indebted to Sigrid Beck, Danny Fox, Irene Heim, Caroline Heycock, Kyle Johnson, Chris Kennedy, Anthony Kroch, Winfried Lechner, Jason Merchant, Roumi Pancheva, Carl Pollard, Beatrice Santorini, Bernhard Schwarz, Junko Shimoyama, Yasutada Sudo, and Eytan Zweig. Rajesh Bhatt was supported by a collaborative NSF grant CNS-0751171 and Shoichi Takahashi by a Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists under grant 9919.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bhatt, R., Takahashi, S. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 29, 581–620 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1

Keywords

Navigation