Comparative

Last updated

In general linguistics, the comparative is a syntactic construction that serves to express a comparison between two (or more) entities or groups of entities in quality or degree - see also comparison (grammar) for an overview of comparison, as well as positive and superlative degrees of comparison.

Contents

The syntax of comparative constructions is poorly understood due to the complexity of the data. In particular, the comparative frequently occurs with independent mechanisms of syntax such as coordination and forms of ellipsis (gapping, pseudogapping, null complement anaphora, stripping, verb phrase ellipsis). The interaction of the various mechanisms complicates the analysis.

Absolute and null forms

A number of fixed expressions use a comparative form where no comparison is being asserted, such as higher education or younger generation. These comparatives can be called absolute.

Similarly, a null comparative is one in which the starting point for comparison is not stated. These comparisons are frequently found in advertising, for example, in typical assertions such as Our burgers have more flavor, Our picture is sharper or 50% more. These uses of the comparative do not mention what it is they are being compared to. In some cases it is easy to infer what the missing element in a null comparative is. In other cases, the speaker or writer has been deliberately vague, for example "Glasgow's miles better".

Scientific classification, taxonomy, and geographical categorization conventionally include the adjectives greater and lesser, when a large or small variety of an item is meant, as in the greater celandine as opposed to the lesser celandine. These adjectives may at first sight appear as a kind of null comparative, when as is usual, they are cited without their opposite counterpart. It should be apparent, however, that an entirely different variety of animal, scientific, or geographical object is intended. Thus it may be found, for example, that the lesser panda entails a giant panda variety, and a gazetteer would establish that there are the Lesser Antilles as well as the Greater Antilles. It is in the nature of grammatical conventions evolving over time that it is difficult to establish when they first became widely accepted, but both greater and lesser in these instances have over time become mere adjectives (or adverbial constructs), so losing their comparative connotation. Further, Greater indicates the inclusion of adjacent areas when referring to metropolitan areas, such as when suburbs are intended. Although it implies a comparison with a narrower definition that refers to a central city only, such as Greater London versus the City of London, or Greater New York versus New York City, it is not part of the "comparative" in the grammatical sense of this article. A comparative always compares something directly with something else.

Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination

At times the syntax of comparatives matches the syntax of coordination, and at other times, it must be characterized in terms of subordination.

Comparative coordination

The syntax of comparatives can closely mirror the syntax of coordination. The similarity in structure across the following a- and b-sentences illustrates this point. The conjuncts of the coordinate structures are enclosed in square brackets: [1]

a. [The boys] and [the girls] sent flowers to him today.
b. More [boys] than [girls] sent flowers to him today.
a. [The boys sent] and [the girls dropped off] flowers for him today.
b. [More boys sent] than [girls dropped off] flowers for him today.
a. The boys sent [flowers to him] and [chocolates to her] today.
b. More boys sent [flowers to him] than [chocolates to her] today.
a. The boys sent [flowers to him today] and [chocolates to her yesterday].
b. More boys sent [flowers to him today] than [chocolates to her yesterday].

The structure of the b-sentences involving comparatives is closely similar to the structure of the a-sentences involving coordination. Based on this similarity, many have argued that the syntax of comparatives overlaps with the syntax of coordination at least some of the time. [2] In this regard, the than in the b-sentences should be viewed as a coordinator (coordinate conjunction), not as a subordinator (subordinate conjunction).

Comparative subordination

Examples of the comparative that do not allow an analysis in terms of coordination (because the necessary parallel structures are not present) are instances of comparative subordination. [3] In such cases, than has the status of a preposition or a subordinator (subordinate conjunction), e.g.

a. We invited more people than wanted to come.
b. A better striker was playing for them than we have.
c. More passengers than the airline had issued tickets tried to board the plane. [4]
d. More guests than we had chairs showed up.
e. Who did he eat more hotdogs than?

Since the parallel structures associated with coordinate structures, i.e., the conjuncts, cannot be acknowledged in these sentences, the only analysis available is one in terms of subordination, whereby than has the status of a subordinator (as in sentences a-d) or of a preposition (as in sentence e). What this means is that the syntax of comparatives is complex because at times an analysis in terms of coordination is warranted, whereas at other times, the analysis must assume subordination.

Comparative deletion and subdeletion

There are two types of ellipsis that are unique to the than-clauses of comparatives: comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion. The existence of comparative deletion as an ellipsis mechanism is widely acknowledged, [5] whereas the status of comparative subdeletion as an ellipsis mechanism is more controversial. [6]

Comparative deletion

Comparative deletion is an obligatory ellipsis mechanism that occurs in the than-clause of a comparative construction. The elided material of comparative deletion is indicated using a blank, and the unacceptable b-sentences show what is construed as having been elided in the a-sentences:

a. Fred reads more books than Susan reads ___.
b. *Fred reads more books than Susan reads books. - Sentence is bad because comparative deletion has not occurred.
a. We invited more people than ___ came.
b. *We invited more people thanpeople came. - Sentence is bad because comparative deletion has not occurred.
a. She was happier than I was ___.
b. *She was happier than I was happy. - Sentence is bad because comparative deletion has not occurred.

Comparative subdeletion

Comparative subdeletion is a second type of ellipsis in comparatives that some accounts acknowledge. [7] It occurs when the focused constituent in the than-clause is not deleted because it is distinct from its counterpart in the main clause. In other words, comparative subdeletion occurs when comparative deletion does not because the constituents being compared are distinct, e.g.

a. He has more cats than he has __ dogs.
b. Fewer women showed up than __ men wanted to dance.
c. You were happier than I was __ sad.
b. The table is as wide as it is __ tall.

Accounts that acknowledge comparative subdeletion posit a null measure expression in the position marked by the blank (x-many, x-much). This element serves to focus the expression in the same way that -er or more focuses its counterpart in the main clause. Various arguments are put forth that motivate the existence of this null element. [8] These arguments will not be reproduced here, though. Suffice it to say that the sentences in which subdeletion is supposedly occurring are qualitatively different from sentences in which comparative deletion occurs, e.g., He has more cats than you have ___ .

Independent ellipsis mechanisms in than-clauses

There are a number of independent ellipsis mechanisms that occur in the than-clauses of comparative constructions: gapping, pseudogapping, null complement anaphora, stripping, and verb phrase ellipsis. These mechanisms are independent of comparative clauses because they also occur when the comparative is not involved. The presence of these ellipsis mechanisms in than-clauses complicates the analysis considerably, since they render it difficult to discern which aspects of the syntax of comparatives are unique to comparatives.

a. You should visit me on Tuesday, and I ___ you on Wednesday. - Gapping without the comparative
b. You visited me on Tuesdays more than I ___ you on Wednesdays. - Gapping with the comparative
a. He will say it twice before she has ___ once. - Pseudogapping without the comparative
b. More people will say it twice than ___ will ___ just once. - Pseudogapping with the comparative; comparative deletion also present
a. He did it as I expected ___ . - Null complement anaphora without the comparative
b. He did it more than I expected ___ . - Null complement anaphora with the comparative
a. Men did it, and women ___ too. - Stripping without the comparative
b. More men did it than women ___ . - Stripping analysis possible here
a. Susan has helped when you have ___ . - Verb phrase ellipsis without the comparative
b. Susan has helped more than you have ___ . - Verb phrase ellipsis with the comparative

The fact that the five independent ellipsis mechanisms (and possibly others) can occur in the than-clauses of comparatives has rendered the study of the syntax of comparatives particularly difficult. One is often not sure which ellipsis mechanisms are involved in a given than-clause. One thing is clear, however: the five ellipsis mechanisms illustrated here are distinct from the two ellipsis mechanisms that are unique to comparatives mentioned above (comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion).

Double comparatives

If an adjective has two comparative markers, it is known as a double comparative (e.g. more louder, worser ). The use of double comparatives is generally associated with Appalachian English and African American Vernacular English, though they were common in Early Modern English and were used by Shakespeare. [9] [10]

"The Duke of Milan / and his more braver daughter could controul thee."—Shakespeare, The Tempest

In recent times, such constructions have been used humorously, or to convey a sense of erudition, in addition to their original purpose of emphasis.

"The female of the species is more deadlier than the male"—Space, "Female of the Species", 1996 [11]
"World must prepare for disease more deadlier than Covid, WHO chief warns", The Independent , describing remarks by World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, 2023 [12]

Universals of comparative constructions

Russell Ultan (1972) surveyed 20 languages and observed that the comparative and superlative are inflected forms of (near-)identical bases with respective to the positive and equative. Jonathan D. Bobaljik (2012) contends that Ultan’s generalization is a strong contender for a linguistic universal. Bobaljik formulates the Comparative-Superlative Generalization: With respect to the positive, if any adjective’s comparative degree were suppletive, so would its superlative; vice versa, if any adjective’s superlative degree were suppletive, then so would its comparative.

Bobaljik phrases the Containment Hypothesis thus: "The representation of the superlative properly contains that of the comparative (in all languages that have a morphological superlative)". Indeed:

Additionally, Bobaljik asserts that Universal Grammar lacks the superlative morpheme.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The examples are taken from Osborne (2009:428).
  2. ↑ For examples of accounts that argue that the syntax of comparatives overlaps with the syntax of coordination at least some of the time, see Pinkham (1982), Napoli (1983), McCawley 1988, Lechner (2004), Corver (2006), and Osborne (2009).
  3. ↑ The distinction between comparative coordination and comparative subordination is discussed at length by Osborne (2009).
  4. ↑ The example is taken from Pinkham (1982:50).
  5. ↑ The classic work that explores comparative deletion is Bresnan (1973). See Corver (2006) also.
  6. ↑ Osborne (2009:447), for instance, rejects the ellipsis analysis of structure assumed to involve comparative subdeletion.
  7. ↑ For analyses of comparative subdeletion, see for instance Bresnan (1973), Grimshaw (1987), and Corver (2006).
  8. ↑ See Bresnan (1973) and Corver (2006) for the arguments in favor of an ellipsis analysis of subdeletion.
  9. ↑ "Double comparatives | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America". ygdp.yale.edu. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
  10. ↑ Murphy, Sean (2016-11-08). "Is 'more better' a mistake if Shakespeare said it?". Encyclopaedia of Shakespeare's Language. Retrieved 2019-04-01.
  11. ↑ Fagan, James; Griffiths, Franny; Parle, Andy; Scott, Tommy (27 May 1996). Female of the Species. Gut Records.
  12. ↑ Middleton, Joe (23 May 2023). "World must prepare for disease more deadlier than Covid, WHO chief warns". The Independent . Retrieved 11 November 2023.

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

In grammar, a phrase—called expression in some contexts—is a group of words or singular word acting as a grammatical unit. For instance, the English expression "the very happy squirrel" is a noun phrase which contains the adjective phrase "very happy". Phrases can consist of a single word or a complete sentence. In theoretical linguistics, phrases are often analyzed as units of syntactic structure such as a constituent. There is a difference between the common use of the term phrase and its technical use in linguistics. In common usage, a phrase is usually a group of words with some special idiomatic meaning or other significance, such as "all rights reserved", "economical with the truth", "kick the bucket", and the like. It may be a euphemism, a saying or proverb, a fixed expression, a figure of speech, etc.. In linguistics, these are known as phrasemes.

An adjective phrase is a phrase whose head is an adjective. Almost any grammar or syntax textbook or dictionary of linguistics terminology defines the adjective phrase in a similar way, e.g. Kesner Bland (1996:499), Crystal (1996:9), Greenbaum (1996:288ff.), Haegeman and Guéron (1999:70f.), Brinton (2000:172f.), Jurafsky and Martin (2000:362). The adjective can initiate the phrase, conclude the phrase, or appear in a medial position. The dependents of the head adjective—i.e. the other words and phrases inside the adjective phrase—are typically adverb or prepositional phrases, but they can also be clauses. Adjectives and adjective phrases function in two basic ways, attributively or predicatively. An attributive adjective (phrase) precedes the noun of a noun phrase. A predicative adjective (phrase) follows a linking verb and serves to describe the preceding subject, e.g. The man is very happy.

In syntax, sluicing is a type of ellipsis that occurs in both direct and indirect interrogative clauses. The ellipsis is introduced by a wh-expression, whereby in most cases, everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause. Sluicing has been studied in detail in the early 21st century and it is therefore a relatively well-understood type of ellipsis. Sluicing occurs in many languages.

In linguistics, ellipsis or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements.

In linguistics, verb phrase ellipsis is a type of elliptical construction and a type of anaphora in which a verb phrase has been left out (elided) provided that its antecedent can be found within the same linguistic context. For example, "She will sell sea shells, and he will <sell sea shells> too" is understood as "She will sell sea shells, and he will sell sea shells too". VP ellipsis is well-studied, particularly with regard to its occurrence in English, although certain types can be found in other languages as well.

In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator, e.g. and, or, but. The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination. It is also one of the many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.

Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), also called antecedent-contained ellipsis, is a phenomenon whereby an elided verb phrase appears to be contained within its own antecedent. For instance, in the sentence "I read every book that you did", the verb phrase in the main clause appears to license ellipsis inside the relative clause which modifies its object. ACD is a classic puzzle for theories of the syntax-semantics interface, since it threatens to introduce an infinite regress. It is commonly taken as motivation for syntactic transformations such as quantifier raising, though some approaches explain it using semantic composition rules or by adoption more flexible notions of what it means to be a syntactic unit.

In linguistics, subordination is a principle of the hierarchical organization of linguistic units. While the principle is applicable in semantics, morphology, and phonology, most work in linguistics employs the term "subordination" in the context of syntax, and that is the context in which it is considered here. The syntactic units of sentences are often either subordinate or coordinate to each other. Hence an understanding of subordination is promoted by an understanding of coordination, and vice versa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Empty category</span> Linguistics concept

In linguistics, an empty category, which may also be referred to as a covert category, is an element in the study of syntax that does not have any phonological content and is therefore unpronounced. Empty categories exist in contrast to overt categories which are pronounced. When representing empty categories in tree structures, linguists use a null symbol (∅) to depict the idea that there is a mental category at the level being represented, even if the word(s) are being left out of overt speech. The phenomenon was named and outlined by Noam Chomsky in his 1981 LGB framework, and serves to address apparent violations of locality of selection — there are different types of empty categories that each appear to account for locality violations in different environments. Empty categories are present in most of the world's languages, although different languages allow for different categories to be empty.

In formal syntax, tough movement refers to sentences in which the syntactic subject of the main verb is logically the object of an embedded non-finite verb. Because the object of the lower verb is absent, such sentences are also sometimes called "missing object constructions". The term tough movement reflects the fact that the prototypical example sentences in English involve the word tough.

Scrambling is a syntactic phenomenon wherein sentences can be formulated using a variety of different word orders without any change in meaning. Scrambling often results in a discontinuity since the scrambled expression can end up at a distance from its head. Scrambling does not occur in English, but it is frequent in languages with freer word order, such as German, Russian, Persian and Turkic languages. The term was coined by Haj Ross in his 1967 dissertation and is widely used in present work, particularly with the generative tradition.

In linguistics, gapping is a type of ellipsis that occurs in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. Gapping usually elides minimally a finite verb and further any non-finite verbs that are present. This material is "gapped" from the non-initial conjuncts of a coordinate structure. Gapping exists in many languages, but by no means in all of them, and gapping has been studied extensively and is therefore one of the more understood ellipsis mechanisms. Stripping is viewed as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism where just one remnant appears in the gapped/stripped conjunct.

In linguistics, a catena is a unit of syntax and morphology, closely associated with dependency grammars. It is a more flexible and inclusive unit than the constituent and its proponents therefore consider it to be better suited than the constituent to serve as the fundamental unit of syntactic and morphosyntactic analysis.

Pseudogapping is an ellipsis mechanism that elides most but not all of a non-finite verb phrase; at least one part of the verb phrase remains, which is called the remnant. Pseudogapping occurs in comparative and contrastive contexts, so it appears often after subordinators and coordinators such as if, although, but, than, etc. It is similar to verb phrase ellipsis (VP-ellipsis) insofar as the ellipsis is introduced by an auxiliary verb, and many grammarians take it to be a particular type of VP-ellipsis. The distribution of pseudogapping is more restricted than that of VP-ellipsis, however, and in this regard, it has some traits in common with gapping. But unlike gapping, pseudogapping occurs in English but not in closely related languages. The analysis of pseudogapping can vary greatly depending in part on whether the analysis is based in a phrase structure grammar or a dependency grammar. Pseudogapping was first identified, named, and explored by Stump (1977) and has since been studied in detail by Levin (1986) among others, and now enjoys a firm position in the canon of acknowledged ellipsis mechanisms of English.

Stripping or bare argument ellipsis is an ellipsis mechanism that elides everything from a clause except one constituent. It occurs exclusively in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. One prominent analysis of stripping sees it as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism, the difference between stripping and gapping lies merely with the number of remnants left behind by ellipsis: gapping leaves two constituents behind, whereas stripping leaves just one. Stripping occurs in many languages and is a frequent occurrence in colloquial conversation. As with many other ellipsis mechanisms, stripping challenges theories of syntax in part because the elided material often fails to qualify as a constituent in a straightforward manner.

Noun ellipsis (N-ellipsis), also noun phrase ellipsis (NPE), is a mechanism that elides, or appears to elide, part of a noun phrase that can be recovered from context. The mechanism occurs in many languages like English, which uses it less than related languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English clause syntax</span> Clauses in English grammar

This article describes the syntax of clauses in the English language, chiefly in Modern English. A clause is often said to be the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. But this semantic idea of a clause leaves out much of English clause syntax. For example, clauses can be questions, but questions are not propositions. A syntactic description of an English clause is that it is a subject and a verb. But this too fails, as a clause need not have a subject, as with the imperative, and, in many theories, an English clause may be verbless. The idea of what qualifies varies between theories and has changed over time.

In linguistics, the term right node raising (RNR) denotes a sharing mechanism that sees the material to the immediate right of parallel structures being in some sense "shared" by those parallel structures, e.g. [Sam likes] but [Fred dislikes] the debates. The parallel structures of RNR are typically the conjuncts of a coordinate structure, although the phenomenon is not limited to coordination, since it can also appear with parallel structures that do not involve coordination. The term right node raising itself is due to Postal (1974). Postal assumed that the parallel structures are complete clauses below the surface. The shared constituent was then raised rightward out of each conjunct of the coordinate structure and attached as a single constituent to the structure above the level of the conjuncts, hence "right node raising" was occurring in a literal sense. While the term right node raising survives, the actual analysis that Postal proposed is not widely accepted. RNR occurs in many languages, including English and related languages.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.