A universal scale of comparison

Comparative constructions form two classes, those that permit direct comparisons (comparisons of measurements as in Seymour is taller than he is wide) and those that only allow indirect comparisons (comparisons of relative positions on separate scales as in Esme is more beautiful than Einstein is intelligent). In contrast with other semantic theories, this paper proposes that the interpretation of the comparative morpheme remains the same whether it appears in sentences that compare individuals directly or indirectly. To develop a unified account, I suggest that all comparisons (whether in terms of height, intelligence or beauty) involve a scale of universal degrees that are isomorphic to the rational (fractional) numbers between 0 and 1. Crucial to a unified treatment, the connection between the individuals being compared and universal degrees involves two steps. First individuals are mapped to a value on a primary scale that ranks individuals with respect to the gradable property (whether it be height, beauty or intelligence). Second, the value on the primary scale is mapped to a universal degree that encodes the value’s relative position on the primary scale. Direct comparison results if measurements such as seven feet participate in the primary scale (as in Seven feet is tall). Otherwise the result is an indirect comparison.

[1]  Shashi M. Srivastava,et al.  A Course on Mathematical Logic , 2008, Universitext.

[2]  John L. Bell,et al.  A course in mathematical logic , 1977 .

[3]  M. Cresswell THE SEMANTICS OF DEGREE , 1976 .

[4]  Ewan Klein,et al.  A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives , 1980 .

[5]  Louise McNally,et al.  SCALE STRUCTURE AND THE SEMANTIC TYPOLOGY OF GRADABLE PREDICATES , 2002 .

[6]  Danny Fox,et al.  The universal density of measurement , 2007 .

[7]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science , 1963 .

[8]  Peter Ludlow,et al.  Implicit comparison classes , 1989 .

[9]  David Embick,et al.  Blocking Effects and Analytic/synthetic Alternations , 2007 .

[10]  Jaap Van Brakel,et al.  Foundations of measurement , 1983 .

[11]  Renate Bartsch,et al.  Semantic structures : a study in the relation between semantics and syntax , 1972 .

[12]  Alan Bale The universal scale and the semantics of comparison , 2006 .

[13]  R. Browne,et al.  A comparative. , 1950, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  MY REACTION TO CRESSWELL'S, HELLAN'S, HOEKSEMA'S AND SEUREN'S COMMENTS , 1984 .

[15]  R. Pancheva,et al.  Late Merger of Degree Clauses , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[16]  John L. Bell,et al.  Models and Ultraproducts: An Introduction. , 1969 .

[17]  Pieter A. M. Seuren The structure and selection of positive and negative gradable adjectives , 1978 .

[18]  Samuel C. Wheeler Attributives and their Modifiers , 1972 .

[19]  Joan Bresnan Comparative deletion and constraints on transforma-tions , 1975 .

[20]  Ewan Klein,et al.  The interpretation of adjectival comparatives , 1982, Journal of Linguistics.

[21]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type‐shifting Principles , 2008 .

[22]  F. Landman Structures for semantics , 1991 .

[23]  Ferenc Kiefer,et al.  Generative grammar in Europe , 1973 .

[24]  A. Stechow COMPARING SEMANTIC THEORIES OF COMPARISON , 1984 .

[25]  Christopher Kennedy,et al.  Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates , 2005 .

[26]  Christopher Kennedy The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison , 1999 .

[27]  Joan Bresnan,et al.  Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English , 1973 .

[28]  Roger Schwarzschild,et al.  The Grammar of Measurement , 2002 .

[29]  F. Landman Indefinites and the type of sets , 2004 .

[30]  Emmon Bach,et al.  Natural Language Metaphysics , 1986 .