Reduced And Phrasal Comparatives

In this paper, I defend two hypotheses as to the derivation of phonologically reduced comparative constructions. On the one hand, I present evidence which supports an ellipsis analysis of phrasal comparatives over base-generation approaches. On the other hand, it is argued that the restrictions on deletion in comparatives are exhaustively determined by the principles governing Gapping, Right Node Raising and Across-The-Board movement in coordinate structures. It follows that construction specific reduction operations such as Comparative Ellipsis can be dispensed with. Evidence for these two hypotheses comes from generalizations about the surface shape of the comparative complement and its positional distribution inside the matrix clause. As for the reason why comparatives, which manifest instances of semantic subordination, can be targeted by processes widely held to be restricted to coordinate structures, it is proposed that optional extraposition of the comparative complement establishes a derived comparative coordination, which emulates the syntax of base-generated conjunctions. The results of this study furthermore indicate that (i) comparatives need to satisfy a hitherto unidentified condition which limits possible relations between the head of an empty operator movement construction and the operator, and that (ii) the Coordinate Structure Constraint has to be formulated as a genuinely syntactic restriction.

[1]  Chris Wilder,et al.  Some Properties of Ellipsis in Coordination , 1997 .

[2]  ALAN MUNN,et al.  A NULL OPERATOR ANALYSIS OF ATB GAPS , 1992 .

[3]  Ellien Woolford.  An ECP account of constraints on across-the-board extraction , 1987 .

[4]  A. Evers.  The transformational cycle in Dutch and German , 1975 .

[5]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Gapping as constituent coordination , 1990 .

[6]  Jean-Yves Pollock.  Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP , 1989 .

[7]  J. Bobaljik,et al.  Subject positions and the roles of TP , 1996 .

[8]  Peter W. Culicover,et al.  The View from the Periphery: The English Comparative Correlative , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[9]  Hubert Haider,et al.  Deutsche Syntax : generativ : Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik , 1993 .

[10]  John Robert Ross,et al.  GAPPING AND THE ORDER OF CONSTITUENTS , 1970 .

[11]  Sally McConnell-Ginet,et al.  Comparative constructions in English : a syntactic and semantic analysis , 1973 .

[12]  David Pesetsky,et al.  Paths and categories , 1982 .

[13]  Friederike Moltmann,et al.  Coordination and comparatives , 1992 .

[14]  Carson T. Schütze.  INFL in child and adult language : agreement, case and licensing , 1997 .

[15]  David Embick,et al.  Voice and the interfaces of syntax , 1997 .

[16]  James D. McCawley,et al.  The syntactic phenomena of English , 1988 .

[17]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Surface structure and interpretation , 1996, Linguistic inquiry.

[18]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[19]  G. Lakoff.  Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint , 1986 .

[20]  Jacob Hoeksema,et al.  Negative polarity and the comparative , 1983 .

[21]  Jorge E. Hankamer,et al.  Constraints on deletion in syntax , 1972 .

[22]  E. Anagnostopoulou,et al.  Parametrizing Agr: Word Order, V-Movement and Epp-Checking , 1998 .

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

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

[25]  Jessie E. Pinkham,et al.  The formation of comparative clauses in French and English , 1985 .

[26]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[27]  Manfred Bierwisch,et al.  The Semantics of Gradation , 1989 .

[28]  Andrew Barss,et al.  Chains and anaphoric dependence : on reconstruction and its implications , 1986 .

[29]  A. Kroch,et al.  Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing , 1994 .

[30]  Hans Broekhuis,et al.  Verb Projection Raising in het Nederlands , 1992 .

[31]  Jacob Hoeksema,et al.  TO BE CONTINUED: THE STORY OF THE COMPARATIVE , 1984 .

[32]  Pieter A. M. Seuren.  THE COMPARATIVE REVISITED , 1984 .

[33]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  On Wh-Movement , 1977 .

[34]  G. Grewendorf,et al.  Scrambling and barriers , 1990 .

[35]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  On Double-Headedness and the Anatomy of the Clause* , 1999 .

[36]  Carlota Smith,et al.  A Class of Complex Modifiers in English , 1961 .

[37]  Masuyo Ito,et al.  The logically possible range of sentence types versus the actual production of English-speaking children--On Schutze, Carson(1997):INFL in child and adult language:Agreement, Case and licensing. Ph.D.dissertation, MIT , 2000 .

[38]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Deletion And Logical Form , 1976 .

[39]  Hans Broekhuis,et al.  Woordvolgorde in de werkwoordelijke eindreeks , 1989 .

[40]  H. Muadz.  Coordinate structures: A planar representation. , 1991 .

[41]  Colin Phillips,et al.  Order and structure , 1996 .

[42]  Andreas Kathol,et al.  Linearization-based German syntax , 1995 .

[43]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Comparatives and Categorial Grammar , 1995 .

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

[45]  A. Kratzer.  Severing the External Argument from its Verb , 1996 .

[46]  P. Culicover.  Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination , 1997 .

[47]  Grant Goodall,et al.  Parallel structures in syntax , 1987 .

[48]  Winfried Lechner,et al.  Comparatives and DP-structure , 1999 .

[49]  Anneke Neijt,et al.  Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar , 1980 .

[50]  R. Hudson.  Conjunction Reduction, Gapping, and Right-Node Raising , 1976 .

[51]  Richard S. Kayne.  The Antisymmetry of Syntax , 1994 .

[52]  H. C. van Riemsdijk,et al.  Head Movement and Adjacency , 1998 .