Comparatives without scales: an NSM analysis of English comparative constructions. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Semantics of Comparatives and Other Degree Constructions
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2008
(1) is an example of an adjectival comparative. In it, the adjective important is flanked by more and a comparative clause headed by than. This article is a survey of recent ideas about the interpretation of comparatives, including (i) the underlying semantics based on the idea of a threshold; (ii) the interpretation of comparative clauses that include quantifiers (brighter than on many other days); (iii) remarks on differentials such as much in (1) above: what they do in the comparative and what they do elsewhere in the language; (iv) the relationship between comparatives and other Degree constructions (e.g. as important, too important); and (v) the types of phrases in which comparatives are found (adjective: tighter versus noun: more water). Given the nature and purpose of this essay, I have tried not to presuppose background in formal semantics and I have departed from standard practice in journal articles by, as much as possible, not interrupting the flow with footnotes and references. There are two appendices. The first provides more analytical detail and there I do rely on formal techniques of natural language semantics. The second covers the sources for the ideas surveyed here.
Basic Approaches to the Study of Comparison in Linguistics
Ìntelekt, osobistÌstʹ, civìlìzacìâ, 2022
The objective of the article is to determine the the basic approaches to the study of comparison in linguistics. Methods. The main scientific results are obtained applying a set of general scientific and special methods of research, namely: analysis and generalization of scientific literature on the problems of comparison in linguistics; theoretical generalization, analysis and synthesis; holistic and integral approaches to the study of comparison in linguistics; comparative, descriptive and analytical methods. Results. Comparison is defined to be the assimilation of the depicted objects, phenomena, facts. One more understanding of comparison is a figurative lexical expression, the base of which is the comparison of two objects, phenomena etc., after consideration of which the perception of the first phenomena is enhanced by emphasizing its characteristics and properties. Some may imply the presence of the following properties in comparison: the separate communication of the compared concepts, the dissected nomination, structurality, semantic multifunctionality, polyfunctionality. Comparisons can be typologized based on various bases-of which structures, semantics, stable connectedness of elements, their functional characteristics, etc. Each of the classifications is important both for understanding the linguistic essence of comparison, and for a full analysis of comparative constructions in the language of a particular writer. In comparison with other tropes, comparison is characterized by a wide variety of structural organization. The classic division of comparisons into simple and sustained similes is important for a stylistic analysis of the literary text, in which both simple and sustained similes comparative constructions can play a significant role, obeying the author's communicative plan. Comparison is a trope that is formed on a figurative comparison of two objects or phenomena and is a three-membered structure consisting of an explicit subject, an object and a comparative modulator. Other scientists distinguish two types of comparisons from the point of view of semantics. To the first group, they refer neutral comparisons, specific ones, with the help of which the speaker recreates the objectively existing characteristics of phenomena. The second group of comparisons includes tropes that have an evaluative element or stylisti
INTERPRETING ENGLISH COMPARATIVES
Journal of Semantics, 1986
This paper attempts to clarify the way in which we interpret English comparatives. It shows that recognition of a comparative depends primarily on the recognition of the comparative operator, cl. The cl has two constituents (1) a comparative marker which, because there are less than a dozen of them, makes cl readily recognizable; and (2) a scale marker. I argue that comparisons are made on a particular scale, and that scales have a supra end and a sub end; the scale marker in cl identifies which end. Thus the combination of scale marker and comparative marker determines the proper interpretation of the comparative operator, and hence the comparative relation. This interpretation is affected by the 'committedness' (Cruse 1976) and perhaps 'pull' of the scale marker. A comparison identifies the relative locations of the comparands X and Y on the scale named in the cl. X, the primum comparationis, is identified through the scope of c 1. Y, the secundum comparationis, is recognized through the fact that it is normally a semantic-syntactic parallel to X in a clause introduced by the c2: c2 is normally than or as. The paper ends with detailed discussion of the means for translating English comparative constructions into an interpretative metalanguage. Q-er ADJ-er ADV-er less Q ADJ ADV than Y cl c2 -Type (ii) ADJ-er ADV-er more less the same (N) identical (N) different (N) than as to from 'Q' is a member of the set of quantifiers few, little, many, much.
Disputatio
In “Unarticulated Comparison Classes” 2018 [2009], Richard Vallée adopts John Perry’s (2012 [2001]) reflexive-referential theory of meaning and content as well as his concept of unarticulated constituents (Perry 1986) to deal with certain context-sensitive elements of the truth-conditions of statements containing relative gradable predicates. I am sympathetic both with the general framework and with the assumption that unarticulated constituents are involved in the truth-conditions of bare positives such as “Monica is tall.” I do not share, however, Vallée’s main conclusions on the examples he provides as pre-theoretical evidence. This leads me to disagree with some details of his proposal for the semantics and pragmatics of relative gradable adjectives.
Extreme Adjectives in Comparative Structures and even
Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 2019
This paper examines two related puzzles, observed in the litera- ture about extreme adjectives (see, e.g., Paradis 2001, Rett 2008, Morzycki 2012), namely, (a) why such adjectives are questionable within comparative structures and (b) why and how exactly the presence of even improves the felicity of such constructions. After examining the solutions proposed in Morzycki 2012 for these two puzzles, we propose an alternative solution which integrates three components: (i) the fact that extreme-adjective comparatives necessarily presuppose the “positive form” of these adjectives (building on Morzycki’s semantics for extreme adjectives); (ii) an updated, gradability-based semantics for even (Greenberg 2015 , 2018), which guarantees that comparatives with even presuppose the corresponding “positive form,” with all kinds of adjectives (extreme and non-extreme alike); and (iii) a local Maximize Presupposition!-type effect, such as that suggested by Singh (2011), leading to the preference of the extreme-adjective comparative with even over a competing alternative without it. While the latter component presents a number of challenges requiring further research, the proposal is shown to be supported by cross-linguistic data and by comparing extreme and lower-closed adjectives in terms of scale structure and behavior in comparatives.
The comparative grammaticality of the English comparative
The goal of this dissertation is to investigate systematic variation in English comparative adjective formation using the insights of lexical prosody and Optimality Theory. I provide a sustained argument in favor of lexically specified, representationally rich prosodic structure. Chapter 1 introduces comparative adjective variation (CAVE) in the context of morphological-periphrastic alternations in language and draws particular attention to comparative grammaticality as a theoretically appropriate solution to the systematic nature of comparative adjective variation. Chapter 2 provides an in-depth corpus analysis of spoken and written English from the Contemporary Corpus of American English. Alongside replicating several earlier results, the chapter provides evidence for the variable, systematic nature of suffixation to adjectives of different prosodic and morphological shapes. In Chapter 3, I make two major claims. First, I argue that morphemes can exhibit various degrees of prosodic strength, spelled out as differences in structure, an inherent property of morphemes as they are stored as Roots in an abstract lexicon. Second, I argue that token frequency influences prosodic strength through the direct modulation of prosodic structure; infrequent and phonotactically complex short adjectives are less likely to undergo reduction processes because of their more articulated prosodic structure. In contrast, frequently used adjectives have less articulated prosodic structure, which results in more reduction processes. These two claims set the basis for a representational difference between high-and low-frequency adjectives, which accounts for their divergent susceptibility to phonological reduction and phonetic shortening. Chapter 4 is concerned with spelling out the structure of the grammar of comparative suffixation. It divides the grammar into Stem and Word strata and argues that variable suffixation rates require both stratal and representational (morphological and prosodic) routes of explanation. In sum, variable suffixation results from the representational differences argued for in Chapter 3, as well as the dual-stratum membership of -er at the Stem and Word strata. A variety of adjective types are considered. Chapter 5 addresses comparative grammaticality at the level of syntax and sketches a preliminary analysis of how phrasal prosody may also affect suffixation rates, which has implications for the phonology-syntax interface and the degree to which lexical and syntactic information should be separated in linguistic theory. Chapter 6 concludes the dissertation, comparing present contributions to previous work on CAVE.
Comparative logic as an approach to comparison in natural language
Journal of Semantics, 1999
Montague grammarians cl^T" that tlic logical analysis 01 language skccdicd in standard textbooks of first order logic is too coarse to be appropriate to such natural languages as English. In the following we shall defend the opposite view-at least as far as a very narrow fragment of English is concerned, traditional logical analysis is perfectly adequate provided we are ready to pay the price of abandoning classical logic in favour of logics containing a sufficiently rich stock of logical constants. Within the framework of Casari's comparative logic, we shall outline a model of a restricted fragment of English. We shall address such issues as the construction of complex noun phrases, the distinction between gradable and vague adjectives, the structure of comparative sentences and of antonym adjectival pairs. Department of the University of Florence. We are indebted to all those who offered their suggestions and comments, especially Ettore Casari and Pierluigi Minari, who provided precious insights. We wish to thank also Timothy Williamson, with whom we had extremely helpful conversations on some of the topics covered in the present article, and an anonymous referee of the Journal of Semantics, who helped us to improve a first draft of the paper.