Comparatives in Japanese (Yori constructions)

  • Doc File 210.50KByte



"Comparatives" in English and Japanese

Emi Mukai (Presentation, 10/10/05)

Introduction

1 Comparatives in English and Japanese

(1) Comparative constructions in English

a. This book is longer than XP

b. Bill bought a longer book than XP

(2) 'Comparative' constructions in Japanese

a. kono hon-wa [YORI XP-yori] nagai

this book-top XP-yori long

b. Bill-wa [YORI XP-yori] nagai hon-o katta

Bill-top XP-yori long book-acc bought

[yori XP-yori] part: The yori constituent

XP part: --- The yori phrase if XP is a simple noun

--- The yori clause if XP is not a simple noun

2 Main Claims and arguments for them

(3) Main claims

a. Every adjective, regardless of whether it is gradable or not, is universally of type . The difference between gradable adjectives and non-gradable adjectives is whether a standard (which varies depending on a context) is supplied or not; it is in the case of the former, but not in the case of the latter.

b. The functional category #, which is of type , introduces a scale (i.e., a point in a totally ordered set).

c. A gradable adjective () in English has some feature, which should be checked off by # (). The mother node of a gradable adjective and # is therefore of type .

d. Japanese does not have #. As a consequence, Japanese lacks a constituent of type .

e. The yori constituent is an adjunct modifying an AP.

The standard analysis (Bresnan 1973; von Stechow 1984; Heim 2000 among others)

1 Outline of the standard analysis

Let us first review the standard analysis briefly. First of all, it has been widely analyzed that while non-gradable adjectives are a one-place predicate, gradable adjectives are a two-place predicate; they are functions from degrees on a scale to the set of individuals ().

(4) a. [[Adjective]] = λd. λx. x is Adjective to d

(e.g., [[tall]] = λd. λx. x is tall to d)

b. [[Non-gradable Adjective]] = λx. x is Adjective

(e.g., [[Japanese]] = λx. x is Japanese)

Adjectives then take DegPs as their first argument; i.e., the combination of them is done through Functional Application.

(5) Functional Application (FA) (Heim & Kratzer 1998: 44: (3))

If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α's daughters, and [[β]] is a function whose domain contains [[γ]], then [[α]] = [[β]]([[γ]]).

Under the analysis, whether adjectives are realized as comparative (taller) or as absolute (tall) depend on what the first argument of the adjectives, DegP, are like. In the former, the DegP is headed by the degree morpheme (er/more/less etc.). In the latter case, the DegP is POS ('positive') operator (see (7)).

(6) 3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP tall

POS

6 feet d

DegP = er-than Bill is

1 inch er-than Bill is

(7) [[POS]] = λP.ιd[P(d)=1 and d>ds] (Cf. von Stechow 1984: 60, R6)

(where ds is the standard degree which is contextually identified.)

The semantics of degree morpheme er is either (8a) or (8b), which contains the maximality operator (see (9)).

(8) a. [[er]] = λD'. λD. max(D) > max(D')

b. [[er2]] = λD'. λD"d. λD. max(D) - max(D') = D"

(9) von Stechow 1984: (117)

Max(P) is true of d iff P(d) and ~∃d'[P(d') & d' > d]

The than clause involves the degree abstraction at LF followed by the deletion, and the whole than clause undergoes extraction at PF.

In sum, the sentences in (10) are analyzed as in (11), (12), (13) and (14), respectively, under the analysis.

(10) a. John is tall.

b. John is 6 feet tall.

c. John is taller than Bill is.

d. John is 1 inch taller than Bill is.

(11) John is tall (=(10a))

a. Before Spell-Out & PF b. LF

c. [[John is POS tall]] = [[POS]] ([[1]] ([[John is t1 tall]]) )

= λP. ιd[P(d)=1 and d>ds] (λd1. John is d1-tall)

= ιd[λd. John is d-tall (d)=1 and d>ds]

= ιd[John is d-tall and d>ds]

(where ds is the standard degree which is contextually identified.)

d. John is tall is true iff for the unique d, John is d-tall and d exceeds the standard degree ds.

(12) John is 6 feet tall (=(10b))

a. Before Spell-Out & PF & LF

b. [[John is 6 feet tall]] = [[tall]] ([[6 feet]]) ([[John]])

= λd. λx. x is d-tall (6 feet) (John)

= John is 6 feet tall

c. John is 6 feet tall is true iff John is tall to 6 feet.

(13) John is taller than Bill is (=(10c))

a. Before Spell-Out b. PF

c. LF

d. [[John is taller than Bill is]]= [[er]] ([[than Op1 Bill is t1 tall]]) ([[2]([[John is t2 tall]]))

= [[er]] (λd1. Bill is d1-tall) (λd2. John is d2-tall)

= max(λd2. John is d2-tall) > max(λd1. Bill is d1-tall)

e. John is taller than Bill is is true iff the degree d2 such that John is d2-tall exceeds the degree d1 such that Bill is d1-tall.

(14) John is 1 inch taller than Bill is (=(10d))

a. Before Spell-Out b. PF

c. LF

d. [[John is 1 inch taller than Bill is]]

= [[er2]] ([[than Op1 Bill is t1 tall]]) ([[1 inch]]) ([[2]([[John is d2-tall]]) )

= [[er2]] (λd1. Bill is d1-tall) (1 inch) (λd2. John is d2-tall)

= max(λd2. John is d2-tall) − max(λd1. Bill is d1-tall) = 1 inch

e. John is 1 inch taller than Bill is is true iff the degree d2 such that John is d2-tall minus the degree d1 such that Bill is d1-tall equal 1 inch.

--There has been sometimes assumed in the literature (Kikuchi 1987, Ishii 1991; 1999, Nakanishi 2004) that Japanese comparatives (and a sentence with an adjective as its predicate) are analyzed in line with the standard analysis. However, any of those should fail to capture the observations in 2.2 below.

2 Differences between English and Japanese

1 The interpretation of a measure phrase right before an adjective

(15) a. John is 1m tall. 1m: direct MP

b. John is 1m taller. 1m: differential

(16) John-wa 1m se-ga-takai

John-top 1m tall

= 'John is 1m taller (than someone else)'

=/= 'John is 1m tall'

---Incidentally, the acceptability between (17a) and (17b) may imply that the yori constituent is an adjunct.

(17) (Out of the blue:)

a. John-ga kowasita-ndesu!

John-nom break:past-copula(declarative)

'John broke (it)!'

b. ?#John-wa 3cm se-ga-takai-ndesu!

John-nom 3cm tall-copula(declarative)

'John is 3cm taller (than someone else)!'

2 Presupposition requirement (PR) (initial observation)

---It seems the case for both English and Japanese that neither the subject of a matrix clause (e.g., John) nor the noun in the yori/than clause/phrase (e.g., Bill) need to satisfy the property indicated by the predicate (e.g., tall), as shown in (18).

(18) a. John is taller than Bill (is). Neither John nor Bill has to be tall.

b. John-wa Bill-yori segatakai Neither John nor Bill has to be tall.

John-top Bill-yori tall

---However, when the than/yori clause contains another adjective, English and Japanese come to differ from each other.

(19) a. *John is taller than Bill is tall.

b. John-wa [Bill-ga segatakai] yori segatakai. John and Bill should be tall.

John-top Bill-nom tall yori tall

---I introduce (20).

(20) Presupposition Requirement (PR)

The argument of a predicate should satisfy the property expressed by the predicate.

--Incidentally, it seems that the underlying structure for the sentence in (18b) is not the same as that for the sentence in (19b); otherwise the difference with respect to PR would be mysterious.

3 Subcomparatives (initial observation)

--Sentences in which the than clause contains a different adjective from the matrix clause are called subcomparatives.

(21) a. The shelf is taller than the door is wide.

b. #The shelf is taller than the bridge is old.

---Kennedy provides the generalization for the acceptability of subcomparatives as in (22).

(22) Kennedy 1997: chap. 1, (23)/(106)/(136)

A comparative construction is semantically well-formed only if the compared adjectives have the same dimensional parameter.

Cf. #The class was longer than this table is. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (15))

---To be theory-neutral, I modify (22) and assume as a description that subcomparatives are subject to the requirement in (23).

(23) Same Dimension Requirement (SDR)

A comparative construction is semantically well-formed only if the compared objects are compared along the same dimension.

--It has been observed that subcomparatives are not possible in Japanese (Snyder et al. 1995, Beck et al. 2004, Nakanishi 2004 among others).

(24) *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-ga hiroi (no) yori] takai. (Beck: (5a)/(74a))

This shelf-top that door-nom wide one. yori tall

In sum so far; the observations in 2.2 show that any approach along the line with the standard analysis cannot capture the properties of comparatives in Japanese.

Observations revisited

Beck et al. (2004) propose a novel analysis that yori is not Japanese counterpart of than. Basically following the standard analysis, they claim that (i) the yori constituent is not the argument of soundless er, and (ii) yori takes an individual as its complement (i.e., the yori phrase/clause is always NP/DP).

Problem for Beck et al. 1: They do not explicitly argue in which position the yori constituent is located at LF and how they are combined with the rest of the sentence.

Problem for Beck et al. 2: They attribute the unacceptability of (24) (and the lack of subcomparatives in Japanese in general) to the unavailability of nominalization of the yori phrase with no, as in (25).

(24) *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-ga hiroi (no) yori] takai. (Beck: (5a)/(74a))

This shelf-top that door-nom wide one. yori tall

(25) *Watasi-wa [doa-ga hiroi/ookii]-no-o aketa (Beck: (80))

I-top door-nom wide/large-one-acc opened

'I opened the door that was wide/large.'

However, the nominalization of the yori clause itself is not bad to me (and to the speakers who I consulted with). See (26a/b).

(26) a. Kono heya-wa [ano heya-ga hiroi yori] hiroi

This room-top that room-nom wide yori wide

b. Kono heya-wa [ano heya-ga hiroi no yori] hiroi

This room-top that room-nom wide no yori wide

Moreover, some people find the sentence in (27) significantly better than (24).

(27) Kono ido-wa [ano koosoo biru-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that high-rise building-nom tall no yori deep

Importantly, in (27), PR is satisfied quite easily thanks to the word koosoo biru 'high-rising building'. When we change it into somatuna inugoya 'humble kennel', the sentence becomes bad.

(28) *Kono ido-wa [ano somatuna inugoya-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that humble kennel-nom tall no yori deep

Puzzle to be solved in the rest of the paper:

What makes the subcomparative in (27) better than those in (24) and (28)?

The purpose of the rest of section 3:

To show that PR and DSR between Japanese and English.

1 Gradable vs. non-gradable

(29) Two defining characteristics for gradable adjectives (Kennedy 1997: 1, citing Klein 1980: 6)

a. "[G]radable adjectives can be modified by degree adverbials such as quite, very, and fairly. [...] Although non-gradable adjectives like dear do sometimes occur with degree modifiers, as in e.g., Giordano Bruno is quite dead, such uses are marked, and tend to convey a sense of irony or humor."

b. "[Gradable adjectives] can appear in a class of complex syntactic environments," which Kennedy calls degree constructions. (E.g., (30))

(30) Degree Constructions (identified by Kennedy 1997: 2)

(Examples here are cited from Kennedy 1997: chap. 1, (8)-(14). Highlights are mine.)

a. Venus is brighter than Mars.

b. Neptune is not as distant as Pluto.

c. The equipment is too old to be of much use to us.

d. Current spacecraft are not fast enough to approach the speed of light.

e. The black hole at the center of the galaxy is so dense that nothing can escape the pull of its gravity, not even light.

f. How bright is Alpha Centauri?

2 Non-gradable adjectives: pregnant, Bulgarian, wooden, golden, fake, extinct, dead, octagonal, former etc.

---As shown in (31) to (33), it is not quite clear whether the two properties in (29) can be a diagnostic test to differentiate between gradable and non-gradable adjectives.

(31) Examples cited from Roumi Pancheva's lecture note 1 (Spring 2005), with the judgments reported by Roumi.

a. Mary is more Bulgarian than Sue

b. ???The ring is more golden than the necklace.

c. ???The coin is more fake than the dollar bill.

d. ???Dinosaurs are too extinct.

e. Mary is very/so Bulgarian

f. This coin is very/so fake.

(32) Examples cited from Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (4)-(6) and (15)-(17), with Kennedy's judgments.

a. ??Giordano Bruno is very dead.

b. ??I want the new spacecraft to be quite octagonal.

c. ??Carter is a fairly former president, and Lincoln is an extremely former president.

d. ??Giordano Bruno is too dead to fly on the space shuttle.

e. ??How former a president is Carter.

(33) Examples provided by Hoji-sensei at GGES (October, 2005)

a. How pregnant is Mary?

b. Mary is more pregnant than Nancy (is).

c. Mary is too pregnant to lift that chair.

---However, it is still the case that what people have called non-gradable adjectives cannot appear in the case of subcomparatives.

(34) Examples provided by Hoji-sensei at GGES (October, 2005)

a. *Mary is more pregnant than Nancy is sad.

b. *Mary is more pregnant than Bill is happy.

---Can we use subcomparatives a diagnostic for gradable vs. non-gradable?

=>Probably No. The sentences in (34) are bad because DSR is not satisfied in these cases.

3 Two types of gradable adjectives

1 With absolute adjectives

---It seems the case that gradable adjectives can also be divided into two types regarding whether PR should be satisfied or not.[1]

(35) Type 1: PR does not have to be satisfied. (See (36))

E.g., tall, long, short, old, young, heavy, light, wide, narrow, clever, bright, dim, high, low, difficult, easy, expensive, cheap, fast, slow, dense etc.

Type 2: PR should be satisfied. (See (37))

E.g., happy, sad, lonesome, glad, tired, worried etc.

(36) a. John is tall.

b. John is 6feet tall. No presupposition that John should be tall.

c. How tall is John? No presupposition that John should be tall.

(37) a. John was sad yesterday.

b. *John was MP sad.

c. How sad was he? It is presupposed that he was sad.

2 Ordinal comparatives

(38) a. John is taller than Bill is. Neither John nor Bill has to be tall.

b. John was sadder than Bill was. It is presupposed that John was sad.[2]

3 Subcomparatives

(39) Subcomparatives with type 1 adjectives

a. The desk is longer than the table is wide. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (40))

b. #My copy of The Brother Karamazov is heavier than my copy of The Idiot is old. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (104))

=> With type 1, DSR should be satisfied, while PR does not have to.

Cf. a. #The class was longer than this table is. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (17))

b. My copy of The Brothers Karamazov is higher on a scale of heaviness than my copy of The Idiot is on a scale of age. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (107))

(40) Subcomparatives with type 2 adjectives

a. John is more lonesome than Mary is sad.

b. #Larry is more tired than Michael is clever. (Kennedy 1997: chap 1, (179)

=> With type 2, both DSR and PR should be satisfied.

(41)

| |Non gradable adj. |Gradable type 1 |Gradable type 2 |

|Availability of having a direct|* |OK (PR is irrelevant) |* |

|MP | | | |

|How question |OK/??/* (depends on adjectives),|PR is irrelevant |PR is relevant |

| |PR is relevant | | |

|Ordinal comparative |OK/??/* (depends on adjectives),|PR is irrelevant |PR is relevant |

| |PR is relevant | | |

|Subcomparative |* since SDC is never satisfied? |OK only if SDC is satisfied. (PR |OK only if both SDC and PR are |

| | |is irrelevant) |satisfied. |

4 Japanese adjectives

---The counterparts of the English sentences with absolute adjectives:

(42) a. John-wa segatakai.

John-top tall

b. John-wa 1m segatakai. *with the reading of a direct MP.

John-top 1m tall

c. John-wa doredake segatakai no? It is presupposed that John is tall.

John-top how:much tall Q

---Ordinal comparatives:

(18) b. John-wa Bill-yori segatakai Neither John nor Bill has to be tall.

John-top Bill-yori tall

(19) b. John-wa [Bill-ga segatakai] yori segatakai. John and Bill should be tall.

John-top Bill-nom tall yori tall

---Subcomparatives:

(24) *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-ga hiroi (no) yori] takai. (Beck: (5a)/(74a))

This shelf-top that door-nom wide one. yori tall

(43) *Ano kyuujyoo-wa [kono hon-ga furui yori] hiroi

(27) Kono ido-wa [ano koosoo biru-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that high-rise building-nom tall no yori deep

(28) *Kono ido-wa [ano somatuna inugoya-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that humble kennel-nom tall no yori deep

(44) This shabby kennel is taller than that small hole is deep.

(45) The summary (Japanese adjectives are added to (41).)

| |Non gradable adj. |Gradable type 1 |Gradable type 2 |JP adjectives |

|Availability of having a direct|* |OK (PR is irrelevant) |* |* |

|MP | | | | |

|How question |OK/??/* (depends on |PR is irrelevant |PR is relevant |PR is relevant |

| |adjectives), PR is relevant| | | |

|Ordinal comparative |OK/??/* (depends on |PR is irrelevant |PR is relevant |PR is irrelevant only if |

| |adjectives), PR is relevant| | |yori takes the yori phrase. |

|Subcomparative |* since SDC is never |OK only if SDC is satisfied.|OK only if both SDC and PR |PR is relevant |

| |satisfied? |(PR is irrelevant) |are satisfied. | |

Proposal

1 In general

(3) a. Every adjective, regardless of whether it is gradable or not, is universally of type . The difference between gradable adjectives and non-gradable adjectives is whether a standard (which varies depending on a context) is supplied or not; it is in the case of the former, but not in the case of the latter.

(46) [[Adjective]] = λx. x is Adjective

2 English comparatives

---My analysis diverges from the standard analysis in the following two respects.

1. There is only one semantic type for Adjectives, which is of type . (see (3))

2. The functional category, #, introduces a scale. It takes an adjective as its first argument and derives a #-A constituent, which is of type . (Originally suggested by Roumi Pancheva, lecture note 5, Spring 2005).

(47) = λd. λx. x is Adj to d.

3

# A = λx. x is Adj.

The functional category then takes Degree phrase (DegP) as its second argument (in its specifier position). This idea is also suggested in the lecture by Roumi Pancheva (Spring 2005).

(48) #P (cf. Roumi Pancheva lecture note 5, (11))

3

DegP 3

# A

3 Japanese yori constructions

1 Syntax of yori constructions

---I adopt the thesis in (48).

(49) There are no 'active functional categories' in Japanese (in the terms of Fukui 1986).[3]

The semantic category of yori is P, which takes an NP as its complement, and a PP is an adjunct to an AP.

(50) a. kono hon-wa [YORI LGB-yori] nagai

this book-top LGB-yori long

(Intended meaning) 'This book is longer than LGB.'

b. IP

3

NP    I'

| 3

kono hon-wa AP I

3

PP AP

3 |

NP P A

| | |

LGB yori nagai

2 The properties of yori

--Yori is used in a formal context as in (50a) or an archaic use as in (50b). There, yori has the meaning of 'from', and can be replaced by kara 'from'.

(51) a. kore-yori/kara kaigi-o hajimemasu.

this:time-yori/from conference-acc start

(At the beginning of a formal business meeting) '(Lit.) We start the conference from now.'

b. tomo ari. enpoo-yori/kara kitaru.

friend there:is far:away-yori/from come

'There is a friend who comes from far away.'

However, yori in 'comparatives' in Japanese cannot be replaced by kara.

(52) Kono hon-wa LGB-yori/*kara nagai

this book-top LGB-yori/*from long

(Intended meaning) 'This book is longer than LGB.'

X-kara and X-yori can be a predicate (the latter is marginally allowed as such), but yori can only be interpreted as from, as shown in (52b).

(53) a. kore-wa amerika-kara desu

This-top America-from copula

'This is from America.'

b. ??kore-wa amerika- yori desu

This-top America- yori copula

'This is from America.'

#'This is more than America.'

Cf. (53).

(54) a. This is a fake gun.

b. #This is a gun and this is fake.

Adjectives as attributive modifiers are of type (Heim & Kratzer 1998: 66-73.)

(55) 3

This e 3e

is 3

a NP

3

AP NP

| |

fake gun

I propose that there are two distinct entries in the Lexicon of Japanese that has the same phonological properties, corresponding to yori, one of which is of type , and the other of which is .

(56) a. [[yori]] = λy. λx. x is from y

b. [[yori]] = λy. λf. λx. f(x) = 1, surpassing y.

(57) kono hon-wa LGB-yori nagai (=(49a))

this book-top LGB-yori long

a. IP t

3

kono hon-wa e I'

3

AP I

3

PP nagai

3

LGB e yori

b. [[PP]] = [[yori]]([[LGB]])

= λy. λf. λx. f(x) = 1, surpassing y (LGB)

= λf. λx. f(x) = 1, surpassing LGB

c. [[AP]] = [[PP]] ([[nagai]])

= λf. λx. f(x) = 1, surpassing LGB (λz. z is long)

= λx. (λz. z is long)(x) = 1, surpassing LGB

= λx. x is long, surpassing LGB

d. [[IP]] = [[AP]] ([[kono hon]])

= λx. x is long, surpassing LGB (kono hon)

= this book is long, surpassing LGB

e. kono hon-wa LGB yori nagai is true iff this book is long, surpassing LGB.

4 Explanations for the observations

Q1. Why is it the case that the measure phrase right before an adjective cannot be interpreted as a direct MP?

(16) John-wa 1m se-ga-takai

John-top 1m tall

= 'John is 1m taller (than someone else)'

=/= 'John is 1m tall'

A1. There is no # in Japanese, and hence no type constituent which can take 1m as its argument.

Q2. Why is it the case that PR is irrelevant in the case of (18b) but is relevant in the case of (19b)?

(18) b. John-wa Bill-yori segatakai Neither John nor Bill has to be tall.

John-top Bill-yori tall

(19) b. John-wa [Bill-ga segatakai] yori segatakai. John and Bill should be tall.

John-top Bill-nom tall yori tall

A2. A standard is supplied pragmatically for segatakai. So without the yori constituent, John-wa segatakai means that John is tall compared to a standard supplied pragmatically. In the case of (18b), a standard is also supplied. But because of the yori constituent, the standard can be interpreted as low unless it surpasses Bill. In (19b), Bill is a predicate of segatakai and the yori clause itself does not have the yori constituent. Thus the standard for segatakai in the yori constituent cannot be interpreted as low. Since John's height should surpass Bill's, both Bill and John end up with being required to be tall.

Q3. Why is it the case that PR is relevant in the case of subcomparatives in Japanese and in English with type 2 adjectives, while it is not in the case of subcomparatives in English with type 1 adjectives?

(27) Kono ido-wa [ano koosoo biru-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that high-rise building-nom tall no yori deep

(28) *Kono ido-wa [ano somatuna inugoya-ga takai (no) yori] fukai

This well-top that humble kennel-nom tall no yori deep

(40) a. John is more lonesome than Mary is sad.

(43) This shabby kennel is taller than that small hole is deep.

A3-1. This is so in the case of English with type 1 adjectives since English has #, which introduce a scale.

(58) This shabby kennel is taller than that small hole is deep is true iff the degree d1 such that this kennel is tall to d1 exceeds the degree d2 such that that small hole is deep to d2.

A3-2. This is so in the case of English with type 2 adjectives since PR is always relevant as a default due to the lexical meaning of type 2 adjectives.

A3-3. This is so in the case of Japanese by the same reasoning with A3 above.

Q4. Does DSR constrain two degrees introduced on a scale? That is, is DSR a constraint in the grammar, as proposed by Kennedy 1997?

A4. No. Japanese yori constructions do not compare two degrees on a scale, but still DSR is relevant in the case of Japanese.

References

Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda and Koji Sugisaki (2004) "Variation in the Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs. English," in Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13-4, pp. 289-344.

Bresnan, Joan (1973) "Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English," in Linguistic Inquiry, 4-3, pp.275-343.

Fukui, Naoki (1986/1995) Theory of Projection in Syntax MIT Dissertation, published from Stanford: CSLI publication and Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Heim, Irene (2000) "Degree Operators and Scope," in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT) X, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp. 40-64.

Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell.

Ishii, Yasuo (1991) Operators and Empty Categories in Japanese, Ph.D dissertation, The University of Connecticut.

Ishii, Yasuo (1999) "Decomposing Japanese Comparatives," in Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW: The Second GLOW Meeting in Asia, pp. 159-176.

Kikuchi, Akira (1987) "Comparative Deletion in Japanese," ms., Yamagata University.

Nakanishi, Kimiko (2004) Domains of Measurement: Formal Properties of Non-Split/Split Quantifier Constructions, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Kennedy, Christopher (1997) Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison, Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kennedy, Christopher & L. McNally (2004) "Scale Structure, Degree Modification and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates," ms.

Klein, E. (1980) "A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives," in Linguistics & Philosophy 4.1, pp. 1-45.

Snyder, W., K. Wexler & D. Das (1995) "The Syntactic Representation of Degree and Quantity: Perspectives from Japanese and Child English," in Proceedings of WCCFL 13.

von Stechow, Arnim (1984) "Comparing Theories of Comparison," in Journal of Semantics 3, 1-77.

-----------------------

[1] According to the Lecture note 1 provided by Roumi Pancheva (Spring 2005), Bierwisch (1989) makes a distinction between dimensional and evaluative predicates.

(i) a. tall, old, long, heavy (dimensional)

b. smart, handsome, worried (evaluative)

Notice that the difference between type 1 and type 2 is different from the distinction in (i). It seems that Kennedy and Mcnally (2004, ms.) have discussed one more distinction, relative vs. absolute, which might be the same distinction as that between type 1 and type 2. I will try to look for it but I may not be able to cover it in the presentation on Monday.

[2] As to whether Bill should be sad or not, one informant said that he should be, while the other said that he does not have to (though the preferred reading is that both John and Bill were sad).

[3] 'Active functional categories' are those which lack what Fukui (1986/1995) calls Function Features (or F Features). It is stated in Fukui 1986: 27 that "F-Features include nominative Case, assigned by Tense/AGR, genitive Case, assigned by 'S, and +WH, assigned by a WH-COMP[.]" He also mentions (1995: 121) that "Japanese lacks D and C, but this language has very defective I which does not have any F-Features."

-----------------------

3

3

3 2 3

1 inch3 John e 3

er2 6 is AP

than Op1 Bill is t1 tall 3

DegP tall

|

t2 d

3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP1 tall

3

MP d Deg'

| 3

1 inch Deg CP/PP

| 6

er2 than Bill is

3 CP/PP

John e 3 6

is AP than Bill is

3

DegP tall

3

MP d Deg'

| 3

1 inch Deg tCP/PP

|

er2

3

3

3 2 3

er CP John e 3

6 is AP

than Op1 Bill is t1-tall 3

DegP tall

|

t2 d

3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP1 tall

3

Deg CP/PP

| 6

er than Bill is

3 CP/PP

John e 3 6

is AP than Bill is

3

DegP tall

3

Deg tCP/PP

|

er

3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP tall

|

6 feet d

3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP tall

|

POS1

3

POS 3

1 3

John e 3

is AP

3

DegP tall

|

t1 d

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Online Preview   Download