Comparatives in Japanese (Yori Constructions) s1
"Comparatives" in English and Japanese
Emi Mukai (09/27/05)
HH’s comments on sections 1, 2 and 4.
1. Introduction
The sentences in (1) can be translated into (2), and t and thus they have been widely regarded as ""comparatives" in Japanese which are parallel to (2) and yori is analyzed as the Japanese counterpart of than; see . (Kikuchi 1987, 2002, Ishii 1991, 1999 among others); especially in these analyses, yori is analyzed as the counterpart of than.
(1) 'Comparatives' 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
(I call the bracketed part [yori ... ] the yori constituent.)
(2) a. This book is longer than XP
b. Bill bought a longer book than XP
However, tThey differ from each other at least in some pointsre are, however, important differences between English comparatives and Japanese ‘comparatives’ (çcannot seem to figure out how not to use the ‘smart quotes”…), as listed in (3).
(3) a. Japanese does not have the phonetic distinction between comparative adjectives (e.g., taller) and absolute adjectives (e.g., tall).
b. A measure phrase right before an adjective in Japanese, unlike in English, should always be interpreted as a differential in the sense of von Stechow (1984) (see (4)).
c. There are no subcomparatives in Japanese (see (5)).
(4) John-wa 6 feet se-ga-takai
John-top 6 feet tall
= 'John is 6 feet taller (than someone else)' <= Not so natural to say someone is 6 feet taller than someone else, since 6 feet is about 1.8 meters… Independently of this, (i) is not very natural to me without “… yori.”
(i) (i) John-wa 10 cm se-ga takai
(ii) (ii) Kono-hon-wa 100yen takai
(iii) Are they natural to you, without the “… yori” part overtly expressed?
=/= 'John is 6 feet tall'
(5) a. The shelf is taller than the door is wide.
b. *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-ga hiroi (no) yori] takai. (Beck: (5a)/(74a))
This shelf-top that door-nom wide one. yori tall
In this paper I first argue maintain that Japanese yori does not have the same formal properties with as English than, which is first proposed in Beck et. al (=> “et al.” ?)(2004) first propose (as far as I know). Then I then propose that the yori constituent is introduced to a sentence by Predicate Modification. çI think you should make it clearer than you are now how your proposal is different from Beck et al. In the final version of the paper, more should be included than this at the end of section 1.
2. Previous analyses ---English
2.1. The standard analysis of English comparatives (Bresnan 1973; von Stechow 1984; Heim 2000 among others)
Let us first briefly review the standard analysis of English comparativesbriefly. First of all, it has been widely analyzed agreed that an adjectives are is a two-place predicate and; they it are is a functions from a degrees to the a set of individuals (<d,et>).
(6) [[Adjective]] = ld. lx. x is Adjective to d
(e.g., [[tall]] = ld. lx. x is tall to d)
Adjectives then take DegPs as their first argument; i.e., [the combination of them <= Is this okay?] is done through Functional Application.
(7) Functional Application (FA) (Heim & Kratzer 1998: 44: (3))
If a is a branching node, {b, g} is the set of a's daughters, and [[b]] is a function whose domain contains [[g]], then [[a]] = [[b]]([[g]]).
Under the analysis, whether adjectives are realized as comparative (taller) or as absolute (tall) depends on what the first argument of the adjectives, DegP, are is like. In the case of the former, the DegP is headed by the degree morpheme (er/more/less etc.). In the latter case, the DegP is POS (ç Indicate what “POS” stands for. “positive”?) operator (see (9)).
(8) 3
John e 3
is AP <e,t>
3
DegP tall <d,et>
POS <dt,t>
6 feet d
DegP = er-than Bill is <dt,t>
1 inch er-than Bill is <dt,t>
(9) [[POS]] = lP<d,t>.id[P(d)=1 and d>ds] (von Stechow 1984: xxx)
(where ds is the standard degree which is contextually identified.)
The semantics of degree morpheme er is as in (10a), which contains the maximality operator in (10b).
(10) a. [[er]] = lD'<d,t>. lD<d,t>. max(D) > max(D') (Cf. Hackl 2000: chap. 1, (64))
b. Definition: Maximality (=Hackl 2000: chap. 1, (63)[1])
max: = lD<d,t>. the unique d such that D(d) = 1 & "d' [D(d') = 1 -> d'£ d] <dt,d>
(I will have to ask you later about ((9),) (10) and (11), and other places below where they are used…)
In addition to (10a), the degree morpheme er has the second semantic specification as shown in (11) tooas well, which is used when comparative adjectives are followed by a differential.
(11) [[er]] = lD'<d,t>. lD"d. lD<d,t>. max(D) - max(D') = D"
The than clause involves the degree abstraction at LF, and the whole than clause undergoes extraction at PF.
In sum, the sentences in (12) are analyzed as in (13), (14), (15) and (16), respectively, under the standard analysis.
(12) 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.
(13) John is tall (=(12a))
a. Before Spell-Out & PF b. LF
c. [[John is POS tall]] = [[POS]] ([[1]] ([[John is t1 tall]]) )
= lP. id[P(d)=1 and d>ds] (ld1. John is d1-tall)
= id[ld. John is d-tall (d)=1 and d>ds]
= id[John is d-tall and d>ds]
(where ds is the standard degree which is contextually identified.)
d. John is tall is true iff there exists the unique d such that John is d-tall and d exceeds the standard degree ds.
(14) John is 6 feet tall (=(12b))
a. Before Spell-Out & PF & LF
b. [[John is 6 feet tall]] = [[tall]] ([[6 feet]]) ([[John]])
= ld. lx. 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.
(15) John is taller than Bill is (=(12c))
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]] (ld1. Bill is d1-tall) (ld2. John is d2-tall)
= max(ld2. John is d2-tall) > max(ld1. 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 tall.
Now, without (what corresponds to er) in JP, and if there is nothing in Japanese that introduces the maximality operator, we never get anything like the third line of (15d), with the maximality operator? Well, a more basic question should be: do we ever get type <d, t> in JP, to begin with?
In English, what gets mapped to <d, t> is formed in syntax only if something of type d gets raised or something of type <d, dt> gets raised. Given this, we can ask the following questions.
(i) a. Do we have something of type d and/or of type <d, dt>?
b. If yes to either of the two questions in (a), do they raise at LF, creating what gets mapped to <d, t>?
(16) John is 1 inch taller than Bill is (=(12d))
a. Before Spell-Out b. PF
c. LF
d. [[John is 1 inch taller than Bill is]]
= [[er]] ([[than Op1 Bill is t1 tall]]) ([[1 inch]]) ([[2]([[John is d2-tall]]) )
= [[er]] (ld1. Bill is d1-tall) (1 inch) (ld2. John is d2-tall)
= max(ld2. John is d2-tall) - max(ld1. 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.
2.2. Type-shifting operation for a measure phrase (Hackl 2000)
The than phrase sometimes contains a measure phrase alone, as in (17).
(17) John is taller than 6 feet.
For such a type Hackl (2000) proposes "a type shifting operation similar to Partee's (1987) BE operation which maps an individual to its corresponding singleton." (Hackl 2000: 50) In short, "there are two interpretations of measure phrases as given in [(18)]." (Ibid)
(18) (=Hackl 2000: chap. 1, (65))
a. [[six feet]] = 6'
b. [[six feetBE]] = ld.Î Dd. d = 6'
With the this assumption, the sentence in (17) is combined in the way as indicated in (19a). (19b) is its truth condition.
(19) a. [[John is taller than 6 feet]]
= [[er]] ([[than 6 feet]]) ([[i]]([[John is ti tall]])
= [[er]] (ld. d=6') (ldi. John is di-tall)
= max(ldi. John is di-tall) > max(ld. d=6')
= the unique d1 such that John is d1-tall > the unique d2 such that d2=6'
b. John is taller than 6 feet is true iff the degree d1 such that John is d1-tall exceeds 6 feet.
While the investigation of the validity of the claim above is not in the scope of my paper, it seems to be the case that the second interpretation of a measure phrase (=(19b)) is needed (though it is not explicitly mentioned in Hackl (2000)) when we think of consider a sentence with a measure phrase being as a predicate (see as in (20a)).
(20) a. John's height is 6 feet.
b. [[John's height is 6 feet]] = [[6 feet]]([[John's height]])
= ld. d=6' (John's height)
= John's height = 6'
Well, actually to account for (i), under the general approach adopted here, you will have to say something extra, to begin with, I suppose.
(i) John is 6 feet.
As in (20b), John's height is 6 feet is true iff the degree expressing John's height is a member of the set of being 6 feet.
3. Various analyses for Japanese yori constructions
3.1. Analysis 1
---Following the standard analysis.
---Treating the yori constituent as parallel to the than clause. (Kikuchi 1987, 2002, Ishii 1991, 1999, Nakanishi 2004).
---The soundless er is assumed.
Problem for analysis 1 --- (3b) and (3c) are left unsolved.
(3) b. A measure phrase right before an adjective should always be interpreted as a differential (see (4))
c. There are no subcomparatives in Japanese (see (5)).
3.2. Analysis 2 (Analysis 1 + Schwarzschild (to appear))
Schwarzschild's idea: The measure phrase before an adjective should be interpreted as a differential as a default.
(4) John-wa 6 feet se-ga-takai
John-top 6 feet tall
= 'John is 6 feet taller (than someone else)'
=/= 'John is 6 feet tall'
Problem for analysis 2 --- (3c) is still problematic.
3.3. Analysis 3 (Kikuchi 2002)
3-1 Absolute adjectives (regardless of with or without a measure phrase (i.e., tall in John is (6 feet) tall)) are different from comparative adjectives (taller).
3-2 Japanese only has comparative adjectives.
Problem for analysis 3 --- (3c) is still left unsolved.
3.4. Analysis 4: Treating the yori constituent as parallel to compared to in English (Beck et. al (2004))
4-1 The yori constituent is not the counterpart of the than clause. Rather, it is parallel to compared to.
(21) a. Compared to XP, this book is {long/longer}.
b. Compared to XP, John bought a {long/longer} book.
4-2 Adjectives can still be of type <d,et>. (That is, they assume that Japanese has soundless er.)
4-3 The combination between the yori constituent and the rest of the sentence are done in Pragmatics.
4-4 The compliment of yori should always be individuals. The yori constituent in (22c) is corresponding to free relatives such as 'what Bill bought', though it appears to be an IP on the surface.
(22) a. John-wa [YORI ano hon-yori] nagai hon-o katta
John-top that book-yori long book-acc bought
b. John-wa [YORI Bill-ga katta no-yori] nagai hon-o katta
John-top Bill-nom bought one-yori long book-acc bought
c. John-wa [YORI Bill-ga katta-yori] nagai hon-o katta
John-top Bill-nom bought-yori long book-acc bought
Japanese subcomparatives such as in (5b) are unacceptable since it is difficult to nominalize the complement of yori in these cases. Since than can take IP as its complement, any sentence containing the than clause in (5a) can be acceptable even if the IP cannot be nominalized as in (23).
(5) a. The shelf is taller than [the door is wide].
b. *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-ga hiroi (no) yori] takai. (Beck: (5a)/(74a))
This shelf-top that door-nom wide one. yori tall
(23) *the one that the door is wide
Problems for analysis 4
1. (3b) is unsolved.
2. (The combination of this analysis and Schwarzschild (to appear) might seem perfect, but...)
It is quite unclear how the yori constituent and the rest of the sentence are combined in the syntactic and semantic structures under the analysis.
3. The nominalized version of (5b) is still unacceptable.
(24) *Kono tana-wa [ano doa-no hirosa yori] takai
This shelf-top that door-gen width yori tall
'This shelf is taller than the width of that shelf.'
4. Proposals
4.1. English than clauses
I propose that there is only one type of Adjectives, which is of type <e,t>.
(25) [[Adjective]] = lx. x is Adjective
[The meaning of gradability comes from functional category #. It takes an adjective as its first argument and the combination of # and an adjective is of type <d,et>. <= This is within the scope of “propose,” I guess…] (Originally suggested by Roumi Pancheva, lecture note 5, Spring 2005).
(26) <d,et> = ld. lx. x is Adj to d.
3
# A <e,t> = lx. x is Adj.
<e,t>, <d,et>
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).
(27) #P (cf. Roumi Pancheva lecture note 5, (11))
3
DegP 3
# A
I simply follow the standard analysis as for in regard to the rest of the assumption without any further discussion. Therefore, the only difference between the analysis proposed here and the standard analysis is that [the gradable meaning is introduced by # in the former while it is part of the meaning of adjectives from the beginning in the latter <= Redo.]. [John is tall is ambiguous in my analysis; one has the meaning of the comparison with the standard degree (=(28a)), and the other has the meaning of John's having the properties of tallness (=(28b)). <= State or maybe repeat? how this is different from the standard analysis. You can, for example, refer to the standard analysis of (12a) introduced above.