Aspects of Comparative Constructions Comparative Syntax, Semantics & L1-Acquisition
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Aspects of Comparative Constructions Comparative Syntax, Semantics & L1-acquisition Maria-Margarita Makri, MPhil, MA (Res) PhD University of York Language and Linguistic Science June 2018 Abstract This thesis examines the crosslinguistic variation and acquisition of comparative constructions and proposes a fine-grained AP periphery along with an analysis of comparatives as constructions involv- ing subtraction. More specifically, it is proposed that gradable predicates incorporate a Q0 and that comparative morphology is realised in two distinct heads above Q0: the higher C0 assigns case to the differential argument whereas the lower one, which is immediately above Q0 checks the case of the standard phrase. Furthermore, I provide novel evidence for two types of comparative markers, a ‘functional’ one, which is the realisation of C20 if the gradable predicate does not move to C20, and a ‘lexical’ one, which is the comparative form of the quantity word that adjoins to a positive ad- jective. This analysis explains morphological facts as well as variation in case assignment in Greek varieties. As far as standard phrases are concerned I propose that there are three distinct types of stan- dard phrases: adjunct standard phrases introduced by the phrasal standard marker, argument standard phrases comprised of the phrasal standard marker and a nominal (DP or relative clause) and excep- tive phrases. Furthermore, the study of the distribution of polarity items and comparative negation in Romance comparatives as well as the acquisition of Italian comparatives suggest that negation found in comparatives is an overt realisation of the negative operator. This analysis explains a (universal) gap in the distribution of comparative negation, namely the unavailability of languages that license comparative negation but not polarity items. 2 List of Contents Abstract 2 List of Contents 3 List of Tables 6 List of Figures 8 Acknowledgements 10 Declaration 13 1 Introduction 16 1.1 Types of Comparatives . 18 1.1.1 The constituents overtly realised . 18 1.1.2 Types of comparative relation . 18 1.1.3 The syntactic category of gradable expressions . 19 1.1.4 Phrasal vs. Clausal Comparatives . 20 1.2 Outline of this thesis . 20 2 Previous Approaches to Comparatives 22 2.1 Typologies of comparatives . 22 2.1.1 Stassen (1984, 1985) . 22 2.1.2 Price (1990) . 26 2.1.3 Beck et al. (2003, 2004, 2009, 2012); Hohaus et al. (2014) . 28 2.1.4 Individual vs. Degree comparison, Implicit vs. Explicit comparison (Kennedy, 2007a,b) . 30 2.1.5 Parametrising phrasal comparatives . 34 2.2 The semantics of Comparatives . 38 2.2.1 Maximality in the standard phrase . 38 2.2.2 Extent based semantics . 40 2.2.3 Scope and the (non-)quantificational nature of the comparative . 41 2.2.4 Meaningful Standards . 46 2.3 The syntax of Comparatives . 53 2.3.1 The architecture of the Degree Phrase . 53 3 2.3.1.1 The comparative phrase is a modifier of the gradable predicate . 54 2.3.1.2 The comparative phrase is an argument of the gradable predicate . 58 2.3.1.3 The gradable predicate is an argument of the Degree . 60 2.3.1.3.1 The status of more and its relation to the Degree0 .......... 63 2.3.1.3.2 Coordination Structures . 66 2.3.1.3.3 Late merger of degree clauses . 67 2.3.2 The internal syntax of standard phrases: Phrasal vs. Clausal comparatives . 71 2.3.2.1 Direct analyses . 71 2.3.2.2 Reduction analyses . 75 2.3.2.2.1 The small clause analysis . 77 2.4 The proposal . 79 3 Phrasal Comparatives 82 3.1 Introduction . 82 3.2 Background on non-comparative adjectives . 83 3.3 The status of comparative markers . 89 3.3.1 Greek . 89 3.3.1.1 The status of pjo (‘more’) . 92 3.3.1.2 perisotero(s) ‘more’ and lighotero(s) ‘less’ . 99 3.3.1.3 The status of parapano (‘above, more’) . 103 3.3.2 Romance Languages . 104 3.3.3 Interim Summary . 105 3.4 Asymmetries between phrasal and clausal comparatives . 106 3.5 Types of phrasal comparatives . 108 3.5.1 Prepositional Standards . 109 3.5.1.1 Phrasal (not clausal) standards . 110 3.5.1.2 Predicative Standards . 113 3.5.1.3 Measure Phrases . 115 3.5.1.4 Other DPs . 118 3.5.2 Oblique nominal standards . 120 3.5.2.1 The distribution of oblique standards in varieties of Greek . 121 3.5.2.2 Genitive/ Dative Standards . 127 3.5.2.3 Case assignment in Greek oblique standards . 130 3.5.2.4 Extension to Romance . 131 3.6 Summary & Conclusions . 133 4 Clausal Comparatives 134 4.1 Greek . 134 4.1.1 Clausal Comparatives with apo (‘from’) . 135 4.1.1.1 Clausal Standards introduced by ap’oti ............... 135 4.1.1.2 Clausal Standards introduced by ap’ osos .............. 139 4.1.1.3 Interim summary: apo (‘from’) and relative clauses . 141 4 4.1.2 Comparatives with para-standards . 142 4.2 Romance Languages . 143 4.2.1 Que/Che comparatives . 144 4.2.2 Prepositional Standards with Relatives . 147 4.2.3 Que as an exceptive . 149 4.3 Conclusions . 150 5 Polarity phenomena in Comparatives 151 5.1 Introduction . 151 5.2 The empirical picture . 151 5.2.1 French . 151 5.2.2 Italian . 153 5.2.3 Spanish . 154 5.2.4 Catalan . 156 5.2.5 Brazilian Portuguese . 156 5.2.6 Greek . 158 5.2.7 Interim Summary: Expletive Negation Licensing in Romance . 159 5.3 Previous approaches to Comparative Negation . 160 5.4 Italian: A case study . 169 5.4.1 Predictions for the acquisition of Italian . 170 5.4.2 The experiment . 171 5.4.2.1 Method . 171 5.4.2.1.1 Participants . 171 5.4.2.1.2 Procedure . 171 5.4.2.1.3 Materials . 172 5.4.2.2 Expected Response Patterns . 175 5.4.2.3 Results . 175 5.4.3 Discussion . 183 5.5 Bringing the facts together: The meaning of Comparative Negation . 183 5.6 Implications for the typology of Comparative Negation . 184 6 Conclusions 187 A Appendix 189 A.1 Ordering of test items . 190 A.2 Test Items . 190 B Abbreviations 212 References 215 5 List of Tables 2.1 Price’s (1990) typology of Romance comparatives. 27 2.2 Beck et al.’s (2009) Typology and correspondence to Stassen’s (1984, 1985) Types. (The numbers in the parentheses refer to ‘secondary types’ and the star indicates lan- guages not included in Stassen’s (1984, 1985) sample.) . 29 2.3 Age of Acquisition and Mean Length of Utterance (Hohaus et al., 2014, 228) . 31 2.4 Classes of degree expressions (Neeleman et al., 2004) . 57 2.5 Language types predicted by Alrenga and Kennedy’s (2014) semantics for the standard 75 2.6 Language types predicted by Kennedy’s (2007b) semantics for the standard . 75 3.1 The distribution of quantity words in English (Rett, 2018) . 85 3.2 Predicted Degree Paradigm for ‘much’/‘more’ . 93 3.3 Comparative Formation I . 94 3.4 Comparative Formation II . 94 3.5 Properties of apo vs. ap’ oti (Merchant, 2009, (26)) . 110 3.6 The distribution of Oblique standards in Modern Greek varieties . 126 5.1 Distribution of Negation in French Inequality Comparatives . 153 5.2 Distribution of Negation in Italian Inequality Comparatives . 154 5.3 Distribution of Negation in Spanish Inequality Comparatives . 155 5.4 Distribution of Negation in Catalan Inequality Comparatives . 156 5.5 Distribution of Negation in Brazilian Portuguese Inequality Comparatives . 157 5.6 Distribution of CN in different types of standard phrases [N/A: the language doesn’t have this type of standard phrase, *: CN is ungrammatical, ✓: CN is grammatical] . 160 5.7 Negation and N-words in comparatives across languages . 160 5.8 Semantics of CCs & CN: The space of logical possibilities. 161 5.9 CN and Standard Markers . 166 5.10 Semantics of CCs & CN: Theories of CN. 169.