A New Syntax-Semantics
for the Mandarin bi Comparative
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
mitcho@mitcho.com

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics
University of Chicago, May 9, 2007.

Note (November 2015): Please see my newer paper, “Clausal comparison without degree
abstraction in Mandarin Chinese”: http://mitcho.com/research/bi.html

Contents
1

Introduction

12

Analyses of the English comparative4

2.1

Components of a comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

2.2

Phrasal and clausal analyses of the English comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

2.3

The syntax of comparatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

2.3.1

The traditional analysis (Bresnan, 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

2.3.2

The extended functional projection analysis (Kennedy, 1999) . . . . . . . . . .

7

3

Mandarin Comparatives

9

3.1

9

3.2

3.3
4

The bi comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1

The “phrasal” comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1.2

The “clausal” comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.3

The “adverbial” comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1.4

The “transitive” comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A look at the issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.1

Phrasal and clausal standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.2

The syntactic status of bi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.3

Comparison over objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.4

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Aside: bi-comparatives as explicit comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Previous accounts

23

4.1

Liu (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2

Xiang (2003, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5

A new syntax / semantics of comparison
5.1

My proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.2

Evidence of a verbal syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.3

5.4

5.5
6

32

5.2.1

The bi and the standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2.2

Evidence from negation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2.3

Evidence from the distributive quantifier ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.2.4

Evidence from reflexivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.2.5

Evidence from passivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

The clausal comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.3.1

The clausal proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.3.2

Evidence for individual clausal comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.3.3

Deriving the lack of embedded standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5.3.4

Deriving the Verb Matching Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Extensions and exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4.1

On the transitive comparative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.4.2

“The Guojing of today” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Comparatives, compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conclusion

55

6.1

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.2

Future directions of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

References

57

Document history60

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to my advisors Christopher Kennedy and Jason Merchant for invaluable feedbackon this project, as well as to the rest of our supportive faculty who have taught me so much inthe past four years. This project has benefited from inspiration from and discussion with Thomas
Grano, James Huang, Luther Liu, and Osamu Sawada. I thank my informants, Celia Jia Cui, Fan
Wang, and Fei Yu, without whose judgements this project would have been impossible. Finally,
I must thank Shirley Johnson, Katherine Wogstad, and Jun Yang, who have taught me the joysof Mandarin Chinese: their claims that Mandarin grammar is very simple and straightforward
sparked my curiosity and have pushed me to this day. I accept all errors as my own.

Chapter 1

Introduction
The study of the comparative is a particularly interesting area of linguistic research, precisely because of the universality of the act. Comparison is a basic linguistic task which we expect all languages to express with grace, albeit in their own distinct way. The examination of these structures
across languages may give us valuable insights into broader principles of their syntax-semantics.
In this thesis we will focus on a class of Mandarin comparatives, most of which exhibit the morpheme bi. The most common Mandarin bi comparative has a pattern that can be described as in(1). As we see from (2-3), the predicate of comparison here must be gradable but can be adjectival
or verbal (or, more theory-neutrally, intransitive or transitive).
(1)

target(2)

我 比 他 高。

bistandard

predicate of comparison

wo bi ta gao
1sg bi 3sg tall
“I am taller than him/her.”(3)

我 比 他 喜欢面。

wo bi ta xihuan mian
1sg bi 3sg likenoodles“I like noodles more than he/she does.”
In addition to the cases which have nominal targets and standards as above, we see that the target
and standard may also be clausal, as is possible in English.
(4)

约翰

騎

馬

比 玛丽 騎牛騎得 快。

[Yaohan qi ma] bi [Mali qi niu] [qi de kuai]ride horse bi Mary ride cow ride DE fast
John
“John rides horses faster than Mary rides cows.”
1Much as there has been a debate on the analysis of the relationship between phrasal and clausal
comparatives in English (Bresnan, 1973; Hankamer, 1973; Kennedy, 1999), there has been a corresponding debate in the Mandarin literature (Liu, 1996; Xiang, 2003, 2005). Of course, the considerations in either case are not equivalent. In particular, there are a number of empirical puzzles thathave haunted the Mandarin bi comparative. These include:(5)

The Internal Argument Prohibition:
Comparatives may not directly target object positions.
a.

约翰

比 汤姆

喜欢

玛丽。

Yaohan bi Tangmu xihuan MaliJohn bi Tom like Mary“John like Mary more than Tom does.”* “John like Mary more than he likes Tom.”
b.

* 约翰
喜欢
玛丽 比 汤姆。
Yaohan xihuan Mali bi Tangmu
John like Mary bi Tom
intended: “John like Mary more than Tom does.”(6)

Lack of embedded clausal standards:a.

John rides horses faster than [ I think [ Mary rides cows ] ].

b.

* 约翰
騎 馬
比 [ 我 认为[ 玛丽 騎 牛 ] ] 騎 得 快。
Yaohan qi ma bi wo zhidao Mali qi niu
qi de kuaiJohnride horse bi 1sg think Mary ride cow ride DE fast
intended: “John rides horses faster than I think Mary rides cows.”(7)

Lack of comparative subdeletion:a.

My chair is taller than your table is wide.

b.

*我 的
椅子 比 你 的桌子宽高。
wo de yizi bi ni de zhuozi kuang gao
1sg GEN chair bi 2sg GEN table wide tall
intended: “My chair is taller than your table is wide.”

In this thesis I introduce a new verbal syntax for the Mandarin bi comparative and a novel neoDavidsonian semantics of comparison. While a number of the arguments for my particular syntactic analysis are considered in other works, particularly Xiang (2003), I augment these argumentswith unique evidence from passivization and ge distributive quantifier. Acknowledging the syntactic similarities between the bi comparative and the double object construction, bi is analyzed aspart of the extended verbal projection, with category v.
As part of the comparative comparatives research program introduced by Kennedy (2007 and earlier), I establish the Mandarin bi comparatives as instances of explicit comparison. My semantic2

analysis crucially handles the comparatives examined here as instances of individual comparison,as opposed to degree comparison—that is, a ranking of intensity is established over eventualities
directly, rather than establishing an ordering of algebraic degree variables (see Kennedy, 2007).
Following Kratzer’s (1996) neo-Davidsonian event-semantics, I will show how my semantics trivially derives all three of the puzzles noted above.
I begin in chapter 2 by reviewing some facts about the English comparative and examining two established analyses thereof. I then examine a selection of Mandarin comparative data, first describing the inventory of comparatives, then giving closer attention to the puzzles considered above,and concluding by laying out some relevant research questions in §3.2.4. At this point I will also
take a moment to establish the bi comparative as explicit comparison in §3.3. Chapter 4 constitutes
a literature review on the subject, focusing on two more recent and prominent analyses of Liu(1996) and Xiang (2005). In chapter 5, I will introduce my proposal for the syntax and semantics
of phrasal and clausal bi comparatives and compare my solutions to the questions posed in §3.2.4
with the other analyses. In the conclusion, chapter 6, I will review my proposal and discussion
and finally close with some exciting research directions for the future.

3

Chapter 2

Analyses of the English comparative
An investigation into Mandarin comparatives must be grounded in the general literature of comparatives. As such, let us begin with a review of English comparatives and two standard analyses.

2.1 Components of a comparative
There are certain components of comparatives that we take to be universal, based on the act ofcomparison itself. Comparatives, simply put, orient two entities along a scale. We call the subject
in a comparative the target,1 as opposed to the entity to which it is compared, the standard. The
scale is introduced through a gradable predicate, which I will refer to as the predicate of comparison.2
In sentence (8) below, “John” is the target, “Mary” is the standard, and “tall” is the predicate ofcomparison.
(8)

John is taller than Mary.

In English, we note that the standard co-occurs with the word “than,” which we call the standard
marker. In addition, we note that the predicate of comparison is modified by the suffix “-er.” Notethat a comparative need not explicitly state the standard.
(9)

John is taller.

It is important to note that (9) is infelicitous without a context in which the standard is clear. However, as the suffix “-er” suffices to trigger a comparative reading, we call “-er” the English comparative morpheme.3 With some adjectives and adverbial as well as verbal predicates of comparison,
we use a different comparative morpheme, the adverbial “more.”1“correlate” in Heim (1985)
These terms, particularly the term “target,” is due to Kennedy (2005b).
3
Alternatively, we could call it the English morepheme.
2

4

(10)

a.

The dress is more expensive than the hat.

b.

John eats more politely than Mary.

c.

John eats more than Mary.

In addition, comparatives may optionally express a degree to which the target is superior to thestandard. I will refer to these optional elements as differentials.
(11)

a.

John is much taller than Mary.

b.

John is two feet taller than Mary.

2.2 Phrasal and clausal analyses of the English comparative
To better understand the previous literature on English comparatives, we must first examine thedistinction between phrasal and clausal standards and their treatment—an important division between analyses. We begin by identifying two classes of comparatives in English, contrasted in
(12).
(12)

a.

John is taller than Mary.

b.

John is taller than Mary is.

We note that the two examples in (12) are truth-conditionally equivalent. Bresnan (1973) introduced the idea that (12a) is derived from the same deep structure as (12b), both with ellipsis in thestandard clause. Such an analysis of surface-phrasal standards (e.g. 12a) is often referred to as the“clausal analysis.”
(12’)

a.

John is taller than [S Mary is x-much tall ].

b.

John is taller than [S Mary is x-much tall ].

Chomsky (1977) then made explicit the idea that the degree expressing element moves to outside
the standard clause, as an instance of wh-movement. This was motivated by Bresnan’s (1973) observation that comparatives can violate the Complex NP Constraint, as in (13).
(12”)

John is taller than X [S Mary is X-much tall ].

(13)* John is taller than [NP the claim that [S Mary is X-much tall] ].

However, subsequent studies have introduced many arguments for syntactically different analyses of the surface phrasal and clausal comparatives (Hankamer, 1973; Heim, 1985; Hoeksema, 1984;5

Kennedy, 1999). For example, we see that while clausal standards form wh-islands—expected by
Chomsky’s (1977) view of comparatives as involving the movement of a wh-operator and successive cyclic movement—phrasal standards are not. Case facts also support this analysis, withaccusative case in the phrasal standard but nominative case in the clausal.
(14)

(15)

Wh-extraction from clausal and phrasal standardsa.

John is taller than Mary is.

b.

* Who is John taller than who is?

c.

John is taller than Mary.

d.

Who is John taller than who?

Accusative case in the phrasal standarda.

John is taller than she.

b.

John is taller than her.

c.

John is taller than she is.

d.

* John is taller than her is.

We also note that reflexives may appear in phrasal comparatives but not clausal comparatives,
implying no underlying clause in the phrasal comparative (Hankamer, 1973).
(16)

Reflexives in the phrasal standarda.

John cannot be taller than himself.

b.

* John cannot be taller than himself is.

In addition, we note that phrasal comparatives license negative quantifiers, while clausal comparatives do not.
(17)

Licensing of negative quantifiersa.

John is taller than no one.

b.

* John is taller than no one is.

One difficulty of the phrasal analysis, though, is the question of what degree is expressed by thephrasal standard—for example, in (12a), if there is no gradable predicate downstairs at any pointof the derivation, how do we know what we are comparing John’s height to? Heim (1985) offers asolution to the problem by distributing the gradable predicate over both entities and then comparing their degrees. Heim here views gradable adjectives as expressions with free degree variables(e.g., tall(x, y), meaning x is at least y-tall) which is later bound by movement of the comparative
operator, turning the expression into a lambda-iota function (e.g., λx.ιy(tall(x, y))) which takes an
6argument and returns a maximal degree. She gives a semantics of the -er comparative operator as
follows:(18)[[-er⟨a, b⟩f]]=1 iff f(a) > f(b)2.3 The syntax of comparatives
Let us now review two widely-accepted syntactic approaches to the English adjectival comparative.

2.3.1

The traditional analysis (Bresnan, 1973)

We recall that Bresnan (1973) introduced the clausal analysis of phrasal comparatives, positing an
underlying clausal standard in all English comparatives. Bresnan analyzed the structure of theunderlying “tall” in the standard [ [ x much ] tall ], where x was a variable—a “ ‘reference point’ ofcomparison, unspecified” (Bresnan, 1973, p. 317). Following her morphosyntactic analysis of absolute degree arguments, the comparative morphology, in more contemporary terms, is generated
with the standard as a constituent sister to the adjective.

AP

DegP
Deg
-er

2.3.2

AP
predicate ofcomparison

ThanP
than

standard

The extended functional projection analysis (Kennedy, 1999)

Kennedy (1999) notes that, while Bresnan’s (1973) model has been widely influential, it does notneatly align with more contemporary theories of functional phrase structure, such as that of nounand verb categories. He argues that the comparative morphology first selects the predicate andthen the standard, which is already semantically a degree expression.

7

DegP

XP

Deg
Deg

AP

-er

predicate ofcomparison

thanstandard

As is a common assumption, the gradable predicate G here is a function from individuals to degrees. Under Kennedy’s view, the morepheme has semantics[[-er]] = λGλGλx.more(G(x), d)
Our final semantics would be of the form more(dtarget , dstandard ), where dtarget = G(target). Thereis crucially no degree variable to be bound in Kennedy’s comparative semantics: he notes that we
observe none of the expected variable scope effects of an existentially bound degree variable.

8Chapter 3

Mandarin Comparatives
Having considered some basic facts about the structure of English comparatives and their analysis,
we now consider the variety of Mandarin bi comparatives and their syntactic properties. Later inthe chapter we will examine some of the issues concerning an analysis of these structures andidentify relevant questions any proposal must address.

3.1 The bi comparative
We shall begin with the consideration of a few simple comparatives.
(19)

a.

我 比 他 高。

wo bi ta gao
1sg bi 3sg tall
“I am taller than him/her.”b.

我 比 他 喜欢面。

wo bi ta xihuan mian
1sg bi 3sg likenoodles“I like noodles more than he/she does.”c.

我 比他 騎得 快。

wo bi ta qi de kuai
1sg bi 3sg ride DE fast
“I ride faster than he/she rides.”In each of these examples, we note the following basic word order:1
1
It is worth noting that the bi comparative is but one in a paradigm of three types of comparison—superiority, weaksuperiority (the “equaling” comparative of Chao (1968)), and equality—as expressed below in a paradigm I owe to Fu(1978, p. 105):

9

(20)

targetbistandard

predicate of comparison

In addition to this basic similarity, we observe contrasts between the examples above. First, there is
one fundamental difference between (19a) and (19b-c): that is, while the predicates of comparison
in all three of these examples are of course gradable, (19a) has an adjectival predicate while (19bc) have verbal predicates. Note that both types of predicate are acceptable, at least in the forms
above, and the choice of verbal or adjectival predicate does not affect the surface word-order orcomparative morphology (cf. English, where “-er” may only affix to adjectives and adverbs). We
note further a contrast between (19b) and (19c): in (19b) we are comparing degrees of liking, a scale
derived from the main verb “like,” while in (19c), we are comparing the speed of riding, a scale
derived from the adverbial “fast.”
As a philological aside, we must note that bi 比 by itself is also a verb which means “compare.”
In addition, the ideogram 比, originally a depiction of two people side by side, is semanticallyrelated to comparison, and is used in other compounds such as 比赛 (bisai “competition”) and比较 (bijiao “relatively”). It is important to note, however, that while there is clearly a historicalconnection between the verb bi and the functional bi at issue here, it has been made clear that suchconsiderations are not reliable clues toward the proper synchronic analysis of the language (see Li
and Thompson, 1974).
In the rest of this section, we will identify three types of comparatives employing the comparative
morpheme bi. The first two differ not in word order but in the surface category of the target andstandard: phrasal and clausal.

3.1.1

The “phrasal” comparative

The “phrasal” comparative is distinguished by both the target and standard being, descriptively,
single non-verbal phrasal categories. All examples in (19) were phrasal comparatives. The categories of the target and standard must match and, in addition to the noun phrases as seen in (19),may also be prepositional phrases or some adverbials.
(21)

locative prepositional phrase:(a) superiority:
 bi 比  (geng 更) (b) weak superiority:
you 有name 那么
targetstandard
predicate of comparison(c) equality:
gen 跟
yiyang 一样
Suppose for discussion that our gradable predicate G is a map from entities to degrees. The relationship between
these three types of comparison here is incredibly logical: [[(a)]] is true ⇐⇒ G(target) > G(standard), [[(b)]] istrue ⇐⇒ G(target) ≥ G(standard), and [[(c)]] is true ⇐⇒ G(target) = G(standard), where G represents thepredicate of comparison as a function from entities to partially-ordered degrees. As such, the most common utterance
for a comparison of inferiority is the negation of (b), clearly capturing ¬(G(target) ≥ G(standard)) ≡ G(target) <G(standard) rather than the negation of (a) which expresses ¬(G(target) > G(standard)) ≡ G(target) ≤ G(standard).
The optionality of geng in the comparison of superiority as opposed to the other types remains a particularly interesting feature of this paradigm. Both synchronic and diachronic analyses of this contrast would be worthwhile areas offurther investigation.

10

我 在 家里

比 在 学校舒服。

wo zai jia
li
bi zai xuexiao shufu
1sg at house inside bi at school comfortable“I am more comfortable at home than at school.”(22)

temporal adverb:
我 今天

比 昨天

爱

你。

wo jintian bi zuotian ai ni
1sg today bi yesterday love 2sg“I love you more today than yesterday.”2
In addition, noun phrases in target or standard position may correspond to subject (see 19, above)or topic position, in the sense of Jiang (1991).
(23)

象

比熊

鼻子 长。

xiang
bi xiong bizi changelephant bi bear nose long
“Elephants’ noses are longer than bears’.” or “An elephant has a longer nose than abear.”

3.1.2

The “clausal” comparative

In the “clausal” comparative, both the target and standard are clauses, describing two different
events or possibilities. Below are two examples of the clausal comparative:
(24)

a.

我

去 比 你 去 好。

[wo qu] bi [ni qu] hao
1sg go bi 2sg go good
“It would be better if I went than if you went.”3
b.

约翰

騎

馬

比 玛丽 騎牛騎得 快。

[Yaohan qi ma] bi [Mali qi niu] [qi de kuai]Johnride horse bi Mary ride cow ride DE fast
“John rides horses faster than Mary rides cows.”
2

I thank the venerable Spiral Staircase for this example.
As Mandarin is a pro-drop language, we assume sentences such as the following with only overt VP’s in the target
and standard to also be instances of clausal comparatives. For example:
3

(1)

去

比不

去 好。

[qu] bi [bu qu] hao
go bi Neg go good
“It would be better to go than not to go.”11

There are a number of features of the clausal comparative that must be laid out. First, the predicate
of comparison in comes in two varieties, exemplified above: a proposition-taking predicate (e.g.,
好, hao “good”) or an adverb exhibiting reduplication of the verb (e.g., 騎 得 快, qi de kuai “ride fast”

or “fast-riding”). Second, we note that in either of these examples, both the target and standard
can form a grammatical sentence with the predicate of comparison.
(24)

a’.

我

去 好。

[wo qu] hao
1sg go good
“It would be good if I went.”a”.

你 去 好。

[ni qu] hao
2sg go good
“It would be good if you went.”
b’.

约翰

騎

馬

騎

得 快。

[Yaohan qi ma] [qi de kuai]Johnride horse ride DE fast
“John rides horses quickly.”
b”.

玛丽 騎

牛

騎

得 快。

[Mali qi niu] [qi de kuai]
Mary ride cow ride DE fast
“Mary rides cows quickly.”In particular, sentences (24b’-b”) are Descriptive Complement Constructions (DCC) with verb
reduplication whose structures have been widely contested in the literature (see Huang 1988 andreferences there).

3.1.3

The “adverbial” comparative

There is also another type of comparison which exhibits the morpheme bi with substantively different word order, to which I will refer as the “adverbial” comparative. The crucial feature of an“adverbial” comparative is the occurrence of bi and the standard between the particle de and an
adverb from which the scale of comparison is derived. The adverbial passive word order is only
observed with adverbial predicates of comparison—as there is no de in an adjectival or simple
verbal predicate, the word order contrast would trivially only surface with these complex verbal
predicates. Note the target and standard are both phrasal.
(25)

约翰

騎

得 比 玛丽 快。

Yaohan qi de bi Mali kuairide DE bi Mary fast
John
“John rides faster than Mary (rides).”12

We note that (25) is equivalent in meaning to (19c). It has been claimed that in general adverbial
comparatives have equivalent surface-phrasal paraphrases (Lü, 1980, p. 62).
We identify the basic surface word order, then, to be:
(26)

3.1.4

targetV

de bistandard

Adv

The “transitive” comparative

Finally, there is another peculiar type of comparative construction in Mandarin which I call the“transitive” comparative.4 I introduce it here, even though it does not employ the morpheme bi,
because it has properties similar to the bi comparatives. Consider the the transitive comparativesin (27–30).
(27)

约翰

高

玛丽 十公分。

Yaohan gao Mali shi-gongfen
Johntall Mary ten-centimeters“John is ten centimeters taller than Mary.”
(28)

约翰

高

玛丽 一头。

Yaohan gao Mali yi-tou
Johntall Mary one-head“John is a head taller than Mary.”
(29)

* 约翰
高 玛丽。
Yaohan gao MaliJohn
tall Mary

(30)

我 高

他 五

分。

wo gao ta wu fen
1sg high 3sg five CLpoints‘I was five points higher than him (on a test).’In this comparative, we observe a basic word order of:(31)

targetgradable adjective

standard

differential measure

We note that the differential measure in this construction is obligatory. The position of the adjective
here surfaces before the standard, giving us the surface appearance of a transitive predicate—hence
4
Xiang (2005) calls this type of comparative the “bare” comparative, indicating the lack of bi. Such instances arecalled “adjectives with noncognate objects” by Chao (1968, p. 690) who explains them as cases where “the same verb
[adjective] is sometimes transitive and sometimes intransitive.” I personally will refer to these as “transitive comparatives,” based on their word order, and to avoid the confusion with the class of bare adverbials used to introduce animplicit comparison, e.g., 他 高 ta gao, literally “he tall,” but meaning “he is taller” in the proper context (see §3.3 below).

13

the “transitive” descriptive designation. Note also the fact that this comparative of superiority does
not have corresponding equality or weak superiority forms such as the bi family of comparatives.
The construction can be negated, but still requires the differential.
(32)

约翰

不

高

玛丽 十公分。

Yaohan bu gao Mali shi-gongfen
John
Neg tall Mary ten-centimeters“John is not ten centimeters taller than Mary.”
(33)

* 约翰
不 高 玛丽。
Yaohan bu gao MaliJohn
Neg tall MaryNot surprisingly, this construction requires that the gradable adjective be measurable, meaning a
differential degree can be established. For example, predicates such as “red” hong are not measurable and thus cannot be used in this transitive configuration.

3.2 A look at the issues
So far we have familiarized ourselves with basic Mandarin comparative data and identified four
descriptive types of comparatives that will define our inquiry. We now move on to more puzzlingcomparative data that give us a taste of the personality of the Mandarin comparative. After exploring some such phenomena, I will lay out a number of relevant research questions which I aim
to attack.

3.2.1

Phrasal and clausal standards

One of the crucial points of analysis here is the structural distinction between phrasal and clausal
standards—a decision complicated by some puzzling data that distinguish the Mandarin phrasal/ clausal contrasts from those in English. For example, if we assume the phrasal comparative tohave been derived from a clausal comparative, we may expect to be able to embed the standard ina clause, as we can in English clausal comparatives.
(34)

(35)

a.

John rides faster than [ Mary does ride ].

b.

John rides faster than [ I think [ Mary does ride ] ].

a.

约翰

比 [ 玛丽 騎 ] 騎Yaohan bi Mali
bi MaryJohn

得 快。

qi de kuairide DE fast

“John rides faster than Mary.”

14

b.

* 约翰
比 [我 认为
玛丽 騎] 騎 得 快。
Yaohan bi wo renwei Mali
qi de kuaiJohnbi 1sg think Maryride DE fast

While a simple explanation would be that phrasal comparatives are not underlyingly clausal, we
note that this type of embedding is disallowed in the clausal comparative as well!
(36)

John rides horses faster than I think Mary rides cows.

(37)

* 约翰
騎 馬
比 我 认为
玛丽 騎 牛 騎 得 快。
Yaohan qi ma bi wo zhidao Mali qi niu qi de kuaiJohnride horse bi 1sg think Mary ride cow ride DE fast
intended: “John rides horses faster than I think Mary rides cows.”

In addition, Mandarin does not allow comparative subdeletion:(38)

My chair is taller than your table is wide.

(39)

*我 的
椅子 比 你 的桌子宽高。
wo de yizi bi ni de zhuozi kuang gao
1sg GEN chair bi 2sg GEN table wide tall
intended: “My chair is taller than your table is wide.”

What is the underlying structure of the Mandarin phrasal and clausal comparatives, and how does
it explain the contrasts between English and Mandarin clausal comparatives, in particular the lackof embedded standards and comparative subdeletion in Mandarin?

3.2.2

The syntactic status of bi

Following the analysis of English “than,” it may be tempting to assume bi to be a preposition
or complementizer. Indeed, bi is often glossed as a preposition in dictionaries and descriptive
grammars. However, a prepositional adjunct would, for example, dictate the position of negation
below it.
(40)

a.

约翰

对

玛丽 不

球。

丢

Mali bu diu qiu
Yaohan dui
toward Mary Neg throw ballJohn
“John didn’t throw Mary a ball”
b.

球。
玛丽 丢
不 对
* 约翰
Mali diu qiu
Yaohan bu dui
Neg toward Mary throw ballJohn

From (41), however, we see clearly that negation in the bi comparative surfaces above bi.
15

(41)

a.

我 不

比 他 高。

wo bu bi ta gao
1sg Neg bi 3sg tall
“I am not taller than him.”b.

* 我 比 他 不 高。
wo bi ta bu gao
1sg bi 3sg Neg tall

Mandarin also has a unique form of yes-no questions involving negation, referred to as A-Not-A
questions (Li and Thompson, 1981). In this construction, a verb in the sentence is followed by its
negated form. This construction also applies to adjectives as well.
(42)

a.

约翰

喜欢

不

喜欢

玛丽。

Yaohan xihuan bu xihuan Mali
John
like
Neg like
Mary“Does John like Mary?”
b.

约翰

高

不

高。

Yaohan gao bu gao
Johntall Neg tall
“Is John tall?”When constructing an A-Not-A question of a bi comparative, bi is the element that is reduplicated,rather than the predicate.
(43)

a.

你 高

不

高。

ni gao bu gao
2sg tall Neg tall“Are you tall?”
b.

你 比不

比 他 高。

ni bi bu bi ta gao
2sg bi Neg bi 3sg tall“Are you taller than him?”c.

* 你 比 他 高 不 高。
ni bi ta gao bu gao
2sg bi 3sg tall Neg tall

We see from these examples that bi can exhibit some verb-like behavior. What, then, is the statusof bi, and what is its syntactic relationship to the standard?

16

3.2.3Comparison over objects

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Mandarin comparative, however, is the phrasal comparative’s inability to compare directly over object positions. Consider, for example, the ambiguous
English sentence “John likes Mary more than Tom.” The subject may be the target of comparison,yielding the reading “John like Mary more than Tom does,” or the object “Mary” may be the target:“John like Mary more than he likes Tom.” Now consider the Mandarin equivalent in (44).
(44)

约翰

比 汤姆

喜欢

玛丽。

Yaohan bi Tangmu xihuan MaliJohn bi Tom like Mary“John like Mary more than Tom does.”* “John like Mary more than he likes Tom.”
(45)

a.

* 约翰
喜欢
比 汤姆
玛丽。
Yaohan xihuan bi Tangmu Mali
John
like
bi Tom
Mary

b.

* 约翰
喜欢
玛丽 比 汤姆。
Yaohan xihuan Mali bi Tangmu
John
like
Mary bi Tom

Notice that (44) is unambiguous, and can only have the subject-targeted reading. The other objecttargeted reading cannot be constructed as a phrasal comparative, even by moving bi and the standard. Instead, to compare over object position, we must use a clausal comparative, such as in
(46).
(46)

[ 约翰

喜欢

玛丽 ] 比 [ 约翰

喜欢

汤姆

] 喜欢

得 多。

Yaohan xihuan Mali bi Yaohan xihuan Tangmu xihuan de duo
John
like
Mary bi John
like
Tom
like
DE more“John likes Mary more than he likes Tom.”
Recall that the phrasal comparative can take a range of adverbs and adjuncts as its target andstandard, e.g., (21, 22). The basic descriptive fact here, then, is that the phrasal comparative cannot
take an object position as its target or standard. I will refer to this fact as the Internal Argument
Prohibition.

3.2.4

Questions

As we have begun to see, Mandarin bi comparatives have a number of interesting properties which
distinguish them from the English comparative. Here then are four relevant questions of analysis,
most of which I intend to answer with my proposal in chapter 5.
17

(47)

Q1. The Phrasal / Clausal Problem:
Are Mandarin “phrasal” comparatives truly phrasal, or underlyingly clausal?

(48)

Q2. The Individual / Degree Problem:
Are Mandarin comparatives individual or degree comparatives in the sense of Kennedy(2007)? Are degree arguments necessary in the semantics?

(49)

Q3. The Structure of the Comparative:
What is bi syntactically and what is its relationship to the standard and predicate of comparison?

(50)

Q4. The Internal Argument Prohibition:
Why can we not compare directly over object positions?

(51)

Q5. The Adverbial and Transitive Comparatives Problem:
What are the syntactic and semantic structures of the adverbial and transitive comparatives, and how do they relate to the phrasal and clausal?

3.3 Aside: bi-comparatives as explicit comparison
Before we move to consideration of the syntactic and semantic structure of the Mandarin comparative, we must identify the semantics of the bi comparative as employing one of two strategies.
Kennedy (2007) broadly identifies two different possible strategies that a language can use to makecomparisons. Following Sapir (1944), he calls these options implicit comparison and explicit comparison, defined as follows.5(52)

Kennedy (2007):a.

Implicit comparison:
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property
g using the positive form by manipulating the context or delineation function insuch a way that the positive form is true of x and false of y.

b.

Explicit comparison:
Establish an ordering between objects x and y with respect to gradable property gusing special morphology whose conventional meaning has the consequence thatthe degree to which x is g exceeds the degree to which y is g.

We see examples of implicit comparison in English, in addition to the explicit comparison involving the comparative morpheme “-er”. Consider (53).
5Perhaps also following Sapir (1944), Chao (1968, p. 680) also uses the terms “implicit” and “explicit” comparison,referring approximately to the same distinction drawn here. However, as Chao does not mention what I call the transitive comparative, it is hard to know if his criteria for “explicitness” was specifically the use of the bi morpheme or the
explicit occurrence of the standard.

18

(53)

Compared to Verne Troyer, I am tall.

In this example, we note the use of the positive form of tall without the overt comparative morpheme “-er.” We note that this sentence could be true even if I were not tall out of context.6 In
this sense, we are using the positive form but manipulating the context to adjust what constitutes“being tall.”Kennedy (2007) lays out a number of diagnostics for identifying implicit versus explicit comparatives. The first is that of crisp judgments.

Crisp judgments
The idea here is that, by adjusting the standards of what constitutes “being long,” for example, theimplicit comparison is only true if there is a significant and discernible degree between the target
and standard. In contrast, in the explicit comparison we are positing an ordering relation between
the degrees of longness, for example, we may yield crisp judgments even when the degrees arequite close. We consider the examples from (Kennedy, 2005a, p. 11) and consider their Mandarinequivalents. Note that for the equivalents of the English explicit comparative, we will test both thecorresponding Mandarin phrasal comparative and transitive comparative. In addition, we use thephrase bi-qilai 比起来 as the equivalent of “comparing...”(54)

Context: A 600 word essay and a 200 word essay.
a.

This essay is longer than that one.

b.

这片

文章

比 那片

文章

长。

Zhei-pian wenzhang bi nei-pian wenzhang chang
This-CL essay
bi that-CL essay
long“This essay is longer than that one.”
c.

这片

文章

长

那片

文章

四百

个 字。

Zhei-pian wenzhang chang nei-pian wenzhang sibaige ziThis-CL essaychang that-CL essay
four-hundred CL words“This essay is four hundred words longer than that one.”d.

Compared to that essay, this one is long.

e.

这片

文章

跟

文章

那片

比起来，

这片

zhei-pianZhei-pian wenzheng gen nei-pian wenzhang bi-qilai,
compare-PRT, this-CL
with that-CL essay
This-CL essay
文章长。

wenzhang chang
long
essay
“Comparing this essay and that essay, this one is long.”
6

While I am indeed not tall out of context (at least in the United States), Verne Troyer is only 2 feet 7 inches tall,making (53) felicitous.

19

(55)

Context: A 600 word essay and a 590 word essay.
a.

This essay is longer than that one.

b.

这片

文章

比 那片

文章

长。

Zhei-pian wenzhang bi nei-pian wenzhang chang
This-CL essay
bi that-CL essay
long“This essay is longer than that one.”
c.

这片

文章

长

那片

文章

十 个 字。

Zhei-pian wenzhang chang nei-pian wenzhang shi ge zi
This-CL essaychang that-CL essay
ten CL words“This essay is ten words longer than that one.”d. ?? Compared to that essay, this one is long.
e. ?? 这片
文章
跟
那片
文章
比起来，
这个
文章
Zhei-pian wenzheng gen nei-pian wenzhang bi-qilai,zhei-ge wenzhangThis-CL essay
with that-CL essay
compare-PRT, this-CL essay
长。

chang
long
“Comparing this essay and that essay, this one is long.”
Indeed, we observe the same contrast between the 600-200 and 600-590 cases across both English
and Mandarin. That is, the bi comparative yields crisp judgments while the bi-qilai construction
does not.

Absolute gradable adjectives
Absolute gradable adjectives are those whose denotations are clearly true or false, regardless ofcontext, yet are still gradable and thus comparable (e.g., “wet,” “open,” “bent,” etc.). As the positive forms are computed without reference to a context-dependent standard, we would expect
implicit comparison to be unavailable, as it involves a shifting of the implicit standard. Indeed,
we see this to be the case. (English results are again from Kennedy (2005a, 2007).)(56)

Context:
Rod A:a.

B is more bent than A.

b.

这根

棍子

比 那根

Rod B:棍子弯。

Zhei-gen gun.zi bi nei-gen gun.zi wan
This-CL rod bi that-CL rod bent“This rod is more bent than that rod.”

20

c.

? 这根
棍子 弯 那根棍子 一 点。
Zhei-gen gun.zi wan nei-gen gun.zi yi dianThis-CL rod bent that-CL rod one point“This rod is a bit more bent than that rod.”d. ?? Compared to A, B is bent.
e. ?? 这根棍子 根那根
棍子 比起来，这根棍子 弯。
Zhei-gen gun.zi gen nei-gen gun.zi bi-qilai,zhei-gen gun.zi wan
This-CL rod with that-CL rod compare-PRT, this-CL rod bent“This rod is a bit more bent than that rod.”

Differential measurements
Consider the optional differential degree, such as “ten centimeters taller.” In an explicit comparative, such an explicit measure would correspond to a differential, while in an implicit form, it may
be confused with an absolute degree. (English results again from Kennedy (2005a, 2007).)
(57)

a.

John is 10cm taller than Mary.

b.

约翰比 玛丽 高

十 公分。

Yaohan bi Mali gao shi gongfen
Johnbi Mary tall ten centimeters“John is 10cm taller than Mary.”c.

John is 10cm taller than Mary.

d.

约翰

高

玛丽 十 公分。

Yaohan gao Mali shi gongfen
Johntall Mary ten centimeters“John is 10cm taller than Mary.”e. ?? Compared to Mary, John is 10cm tall.
f.

约翰

比

玛丽 比起来，

约翰

高

十 公分。

Yaohan gen Mali bi-qilai,
Yaohan gao shi gongfen
Johnwith Mary compare-PRT, John
tall ten centimeters?? “John is 10cm taller than Mary.”“Comparing John and Mary, John is 10cm tall.”Summary: explicit comparison in Mandarin
While Mandarin does not exhibit a telltale marker such as the English “-er” or “more” morepheme,
we can see from these tests that the Mandarin bi and transitive comparatives are instances of explicit comparison. Mandarin also has a form of implicit comparison, using the expression 比起来bi-qilai. The fact that the bi and transitive forms are explicit comparison, in the sense of Kennedy21

(2007), is an important preliminary in considering the proper semantic representation for thesestructures. In the next section, I will introduce my proposal for these explicit Mandarin comparative constructions.

22

Chapter 4

Previous accounts
To the end of positing an explanatory analysis of the Mandarin bi comparative, we must review
previous analyses in the literature. While the systematic generative treatment of the comparativein Chinese begins with the Transformational account of Fu (1978), we will here review the work of
two more recent scholars: Liu (1996) and Xiang (2003, 2005) (see Chung 2006 and references there
for other recent works on the subject). Along the way, we will see what answers these analyses
offer in response to the pertinent questions (47–50) outlined above.

4.1 Liu (1996)
Couched in terms of the wider antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) literature, Liu (1996) aims to
examine the Mandarin comparative as an instance of ACD and see what implications it will havefor possible solutions to ACD. We will focus here on his arguments for the clausal analysis of the
Mandarin phrasal comparative and his particular syntactic analysis.
Liu first sets out to answer two structural questions: first, does the Mandarin comparative construction involve coordination and, second, does it contain a gap inside? His answers are no andyes. His arguments against the coordination view comes from binding facts and from the positionof the temporal adverb yizhi “always.” For example, in (58), we note that the adverb yizhi can only
come before bi, but not after the standard. It had been argued that yizhi must be T-licensed (Travis,
1988), forcing bi to be inside TP. (Examples from Liu, 1996, p. 221)
(58)

郭靖

✓ 一致

比 黄蓉

高兴。

*一致

Guojing ✓ yizhi bi Huangrong *yizhi gaoxing
Guojing ✓ always bi Huangrong *always happy“Guojing is always happier than Huangrong is.”

23

(59)

郭靖

很

快地

比 黄蓉

多

喝了

三

杯

水。

Guojing hen kuaide bi Huangrong duo he-lesan bei shui
Guojing very quickly bi Huangrong more drink-Asp three cup water“Guojing quickly drank three more cups of water than Huangrong did.”1
In addition, he notes that VP-adverbs such as kuaide can occur before bi (see 59). Thus his conclusion
is that bi and the standard must occur inside the VP, and that bi cannot be a coordinator. He thenoffers a basic syntactic configuration that posits bi and the standard as constituting a prepositional
phrase, together an adjunct to the gradable predicate: [AP [PP biP standard ] AP ]. He gives noevidence for bi being a preposition,2 though he does offer one piece of evidence for bi and thestandard being a constituent, based on coordination (60).
(60)

張三

比 李四 或者

比 王五高。

Zhangsan bi Lisi huozhe bi Wangwu gao
Zhangsan bi Lisi or
bi Wangwu tall
“Zhangsan is taller than Lisi or Wangwu.”
He next gives two arguments for the clausal analysis of the comparatives. First, Liu offers thefollowing datum: (Liu, 1996, p. 222)
(61)

郭靖

今天

比 黄蓉

昨天

高兴。

Guojing jintian [PP bi Huangrong zuotian ] gaoxing
Guojing today
bi Huangrong yesterday happy“Guojing is happier today than Huangrong was yesterday.”
Ignoring for the moment his assumed constituency of bi Huangrong zuotian, we note the interesting
standard in this example. Indeed, we are comparing happiness across two “dimensions,” comparing two situations contrasting in both experiencer and time. Liu argues that this is best explainedwith an underlyingly clausal standard. I will offer an alternative analysis of this sentence later in§5.4.2.
(62)

郭靖

今天

Guojing jintian
Guojing today[PP 比 [CP 黄蓉

bi
bi

昨天

高兴 ] ]高兴。

Huangrong zuotian gaoxing gaoxing
Huangrong yesterday happy happy“Guojing is happier today than Huangrong was yesterday.”His second argument is from the existence of surface-clausal comparatives. In these examples,clearly the standard is clausal, but he implicitly assumes that they have the same underlying
1

This is actually a case of a duo-comparative, which has a markedly different semantics. The predicates of comparisonin these constructions are crucially not gradable (see Li, 2007).
2
except to note that he is following Lü (1980), a Chinese reference dictionary/grammar. Lü (1980) indeed glosses therelevant instances of bi as 介词 “preposition” but does not give any justification for it.

24

structure as the surface-phrasal comparative. Consider his example reconstruction (64) (Liu, 1996,
p. 223):
(63)

郭靖

骑

马

骑得

好。

Guojing qi
ma qi-dehao
Guojing ride1 horse ride2 -DE good
“Guojing rides horses well.”
(64)

* 郭靖
骑 马
骑得
好。
[PP 比 [CP 黄蓉赶羊骑得好 ] ]
Guojing qi ma
qi-de haobi
Huangrong gan yang qi-de hao
Guojing ride horsebiHuangrong tend sheep ride-DE well ride-DE well

Liu follows Huang’s influential (1988) analysis of the descriptive complement construction (e.g.,63), which posits the first verb ride1 as the true main verb, with ride2 being the reduplicated form.
As it is a reduplication, the phonological value should be the same, as we see in (63). However,we see that the verbs in the descriptive complement construction yielded by reconstruction in
the clausal standard in (64) do not match. As there is no way this underlying clause can surface
independent of the comparative, (64) is ungrammatical.
In terms of the details of the clause-internal deletion, he notes that the standard does not and cannot
include the dummy auxiliary shi (cf. English do) and offers that the deletion in the standard is a caseof I-ellipsis. He notes that, without a local I node, the subject of the standard clause (the phrasal
standard) would not pass the Case Filter—that is, Huangrong would have no Case assigner in (62).
He solves this by letting bi exceptionally case mark the standard across the clausal boundary.
(65)

Guojing jintian [PP bi [CP Huangrong zuotian gaoxing ] ] gaoxing(66)

Guojing jintian [PP bi [CP Guofu renwei (“think”) [CP Huangrong zuotian gaoxing ] ] ]gaoxing

This also explains, he argues, why we do not yield embedded clausal standards: while bi exceptionally case-marks Huangrong in (65), bi is too far away from the embedded subject to check its
case in (66), explaining its ungrammaticality. Liu’s solution to recover the elided value is similar
to the QR solution to other antecedent-contained deletion problems (see Larson, 1987; May, 1985).

4.2 Xiang (2003, 2005)
Ming Xiang argues against the clausal analysis of phrasal comparatives in Xiang (2003) and then
expands on this work in Xiang (2005), exploring a number of semantic facts related to the comparative and proposing a syntax/semantics for the adjectival phrasal comparative.
Xiang (2003) has two goals: first, to argue against the clausal analysis of phrasal comparatives,in particular Liu’s (1996) analysis; and second, to offer an implementation of the phrasal analysis
25

involving A to V movement. As Xiang (2005) argues more systematically for a revised syntactic
proposal, I will not entertain her structure from 2003. For example, Xiang (2003) adopts Liu’s
hypothesis that (a) bi and the standard constitute a phrase and (b) the “bi-phrase” is an adjunct tothe verb phrase, both of which is not assumed in Xiang (2005).
Xiang first notes that Liu’s ECM explanation to the Case Filter issue is inadequate. She then shows
evidence that there is no comparative subdeletion in Mandarin, a difficult fact to explain given aclausal account of the phrasal comparative. In her words, “One stipulation is that Chinese comparatives can host an elided CP, but not a full CP. However, it is surprising that a marked construction
like ellipsis would be preferred over an unmarked one like a normal clause, and there is no natural
explanation for this.” (Xiang, 2003, p. 5)3
Xiang next examines the interaction of the distributor dou in the comparative construction. Notethat the Mandarin distributor must be licensed by a plural or distributable noun before it, which
can be a theme, subject, or what she views as a VP-adjunct (see Lin, 1998).
(67)

Xiang (2005, pp. 5–6):
a.

每个

人

都

在 家。

Mei-ge rendou zai jia
every-CL person dou at home“Everyone is (all) at home.”
b.

张三

给 每个

人

都

买了

礼物。

Zhangsan gei mei-ge ren
dou mai-le liwu
Zhangsan for every-CL person dou buy-Asp present“Zhangsan bought a present for everyone.”
She then considers the possible positions of dou in the comparative construction:(68)

Xiang (2005, pp. 6–7):
a.

每个

男孩子

都

比 每个

女

孩子 高。

Mei-ge nanhaizi dou bi mei-ge nuhaizi gao
Every-CL boy
dou bi every-CL girltall“Every boy is taller than every girl.”
b.

� 高。
人
比 每个
dou gao
Zhangsan bi mei-ge ren
Zhangsan bi every-CL person dou tall张三

“Zhangsan is taller than everyone.”
c.

张三

比 每个

人

高。

gao
Zhangsan bi mei-ge ren
Zhangsan bi every-CL person tall
3

Xiang also notes that “Chinese comparatives don’t license a clause in the comparative site at all, no matter whether
it is an elided CP, or a full CP” (Xiang, 2003, p. 5), which is patently false, given the availability (though restricted) ofclausal comparatives as outlined in §3.1.2.

26

“Zhangsan is taller than everyone.”27

We note that, in addition to the pre-bi position of (68a), dou can also surface after bi and the standard, as in (68b). Xiang explains the fact that it may surface in that position as analogous to (67b),where mei-ge-ren is clearly not in a clause. She takes this to be evidence that the proper analysis of
the phrasal standard is without an underlying clause boundary.4
Next let us examine her dissertation, Xiang (2005). While many of the semantic facts she introduces—such as the interaction of quantifiers and NPI in comparative contexts—are quite interesting, here
we will focus more on the arguments she uses to motivate her comparative syntax, introduced inchapter 5.
Xiang first uses primarily English data to argue that the definiteness effect—that DP’s in attributive comparatives must be indefinite (cf. George owns a faster car than Bill (does), *George owns
the faster car than Bill (does), see Lerner and Pinkal (1995))—can only be accounted for with aquantificational degree argument and type in our semantics, contrary to the scope reasoning ofKennedy (1999). We note at this point that this claim is substantiated solely on English data andonly with attributive comparatives, which Mandarin does not have.5 Nevertheless, Xiang sets out
to identify a syntax-semantics compatible with a degree argument and yielding the proper word
order, which she argues requires a DegP-like structure as in Kennedy (1999).
The proposal she adopts in the end is chosen based on its similarity to the familiar vP-shell structure
Larson (1988) proposes for the double object construction. This is motivated by her observationthat the standard must asymmetrically c-command the predicate of comparison and its differential
degree argument:6
(69)

这根

绳子

比 那根

绳子

长

一半。

Zhe-gen shengzi bi na-gen shengzi chang yiban
This-CL ropebi that-CL rope
long half“This ropei is longer than that ropej by a half (of that rope∗i/j )”Xiang bases her syntax on Larson’s (1991) DegP-shell structure, which was originally motivatedbased on the similarity to the DP structure in attributive comparatives (with configuration seen in
70).
4

The observant reader will notice that the sentence with the strong quantifier mei but without any dou is also available(68c), and still has the distributive meaning. Xiang does not address this issue, even in Xiang (2005) and, as I will not
focus on the proper analysis of dou, I leave the issue open.
5
Cases which may look like attributive comparison exhibit 的 de, and thus may be analyzed as relative clauses, though
it has been argued that Mandarin has attributive adjectives which cannot be analyzed as relative clauses (see Paul, 2005).
6
The careful reader may note that, as there is no reflexive such as ziji in this structure, it may not be clear that therelationship between ropej and the implied argument of half must be binding, and thus c-commanding. We will latersee similar examples with an explicit reflexive in chapter 5.

28

Deg1 P
Deg1

Deg2 P

-eri

AP

(70)

Deg2

predicate

PP

Deg2
-eri

P

standard

than

She makes an adjustment to yield the correct word order in Mandarin, and constitutes her proposal, expressed in (71). Note here that she posits a phonologically null comparative morpheme,
exceed, which is separate from bi. Her structure has the advantage, she argues, of also generating
the transitive comparative by head-movement of the exceed+ predicate from A to Deg1 position inlieu of bi (see 72).
Deg1 P
Deg1

AP

bi
standard j

(71)

A

A
exceedk + predicate

Deg2 P
Deg2

standard j
Deg2
exceedk29!

differential"

Deg1 P

Deg1
exceedk + predicate iAPAstandard j(72)
A

Deg2 P

exceedk + predicate i

Deg2

standard j
Deg2
exceedk!

differential"

While this yields the correct word order for the transitive comparative, we recall that an important feature of the transitive comparative is the fact that the differential degree was obligatory.
Xiang unfortunately gives no explanation of this alternation, only mentioning the optionality ofthe differential in the bi comparative: “this is not surprising because of the idiosyncratic nature of
the argument structure. It is known that not all of the arguments have to be explicitly expressed”(Xiang, 2005, p. 193).
In the final leg of her dissertation, she goes against both Liu (1996) and Xiang (2003) by examiningsome evidence against the view of bi and the standard forming a PP adjunct. In particular, she
explains away Liu’s coordination evidence (60) as an instance of ellipsis inside VP-coordination,
or ATB movement. She also notes that many adverbs are seen freely before or after bi and thestandard, but that this does not necessarily mean bi and the standard form an adjunct. Finally, sherefers back to her previous binding evidence.
It is interesting that, given a DegP-shell analysis was chosen based on its syntactic properties
shared with the vP-shell, she did not consider the comparative’s projection to be verbal rather
than a DegP structure. In fact, she even mentions that “instead of being a preposition, bi behaves
more like a verb,” (Xiang, 2005, p. 194) and “according to these arguments, I will assume that bi isa verb, not a preposition.” (Xiang, 2005, p. 196) The only argument she cites here, however, comesfrom historical evidence that the morpheme/grapheme bi (比) is also a verb meaning “compare”—
evidence which we previously discarded.
Xiang’s intuition that there are similarities between the vP-shell of Larson’s and the structure of the
Mandarin comparative is a striking one and I argue, ultimately, not accidental. Xiang only focuseson adverbial comparatives, but this similarity is even more striking when the exploration includes
verbal predicates of comparison—much of the evidence for my proposal, in fact, draws from such30

observations. In the next chapter I will introduce my proposal and evidence to support it.

31

Chapter 5

A new syntax / semantics of comparison
5.1 My proposal
The Mandarin comparative has a number of unique properties that distinguish it from English
and other languages’ comparatives. In this section I will introduce my own unique proposal of the
Mandarin comparative. My proposal is comprised of two core ideas: a verbal syntax and a novel
neo-Davidsonian eventuality-semantics of comparison.
Syntactically, I argue that bi is a verbal functional head—part of the extended projection of VP—
with category v. bi subcategorizes for a voice v which, in turn, has subcategorized for the predicate
of comparison (we call this here a VP, encompassing both adjectival and verbal predicates). We
yield the observed word order through head movement of bi out of vP (Paul, 2000, cf. Huang, 1994).
S(73)
targetbi

vPv

standard
v
bi

v
v

VP

voice

predicate ofcomparison

Following the neo-Davidsonian semantics of voice first characterized in Kratzer (1996), we intro-

32

duce a voice v node which introduces an eventuality variable ϵ.1 We will see arguments for thisvoice projection below bi when we look at evidence from passivization in §5.2.5.
For example, consider the simple phrasal comparative sentence (74). Our active voice node would
have semantics as in (75), and merge with the predicate of comparison via Event Identification(Kratzer, 1996).
(74)

约翰

比 玛丽 喜欢汤姆。

Yaohan bi Mali xihuan Tangmu
Johnbi Mary likeTom
“John likes Tom more than Mary does.”(75)[[voiceactive,experiencer ]] = λxλϵ.Exp(x, ϵ)(76)v
λxλs.like(TOM, s) ∧ Exp( x, s)vvoiceactive,experiencer
λxλ".Exp( x, ")VP
λs.like(TOM, s)xihuanλxλs.like( x, s)TangmuTOM

The semantics of bi has a three functions: it uses two eventuality variables ϵ1 and ϵ2 and establishes
two external arguments (to be selected) as their external arguments, respectively; it existentiallybinds the standard’s eventuality ϵ2 ; and, finally, it establishes the comparative semantics of ϵ1
being greater than ϵ2 along a scale established by the predicate. To introduce the comparative
itself, I will adopt Kennedy’s (1999) conclusion against the use of explicit degree variables, rejecting
Xiang’s (2005) arguments to the contrary, which were based only on the attributive comparative—a type of comparative Mandarin lacks. Instead, I introduce a proposition of the form ϵ1 ≫ ϵ2 . In
the same way that eventualities may be ordered in time, ≫ defines an intensity ordering.2(77)[[bi]] = λG⟨e,⟨ϵ,t⟩⟩ λyλxλϵ1 .∃ϵ2 (G(x, ϵ1 ) ∧ G(y, ϵ2 ) ∧ ϵ1 ≫ ϵ2 )After this product is merged with our standard and target and the target eventuality ϵ1 is existentially closed by Tense, we yield an interpretable expression:
1
Recall that aspect is not incompatible with the Mandarin comparative, so we should not limit our model here tostates. Here I will use the metavariable ϵ to represent both events and states (s), as appropriate. Luckily, I need not referto a semantic type which has an eventuality argument in it that must be an event and not a state, which could causesome confusion. The elements referred to by semantic type e, then, are the individuals De .
2
An ordering of intensity must have an appropriately intense binary relation: hence, ≫. On a more serious note,though, the ≫ ordering violates trichotomy. For example, if ϵ1 represents a liking eventuality, while ϵ2 represents arunning eventuality, ϵ1 and ϵ2 are not comparable. For two eventualities to be ≫-comparable (or commensurable), theymust be the same type of eventuality.

33

(78)

[[(74)]] = ∃s1 ∃s2 (like(TOM, s1 ) ∧ Exp(JOHN, s1 ) ∧ like(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫
s2 )

(79)

S
∃s1 ∃s2 (like(TOM, s1 ) ∧ Exp(JOHN, s1 )∧like(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Tnonpast
λP#",t$ ∃"P

λs1 .∃s2 (like(TOM, s1 ) ∧ Exp(JOHN, s1 )∧like(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )
DP
John
JOHN

λxλs1 .∃s2 (like(TOM, s1 ) ∧ Exp( x, s1 )∧like(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )
DP
Mali
MARY

v
λyλxλs1 .∃s2 (like(TOM, s1 ) ∧ Exp( x, s1 )∧like(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(y, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )vv
λxλs.like(TOM, s) ∧ Exp( x, s)bi
λG#e,#",t$$ λyλxλ"1 .∃"2
( G ( x, "1 ) ∧ G (y, "2 ) ∧ "1 ≫ "2 )predicate ofcomparison

This semantics has a number of interesting advantages. For one, the v position of bi and its neoDavidsonian semantics clearly explain why we can only compare over subject position (the external argument). For example, suppose we intend to construct a Mandarin sentence equivalent
to the phrasal reading of (80) (equivalent in sense to (81)) using a phrasal comparative with thesemantics explored above.
(80)

Johni likes Tom more than Mary.

(81)

Johni likes Tom more than hei likes Mary.

As bi subcategorizes for a voice v node, which in turn contains the predicate of comparison, wemust first identify our predicate of comparison. Note that the predicate is a VP with semantic
type ⟨ϵ, t⟩. At this point we have already run into a problem. When constructing the predicate
of comparison, we will have to introduce the internal argument of xihuan “like”: the object ofliking. Due to the semantic type of the VP, it is impossible to let this argument be a free variable,bound later by an argument of bi. In this way, a phrasal derivation (as above) of comparison overan object position is impossible. Crucially, topic and subject positions can be compared over as,
34

under a neo-Davidsonian semantics, the external argument is a semantic argument of voice, notof the verb. This simple explanation derives the Internal Argument Prohibition.
In addition, the eventuality-semantics we posit has advantages as we consider the clausal comparative in §5.3. The intuition here is that the Mandarin clausal comparative is also an instance of individual comparison rather than degree comparison, operating with proposition-taking predicatesof comparison. Before considering the clausal proposal, though, we will motivate the syntactic
configuration proposed above.

5.2 Evidence of a verbal syntax
In this section we will examine evidence for our vP-shell structure of the comparative. We recall
that in the phrasal and clausal comparatives, bi and the standard surface after the target and immediately before the predicate of comparison. We see here from the contrast in (82) that adverbs
after the standard, for example, are interpreted as part of the predicate of comparison.
(82)

a.

约翰

今天

比 玛丽 高興。

Yaohan jintian bi Mali gaoxingJohn
today bi Mary happy“John is happier today than Mali is (always).”b.

约翰比 玛丽 今天高興。

Yaohan bi Mali jintian gaoxingJohnbi Mary today happy“John is happier today than Mali is today.”A crucial question for any analysis of bi is the relationship between bi and the standard. Basedsolely on surface word-order facts, we hypothesize the following three configurations as possible
syntactic structures for the phrasal and clausal comparatives.3,43These constituencies will only represent one level of analysis or derivation. We assume here that the target ccommands the standard, as the reflexive ziji in the standard can refer to the target. We also assume binary branching.
4
The coordination hypothesis here is quite interesting, though not worth serious consideration. Here, [target bi
standard] would be analyzed as a constituent, akin to the complex quantification of Keenan and Stavi (1986). Analyzing
bi as coordination trivializes the issue of the target and standard matching in category and, indeed, this approach istaken by Hong (1991) in the GPSG framework (see discussion in Chung, 2006). However, we recall Liu’s (1996) binding
evidence against bi as a coordinator, and also note that Mandarin lacks the type of complex quantifiers examined by
Keenan and Stavi. In addition, various syntactic evidence to follow will clearly lead us to another hypothesis.

35

adjunction

coordination

S

predication
S

S
XP

targetYPbitargetDPXPstandard

predicatetargetbiXPpredicatebistandard

standardXP
predicate

Our first test will be to see if we can establish the constituency of bi and the predicate.

5.2.1

The bi and the standard

We note that the standard cannot be dislocated with or without stranding bi, nor can it appear after
the predicate of comparison.5 Note also that nothing else (such as a temporal adverb) can comebetween bi and the standard.
(83)

(84)

a.

* 玛丽, 约翰比 高。
Mali, Yaohan bi gao
Mary, Johnbi tallb.

* 比 玛丽, 约翰高。
bi Mali, Yaohan gao
bi Mary, John
tall

* 约翰
比 今天 玛丽 高。
Yaohan bi jintian Mali gaoJohnbi today Mary tall

We see from these examples that the case for the constituency of bi and the standard is quite weak.
We will give an alternate analysis of Liu’s (1996) evidence to the contrary in §5.4.2.

5.2.2

Evidence from negation

Negation normally surfaces right before the verb phrase (or adjective phrase) in Mandarin without
any additional auxiliary element (cf. English do). Based on data of known adjuncts such as dui“towards” (see 85), if bi were in an adjunct position, we may expect negation to surface immediately
5
The standard can be preposed without bi by using a resumptive pronoun. We note, however, that this would be ahanging topic rather than a left dislocation (see Badan and Del Gobbo, 2006).

(1)

玛丽i ,

约翰

比 他i 高。

Malii , Yaohan bi tai gao
Maryi , Johnbi 3sgi tall
“Maryi , John is taller than heri .”36

before the predicate of comparison. The position of negation in Mandarin phrasal and clausal
comparatives, however, is crucially before bi.
(85)

约翰

*不

玛丽 ✓ 不对丢球。

Yaohan *bu dui
Mali ✓ bu diu qiu
John*Neg toward Mary ✓ Neg throw ball“John does not throw balls toward Mary.”

(86)

我 ✓不

比 他 *不高。

wo ✓ bu bi ta *bu gao
1sg ✓ Neg bi 3sg *Neg tall
“I am not taller than him.”

In fact, we note that in this regard bi mimics gei in the ditransitive construction. This acts as evidence against the adjunct and coordination analyses, and lends support for bi as a verbal category.
(87)

约翰

✓不

给

玛丽 *不

送

信。

Yaohan ✓ bu gei Mali *bu song xin✓ Neg give Mary *Neg send letter
John‘John doesn’t send Mary letters’

5.2.3

Evidence from the distributive quantifier ge

Another diagnostic we may employ is the distribution of the distributive quantifier ge. Soh (2005)
discusses the syntactic position of the adverb ge (各 “each”) following Lin (1998), concluding thatthe following conditions must be met for ge to be licensed:(88)(Soh, 2005, p. 165):a.

There must be a vP or a VP for GE to adjoin to;b.

There must be an indefinite expression c-commanded by GE;

c.

There must be a plural argument within the sentence when GE adjoins to vP, andwithin vP (or FP) when GE adjoins to VP;d.

In a case when GE adjoins to vP, the event denoted must be complete in the sensethat all event internal modifiers are included in the projection.

For example, in our bi comparatives, we would expect to be able to adjoin ge to both the bi-phrase(vP) and the predicate of comparison (VP). Indeed, we see this to be the case:(89)

Situation: having taken a test.

37

a.

我們

各 比三

個

人

高

五

分。

women ge bi san ge
rengao wu fen
1pl
GE bi three CLperson person high five CLpoints‘Each of us were five points higher than three people.’ (where each of our “threepeople” may be distinct)b.

我 比 他們

各 高五分。

wo bi tamen ge gao wu fen
1sg bi 3pl
GE high five CLpoints‘I was five points higher than each of them.’
Let us examine the syntactic structures of these examples and verify Soh’s conditions on the proper
licensing of GE.
(90)

S

a.
women

vP
vP

GE
bi

DP
bi

san ge ren

voice

VP
gao wu fen

S

b.
wo

bi
DP
tamen

bi
voice

VP
VP

GE

gao wu fen

Consider (89a). GE is adjoined to the high vP node (88a). GE c-commands the indefinite expression
san ge ren “three people” (88b). A plural argument, the target, women “we” merges with the vP(88c). Finally, all event-internal modifiers are indeed already in this projection (88d).
Next, consider (89b). GE is adjoined here to the VP predicate of comparison (88a), c-commanding
the indefinite wu fen “five points” (88b). There is also a plural argument within vP, namely tamen“they” (88c), satisfying all of the GE-licensure conditions.
38

Crucially, this evidence from (89), combined with Soh’s (2005) conditions on GE-licensing, strongly
motivates a structure in which bi and the standard are within the vP extended verb phrase, above
VP. In addition, the ability of GE to adjoin to two different positions also strengthens the argument
for the vP projection in this structure.

5.2.4

Evidence from reflexivization

In this section we explore binding constraints of the Mandarin reflexive ziji (自己) in a comparative
context. We recall the basic descriptive generalizations of ziji: (Xue et al., 1995)(91)

a. Subject Orientation: The antecedent of ziji must be in subject position.
b. The Blocking Effect: The antecedent of ziji need not be in the minimal clause containingziji, as long as the referent and all other intermediate subjects have the same ϕ-features
as the minimal clause subject.
c. Animacy Restriction: The antecedent of ziji must be animate.

There is evidence, however, that certain “coverb” argument positions may also be able to receivereference from ziji:
(92)

约翰i

给

玛丽j 送

自己i/j 的Yaohan gei Mali song zijiJohngive Mary send self

信。

de xinGEN letter“Johni sent Maryj herj own letter.”“Johni sent Maryj hisi letter.”
(93)

约翰i

对

玛丽j 丢

自己i/∗j 的Yahoan dui
Mali diu zijiJohntoward Mary throw self

球。

de qiuGEN ball*“Johni threw Maryj herj own ball.”“Johni threw Maryj hisi ball.”
We note that in a comparative, an argument in the predicate of comparison can refer to the standard:
(94)

a.

约翰i

比 玛丽j 喜歡

自己i/j 。

Yaohan bi Mali xihuan ziji
Johni bi Maryj likeselfi/j“Johni likes himselfi more than Maryj likes herselfj .” or“Johni likes himselfi more than Maryj likes himi .”b.

Lidz (1996):
39

张三i

比 李四j 为自己i/j 辩护Zhangsan bi Lisi wei ziji
Zhangsan bi Lisi for self

得 好。

bianhu de hao
defend DE well‘Zhangsani defended himself better than Lisij defended himselfj .’ or‘Zhangsani defended himself better than Lisij defended himi .’6
The felicity of the first reading tells us that ziji is able to refer to Lisi, even though it seems to not
be a subject. Given that ziji is a reflexive pronoun, we conclude that the standard c-commands thepredicate of comparison. This rules out both the coordination hypothesis and the adjunct hypothesis.

5.2.5

Evidence from passivization

Finally, we must motivate our v bi to be positioned above the relevant voiceP. We yield such evidence through an investigation of passivization. In English, comparison can co-occur with passivization.
(95)

John was respected more by Mary than by Bill.

(96)

John was respected by Mary more than Bill was.

A sentence equivalent to (95) may be “John was respected by Mary more than John was respectedby Bill.” In this sentence, we are comparing over two experiencers of respect with a common
theme. On the other hand, (96) is equivalent to “John was respected by Mary more than Bill was
respected by Mary,” comparing over two themes with a common experiencer.
Comparison and passivization can also co-occur in Mandarin, but it is more restricted. Here, we
consider the relation zunjing “respect” which is passivizable and, being an emotional attitude verb,
can also be used as the predicate of comparison.
(97)

a.

约翰 被 玛丽 尊敬。

John bei Mali zunjing
John bei Mary respect“John is respected by Mary.”b.

约翰 比 汤姆

尊敬玛丽。

Mali bi Tangmu zunjing Yaohan
respect John
Mary bi Tom“Mary respects John more than Tom does.”
6

Zhong (2004) says this reading is unavailable, but that may be a point of native speaker disagreement. The reading
we are interested in, however, is the first one.

40

c.

约翰

比 汤姆

被 玛丽 尊敬。

Yaohan bi Tangmu bei Mali zunjingJohnbi Tombei Mary respect“John is respected by Mary more than Tom is.”d.

* 约翰被 玛丽 比 (被) 汤姆
尊敬。
Yaohan bei Mali bi bei Tangmu zunjingJohn
bei Mary bi bei Tom
respect
intended: “John is respected by Mary more than by Tom.”We note that only examples akin to (96) are possible in Mandarin. Descriptively, we observe thepassive morphology bei only surfacing after bi. We may view the passive here as being part of
the whole predicate of comparison: bei Mary zunjing, “be respected by Mary.” In other words,
comparison operates above voice and voice may not act above comparison.7
Let us examine how such a structure like (97c) would be constructed given our proposed syntax
and semantics. Following the work of Huang (1999) and Tang (2001), here I will adopt a null
operator analysis of the Mandarin “long passive,” with bei being a voice v node, in line with our
neo-Davidsonian approach. In such an approach, the straightforward passive (97a) is analyzed
syntactically as (98).8
7

We note also that the transitive comparative in Mandarin (considered in §5.4.1) cannot be passivized:

(1)

约翰

高

玛丽 一頭。

Yaohan gao Mali yitou
gao Mary one-headJohn“John is a head taller than Mary.”(2)

被 玛丽 高 一頭。
* 约翰
Yaohan bei Mali gao yitou
bei Mary gao one-headJohnintended: “John was a head taller-ed by Mary.”
8

The analysis of the Mandarin bei passive continues to be an area of controversy, but what is important for ouranalysis here is that the alternation is controlled by a voice node which, after the movement of a null operator is of type⟨e, ⟨ϵ, t⟩⟩, where the outermost argument will correspond to the passive subject.

41

(98)

S
∃s(respect(JOHN, s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s))
Yaohani
JOHN λx1
TnonpastvP
λP#",t$ ∃"P(") λs.respect( x1 , s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s)
Yaohaniv
x1 λyλs.respect(y, s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s)v

IPλyλs.respect(y, s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s)beivoice passive

NOPi
λyλs

IP
respect(y, s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s)..
.
VP
λs.respect(y, s)

Mali
MARY

V
zunjingλxλs.respect( x, s)

NOPiy

The crucial point to note in the analysis above is the introduction of a phonologically null operator
which first satisfies zunjing’s object position, then adjoins to the intermediate IP. As Huang argues,
through λ-abstraction, this modifies the IP into a predicate of “being respected by Mary.”9 Semantically, this structure then applies to the subject Yaohan, and the state variable is bound, yielding
an interpretable expression.
9

Huang (1999) did not consider how the null operator would affect the event-semantic description. I argue thatthe matrix sentence must continue to access the same event description, making the null operator not only open up
the y variable as an argument, but also make the ϵ variable accessible. This requires the underlying IP to be headed
by a particular node which does not bind off the ϵ event variable or trigger existential closure of the free argument
variable—again, the details of bei-passivization is not our focus here.
In addition, we note that our analysis does not accurately rule out (97d), the passive of a comparative: following
Huang’s (1999) null-operator analysis, a null operator can be base generated as the object of respect in the predicate ofcomparison:
(1)

* 约翰
被 [IP NOP [IP 玛丽 比 汤姆
尊敬NOP ] ]
Yaohan bei NOP Mali bi Tangmu zunjing NOPJohn
bei NOP Mary bi Tom
respect NOPThis construction reflects the overreach of the null-operator analysis. Such arguments may actually motivate ananalysis of the bei-passive without an internal IP. This would be a worthwhile direction of further research.

42

We note that in the passive analysis above, the v node is of type ⟨e, ⟨s, t⟩⟩, letting it be the argumentof bi. In the case of a comparative such as (97c), then, bi subcategorizes for this same v node. Aftermerging Tom, John, and Tense, we yield the following interpretable structure.
(99)S∃s1 ∃s2 (respect(JOHN, s1 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s1 )∧respect(TOM, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Tnonpast
λP#",t$ ∃"P(")

John
JOHN
Tom
v
TOM λyλxλs1 .∃s2 (respect( x, s1 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s1 )∧respect(y, s2 ) ∧ Exp(MARY, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )vv
λyλs.respect(y, s) ∧ Exp(MARY, s)bi
λG#e,#",t$$ λyλxλ"1 .∃"2
( G ( x, "1 ) ∧ G (y, "2 ) ∧ "1 ≫ "2 )bei Mary zunjing

Note that the semantics of this expression derive the correct truth values:[[(97c)]] = 1⇐⇒

John is respected by Mary more than Tom is respected by Mary⇐⇒John’s being respected by Mary ≫ Tom’s being respected by Mary⇐⇒

Mary’s respecting of John ≫ Mary’s respecting of Tom⇐⇒

s1 ≫ s2

In this way, our analysis properly accounts for examples such as (97c), where the predicate ofcomparison itself is passive. These facts also motivate bi’s selection of the voice v node.10
10

The alternative would be to introduce multiple distinct bi lexical entries which apply the appropriate θ-role tothe target and standard, depending on the predicate. Intuitively, this approach would be collapsing both the voice
morphology and the function of bi as analyzed here. The correct bi would be introduced through Event Identification.
My approach here was chosen, even with the nonstandard selection of a v node, (a) to keep the voice and comparative
functions separate, reflecting the analytic spirit inherent in the language’s morphology, and (b) because in the caseof a passive predicate of comparison, as examined here, bi and the passive morpheme bei clearly act as two separate
morphemes in the morphosyntax.

43

5.3 The clausal comparative
5.3.1

The clausal proposal

In this section we will see how my proposal extends to clausal comparatives and how my eventualitysemantics of comparison explains a number of empirical puzzles about the Mandarin clausal comparative. Recall first that the two types of predicates of comparison which are observed in clausal
comparatives are proposition-taking predicates (e.g., 好 hao “good”) and V-de-Adv constructions,which I refer to as “complex adverbs” (e.g., 骑得快 qi de kuai “ride fast”).
We first consider the simple proposition-taking predicate, as in (24a), reproduced below. Following Kratzer’s (2000; 2005) analyses of resultatives and target state passives, I argue that thesepredicates take a proposition with an unsaturated Davidsonian eventuality argument11 and returna state-description, and thus are of semantic type ⟨⟨ϵ, t⟩, ⟨s, t⟩⟩, as in (100), below. We introduce
another version of bi which has the proper semantics to account for the appropriate semantic types.
(24a)

我

去 比你 去 好[wo qu] bi [ni qu] hao
1sg go bi 2sg go good
“It would be better if I went than if you went.”(100)[[hao]] = λE⟨ϵ,t⟩ λs.∃ϵ(good(ϵ, s) ∧ E(ϵ))(101)[[biclausal ]] = λG⟨⟨ϵ,t⟩,⟨s,t⟩⟩ λF⟨ϵ,t⟩ λE⟨ϵ,t⟩ λs1 .∃s2 (G(E, s1 ) ∧ G(F, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )The proper semantics are constructed through a derivation mirroring that of the phrasal comparative. The surface word order is again reached through movement of bi out of vP.
11

A term also lifted from Kratzer (for example, Kratzer, 2000, p. 12). Here, for the eventuality variable to be “unsaturated,” we are requiring the T node (if extant in the propositional argument) to not existentially bind the eventuality
variable. Recall that a similar move was required in the analysis of the passive predicate of comparison (see footnote 9,
above).

44

(102)

S∃s1 ∃s2 (∃e1 (good(e1 , s1 ) ∧ go(e1 ) ∧ Ag(1sg, e1 ))∧∃e2 (good(e2 , s2 ) ∧ go(e2 ) ∧ Ag(2sg, e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Tnonpast
λP#",t$ ∃"P(")
S
λe.go(e) ∧ Ag(1sg, e)wo quS
λe.go(e) ∧ Ag(2sg, e)v
λF#",t$ λE#",t$ λs1 .∃s2(∃"1 (good("1 , s1 ) ∧ E("1 ))∧∃"2 (good("2 , s2 ) ∧ F ("2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )

ni qu

v

VP
λE#",t$ λs.∃"(good(", s) ∧ E("))

biclausal
λG##",t$,#s,t$$ λF#",t$ λE#",t$ λs1 .∃s2
( G ( E, s1 ) ∧ G ( F, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )(103)

predicate ofcomparison[[(24a)]] = ∃s1 ∃s2 (∃e1 (good(e1 , s1 ) ∧ go(e1 ) ∧ Ag(1sg, e1 )) ∧ ∃e2 (good(e2 , s2 ) ∧ go(e2 ) ∧Ag(2sg, e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )We now extend this analysis to the case of complex adverbial predicates of comparison, such as(24b), reproduced here:
(24b)

约翰

騎

馬

比 玛丽 騎牛騎得 快。

[Yaohan qi ma] bi [Mali qi niu] [qi de kuai]Johnride horse bi Mary ride cow ride DE fast
“John rides horses faster than Mary rides cows.”
Again, we will here view Yaohan qi ma and Mali qi niu as sentential arguments of the VP qi dekuai, which must be of type ⟨⟨ϵ, t⟩, ⟨s, t⟩⟩. We note that this resembles a secondary-predication
analysis as the first copy of the verb does not constitute the entire clause’s main verb—a configuration argued against extensively in Huang (1988). However, we note that this is a descriptive
V-de construction rather than a resultative one (see Huang, 1988) and there is preliminary evidence from Wei (2006) against Huang’s analysis of the descriptive complement construction asa primary-predication structure. Wei offers a syntactic sketch for the qi de kuai construction, crucially analyzing kuai as the head, with qi de being a CP modifier. Following Wei’s (2006) intuition, I
will here posit the following semantics for qi de kuai, though such an eventuality-semantics of V-deconstructions will require further critical study.
(104)

Configuration from Wei (2006, p. 105) (simplified):
45

AP
CP

(105)

AP

C

S

qi + -DEqi

kuai[[qi de kuai]] = λE⟨ϵ,t⟩ λs.∃ϵ(fast(ϵ, s) ∧ ride(ϵ) ∧ E(ϵ))

Before we see how the semantics of (24b) are composed, we identify a crucial property of this denotation. Though kuai is the head of qi de kuai under our analysis here inspired by Wei, the predicate
of comparison also exhibits the morpheme qi “ride.” Following the tenant of compositionality, we
expect [[qi]] in [[qi de kuai]] and we indeed recognize the denotation of qi as the conjunct ride(ϵ)
in (105) above. This expression guarantees that the eventive argument of qi de kuai is an instanceof riding, particularly important when deriving the following sentence with only an explicit NP
subject.12
(106)

约翰

騎

得 快。

Yaohan [qi de kuai]
Yaohan ride de fast
“John rides fast.”(107)

S∃s∃!(fast(!, s) ∧ ride(!) ∧ Ag(JOHN, s))DP
YaohanJOHN

λx1∃s∃!(fast(!, s) ∧ ride(!) ∧ Ag( x1 , s))TnonpastvP
λP#!,t$ ∃!P(!) λs.∃!(fast(!, s) ∧ ride(!) ∧ Ag( x1 , s))
Yaohanvx1
λxλs.∃!(fast(!, s) ∧ ride(!) ∧ Ag( x, s))vagentλxλ!.Ag( x, !)VP
λE#!,t$ λs.∃!
(fast(!, s) ∧ ride(!) ∧ E(!))
qi de kuai

(108)
12

[[(106)]] = ∃s∃ϵ(fast(ϵ, s) ∧ ride(ϵ) ∧ Ag(JOHN, s))Note here that we use the regular vagent , composed with the VP through an adapted Event Identification.

46

Now consider the derivation of (24b), whose semantic composition is represented in the tree below.
Note, as {e|ride(HORSE, e))} ⊊ {e|ride(e)}, {e|ride(e) ∧ ride(HORSE, e)} ={e|ride(e)} ∩ {e|ride(HORSE, e)} = {e|(ride(HORSE, e)}, letting us make the simplification in (110).
Intuitively, the terms cancelled are redundant, as the target and standard propositions are bothdesignated as riding events in the propositions themselves and in the predicate of comparison.
(109)S∃s1 ∃s2 (∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 ) ∧ ride(e1 )∧ride(HORSE, e1 ) ∧ Ag(JOHN, e1 ))∧∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 ) ∧ ride(e2 ) ∧ ride(COW, e2 )∧Ag(MARY, e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Tnonpast
λP#",t$ ∃"P(")
S
λ".ride(HORSE, ") ∧ Ag(JOHN, ")Yaohan qi maSλ".ride(COW, ") ∧ Ag(MARY, ")v
λF#",t$ λE#",t$ λs1 .∃s2(∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 ) ∧ ride(e1 ) ∧ E(e1 ))∧∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 ) ∧ ride(e2 ) ∧ F (e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Mali qi niu

v

(110)

VP
λE#",t$ λs.∃"(fast(", s) ∧ ride(") ∧ E("))

biclausal
λG##",t$,#s,t$$ λF#",t$ λE#",t$ λs1 .∃s2
qi de kuai
( G ( E, s1 ) ∧ G ( F, s2 ) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )1 ) ∧ ride(HORSE, e1 ) ∧ Ag(JOHN, e1 ))∧ride(e[[(24b)]] = ∃s1 ∃s2 (∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 ) ∧ 2 ) ∧ ride(COW, e2 ) ∧ Ag(MARY, e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )ride(e∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 ) ∧ = ∃s1 ∃s2 (∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 ) ∧ ride(HORSE, e1 ) ∧ Ag(JOHN, e1 ))∧∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 ) ∧ ride(COW, e2 ) ∧ Ag(MARY, e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )5.3.2

Evidence for individual clausal comparison

A key feature of my proposal is that I extend the “individual” comparison of entities, as in thephrasal comparison, to the clausal variety as an individual comparison of eventualities with minimal change to the semantics.13 Now we will see how this proposal predicts a few puzzles regarding
clausal comparatives in Mandarin.
We first note that, much like in the Mandarin phrasal comparative, the Mandarin clausal standard
does not exhibit a gap at all. For example, consider the English clausal comparative (111). The
13“Individual,” as opposed to “degree comparison,” in the sense of Kennedy (2007).

47

standard clause, with its elided VP, “Mary does” cannot stand as a sentence on its own. We see,however, that the clausal standard in (112a) is itself a grammatical sentence without a gap that
describes a state even out of context. Note also that if the VP (and thus internal arguments of each
eventuality) were the same between the target and standard, a Mandarin speaker would simply
use the phrasal comparative (112c in lieu of 112b).
(111)

John likes chicken more than [S Mary does like chicken ].

(112)

a.

约翰

喜欢

鸡肉

比

玛丽 喜欢

猪肉

喜欢

得 多。

Yaohan xihuan jirou
bi [S Mali xihuan zhurou] xihuan de duo
John
like
chicken bi Mary like
pork
like
DE more“John likes chicken more than Mary likes pork.”b. ?? 约翰喜欢鸡肉比 玛丽 喜欢鸡肉喜欢得 多。
Yaohan xihuan jirou
bi Mali xihuan jirou
xihuan de duo
John
like
chicken bi Mary likechicken like
DE more“John likes chicken more than Mary likes chicken.”c.

约翰比 玛丽 喜欢

鸡肉

喜欢

得 多。

Yaohan bi Mali xihuan jirou
xihuan de duoJohnbi Mary likechicken like
DE more“John likes chicken more than Mary does.”

5.3.3

Deriving the lack of embedded standards

Next we consider embedded standard clauses. In English clausal comparatives, we see unbounded
dependency and subjacency effects, as expected by the wh-degree operator view of Bresnan (1973)
and Chomsky (1977). As noted by Liu (1996), the Mandarin comparative does not exhibit such
effects.
(113)

Liu (1996):
a.
b.

i.

John wrote more books than Max thought that ... that Bill read e.

ii.

* John wrote more books than Max believed [the claim that Bill read e].

i.

作
快。
黄蓉
认为
吃 饭 比 郭夫
* 郭靖
Guojing chi fan bi [Guofu renwei [Huangrong zuo e]] kuai
fast
Guojing eat rice bi Guofu think Huangrong cook

intended: “Guojing eats rice faster than Guofu thinks Huangrong makes”
ii.

快。
作
的 说法
吃 饭 比 黄蓉* 郭靖
Guojing chi fan bi [[Huangrong zuo e] de shuofa] kuai
Guojing eats rice bi Huangrong make DE claim fast

intended: “Guojing eats rice faster than the claim that Huangrong makes”

48

My proposal clearly predicts embedded standard clauses such as in (113bi) to be ungrammatical.
Consider three of the eventualities constructed in the derivation of [[(113bi)]]:
(114)

a.

e1 : Guojing’s fastness of eatingb.

e2 : Huangrong’s fastness of cookingc.

e3 : Guofu’s thinking of e2 as “intense”

Recall that my comparative semantics is introduced through a ≫ intensity-ordering of eventualities. The intended meaning requires e1 ≫ e2 . Unfortunately, the two eventualities ordered in thecomparative are restricted to those introduced by the entire target and standard clauses, so the only
possible meaning is e1 ≫ e3 , which is then ruled out by commensurability (see footnote 2). This
lack of embedded clausal standards is a crucial feature of the individual nature of this proposal.

5.3.4

Deriving the Verb Matching Constraint

In fact, (113bi) above is a poor example for the point Liu is trying to make—even if the standard of
cooking in (113bi) were not embedded in Guofu’s thinking, the sentence would be ungrammatical.
(115)* Guojing chi fan bi [Huangrong zuo e] kuai
Guojing eat rice bi Huangrong cook fast
intended: “Guojing eats rice faster than Guofu thinks Huangrong makes”

Similar clausal structures are available, but only if the main verb of the target and standard clauses
are the same. We refer to this as the Verb Matching Constraint of the clausal comparative, whichreflects the issue of commensurability discussed above explicitly on the syntactic level.
(116)

Guojing chi fan bi [Huangrong chi bao] chi de kuai
Guojing eat rice bi Huangrong chi bread eat DE fast
“Guojing eats rice faster than Huangrong eats bread.”

We note that in (116), though, the predicate of comparison must be of the complex adverbial type.
Recall that the complex adverbial introduces a redundant description of the target and standard
event-type. Suppose we try to compose the semantics of (117) below, which has a complex adverbial predicate.
(117)* Guojing chi fan bi [Huangrong zuo fan] chi de kuai
Guojing eat rice bi Huangrong cook rice eat de fast
intended: “Guojing eats rice faster than Guofu thinks Huangrong makes”(118)[[Huangrong zuo fan]]= λe(cook(rice, e) ∧ Ag(HUANGRONG, e))49

(119)[[bi [ chi de kuai ]]]= λF⟨ϵ,t⟩ λE⟨ϵ,t⟩ λs1 .∃s2 (∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 )∧eat(e1 )∧E(e1 ))∧∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 )∧eat(e2 ) ∧ F(e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )(120)[[[ Huangrong zuo fan ] [ bi [ chi de kuai ] ]]]= [[bi [ chi de kuai ]]](λe(cook(rice, e)∧Ag(HUANGRONG, e)))= λE⟨ϵ,t⟩ λs1 .∃s2 (∃e1 (fast(e1 , s1 ) ∧ eat(e1 ) ∧ cook(rice, e1 ) ∧ Ag(HUANGRONG, e1 )) ∧∃e2 (fast(e2 , s2 ) ∧ eat(e2 ) ∧ F(e2 )) ∧ s1 ≫ s2 )Note that after functional application in [[[ Huangrong zuo fan ] [ bi [ chi de kuai ] ]]], we yield the
sub-expression eat (e1 ) ∧ cook(rice, e1 ) as part of the event description of e1 . Clearly identifying e1
as both an eating event and a cooking event is infelicitous, and thus the entire conjoined expression
is false. In this way, the verb matching constraint is enforced.

5.4 Extensions and exceptions
Next we will see how our analysis can be extended to other subsets of Mandarin comparative data.

5.4.1

On the transitive comparative

Recall that the Mandarin surface-transitive comparative (§3.1.4) is a comparative without the morpheme bi, but is an explicit comparative (see §3.3). The surface word order is of the form of:targetV

standard

differential measure

where the measure phrase is required, unlike in bi comparatives.
An important point with regards to the surface-transitive comparative is what introduces the comparative morphology. We could imagine there being a lexical rule allowing measurable gradable
predicates to surface as a lexical item taking a DP complement, incorporating the comparative semantics, but this seems unlikely. A simpler answer would be that there is a phonologically nullcomparative morpheme in all of these structures. And, perhaps most interestingly, why is thedifferential measure obligatory in this construction? While I do not offer an answer to the finalquestion, we are able to better understand the underlying syntax.14
Here I will follow Xiang’s (2003) analysis of the transitive comparative which derives the surface
word order through A to V movement, which translates in my proposal as A to v movement (cf.,
Xiang, 2005). We propose a phonologically-null version of bi which has approximately the same
semantics as bi but triggers the A to v movement. The syntactic configuration would be thus:
14

In fact, we do not attempt to incorporate the differential measure within our current eventuality-semantics of comparison. See the discussion in the conclusion.

50

S

(121)
target(Ai + ∅bi ) jvPstandardv

v
Ai + ∅bi j

v
VP

v
voice

Ai

differential
measureRecall that we have previously established the transitive comparative as an instance of explicit
comparison (§3.3). In addition to the arguments of Xiang (2003), I here offer two pieces of evidence
to show that extending the syntax of the bi comparative is justified, as opposed to analyzing thetransitive comparative as an instance of true transitivity.

Evidence from passivization
If the predicate of comparison here actually takes the standard as an argument, we may expect
passivization to be available over this VP. However, we note that the target position in a surfacetransitive comparative cannot be passivized with bei.
(122)

* 他 被 我 高 五 分。
ta bei wo gao wu fen
3sg bei 1sg high five CLpoints
intended: ‘He was beaten by me by five points.’

This is to be expected under the hypothesis with a phonologically null comparative morpheme ofthe same sort as bi, as bi can only Merge above the voice v projection as established above in §5.2.5.

Evidence from the distributive quantifier ge
Recall that the distributive quantifier ge can adjoin to a VP or vP node (Soh, 2005). The test then iswhether we see two possible positions for ge in the transitive comparative, suggesting two differentv- or V- phrase projections. We indeed see this to be the case.

51

(123)

a.

我們

各 高

三

個

人

五

分。

women ge gao san gerenwu fen1pl
GE gao three CLperson person five CLpoints‘Each of us were five points higher than three people’ (where each of our “threepeople” may be distinct)
b.

我 高

他們

各 五

分。

wo gao tamen ge wu fen
1sg high 3pl
GE five CLpoints‘I was five points higher than each of them.’
Notably, the ability of ge to surface between tamen and wu fen in (123b) suggests an underlying VP
after ge with a V/A gap. We note again that our syntax predicts these two configurations.
(124)

S

a.
DP
women

vP
vP

GE
(gaoi + ∅bi ) j

DP
san ge renvgaoi + ∅bi j

VP

v
voice

gaoi

wu fen

S

b.
DP
wo

vP
(gaoi + ∅bi ) j

DPtamen vgaoi + ∅bi j

VP

v
voice

VP

GE
gaoi

52

wu fen5.4.2“The Guojing of today”

Recall that one of two arguments Liu (1996) gave for the clausal analysis of Mandarin phrasal
comparatives came from example (61), repeated here:
(61)

郭靖

今天

比 黄蓉

昨天

高兴。

Guojing jintian bi Huangrong zuotian gaoxing
Guojing today bi Huangrong yesterday happy“Guojing is happier today than Huangrong was yesterday.”We recall that Liu’s (1996) comparative deletion analysis can easily explain such constructions, as
Huangrong zuotian need not be a constituent but, rather, an IP that has undergone I ellipsis.
(125)

郭靖

今天

比 [IP 黄蓉

Guojing jintian bi
Guojing today bi

昨天

Huangrong zuotian
Huangrong yesterday[I ei ] ] 高兴。

gaoxing
happy“Guojing is happier today than Huangrong was yesterday.”
We note, however, that Xiang (2003, 2005) and I have independently argued against the clausal
analysis of phrasal comparatives. As a possible solution to this conundrum, Kennedy (p.c.) suggests that perhaps Huangrong zuotian in (61) can be analyzed as a DP, as a definite description withtemporal information. He offers the following sentence as an example of such a construction in
English.
(126)

This game can’t be won by the Alex Rodriguez of 1995. (But it can by the Alex Rodriguez
of today.)

We note that in this sentence, the main verb is can, which is morphologically inflected in a nonpast
tense. The idea of temporal information being encoded in a DP is not new (Larson and Cho, 2003;
Nordlinger and Sadler, 2004; Staraki, 2007). While the details of such constructions in Mandarin
are yet to be worked out, we see that sentences such as (61) only hints an analysis of Mandarin
surface-phrasal comparatives as underlyingly clausal.

5.5 Comparatives, comparedIn this section we laid out a novel syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative, featuring averbal syntax for bi and an eventuality-semantics of comparison. In the final sections we looked
at a couple of extensions to the model proposed.

53

Let us examine what answers this proposal would have for the five research questions laid out
in §3.2.4. First, my analysis explains the phrasal comparative as underlyingly phrasal (Q1) andanalyzes both phrasal and clausal comparatives as instances of individual comparison over eventualities (Q2).
Recall that Liu (1996) analyzed the syntactic status of bi (Q3) as a prepositional adjunct. Evidence
from constituency, negation, and reflexive binding clearly suggest that bi cannot be an adjuct.
While Xiang (2005) also noted structural similarities between the comparative and the double object construction, she interpreted bi as part of a complex DegP structure à la Larson (1991), while myanalysis incorporates bi into the extended verbal projection. Crucially, Xiang’s analysis does notderive the generalization that the predicate of comparison can be any gradable predicate, whether
verbal or adjectival—particularly important when considering evidence from passivization. We
may interpret the analysis presented here as yet another case of categorical overlap between Mandarin adjectives and verbs. With regard to (Q3), then, we see that this proposal is clearly superior.
My neo-Davidsonian event-semantics of comparison clearly explains the Internal Argument Prohibition (Q4), taking advantage of the rift between external and internal arguments (following
Kratzer, 1996). Liu (1996) explained the IAP facts through I-ellipsis and Case facts, but then resorted to exceptional case marking over a clause boundary, as criticized by Xiang (2003). Xiang
limited her discussion to adjectival predicates of comparison, and thus did not address the issue.
With regard to (Q5), in the final section, we considered how the transitive comparative could bederived as a variant of the bi comparative as examined here, using a phonologically null version ofbi, following Xiang (2003). However, the semantics of the transitive comparative and the structureof the adverbial comparative have yet to be established within this view.

54Chapter 6

Conclusion
6.1 Discussion
In this thesis we have examined and introduced a new syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative. Along the way, new data from passivization and the distribution of the distribution of
the quantifier ge were introduced. Such syntactic evidence clearly rejects the PP-adjunct analysisof bi (Liu, 1996; Xiang, 2003) and motivated bi as a head in the extended verbal system.
We introduced a novel neo-Davidsonian semantics which orders eventualities directly rather thanintroduce degree arguments into the semantics. Recall that we were able to extend this semantics
from the phrasal comparative to the clausal cases by mere type-shifting of bi. This system explains
the lack of embedded clausal standards and also derives the Verb Matching Constraint. In addition, the semantics of voice and the external argument derive the Internal Argument Prohibition.

6.2 Future directions of research
While the analysis introduced here can explain a number of empirical puzzles, it is also by nomeans complete—some syntactic issues will have to be further explored. We note that I did not
explain the syntactic relationship between the adverbial comparative and the others. Recall as wellthat, while our model accurately predicted and constructed a comparison with a passive predicate
of comparison, there is nothing to rule out a passive of a comparative under the assumptionsof Huang’s (1999) analysis of the bei-passive. This may point to the overreach of Huang’s nulloperator analysis. Other models of the Mandarin bei-passive should also be considered in thiscontext.
The syntax-semantics I introduced for the clausal comparative also has a profound syntactic implication. Namely, our syntax-semantics worked so neatly specifically because we rejected Huang’s55

(1988) Primary Predication analysis of the Descriptive Complement Construction. Such comparative evidence may help motivate a new analysis of the DCC, and this would be a rewarding, butalso challenging, direction of future study.
My analysis here also introduced a new kind of semantics of individual comparison of eventualities, and this brings forth a number of exciting new considerations and possibilities for investigation. We note in particular that my current semantics does not extend well to those comparatives
with a differential measure. One aspect of this is that my current analysis draws no distinction
between measurable predicates (such as tall: “ten feet tall”) and those which are not measurable—
what should be a crucial distinction in the semantics of the differential measure. Note also thatthe duo-comparative, not examined here, involves a definite differential measure, and would needa different semantics as well (see Li, 2007). It would be interesting to see how my analysis can
extend to these two cases. This line of research may also lead to a fruitful new discussion of aneventuality semantics of the positive form of Mandarin adjectives.
One central semantic issue that will need further attention is the notion of commensurability. We
noted that the ≫ intensity ordering can only be established for two events “of the same type”:
what we are looking to rule out here is, for example, a comparison of a speaking event and arunning event. More borderline cases exist, though: what about synonymous verbs, or identicalverbs with different argument structures? Such limits of this notion must be fleshed out and further
empirically motivated.
Finally, these results should be considered in the broader comparative comparatives discussion
and contrasted with evidence from other languages. Having a new syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative (or at least a unique proposal) suggests new options for the analysis of comparatives in other languages as well. I look forward to contrasting the evidence here in light of myproposal to comparatives in other languages.

56References
Badan, Linda, and Francesca Del Gobbo. 2006. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. Presented at the 1st Chicago Workshop in Chinese Linguistics, December 2006.
Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13:289–344.
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry
4:275–343.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow,
and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.
Chung, Sally Hsiu-Ju. 2006. Syntax of the bi comparative construction in Mandarin Chinese. Master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University.
Fu, Yi-Chin. 1978. Comparative structures in English and Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Why there are two than’s in English. In Papers from the 9th Regional Meetingof the Chicago Linguistics Society, 179–189.
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Manuscript.
Hoeksema, Jacob. 1984. To be continued: The story of the comparative. Journal of Semantics 3.
Hong, Wei-mei (洪偉美). 1991. Comparative structure in Mandarin Chinese. Master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1988. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64:274–311.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1994. Logical form. In Government and binding theory and the minimalist
program, ed. G. Webelhuth, chapter 3, 127–175. Blackwell, Oxford.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journalof Chinese Studies 29:423–509.
57

Jiang, Zixin. 1991. Some aspects of the syntax of topic and subject in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Chicago, Chicago.
Keenan, Edward L., and Jonathan Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language
determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:253–326.
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2005a. Parameters of comparison. Presented at Cornell University, Nov
2005.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2005b. Variation in the expression of comparison. Presented at Cornell
University, November 2005.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Modes of comparison. Presented at CLS 43.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Jason Merchant. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18:89–146.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and thelexicon, ed. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, ed. Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, and Alan C. L. Yu, 385–399.
Berkeley.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Events in syntax, semantics, and discourse, ed.
Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten, 177–212. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Larson, Richard K. 1987. Missing prepositions and the analysis of English free relative clauses.
Linguistic Inquiry 18:239–266.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 29:335–392.
Larson, Richard K. 1991. The projection of DP (and DegP). To appear in R. Larson (forthcoming),
Essays on Shell Structure Projection. Routledge, New York.
Larson, Richard K., and Sungeun Cho. 2003. Temporal adjectives and the structure of possessive
DPs. Natural Language Semantics 11:217–247.
Lerner, Jean-Yves, and Manfred Pinkal. 1995. Comparative ellipsis and variable binding. In The
Proceedings of SALT 5.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2:257–278.

58

Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
University of California Press.
Li, Xiao. 2007. The semantics of chinese verbal comparatives. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meetingof the Chicago Linguistics Society, May 2007.
Lidz, Jeffrey. 1996. On the independence of syntactic and thematic binding.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. 1998. On ge and other related problems. In The referential properties of chinese nounphrases, ed. Liejiong Xu, volume 2 of Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Oriental. Centre deRecherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences
26:215–235.
Lü, Shuxiang. 1980. 現代漢語八百詞 [800 words in Modern Chinese]. Shangwu yin.
May, Robert Carlen. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Number 12 in Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs. MIT Press.
McCawley, James D. 1992. Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of
Chinese Linguistics 20:211–245.
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Louisa Sadler. 2004.

Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal

tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22:597–641.
Paul, Waltraud. 2000. Verb movement and the VP shell in Chinese: Some critical remarks. Cahiersde Linguistique - Asie Orientale 29:255–269.
Paul, Waltraud. 2005. Adjectival modification in Mandarin Chinese and related issues. Linguistics
43.
Sapir, Edward. 1944. Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11:93–116.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2005. Mandarin distributive quantifier ge ‘each’, the structures of double complement constructions and the verb-preposition distinction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14:155–
173.
Staraki, Eleni. 2007. The marker na in Greek: what its absence can reveal. Presented at the 3rd
University of Chicago Graduate Student Mini-conference.
Tang, Sze-Wing. 2001. A complementation approach to Chinese passives and its consequences.
Linguistics 39:257–295.
Travis, Lisa. 1988. The syntax of adverbs. In Mcgill working papers in linguistics: Proceedings of the
fourth workshop on comparative germanic syntax.

59

Wei, Jiewu. 2006. Two types of V-de constructions in Mandarin Chinese. In University system of
taiwan working papers in linguistics, volume 2, 97–107. National Tsing Hua University.
Xiang, Ming. 2003. A phrasal analysis of Chinese comparatives. In Proceedings of CLS 39, 739–754.
Xiang, Ming. 2005. Some topics in comparative constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University.
Xue, Ping, Carl Pollard, and Ivan A. Sag. 1995. A new perspective on Chinese ziji. In WCCFL 13:
The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
Zhong, Xiuru. 2004. A minimalist analysis of comparative construction in mandarin. In TEAL 2:
The Proceedings from the Second Theoretical East Asian Linguistics Conference.

Document history
Revised September 6, 2007 for typos. PDF updated November 2008 with hyperlinks; updated
November 2015 with a note on the first page. Retrieved from http://mitcho.com/.

60