Share to Compare: The Mandarin bǐ Comparative
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1. Introduction
Different languages employ differing syntactic means to express comparison, i.e. to assert a rankingof two entities along a scale. The scale of comparison is introduced linguistically using a gradable
predicate which relates entities (such as individuals, states, or events) to degrees (Creswell, 1976).
Gradable predicates can be used to make assertions not only of the relative degrees of two entities (as in1b) but of individual entities as well, in positive forms such as (1a).
(1)

a. John is tall.
b. John is tall-er than Mary.

Given that a gradable predicate needs only one entity to satisfy its core syntactic and semantic
valency, how does it then compose with two entities in a comparative, as in (1b)? In this paper I answer
this question for the case of the Mandarin Chinese bǐ comparative construction, based on novel syntactic
considerations. Pretheoretically, the bǐ comparative follows the schema in (2). Two basic examples arein (3).1(2)

target bǐ standard
gradable predicate of comparison“target is more predicate than standard is predicate.”(3)a. [Yuēhàn] bǐ [Tāngmǔ] [xǐhuān Mǎlì]
like
Mary
John
BI Tom“John likes Mary more than Tom does.”b. [Yūehàn qí mǎ] bǐ [Mǎlì qí niú] [qí de kuài]
Johnride horse BI Mary ride cow ride DE fast
“John rides horses faster than Mary rides cows.”

Two predominant approaches have been proposed for the syntax/semantics of comparative constructions: the Reduction Analysis (borrowing a term from Bhatt & Takahashi (2011)) and the Direct Analysis
following Heim (1985).
(4)

Reduction Analysis syntax/semantics:
The comparative morpheme COMP is a two-place operator, taking two degree-denoting expressions, D1 for the target and D2 for the standard, and asserting ∃d.D1 (d) ∧ ¬D2 (d). Each of thedegree-denoting expressions include an instance of the gradable predicate.

(5)

Direct Analysis syntax/semantics (Heim 1985):
The comparative morpheme COMP is a three-place operator, merging with a gradable predicate
G, a target x, and standard y, and then asserting ∃d.G(d)(x) ∧ ¬G(d)(y). The syntax contains
only one occurance of the gradable predicate.

*

Many thanks to David Pesetsky, Irene Heim, Norvin Richards, Hadas Kotek, Chris Kennedy, Jim Huang, and theaudiences at WCCFL 29 and the MIT Workshop on Comparatives for invaluable discussion and comments. Thanks
are also due to my many informants, including (most recently) C.-M. Louis Liu, Pamela Pan, C.-Y. Edwin Tsai, andYimei Xiang. All errors are my own.
1
Square brackets [] are used here and in examples throughout to delimit the interpreted target, standard, andpredicate, rather than to make a claim of syntactic constituency.

© 2012 Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
ed. Jaehoon Choi et al., 54-62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

55
In a Reduction Analysis, both the target and standard are merged directly into the structure asarguments of the gradable predicate. This results in two degree-denoting clauses, each with its own
instance of the predicate, and the comparative operator asserts an ordering relation between them. In a
Direct Analysis, there is only one instance of the gradable predicate in the syntax, therefore either thetarget or the standard or both must be introduced by the comparative operator rather than by the predicate
itself. The comparative operator then applies both the target and the standard to the predicate and assertsthat the resulting degree computed with the target exceeds the one computed with the standard.
Recent analyses of the Mandarin bǐ comparative (Erlewine, 2007; Lin, 2009; Xiang, 2005) haveadopted a Direct Analysis approach. Against this consensus, I argue in this paper that the bǐ comparative
cannot employ a Direct Analysis syntax/semantics. Instead, I propose a structure for the bǐ comparativein which both the target and standard are each directly composed with the gradable predicate in syntax.
In the next section I will give my proposal and present an example derivation. The particulartechnical implementation I use here involves multidominance. In section 3 I will further motivate this
proposal with examples where both the target and standard include distinct material which have moved
out of the same position from within the gradable predicate. This shows that both the target and standard
participate in syntactic dependencies with the predicate. Such evidence is immediately problematic for
the Direct Analysis approaches, in which the target and standard are not both directly composed with thepredicate in the syntax.

2. Proposal: Independent Dependency
I propose that the Mandarin bǐ comparative does not follow a Direct Analysis where the predicate ofcomparison is composed with the target and with the standard only in the semantics; rather, the predicate
must independently form a clause together with the target and together with the standard, following theregular rules of Mandarin clausal syntax. This hypothesis is stated in (6):(6)

Independent Dependency:
A comparative [ target bǐ standard predicate ] includes both [TP target predicate ] and [TP standard
predicate ] within its syntactic derivation.

Unlike the recent Direct Analyses approaches, this proposal predicts there to be the same syntactic
dependencies between the predicate and the target and between the predicate and the standard as thosewhich are independently observed in Mandarin simplex clauses. Evidence to this effect will be presented
in section 3.
Consider example (7) below. One curious property of the Mandarin bǐ comparative is that thetarget and standard can be made up of multiple arguments which do not form a constituent. This isparticularly notable in cases where both the target and standard include arguments which are logicallyinternal arguments of the predicate of comparison, which I call Internal Argument (IA) comparatives.
Note that internal arguments are canonically post-verbal in Mandarin.
(7) Internal Argument (IA) comparatives (Tsao, 1989):[wǒ dàishù] bı̌ [pro jı̌ hé][xǐhuān
I algebra BI
geometry like]“I like algebra more than I like geometry.”
Independent Dependency predicts that [TP target predicate] and [TP standard predicate] are eachindependently available clauses in Mandarin2 and this is indeed the case:(8)a. TP1 = [TP target predicate]:b. TP2 = [TP standard predicate]:wǒ [dàishù]F xǐhuān
I algebra likewǒ [jǐhé]F xǐhuān
I geometry like“I, algebra, like.”“I, geometry, like.”2
modulo positive degree morphology hěn which is sometimes required in the positive form of gradable predicates.
See Grano (to appear) for details.

56
According to Independent Dependency, the derivation of (7) contains the full derivations of (8a–b),
which I refer to as TP1 and TP2 . Note that TP1 and TP2 exhibit object preposing (Ernst & Wang, 1995;
Paul, 2002), a process in Mandarin which moves objects to a pre-verbal position without any additional
marking. Preposed objects are often interpreted in contrast to implicit or explicit alternatives.
(9)

Object preposing:wǒ [dàishù]F xǐhuān
I algebra like, kěshı̀ pro [jǐhé]F bù xǐhuān
but pro geometry NEG like≈ ‘I, [algebra]F , like; but, [geometry]F , don’t like.’
Now let us step through the derivation of (7). An important question here is how the predicate canbe part of the target clause and the standard clause but only be linearized once. Technically, such aderivation could involve ellipsis or multidominance. Here I will not attempt to distinguish between these
two approaches and will present an analysis based on multidominance (cf Gračanin-Yuksek, 2007, 2009).
In multidominance terms, the bǐ comparative will be derived as the conjunction of two clauses that share
their gradable predicates.3
We begin by constructing the verb phrase for TP1 , (8a), by merging like with algebra (10a). In(10b), we’ve merged in a Topic head and then algebra has been moved to the TopP specifier, following
Paul’s (2002) analysis of object-preposing. Note that under a multidominance framework, movement isindicated by the object being merged once to like, then being “remerged” to a higher constituent which
dominates the first merge site. Next we merge in a Tense head and the subject I, resulting in the full target
clause TP1 , (10c).
(10) Derivation of (7):
a.
VP

like

b.

algebra

.

c.

TopP

TP1

.

Top

I

VP

like
.
algebra

.

T

TopP

.

Top

VP

.

like
.
algebra.
Next we do a parallel derivation for TP2 , (8b), but importantly we must “reuse” the like verb from
TP1 . We begin by taking the like in TP1 and merging it with geometry, producing a new VP projection
elsewhere in the workspace (10d). We then continue to follow the exact same derivational steps as we
did for TP1 , object-preposing geometry, then merging a Tense and the subject pro, yielding the structurein (10e). We now have two full TPs in the workspace which were independently formed following theprocesses of Mandarin simplex TP construction, but sharing the single verb node between them.
(10) d.

e.

TP1

I

T

TopP

I

TopP

pro

VP
.
.
like
.
algebra

VP
VP
.
. .
like
geometry.
algebra

T

TopP

.
Top

Top

.

T

.

.

3

TP2

TP1

Top

VP

.

.

.
geometry.

Formally, the two gradable predicates are required to completely dominate the same set of nodes, using thedefinition below. See Erlewine (in preparation) for further discussion.
Complete dominance (Fox & Pesetsky, 2005): a node α completely dominates a node β iff every path from β tothe root includes α.

57Multidominated structures such as those above are produced by not restricting the operation Merge
to nodes which are not already dominated by another node.4
Finally, TP1 and TP2 are conjoined with bǐ to form the resulting structure:
(10)

f.

TP1

bǐ
I

T

TopP

TP2

pro

.

Top

VP
.
.
like

.
algebra
.

T

TopP

.

Top

VP

.

.

.
geometryGračanin-Yuksek (2007, 2009) offers a revised version of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence
Axiom which can linearize structures involving sharing. This algorithm has the property that material
that is multiply-dominated, such as like in (10f), are linearized downstream, so we yield the correct word
order as in (7). In this way, a bǐ comparative can be constructed in a manner compatible with Independent
Dependency—that is, that [TP target predicate] and [TP standard predicate] are each constructed according
to the standard processes of Mandarin simplex TPs—while sharing material across the two gradable
predicates, yielding a linearization in which the gradable predicate only surfaces once.
In this section I presented my main proposal, that the derivation of Mandarin bǐ comparatives involvethe full derivations of two clauses—one for the target and one for the standard. I dub this proposal
Independent Dependency. This proposal explicitly allows for simultaneous syntactic dependencies
between the predicate and target and between the predicate and standard, which are not predicted bya Direct Analysis approach. In the next section I present four cases in which such dependencies can beobserved.

3. Evidence for parallel movements
In this section I will present evidence in support of the Reduction Analysis from constructions thatinvolve movement simultaneously from within the predicate to the target and from the same position
within the predicate also to the standard. This can be straightforwardly captured under Independent
Dependency as the derivation includes two TPs, each separately derived with movement operations
available in Mandarin simplex clauses. Four different types of such constructions are given: internalargument comparatives, subject reconstruction, passivization, and verb-copy.
Consider, on the other hand, how a Direct Analysis could derive such complex comparatives.
Schematically, such movements could be represented as in (11):(11) [target ... X. ... ] bǐ [standard ... Y. ... ] [predicate ... t. ... ].

Under a Direct Analysis, there is only one instance of the predicate in the syntax. In order to derive
the movements of X and Y above, X and Y must have both been first merged in the lower position t
within the predicate. Here, however, both chains involve the same tail position. Thus X and Y musthave been base-generated in the same position, which is a contradiction. Thus analyses with just one
copy of the predicate in the syntax cannot adequately account for such data.
It is crucial in this line of argumentation to show that both X and Y are indeed the products of such
movement out of the predicate, rather than, for example, only one undergoing that movement and theother being base-generated in its surface position. This is precisely what I will show.
4
Note that this theoretical move has also been made in the Minimalist Program in casting the operation Move as
an instance of Merge.

58

3.1. Internal argument comparatives
One important detail regarding IA comparatives is that not all objects can participate in such a frame.
Tsao (1989) observed a number of distributional restrictions on IA comparatives, which I will review
below. The objects involved in IA comparatives cannot be animate or indefinite and the verb involved
cannot be monosyllabic. Importantly, Tsao (1989) also notes that these restrictions are precisely the same
set of restrictions which govern object preposing as well.
Let us first review in turn the parallel restrictions on object preposing and IA comparatives asreported by Tsao (1989). We begin with the animacy restriction. As presented in the left column, object
preposing is grammatical with the inanimate object, ‘algebra,’ but degrades with the semi-animate ‘cat,’and is ungrammatical with the human ‘Zhang San.’ In the right column, we see parallel grammaticality
judgments for IA comparatives with internal arguments of corresponding animacy.
(12) Animacy restrictions on object preposing and IA comparatives
Object preposing:Comparative:
a.

b.

c.

* wǒ Zhāngsān xǐhuān
I ZS
like
Int: ‘I, Zhang San, like’?
wǒ māo xǐhuān
I cat like
Int: ‘I, cat, like’wǒ dàishù xǐhuān
I algebra like‘I, algebra, like.’

a’.

b’.

c’.

* wǒ Zhāngsān bı̌ Lı̌ sı̀ xǐhuānI ZS
bi LS like
Int: ‘I like ZS more than I like LS’?
wǒ māo bı̌ gǒu xǐhuān
I cat bi dog like
Int: ‘I like cats more than dogs’
wǒ dàishù bı̌ jı̌ héxǐhuānI algebra bi geometry like‘I like algebra more than geometry.’

Moreover, IA comparatives in animate-inanimate or inanimate-animate object order are uniformly
judged as mildly to completely deviant; i.e. the animacy restriction applies equally to objects in thetarget and objects in the standard.
Second, preposed objects cannot be indefinite (Tsao 1989, a.o.). The same effect is observed withIA comparatives:(13) Internal arguments in IA comparatives cannot be indefinite
Context: looking at a course listing.
* [wǒ sān ge kē mù] bı̌ [nı̌ liǎng ge kē mù] [xǐhuān de duō]I three CL courses BI you two CL courses like
DE moreInt: ‘(of these courses,) I like three courses more than you like two courses.’Third, object preposing is ungrammatical when the verb is monosyllabic. Example (14a) is judged to
be ungrammatical due to its monosyllabic verb aì ‘love,’ while the minimally contrasting (12c) with thedisyllabic verb xǐhuān ‘like’ is grammatical. We observe the same contrast between minimally distinct
comparatives (14a′ ) and (12c′ ).
(14) Object preposing cannot leave behind a monosyllabic verb with gap; also restricted in IA
comparatives (cf 12c+12c’ above)
Object preposing:Comparative:a.

* wǒ dàishù ài
I algebra love
Int: ‘I, algebra, love.’a’.

* wǒ dàishù bı̌ jı̌ héaı̀
I algebra bi geometry love
Int: ‘I love alg. more than geo.’

As object preposing offers a way to realize objects in a pre-verbal position and exhibits the same
restrictions observed with IA comparatives, it would be preferable to derive IA comparatives as involving
two simultaneous instances of object preposing. Object preposing with obligatorily transitive verbs suchas xǐhuān ‘like’ are derived via movement from the post-verbal subject position (Ernst & Wang, 1995;
Paul, 2002).5 Thus in these IA comparatives, there must be a movement chain from the post-verbal object
5Note that not all preposed objects are derived via movement; see Paul (2002) for some examples of “object
preposing” with overt post-verbal objects.

59
position to the target object as well as a movement chain from that same post-verbal object position to
the standard object.
Independent Dependency allows for such cases of simultaneous object preposing into the target andthe standard, as the two objects are base-generated within two separate VPs. The derivation presented in(10) is precisely such an example.
The Direct Analysis alternative would be to introduce a separate mechanism by which IA comparatives can be built by base-generating objects directly in the target and standard. Such approaches
would view the parallel restrictions on object preposing and IA comparatives as a coincidence. Lin(2009) pursues this alternative, introducing a Direct Analysis syntax/semantics which can generate IAcomparatives without making use of object preposing. His analysis predicts that IA comparatives arefree of the restrictions on object preposing reviewed here, contrary to fact, and overgenerates many IAcomparatives.

3.2. Subject reconstruction with de dicto readings
A sentence like (15a) and its Mandarin counterpart (15b) are observed to have two distinct readings
differing in the specificity of the referent of the subject indefinite ‘an Australian.’ In the de re reading,there is a specific Australian in the mind of the speaker who is likely to win the race, while in the de dicto
reading the speaker states that it is likely that there is an Australian who will win the race, but without aparticular Australian in mind.
(15) De re/de dicto readings via raising:a. An Australian is likely to win the race.
De re: ‘A (specific) Australian is likely to win the race.’
De dicto: ‘It is likely that an Australian will win the race.’b. Àozhōurén yǒukěnéng yı́ng zhè ge bı̌ sài
Australian likely
win this CL competition
De re: ‘A (specific) Australian is likely to win the race.’
De dicto: ‘It is likely that an Australian will win the race.’∃ > likely
likely > ∃∃ > likely
likely > ∃The existence of the de dicto reading, where the modal operator likely and the indefinite’s existential
force are interpreted with inverse scope, is attributed to the fact that likely here is a raising predicate andthus there is an A-movement chain from the subject position of ‘win the race’ to its surface position. The
indefinite is able to reconstruct into its lower position at LF, below the likely operator, yielding the dedicto reading (cf May, 1977).
The question, then, is whether reconstruction is possible in a comparative construction where thepredicate of comparison is of this type, e.g. ‘likely to win the race,’ and both the target and standard
are indefinite subjects. In particular, we would like to know whether both subjects can reconstruct at thesame time, which would show us that both the target and standard must have been base-generated below
likely at the same time. We see in (16) that this reading is indeed available.6(16) Both target and standard can reconstruct at the same time
Zhōngguórén bı̌ Aòzhōurén yǒukěnéng yı́ng zhè ge bı̌ sài
Chinese-person BI Australian likely
win this CL comp.
De re/de re: ‘A (specific) Chinese person is more likely to win the race than a (specific)
Australian.’∃2 > likely
De dicto/de dicto: ‘It is more likely that a Chinese person will win the race than that an Australian
will.’
likely > ∃2
Given the availability of the de dicto/de dicto reading in (16), we know that both subjects must havebeen raised from within the same position within the complement of likely at the same time. The proposal
outlined here is able to construct such an example, again using multidominance. Likely merged into two
separate TPs, each with its own subject which is then raised.
6

The logic of this argument draws from Grosz (2009).

60
(17)

TP1
.

bǐ

.

.
.
Chinese person

TP2

.

.

.
.
.
.
Australian.

.
likely

.
win

.

.
this

.
race

Within a Direct Analysis derivation of (16), at least one of the subjects must have been base-generated
above likely, as the gradable predicate “likely to win the race” is only constructed once throughout
the derivation. Therefore we predict that at least one of the subjects would not be able to reconstruct,preventing the de dicto/de dicto reading.

3.3. bèi long passives in comparatives
Mandarin Chinese offers a curious and well-studied passivization strategy known as the bèi long
passive, exemplified in (18). Huang (1999) argues that bèi long passives involve A-movement of a null
operator to a position between bèi and the agent (19). The operator movement is interpreted as lambdaabstraction over the base object position, constructing a predicate of ‘λx . father scolds x seriously’
which is then used in the interpretation of the passive.
(18) The bèi long passive
Yūehàn bèi bàba mà de hěn cánJohn BEI father scold de very serious‘John was scolded very seriously by his father.’(19)

John BEI [ Op
. i [TP father scold t.i ... ] ].

Now consider a comparative (20) involving two contrasting agents of bèi long passives. Following
Huang (1999), we must posit two simultaneous instances of operator movement as in (21), bothoriginating within the predicate of comparison as the complement of scold, with one landing between bèi
and father in the target and the other landing between bèi and mother in the standard. This simultaneous
movement would again be problematic under a Direct Analysis.
(20) “sharing” the predicate of two bèi long passives[Yūehàn bèi bàba] bı̌ [bèi māma] [mà de gèng cán]
BEI father BI BEI mother scold DE more serious
John‘John was scolded by his father more seriously than by his mother.’(21) [target John BEI Op. i father] bǐ [standard pro BEI Op. i mother] [predicate scold t.i ... ].

Under our Independent Dependency proposal, however, the parallel movements out of the predicate
are not at all problematic, as there can simply be two different instances of the null operator in thederivation while sharing all the other material in the gradable predicate. An Independent Dependencyobeying structure for (20) is presented in (22):7

7
The manner adverb seriously is not represented to simplify the example. The precise position of the adverb is
not crucial to the argument made here.

61
(22)

TP1

John

bǐ

bèi .

father

.

TP

.
scold

TP2

pro

bèi .

.

.
Op1

mother

.

.

.
Op2

3.4. Verb-copy constructions
The fourth and final argument against the Direct Analysis based on simultaneous movement fromthe predicate to the target and the standard comes from the Mandarin verb-copy construction. As notedby Liu (1996), in bǐ comparatives such as (23), repeated below, where the target and standard are both of
the form “SVO” and the predicate of comparison is a verb with an adverbial modifier, all three instancesof the verb must match:(23) All three verbs must match in comparatives with SVO target and standard (Liu, 1996):[Yūehàn qı́ mǎ] bı̌ [Mǎlì qı́ niǔ] [qı́ de kuài]Johnride horse BI Mary ride cow ride DE fast
“John rides horses faster than Mary rides cows.”
Liu (1996) argues that this is predicted through a derivation of (23) that involves two instances ofthe Mandarin manner verb-copy construction (24), which requires that its two exponents of the verb
be identical. Huang (1988) and Cheng (2007) argue that these verb-copy constructions are derived via
movement without deletion of the verb in question. Liu suggests that a Reduction Analysis would be
able to straightforwardly derive comparatives such as (23) using two instances of verb-copy.
(24) Mandarin manner “verb-copy” construction:
Yūehàn qı́ mǎ qı́ de hǎoJohn ride horse ride DE good“John rides horses well.”A Direct Analysis, though, would not be able to naturally derive comparatives such as (23) with all
three exponents of the verb derived through verb-copy, and would instead have to give a separate accountfor the verb matching constraint. See Erlewine (2007) for such an attempt.

3.5. Summary
The last four sections presented different types of bǐ comparatives which are challenging for the
Direct Analysis in precisely the same way: all involved parts of the standard and target simultaneously
moving out of the predicate of comparison. Two items have moved out, but we only see one base position.
The argument being made here is in some sense one of theoretical efficiency: a Direct Analysis
derivation for these types of comparatives is not necessarily impossible, but brand new mechanisms
must be proposed for comparatives that seemingly involve subject raising, object preposing, bèi passives,and verb-copy, independently maintaining the characteristics of each construction. Under Independent
Dependency, any comparative derivation involves two separate TPs—one for the target and predicate andanother for the standard and predicate—and thus we need not introduce any new comparative-specificmechanisms for the derivation of the complex comparatives reviewed here.

62

4. Conclusion
In this paper I presented a new Reduction Analysis for the Mandarin bǐ comparative, exemplified by
the derivation in section 2. At its core, the proposal can be summarized as follows:(6)

Independent Dependency:
A comparative [ target bǐ standard predicate ] includes both [TP target predicate ] and [TP standard
predicate ] within its syntactic derivation.

By having its derivation include the derivations for two separate TPs, each containing an instance ofthe gradable predicate, we predict that syntactic dependencies such as movement simultaneously between
the predicate and target and between the predicate and the standard would be possible, even targeting thesame gap positions within the predicate. In section 3, I presented four cases which involve movementof precisely this form: object preoposing, subject reconstruction, the bèi long passive, and verb-copy.
These examples pose a serious challenge for any Direct Analysis approach.
The solution presented in this paper involves multidominance. By multidominating the common
material within the predicate across the two clauses, we can produce the comparative constructionsattested with only one pronounced predicate from an Independent Dependency-obeying structure.

References
Bhatt, Rajesh & Shoichi Takahashi (2011). Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory .
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen (2007). Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese. Corver, Norbert & Jairo Nunes (eds.), The Copy
Theory of Movement, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Creswell, M. J. (1976). The semantics of degree. Partee, Barbara Hall (ed.), Montague Grammar.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (2007). A New Syntax-Semantics for the Mandarin bı̌ Comparative. Master’s thesis,
University of Chicago, URL http://mitcho.com/academic/erlewine-thesis.pdf.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (in preparation). Independent dependency and the Mandarin bǐ comparative [working
title]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology generals paper.
Ernst, Thomas & Chengchi Wang (1995). Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
4, 235–260.
Fox, Danny & David Pesetsky (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31.
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina (2007). About Sharing. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina (2009). What and why can’t be shared.
Grano, Thomas (to appear). Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory .
Grosz, Patrick (2009). Movement and agreement in right-node raising constructions. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.
Heim, Irene (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters, URL http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/
zc0ZjY0M/Comparatives%2085.pdf. Manuscript.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1988). Wo pao de kuai and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64:2, 274–311.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1999). Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies
29, 423–509, URL http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ctjhuang/my_papers/1999.passives.
pdf.
Kayne, Richard (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.
Lin, Jo-wang (2009). Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Language Semantics 17:1,
1–27.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (1996). A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26:1/2, 215–235.
May, Robert Carlen (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Paul, Waltraud (2002). Sentence-internal topics in Mandarin Chinese: the case of object preposing. Language andLinguistics 3:4, 695–714.
Tsao, Feng-fu (1989). Comparison in Chinese: a topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies
19, 151–189.
Xiang, Ming (2005). Some Topics in Comparative Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University.

Proceedings of the 29th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics
edited by Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue,
Jeffrey Punske, Deniz Tat,
Jessamyn Schertz, and Alex Trueman
Cascadilla Proceedings Project

Somerville, MA

2012

Copyright information
Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics© 2012 Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. All rights reservedISBN 978-1-57473-451-5 library binding
A copyright notice for each paper is located at the bottom of the first page of the paper.
Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Ordering information
Orders for the library binding edition are handled by Cascadilla Press.
To place an order, go to www.lingref.com or contact:
Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA
phone: 1-617-776-2370, fax: 1-617-776-2271, sales@cascadilla.com

Web access and citation information
This entire proceedings can also be viewed on the web at www.lingref.com. Each paper has a unique document #which can be added to citations to facilitate access. The document # should not replace the full citation.
This paper can be cited as:
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2012. Share to Compare: The Mandarin bí Comparative. In Proceedings of the 29th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Jaehoon Choi et al., 54-62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #2687.