Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1Motivation of the Study
Making a comparison, namely,ordering objects along a certain dimension is a basic and universal cognitive ability of humanbeings. However, the linguistic encoding of comparisons is not simple. To express differentkinds of comparisons, there exists a variety of comparative constructions. The same kind ofcomparison can also be expressed differently cross languages.There have been a large amount of discussions on comparative constructions and someof them did give us valuable insights to their syntactic and semantic properties and structures,with many monographs, papers and theses probing into it (Bhatt & Pancheva 2004; Corver1991, 2005; Erlewine 2007, 2008, 2012; Heim 1985, 2000, 2006; Lechner 2001, 2004;Kennedy 1999, 2004, 2007; etc.). The study has gained much progress, but there are stillmany puzzles left to be solved, such as the syntactic status of the degree phrase, thedifferences among the subclasses of comparatives, and the cross-linguistic differences in theform and interpretation of the construction, etc.Although the study of the comparative construction has been one of the major topics inthe generative tradition, compared with the extensive work on comparative constructions inEnglish and other European languages, relatively little has done on the Mandarin counterpart(He 2010; Liu 1996, 2011; Ma 1986; Ren 1987; Xiang 2003, 2005; Zhu 1983; Zhang 1993;etc.). There are two questions about Chinese comparatives that have received most attentionin the literature (Liu 1996, 2011; Erlewine 2007; Xiang 2003, 2005; etc.). One is concernedwith the syntactic category of bi. Is it like -er or than in English? The other is concerned withthe syntax of the standard of comparison introduced by bi. Is it a DP or an elided CP?
…………
1.2Setting the Stage
The thesis is an investigation of Mandarin comparatives with bi as the comparativemarker within the framework of generative grammar. And it aims to give a proper syntacticand semantic analysis of bi-comparatives in Mandarin Chinese, involving both English andChinese data.Comparison has been considered as one of the most fundamental intellectual linguisticoperations for all human beings. Like most languages in the world, Chinese also employs itsown forms to encode comparison: positive, comparative and superlative forms, as exemplifiedas follows: Apparently, this thesis only concerns with the second sentence pattern--the comparativeone, which we christen such a bi-comparative a “typical comparative construction”. The mostcommon Mandarin bi-comparative has a pattern like this: target + bi+ standard+ predicate ofcomparison. Before having a further step, we will first exhibit some of its characteristics.First, the category of compared constituent can be subject NPs, object NPs, temporalNPs, locative phrases, PPs, VPs and even clauses(Tsao 1989; Shi 2001; Chung 2006; Lin2009 and among others).
………
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will give a review of some current studies on syntactic and semanticanalyses of bi-comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. We focus our attention mainly on threeaspects here: the categorical status of bi, the syntactic structure of bi comparative construction(BCC) in Mandarin Chinese and the semantic analysis of BCC in Mandarin Chinese. Section2.2, section 2.3 and section 2.4 will give a brief review of previous studies on the above threequestions respectively. The studies reviewed in each section are organized chronologicallysince each of them more or less aims to improve those of its predecessors’ on certain points.Section 2.5 is the summary part.
……….
2.2 Previous Review on the Categorical Status of bi
Many scholars (Chao 2005; Chung 2006; Fu 1978; etc.) have studied the categoricalstatus of bi in the literature. There are mainly two proposals about the syntactic status of bi inChinese comparatives. Liu (1996) argues that bi is a preposition, which forms a prepositionalphrase (PP) with the standard of comparison following bi. While Xiang (2005) and Erlewine(2007) argue that bi is a functional head. Xiang (2005) argues that bi is a Deg head, just like–er in English. Erlewine (2007) holds that bi is a light verb v.
2.2.1 Preposition Analysis
Couched in terms of the wider antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) literature, Liu (1996)aims to examine the Chinese comparative as an instance of ACD. He argues that bi is apreposition, which forms a PP with the standard of comparison following bi together being anadjunct to the gradable predicate.Liu first sets out to answer two structural questions: 1. Does the BCC involvecoordination? 2. Does BCC contain a gap inside? His answer to the first question is no. Hisarguments against the coordination view come from binding facts and from the temporaladverb yizhi “always”. For example, in (17), we note that the adverb yizhi can only comebefore bi, but not after the standard. It had been argued that yizhi must be T-licensed, forcingbi to be inside TP, which falsifies bi is a coordinator.
………….
Chapter 3 Mandarin bi-comparatives: phrasal or clausal........22
3.1 Introduction ..........22
3.2 Phrasal and Clausal Analyses of English Comparatives ..........22
3.2.1 Comparative Deletion Approach ....23
3.2.2 The Wh-construction Approach ......25
3.2.3 The Direct Analysis Approach ........26
3.3 Phrasal and Clausal Analyses of Mandarin bi-comparatives .........27
3.4 My Proposal on the Syntax of BCC ..........33
3.5 Summary........44
Chapter 4 The Semantics of Mandarin bi-comparatives....45
4.1 Introduction ..........45
4.2 Implicit vs. Explicit Comparison ........45
4.3 Mandarin bi-comparatives as Explicit Comparison....50
4.4 The Degree-based Analysis of bi-comparatives in MC.....52
4.4.1 The Degree-based Analysis ......52
4.4.2 Applying the Degreed-based Analysis to BCC........54
4.5 Summary........55
Chapter 4 The Semantics of Mandarin bi-comparatives
4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, we have examined the syntactic structure and derivation ofChinese bi-comparatives, namely, the derivation of bi-phrasal and bi-clausal comparatives. Inthis chapter, we will focus our attention on the semantics of bi-comparatives in MandarinChinese. Kennedy (2005, 2007a) proposes that the implicit/explicit comparison distinction isa potential “parameter” of variation in the expression of comparison, based on whether alanguage has explicit comparison morphology or not. Thus, Based on Kennedy’s (2005,2007a) diagnostics for implicit comparison, I argue that Mandarin bi-comparatives involveexplicit comparison just like English by providing corresponding Chinese data. In addition, inlight of the standard degree-based analysis of English comparatives, we also demonstrate adegree-based analysis of bi-phrasal and bi-clausal comparatives in Mandarin Chinese, whichalmost shows a perfect mapping between the syntax and semantics.
………
Conclusion
After giving some introductory remarks and providing an intensive review of theprevious studies on Mandarin bi-comparatives, all those above questions are answeredelaborately in chapter three and chapter four, which are the main bodies of the thesis.Firstly, the controversies on the studies of Mandarin bi comparative construction insyntax begin with the definition of the syntactic identity of the comparative marker bi.Different linguists have put forward different categorical judgments of bi. Concerning thesyntactic status of bi, there are mainly two popular proposals. Liu (1996) argues that bi is apreposition, which forms a prepositional phrase (PP) with the standard of comparisonfollowing bi. While Xiang (2005) and Erlewine (2007) argue that bi is a functional head.Xiang (2005) argues that bi is a Deg head, just like –er in English. Erlewine (2007) holds thatbi is a light verb v. Then, we made a proposal that bi is a preposition in Mandarincomparatives by offering a series of constituency tests and argumentation, and it can selecteither a DP or a CP, functioning as an adjunct of the main predicate.Then, when it comes to the second research question, the paper demonstrates a briefcontrastive study of the phrasal and clausal comparatives in English and Chinese, givingevaluation on their merits and shortcomings. We find that neither a pure clausal nor a phrasalanalysis can well adequately explain the syntactic property of Mandarin bi-comparatives.Thus, the thesis proposes that both phrasal and clausal comparatives exist in Mandarinbi-comparatives. Phrasal and clausal comparatives should be distinguished from one anotherand cannot be derived in the same process.
…………
References (omitted)