Misplaced Pages

#567432

50-426: The syntax of comparative constructions is poorly understood due to the complexity of the data. In particular, the comparative frequently occurs with independent mechanisms of syntax such as coordination and forms of ellipsis ( gapping , pseudogapping , null complement anaphora, stripping , verb phrase ellipsis ). The interaction of the various mechanisms complicates the analysis. A number of fixed expressions use

100-428: A large or small variety of an item is meant, as in the greater celandine as opposed to the lesser celandine . These adjectives may at first sight appear as a kind of null comparative , when as is usual, they are cited without their opposite counterpart. It should be apparent, however, that an entirely different variety of animal, scientific, or geographical object is intended. Thus it may be found, for example, that

150-402: A comparative form where no comparison is being asserted, such as higher education or younger generation . These comparatives can be called absolute . Similarly, a null comparative is one in which the starting point for comparison is not stated. These comparisons are frequently found in advertising , for example, in typical assertions such as Our burgers have more flavor , Our picture

200-456: A coordinate structure. The same restriction does not limit similar constituents that mostly follow the coordinate structure: The underline now marks a constituent that mostly follows the coordinate structure. Unlike with the first three examples, the coordinate structure in these three examples can cut into the underlined constituent. In Transformational Grammar , the interaction of coordination and extraction (e.g. wh -fronting ) has generated

250-439: A dependency-based system (but there is always a linear distinction, since specifiers precede complements). The flat analysis has the benefit that it captures our intuition that coordinate structures are different from subordinate structures at a basic level. The drawback to the flat analysis, however, is that the theory of syntax must be augmented beyond what is necessary for standard subordinate structures. The layered analysis has

300-436: A given string, i.e. as a constituency test . In light of non-constituent conjuncts however, the helpfulness of coordination as a diagnostic for identifying constituents can be dubious. Gapping (and stripping ) is an ellipsis mechanism that seems to occur in coordinate structures only. It usually excludes a finite verb from the second conjunct of a coordinate structure and allows further constituents to also be elided from

350-653: A like fashion, however, the coordinate structure is acceptable. This trait of coordination is referred to as the Across-the-Board Constraint . For example: There are other apparent exceptions to the Coordinate Structure Constraint and the Across-the-Board generalization, and their integration to existing syntactic theory has been a long-standing disciplinary desideratum. In pseudo-coordinative constructions,

400-414: A lot of interest. The Coordinate Structure Constraint is the property of coordinate structures that prevents extraction of a single conjunct or from a single conjunct. Coordinate structures are said to be strong islands for extraction. For example: These attempts at coordination fail because extraction cannot affect just one conjunct of a coordinate structure. If extraction occurs out of both conjuncts in

450-537: A non-standard intonation contour, they can all be acceptable. This situation is problematic for theories of syntax because most of the coordinated strings do not qualify as constituents. Hence since the constituent is widely assumed to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis, such data seem to require that the theory of coordination admit additional theoretical apparatus. Two examples of the sort of apparatus that has been posited are so-called conjunction reduction and right node raising (RNR). Conjunction reduction

500-567: Is a subordinator; the differences between the various constructions derive from the level of structure that is coordinated e.g. coordination of heads, coordination of VP, etc. In Japanese, the particle と to , which can be translated as and in English, is used as a coordinator of nominals (a noun, noun phrase or any word that functions as a noun). It cannot be used to coordinate other word categories such as adjectives and verbs. Different word categories require different coordinators. We will discuss

550-412: Is an ellipsis mechanism that takes non-constituent conjuncts to be complete phrases or clauses at some deep level of syntax. These complete phrases or clauses are then reduced down to their surface appearance by the conjunction reduction mechanism. The traditional analysis of the phenomenon of right node raising assumed that in cases of non-constituent conjuncts, a shared string to the right of the conjuncts

SECTION 10

#1732772871568

600-555: Is generally associated with Appalachian English and African American Vernacular English , though they were common in Early Modern English and were used by Shakespeare. In recent times, such constructions have been used humorously, or to convey a sense of erudition, in addition to their original purpose of emphasis. Russell Ultan (1972) surveyed 20 languages and observed that the comparative and superlative are inflected forms of (near-)identical bases with respective to

650-457: Is indicated using a blank, and the unacceptable b-sentences show what is construed as having been elided in the a-sentences: Comparative subdeletion is a second type of ellipsis in comparatives that some accounts acknowledge. It occurs when the focused constituent in the than -clause is not deleted because it is distinct from its counterpart in the main clause. In other words, comparative subdeletion occurs when comparative deletion does not because

700-459: Is limited to a few verbs. In English, these verbs are typically go , try , and sit . In other languages, typical pseudo-coordinative verbs and/or hendiadys predicates are egressive verbs (e.g. go ) and verbs of body posture (e.g. sit , stand and lie down ). A typical property of pseudo-coordinative constructions is that, unlike ordinary coordination, they appear to violate the Across-the-Board extraction property (see above). In other words, it

750-442: Is not limited to the standard syntactic categories. Each of the following subsections briefly draws attention to an unexpected aspect of coordination. These aspects are less than fully understood, despite the attention that coordination has received in theoretical syntax. One coordinate structure can easily be nested inside another. However, this may result in ambiguity, as demonstrated by the following example. The brackets indicate

800-451: Is often not sure which ellipsis mechanisms are involved in a given than -clause. One thing is clear, however: the five ellipsis mechanisms illustrated here are distinct from the two ellipsis mechanisms that are unique to comparatives mentioned above (comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion). If an adjective has two comparative markers, it is known as a double comparative (e.g. more louder , worser ). The use of double comparatives

850-464: Is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator ( coordinating conjunction ), e.g. and , or , but (in English). The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure . The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination . It is also one of

900-577: Is possible to extract from one of the conjuncts. It has been argued that pseudo-coordination is not a unitary phenomenon. Even in a single language such as English, the predicate try exhibits different pseudo-coordination properties to other predicates and other predicates such as go and sit can instantiate a number of different pseudo-coordinative construction types. On the other hand, it has been argued that at least some different types of pseudo-coordination can be analyzed using ordinary coordination as opposed to stipulating that pseudo-coordinative and

950-408: Is raised out of VP in such a manner that the material in the conjuncts ends up as constituents. The plausibility of these mechanisms is NOT widely accepted as it can be argued that they are ad hoc attempts to solve a problem that plagues theories that take the constituent to be the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis. Coordination has been widely employed as a test or for the constituent status of

1000-440: Is sharper or 50% more . These uses of the comparative do not mention what it is they are being compared to. In some cases it is easy to infer what the missing element in a null comparative is. In other cases, the speaker or writer has been deliberately vague, for example " Glasgow's miles better ". Scientific classification, taxonomy, and geographical categorization conventionally include the adjectives greater and lesser , when

1050-575: The Containment Hypothesis thus: "The representation of the superlative properly contains that of the comparative (in all languages that have a morphological superlative)". Indeed: Additionally, Bobaljik asserts that Universal Grammar lacks the superlative morpheme. Coordination (linguistics) In linguistics , coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins . The presence of coordination

SECTION 20

#1732772871568

1100-551: The coordinate structure . The words and and or are by far the most frequently occurring coordinators in English. Other coordinators occur less often and have unique properties, e.g. but , as well as , then , etc. The coordinator usually serves to link the conjuncts and indicate the presence of a coordinate structure. Depending on the number of coordinators used, coordinate structures can be classified as syndetic , asyndetic , or polysyndetic . Different types of coordinators are also categorised differently. The table below shows

1150-613: The lesser panda entails a giant panda variety, and a gazetteer would establish that there are the Lesser Antilles as well as the Greater Antilles . It is in the nature of grammatical conventions evolving over time that it is difficult to establish when they first became widely accepted, but both greater and lesser in these instances have over time become mere adjectives (or adverbial constructs), so losing their comparative connotation. Further, Greater indicates

1200-437: The than -clauses of comparatives: comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion . The existence of comparative deletion as an ellipsis mechanism is widely acknowledged, whereas the status of comparative subdeletion as an ellipsis mechanism is more controversial. Comparative deletion is an obligatory ellipsis mechanism that occurs in the than -clause of a comparative construction. The elided material of comparative deletion

1250-482: The advantage that there is no need to augment the syntax with an additional principle of organization, but it has the disadvantage that it does not sufficiently accommodate our intuition that coordination is fundamentally different from subordination. Most coordinate structures are like those just produced above; the coordinated strings are alike in syntactic category. There are a number of unique traits of coordination, however, that demonstrate that what can be coordinated

1300-419: The analyses in a constituency-based system, and the b-trees in a dependency-based system: The first two trees present the traditional exocentric analysis. The coordinate structure is deemed exocentric insofar as neither conjunct can be taken to be the sole head, but rather both conjuncts are deemed heads in a sense. The second two trees, where the coordinator is the head, are similar to the first two insofar as

1350-429: The b-sentences involving comparatives is closely similar to the structure of the a-sentences involving coordination. Based on this similarity, many have argued that the syntax of comparatives overlaps with the syntax of coordination at least some of the time. In this regard, the than in the b-sentences should be viewed as a coordinator (coordinate conjunction), not as a subordinator (subordinate conjunction). Examples of

1400-554: The basic use of these coordinators in Japanese. Below is a simple example of nominal coordination in Japanese. メアリー Mary Mary -は -wa - TOP [りんご-と [ringo-to [apple-and バナナ] banana] banana] -を -o - ACC 買った katta bought Ellipsis (linguistics) Too Many Requests If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include

1450-486: The categories for the coordinators in English: Coordination is a very flexible mechanism of syntax. Any given lexical or phrasal category can be coordinated. The examples throughout this article employ the convention whereby the conjuncts of coordinate structures are marked using square brackets and bold script. In the following examples, the coordinate structure includes all the material that follows

1500-453: The comparative is not involved. The presence of these ellipsis mechanisms in than -clauses complicates the analysis considerably, since they render it difficult to discern which aspects of the syntax of comparatives are unique to comparatives. The fact that the five independent ellipsis mechanisms (and possibly others) can occur in the than -clauses of comparatives has rendered the study of the syntax of comparatives particularly difficult. One

1550-415: The comparative that do not allow an analysis in terms of coordination (because the necessary parallel structures are not present) are instances of comparative subordination . In such cases, than has the status of a preposition or a subordinator (subordinate conjunction), e.g. Since the parallel structures associated with coordinate structures, i.e., the conjuncts, cannot be acknowledged in these sentences,

Comparative - Misplaced Pages Continue

1600-407: The conjunct. While gapping itself is widely acknowledged to involve ellipsis, which instances of coordination do and do not involve gapping is still a matter of debate. Most theories of syntax agree that gapping is involved in the following cases. A subscript and a smaller font are used to indicate the "gapped" material: Accounts of gapping and coordination disagree, however, concerning data such as

1650-463: The conjuncts are equi-level sisters. These two flat analyses stand in contrast to the following three layered analyses. The constituency-based a-trees appear again on the left, and the dependency-based b-trees on the right: The primary aspect of these layered analyses is that an attempt is being made to adapt the analysis of coordinate structures to the analysis of subordinate structures . The conjuncts in each case are NOT sister constituents, but rather

1700-424: The conjuncts of a coordinate structure that does restrict the material that follows it: The star * indicates that the sentence is unacceptable in the language. Each of these coordinate structures is disallowed. The underline draws attention to a constituent that mostly precedes the coordinate structure but that the initial conjunct "cuts into". There is apparently a restriction on the constituents that mostly precede

1750-471: The constituents being compared are distinct, e.g. Accounts that acknowledge comparative subdeletion posit a null measure expression in the position marked by the blank (x-many, x-much). This element serves to focus the expression in the same way that -er or more focuses its counterpart in the main clause. Various arguments are put forth that motivate the existence of this null element. These arguments will not be reproduced here, though. Suffice it to say that

1800-550: The coordinator, generally and , appears to have a subordinating function. It occurs in many languages and is sometimes known as "hendiadys", and it is often, but not always, used to convey a pejorative or idiomatic connotation. Among the Germanic languages, pseudo-coordination occurs in English, Afrikaans, Norwegian, Danish and Swedish. Pseudo-coordination appears to be absent in Dutch and German. The pseudo-coordinative construction

1850-482: The first conjunct is in a more prominent (higher) hierarchical position than the second conjunct. The three analyses differ with respect to the presumed head of the entire structure. The third option in terms of the X-bar schema cannot be rendered in terms of dependency because dependency allows a word to project just a single node. There is no way to capture the hierarchical distinction between specifiers and complements in

1900-417: The following: The gapping analysis shown in the a-sentences is motivated above all by the desire to avoid the non-constituent conjuncts associated with the b-sentences. No consensus has been reached about which analysis is better. Coordination is sensitive to the linear order of words, a fact that is evident with differences between forward and backward sharing. There is a limitation on material that precedes

1950-413: The hierarchical structure of coordinated strings, there is much disagreement. Whether or not coordinate structures should be analyzed in terms of the basic tree conventions employed for subordination is an issue that divides experts. Broadly speaking, there are two options: either a flat or a layered analysis. There are two possibilities for the flat option, both of which are shown here. The a-trees represent

2000-514: The inclusion of adjacent areas when referring to metropolitan areas , such as when suburbs are intended. Although it implies a comparison with a narrower definition that refers to a central city only, such as Greater London versus the City of London , or Greater New York versus New York City , it is not part of the "comparative" in the grammatical sense of this article. A comparative always compares something directly with something else. At times

2050-429: The indicated groupings are indeed possible becomes evident when or is employed: A theory of coordination needs to be in a position to address nesting of this sort. The examples above illustrate that the conjuncts are often alike in syntactic category. There are, though, many instances of coordination where the coordinated strings are NOT alike, e.g. Data like these have been explored in detail. They illustrate that

Comparative - Misplaced Pages Continue

2100-481: The latter two sentences, the coordinated strings are adjuncts that are alike in syntactic function (temporal adjunct + temporal adjunct, causal adjunct + causal adjunct). The aspect of coordination that is perhaps most vexing for theories of coordination concerns non-constituent conjuncts. Coordination is, namely, not limited to coordinating just constituents, but is also capable of coordinating non-constituent strings: While some of these coordinate structures require

2150-964: The left-most square bracket and precedes the right-most square bracket. The coordinator appears in normal script between the conjuncts. Data of this sort could easily be expanded to include every lexical and phrasal category . An important aspect of the above data is that the conjuncts each time are constituents . In other words, the material enclosed in brackets would qualify as a constituent in both phrase structure grammars and dependency grammars . Theoretical accounts of coordination vary in major respects. For instance, approaches to coordination in constituency and dependency differ significantly, and derivational and representational systems are also likely to disagree on many aspects of how coordination should be explained. Derivational accounts, for instance, are more likely to assume transformational mechanisms to "rectify" non-constituent conjuncts (e.g. conjunction reduction and RNR, as mentioned below). Even concerning

2200-405: The many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis. A coordinator or a coordinating conjunction , often appears between the conjuncts, usually at least between the penultimate and ultimate conjunct of

2250-418: The only analysis available is one in terms of subordination, whereby than has the status of a subordinator (as in sentences a-d) or of a preposition (as in sentence e). What this means is that the syntax of comparatives is complex because at times an analysis in terms of coordination is warranted, whereas at other times, the analysis must assume subordination. There are two types of ellipsis that are unique to

2300-540: The positive and equative. Jonathan D. Bobaljik (2012) contends that Ultan’s generalization is a strong contender for a linguistic universal. Bobaljik formulates the Comparative-Superlative Generalization: With respect to the positive, if any adjective’s comparative degree were suppletive, so would its superlative; vice versa, if any adjective’s superlative degree were suppletive, then so would its comparative. Bobaljik phrases

2350-485: The sentences in which subdeletion is supposedly occurring are qualitatively different from sentences in which comparative deletion occurs, e.g., He has more cats than you have ___ . There are a number of independent ellipsis mechanisms that occur in the than- clauses of comparative constructions: gapping , pseudogapping , null complement anaphora, stripping , and verb phrase ellipsis . These mechanisms are independent of comparative clauses because they also occur when

2400-399: The syntax of comparatives matches the syntax of coordination, and at other times, it must be characterized in terms of subordination. The syntax of comparatives can closely mirror the syntax of coordination . The similarity in structure across the following a- and b-sentences illustrates this point. The conjuncts of the coordinate structures are enclosed in square brackets: The structure of

2450-419: The theory of coordination should not rely too heavily on syntactic category to explain the fact that in most instances of coordination, the coordinated strings are alike. Syntactic function is more important, that is, the coordinated strings should be alike in syntactic function . In the former three sentences here, the coordinated strings are, as complements of the copula is , predicative expressions , and in

2500-457: The three possible readings for the sentence. The (b)- and (c)-readings show one coordinate structure being embedded inside another. Which of the three readings is understood depends on intonation and context. The (b)-reading could be preferred in a situation where Bill and Sam arrived together, but Fred arrived separately. Similarly, the (c)-reading could be preferred in a situation where Fred and Bill arrived together, but Sam arrived separately. That

#567432