- Email: [email protected]
On adjectives and comparison in English
Lingua
72 (1987) 225-242.
North-Holland
22s
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON IN ENGLISH
Review of: Jan Rusiecki, Adjectives and comparison in English. A semantic study* Leiv Egil BREIVIK University of Tromse, Norway Received
January
1987
Rusiecki has bravely taken on a large and messy task; anyone who has scrutinized an extensive corpus of English comparative constructions will know that they constitute a thicket of subtle semantic distinctions. According to the preface (p. xiii), the book under review ‘is an attempt at presenting a unified approach to the semantics of gradable adjectives in English, in all their forms: the positive degree, the comparative degree, and the superlative degree; and in all their uses: both as predicates of sentences and as attributes in noun phrases’. Adjectives and comparison in English (henceforth ACE) is the most exhaustive and detailed treatment of gradable adjectives so far. The author discusses an impressive amount of data within a framework that makes reference to both semantic and pragmatic parameters. ACE thus reflects the growing tendency of linguists and philosophers to focus attention not only on the problem of constructing a theory to describe natural language but also on the relationship between such a theory and a theory of language use. Here, the book will be approached from various perspectives. Most important of course is an appraisal of Rusiecki’s central claims, and the evidence presented for them. A recurrent theme in ACE is the limitations on the use of formal logic in linguistic description. The dialectic between language and theory will be discussed at various points below. In the last part of the review, I will point to a few potential topics for future investigation. My major emphasis will be on the kind of further work that might be done with this
*
Published
by Longman
(Longman
Linguistics
Library,
31), London
and New York,
xiv + 206 pp.
0024-3841/87/$3.50
0
1987, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V. (North-Holland)
1985.
226
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
book as a starting point. Before taking up these matters, however, it is necessary to place ACE in the context of related research. In traditional grammar, there are no in-depth studies of the semantics of the comparative construction in English, but the discussions in Jespersen (1917,1929), Sapir (1949), and Small (1923,1929) contain many interesting statements about the semantic relationships holding between comparative structures and others.’ The comparative construction has, however, figured prominently in literature written within the generative paradigm. It is not surprising that the early days of transformational-generative grammar witnessed an upsurge of interest in comparatives. At this time, it became one of the chief concerns of linguists to make their descriptions maximally explicit. Many ambiguities like that of Peter likes Mary more than Janet were cited as evidence for the need to distinguish between deep and surface structure. As implied above, the comparative construction impinges on a number of central issues in syntax and semantics. Among the questions that have been discussed are the phrase structure rules and derivation of comparatives (Bresnan (1971,1973), Doherty and Schwartz (1967), Hale (1970), Hendrick (1978), Klooster (1972), Lees (1961), Pilch (1965), Rivara (1975), Ross (1974), Seuren (1973), Smith (1961), Stanley (1969)); the status of the particle than (Hankamer (1973), Pinkham (1982)); the use of negative polarity items in comparative clauses (Cantrall (1977), Joly (1967), Mittwoch (1974), Napoli and Nespor (1976), Rivara (1975), Seuren (1973)), and the syntactico-semantic properties of degree words (Klooster (1978) Seuren (1978)). The analysis of comparatives is also relevant to the controversy about the status of WHmovement versus unbounded deletion (Chomsky (1977), Bresnan (1977)); deletion rules (Sag (1976), Williams (1977)), and X-bar syntax (Selkirk (1977)). In recent years, the adherents of model-theoretic semantics have shown great interest in comparatives (Cresswell (1976) Hellan (1981, 1984), Hoeksema (1983,1984), Klein (1980), von Stechow (1984)). What these studies have in common is a general predilection for a semantics which crucially involves the surface (or shallow) structure. A perusal of the works referred to above makes it strikingly clear that fundamental issues pertaining to the semantics of adjectives and comparison are far from being resolved - indeed it would be hard to achieve any consensus about what the fundamental issues are. This is hardly surprising in view of the development of linguistics in the past three decades. In this period, we have * Comparatives are also discussed by logicians (see e.g. Reichenbach (1947: 251-253, 315-316), Russell (1905), Strawson (1952: 202-203)).
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
227
seen a wide spectrum of ways of constructing grammar and of conceptualizing the issues of grammatical theory and analysis. Hypotheses about the comparative construction have generally been linked to specific models, and as a result of the frequent changes in grammatical constructs and components these hypotheses have never been given any substance or tested in the fine-grained description of an extensive body of data. z It should also be mentioned that until recently ‘linguists for the most part have concerned themselves with the linguistic theory itself, and have only paid lip service to the notion that a language learner must be able to select a grammar characterized by a linguistic theory on the basis of primary data’ (Culicover (1984: 115-l 16)). Closely related to the point made by Culicover is the fact that most recent studies of the comparative construction have focused almost exclusively on English, despite the widespread recognition that ‘A theory’s ability to explain data in individual languages is directly linked to its claims concerning the entire class of natural languages’ (Perlmutter (1980: 196)). It is unfortunate that linguists working within the generative paradigm have generally failed to take account of the valuable cross-linguistic data on comparatives found in e.g. Jensen (1934), Lehmann (1972a,b), Puhvel (1973), Small (1923,1929), and Ultan (1972).3 Particular mention should be made of two recent studies which contain a wealth of cross-linguistic information on comparative constructions, viz. those by Andersen (1983) and Stassen (1985). Both these typological studies are model-neutral; they do not affiliate themselves with any of the theoretical frameworks currently in favour. The unconcern for primary data is particularly conspicuous in studies oriented towards model-theoretic semantics, where explicit discussion is generally limited to a handful of hackneyed examples. In this connection, we may note the following statement by Allan (1986: 716): ‘The Journal of semantics 3: l/2 (1984) was a special issue supposedly on the comparative construction; in fact it was devoted almost entirely to X > Y comparatives (X = primum, Y = secundum comparationis), and there was surprisingly little insight into the 2
More eclectic treatments
(1977), Gnutzmann 3
Happily,
change.
and binding
since the Pisa lectures
(1967, 1972), Campbell
et al. (1973), and Jorgensen
there are signs that this unfortunate
The government
research
are found in Bolinger
(1974), Gnutzmann
and unsatisfactory
(GB) framework
were given in April
and Wales (1969). Fries
(1980). state of affairs
has generated
a tremendous
1978. The goal is to construct
is going to amount
of
a modular,
parameterized theory (see e.g. Aoun (1982) Chomsky (1981,1982), Huang (1982), Pesetsky (1982). Rizzi (1982)). (Dimensions of variation are often referred to as ‘parameters’ by linguists working within the GB framework.)
Recent work has been characterized
programme
syntax.
Romance
of comparative languages,
This programme
but also languages
includes
like Chinese, Hungarian,
by an effort to move towards
not only the familiar Russian.
Quechua,
Germanic
a
and
and Warlbiri.
228
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
meaning of even that comparative’. I agree with Allan that as a whole the issue does not come up to expectations (although I find Seuren’s (1984) and Stassen’s (1984) contributions very interesting). In some of the articles, extensive formalization is carried out prior to collecting sufficient data and making arguments for the general nature of the operations posited. This is particularly true of the lead article by von Stechow (1984), who adopts a possible-worlds semantics. His primary data are so lacunary that the reader comes away with the feeling that essential features of the logic of comparatives have eluded the investigator. The formalization of an analysis does not, per se, render that analysis either true or insightful. Even Hellan’s (1981) book-length treatment of comparatives is extremely restricted in its scope; only a few English types are treated (with occasional side remarks on Norwegian). I have no desire to downplay the creativity and originality displayed by the author, who uses the syntax of the Extended Standard Theory coupled with a revised version of Montague’s semantics. There is no denying that Hellan’s book is an important contribution to the field of theoretical syntax and semantics; but we learn very little about comparatives, since the author is primarily concerned with the technicalities of a linguistic model. I shall return to the question of the adequacy of a model-theoretic semantics in connection with my discussion of Rusiecki’s hypotheses. ACE is a most welcome contribution to a field that has long been dominated by dogmatism and theoretical myopia. Its solid empirical basis and breadth of scope will be evident from a summary of the nine chapters into which it is organized. Chapter 1 (pp. l-22) introduces a number of terms and concepts that play a crucial role in the subsequent chapters. According to Rusiecki, an adjective is gradable if it can be substituted for A in (1): (1) Aer (or: more A) than As A as less A than the Aest (or: most A) of very A Gradability implies the existence of a semantic scale, which grades the relevant dimension. A scale is unary if it is defined by one adjective (e.g. green), and binary if it is defined by two adjectives (e.g. tall - short). Only adjectives that are gradable and come from the same lexical field can define a binary scale; that is, the two adjectives must come ‘from a set of lexemes each of which is in some respect semantically related to, but at the same time incompatible with,
L. E. Breivik / Adjeclive.f and comparison
in English
229
any other lexeme in the set’ (p. 5). Two adjectives are incompatible if they satisfy the entailment formula in (2) (‘3’ signals the relation of logical entailment) : (2) NP, is A 3 NP, is not A’ Adjectives of shape and colour can be cited to illustrate lexical fields: (3) NP, is square 5 NP, is not round/hexagonal, (4) NP, is green = NP, is not red, blue, etc.
etc.
However, (2) is not a sufficient condition for two gradable adjectives to define a binary scale; they must also be at least semi-reciprocal. Two adjectives are reciprocal if they satisfy the pair of entailment formulae in (5a,b). Old and young constitute a pair of reciprocal adjectives: (5a) (5b) (6a) (6b)
NP, is Aer than NP, * NPj is A’er than NP, NPj is A’er than NP, * NPi is Aer than NPj Peter is older than John = John is younger than Peter John is younger than Peter = Peter is older than John
Pairs of adjectives (e.g. economical - uneconomical) that satisfy only one of the entailment formulae in (5a,b) are defined as semi-reciprocal. Binary scales defined by reciprocal pairs of adjectives are referred to as antonymic, while those defined by semi-reciprocal pairs are called quasiantonymic. Antonymic scales are either symmetric or asymmetric. Symmetric scales, which are defined by pairs like tall - short and full - empty, are the same at both ends, either open or bounded. Asymmetric scales are open at one end and bounded at the other. In the scale defined by the pair dry - wet, the former member signals the end of the scale. Rusiecki also distinguishes between unary symmetric (open at both ends) and unary asymmetric scales (bounded at one end). Red defines a unary symmetric scale, while (in)jammable (or non-(in)jlammable) defines an asymmetric one. Unary-scale and binary-scale adjectives are concomitantly classified as relative (e.g. old) or absolute (e.g. wet), marked (e.g. short) or unmarked (e.g. tall)), and numerical (e.g. long) or non-numerical (e.g. happy). Numerical adjectives can be substituted for A in the formula ‘NP, is n units Aer than NPj’. In chapter 2 (pp. 2341), Rusiecki first discusses certain problems related to
230
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
the derivation and interpretation of comparatives. He argues against the widely postulated theory that comparatives should be derived from positives. (This is the derivation generally proposed in transformational-generative grammar as well as in some logico-semantic treatments.) He points out (pp. 25-26) that such a derivation accounts only for adjectives that are semantically absolute. Thus, while Peter’s towel is wetter than yours entails that Peter’s towel is wet, John is older than Peter does not entail that either John or Peter is old. A large portion of chapter 2 is devoted to the semantic question whose long history revolves around the search for the meaning of the positive-degree form of relative adjectives. A number of scholars have hypothesized that this form signifies a value that is greater than average on the dimension scale for the adjective in question (cf. Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), Gnutzmann (1974)). Thus Peter is tall is interpreted as ‘Peter is taller than an average man’, and Peter is short as ‘Peter is shorter than an average man’. Rusiecki rejects such an interpretation, arguing that concepts like ‘tall’, ‘wide’, and ‘old’ are illdefined and fuzzy: ‘The assessment of the value on the dimension-scale ascribed to a given adjective varies from reference set to reference set, from speaker to speaker, from one moment to the next, and, what is more, is hardly ever done in the either/or terms characteristic of mathematics and classical formal logic; on the contrary, it is usually approximate and unstable. Any attempt to describe the semantics of numerical adjectives which uses only welldefined concepts is therefore doomed to go wrong’ (p. 32). Fuzzy concepts, then, are crucial cornerstones in Rusiecki’s account of relative adjectives. In his view, the meaning of such adjectives can be described most adequately in set-theoretical terms. Under Rusiecki’s analysis, the proposition underlying Peter is sixfeet tall is represented as follows (‘Mu’ stands for ‘the measure function of height’): (7) Peter is six feet tall. M, (Peter) = 6 feet The semantic formula in (7) can be paraphrased as ‘The value of the measure function of height for Peter is six feet’. In the case of sentences in which the value of the measure function is not specified, a statement is made about the required or preferred range of the values of the measure function, expressed in terms of membership of the fuzzy sets MANY or FEW. Additionally, if the reference set is not specified, as in (7) the speaker assumes that the addressee will correctly identify it. This is a pragmatic assumption reminiscent of Grice’s
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
231
(1975, 1978, 1981) theory of implicature. Peter is tall can be interpreted as follows: (8) Peter is tall. M,, (Peter) E MANY feet and inches Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will identify correctly the set S of which the referent of the argument is a member. (7) and (8) then, are instances of the same basic structure, ‘NP is n units A’. In the latter example, n is a member of the fuzzy set MANY. Peter is short translates as ‘Mm (Peter) E FEW feet and inches’. Finally, the addressee expects the value of the measure function to fall within the range of the measure function for the reference set (cf. six feet in (7)). Thus not only a pragmatic assumption but also an empirical normality condition should be added to the semantic formula in (7). On page 73, Rusiecki formulates this condition as follows: n units E lD,l, ‘where lD,l is the fuzzy set of numbers expressing the possible values for the set S on the scale for the dimension D’. The analysis sketched above can be extended to cover non-numerical adjectives, e.g. such antonymic pairs as difficult - easy and slim -fat. Rusiecki states (p. 37) that ‘AN antonymic pairs are terms on scales for dimensions, only in the case of non-numerical adjectives the scales are blank: the units of measurement are not stated, there are no figures making it possible to read off the values of the M, [ = measure function]‘. Peter is fat is analysed as follows (‘0’ stands for ‘obesity’): (9) Peter is fat. Mo, (Peter) E MANY ‘degrees’ Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will identify correctly the S of which the referent of the argument is a member. Before fleshing out his scheme, Rusiecki pauses to provide an overview of the sentence types to be examined (chapter 3, pp. 42-57) as well as a description of the elicitation tests, which he considers an important source of data (chapter 4, pp. 58-67). The experimental design is an extension of the techniques developed in Quirk and Greenbaum (1970) and Quirk and Svartvik (1966). All of Rusiecki’s 80 test items were designed so as to elicit information concerning the semantic interpretation of sentences with gradable adjectives. The next four chapters (5-8, pp. 68-180) constitute the heart of the book. Here, no less than 24 sentence types with gradable adjectives in predicative
232
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
function are subjected to a rigorous semantic analysis. As already stated, Rusiecki’s account aims at being maximally integrative. He argues that the semantic interpretation of adjectives in predicative function is largely valid also for adjectives in attributive function (pp. 8687, 124-126, 135-141). Since recent studies of adjectives and comparison have been rather restricted in scope, it may be useful to outline Rusiecki’s typology of sentences with adjectives in predicative function. The 24 types are set out in (lo)-(33): (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)
John is six feet tall. John is tall. John is taller than Cedric. John is an inch taller than Cedric. The swimming pool is wider than it is long. The swimming pool is ten yards longer than it is wide. This swimming pool is longer than that one is wide. This swimming pool is a yard longer than that one is wide. Polly is less tall than Joan. Peter is an inch less tall than John. This swimming pool is less wide than it is long. This swimming pool is a yard less wide than it is long. This swimming pool is less wide than that one is long. This swimming pool is a yard less wide than that one is long. John is the (second) tallest in his class. Peter is twice as tall as his son. John is as tall as Martin. This swimming pool is half as wide as it is long. ‘This swimming pool is as wide as it is long. This table is twice as wide as that one is long. This table is as wide as that one is long. Norman is taller than six feet. Peter is less tall than six feet. Adam is as tall as six feet.
A scrutiny of the examples in (lo)-(33) will show that sentences with gradable adjectives are categorized into types according to whether they are one- or two-argument propositions; whether they refer to one or two dimensions; whether the value of the measure function (or the difference, or the ratio, between the values of the measure function) is overtly stated.
234
L. E. Breivik 1 Adjectives
und comparison
in English
Condition (i) states that there is at least one element of the set B for which the value of the measure function for the dimension D is greater than the value of the measure function for the same dimension for at least one element of set C. Condition (ii) ‘specifies that the value of the measure function for dimension D for the smaller term, increased by n units, should be an element of the fuzzy set of possible values of the measure function for dimension D for the other term’ (p. 105). In the final chapter 9 (pp. 181-192), Rusiecki sums up the main results of his investigation. He points out (pp. 18l-l 82) that the semantic analysis of any sentence with a gradable adjective in predicative function must take account of a number of factors. It must consider (a) the type of sentence (cf. (lo)-(33)), and (b) the class and subclass of the adjective (e.g. whether it defines a unary or binary scale). (c) If the adjective is a member of an antonymic pair, we must note whether it is marked or unmarked. (d) NP arguments must be distinguished according to whether they are singular referring expressions, or generic or general expressions. (e) In certain constructions, a distinction must be made between a broad interpretation and a narrow interpretation. (f) Sometimes the semantic interpretation must make reference to the fuzzy sets MANY and FEW. (g) Many semantic interpretations must be supplemented with pragmatic assumptions and empirical normality conditions. Rusiecki’s monograph is a valiant attempt to deal with an intractable subject. Clearly, there is something to be said for a framework that has yielded rich insights into a variety of data from spoken and written English. ACE is well organized and lucidly written; the author does an excellent job of guiding the reader through a tortuous maze of adjectival constructions and semantic/ pragmatic formulae. This-much said, I would like to emphasize that I also have reservations about the book. Thus I find Rusiecki’s position unlikely and his arguments unconvincing on several central and important points. Above all, I disagree with his decision to exclude a negative element from the formal representation of comparative sentences like John is taller than Sue. A number of scholars have argued that at least some comparative constructions contain an underlying negative element (see in particular Bazell (1967), Jespersen (1917: SO), Joly (1967) Mittwoch (1974), Ross (1969) Seuren (1973,1984), Stassen (1985: chs. 3,9)). One of the main arguments for this hypothesis derives from the fact that many negative polarity items (e.g. yet, can possibly) occur naturally in than-clauses, while elements that show positive polarity (e.g. already, stirI) are not compatible with such clauses. Consider the following examples (from Seuren (1973 : 5333534)) :
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
235
(37)
He was a greater bore than I could possibly put up with. (38a) You have already got less support than he has. (38b) *He has got more support than you already have.
In his discussion of negation and comparatives, Rusiecki claims (p. 27) that this argument fails on two counts: ‘Firstly, non-assertive forms are not characteristic of negative sentences only: they also occur in questions. Although it is true that the presence of negation triggers the use of nonassertive forms, it is not true that the use of a non-assertive form signals the presence of negation in sentence-structure - surface or deep. Secondly, nonassertive forms are not just contextually conditioned variants of assertive ones: they have meanings of their own - both in comparative and in negative sentences’. Rusiecki seems to be unaware of the fact that there are other arguments in favour of the hypothesis that than-clauses contain an underlying negative element. First, in some languages, this element appears to have become incorporated into the comparative particle (cf. Small (1923: ch. I), Stassen (1985: chs. 3, 9)). In Gaelic, Scottish English, Latvian, and perhaps also Classical Greek, the comparative particle has the form of a negative conjunction. In his study of the English comparative construction, Joly (1967: 26) states that the use of nor as a comparative particle, as in He is bigger nor Z, ‘is still alive in modern dialects, from the Shetland Islands to Cornwall, from Ireland to the United States...‘. In other languages, the comparative particle is identical to the adversative coordinator ‘but’ (e.g. Basque) or the disjunctive coordinator ‘or’ (e.g. Old Slavonic) (cf. Small (1923 : ch. l), Stassen (1985: chs. 3, 9)). The use of the adversative coordinator as a comparative particle is also attested in earlier English (e.g. in Shakespeare) and in some dialects of modern American English. Secondly, it is a commonplace that we find evidence of an underlying negative element also in languages where the comparative particle is not isomorphic with a negative, adversative or disjunctive conjunction. Thus French has ‘expletive’ negation in cases like: (39) 11est plus riche que je ne pensais. This kind of negation also occurs in certain comparatives in Italian and Spanish. Seuren (1984: 109) points out that ‘in those English dialects that have Negation Copying, such as Cockney, one finds copies of the underlying negation after than.. .‘. He cites the following example: (40) She did a better job than what I never thought she would.
236
L. E. Breivik
1AdjPctives and comparison in English
In his discussion of cases like (39), Small (1923: 16) states: ‘This use of the negative may be explained on psychological grounds. The speaker probably has in mind a negative conception when he thinks of inequality’. Finally, observe that the comparative construction in A is big, B is nor (big) is attested in a number of languages (cf. Andersen (1983 : ch. 3), Jensen (1934) Stassen (1985: passim). According to Andersen (1983: 109), this type is basically the same as that in A is big, B is small. Here, we may note that Klooster (1978) and Seuren (1978) present internal linguistic evidence for the inherent negative-positive polarity in antonymic pairs like big - small. I agree with Rusiecki that the presence of negation is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the occurrence of non-assertive forms in than-clauses. However, taken together, the pieces of evidence mentioned above make out a fairly impressive case for the existence of an underlying negative element in comparatives of inequality. Or as Small (1923 : 12 1) puts it: ‘By a comparative study of the related languages I have brought out that the adversative relation, which is very evident in the phenomenon of comparison in English, is genuine Germanic idiom. It is this feature in English comparison, especially in the particle than, that forms the semantic connection or link between our speech and the older members of the [Indo-European] family; as, Old Indic and Skt. na, Greek #, Old Slavic neie, li, Gothic Pad. A natural project for future research, then, would be to re-examine the data presented in ACE, with a view to arriving at an analysis that accounts for the underlying negation of English comparatives. Such an analysis could of course be based on the framework developed by Rusiecki. It is also possible that Seuren’s analysis, proposed in several publications (e.g. Seuren (1984)) and adopted by Stassen (1985) is a first approximation towards an adequate representation of English comparative constructions. In this proposal, a sentence like Jim is taller than Joe is interpreted as (41) 9e: extent [Jim is tall to e A N [Joe is tall e]] (There is an extent e such that Jim is tall to e and Joe is not tall to e) A related investigation that might have interesting results would involve a systematic and explicit attack on the relationship between semantic and morpho-syntactic factors in English comparatives. Rusiecki claims that the use or non-use of the verb after the secundum comparationis in cases like James is stronger than Mark (is) is a purely syntactic problem: ‘Whatever interpretation of the syntactic structure of comparative constructions we adopt, it will not have a decisive influence upon their semantic interpretation’ (p. 92). It
L. E. Breivik 1 Adjectives
and comparison
in English
237
seems to me that Rusiecki is a bit rash in excluding syntactic factors from his explanatory framework. As noted by Andersen (1983: 119) ‘Once a language uses diverse [comparative] constructions the way is open for a semantic differentiation to go hand-in-hand with the morpho-syntactic variation’. The two methods for NP-comparison in Latin afford an example of this. In particle comparatives with quum ‘than’, the secundum comparationis derives its case assignment from the case into which the primum comparationis has been put, as in maior quam tu (nominative) / maior quam te (accusative) ‘bigger than you’. In the other construction, the secundum comparationis is invariably marked for the ablative case, as in te maior / maior te. According to Panagl (1973: 373) the two constructions differ not only morphologically and syntactically but also semantically: while the case construction exhibits presupposition, the particle construction does not. It is a well-known fact that in English the particle than (originally a conjunction) has been reinterpreted as a preposition in cases like I weigh more than 200 pounds and It goes faster than 100 miles per hour (cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1129)). In these examples, it is not possible to expand the than-phrase into a clause (cf. *It goes faster than ZOOmiles per hour goes). Compare also He’s taller than me with He’s taller than I, which most native speakers of English find stilted and old-fashioned. Prescriptive grammar still frowns on the use of me, her, etc. after than. If we wish to avoid the object form of the secundum comparationis, we may of course expand the than-phrase into a full clause: He’s taller than me = He’s taller than I am. The point of citing the above examples is to show that we here have an on-going change. The reinterpretation of than started only a few centuries ago; the first instances of the type Aer than me are attested in the second half of the sixteenth century (cf. Visser (1963 : 249)). One of the main conclusions emerging from Rusiecki’s study is that comparatives in present-day English refuse to be neatly pigeonholed. In the final chapter, he has to admit that it is often extremely difficult to elucidate the relevant semantic parameters and their interaction in phrases and clauses introduced by than. In my opinion, it is not unlikely that these semantic parameters also interact with morpho-syntactic parameters and, furthermore, that the whole situation is complicated by the syntactization process described in the preceding paragraph. However, this is nothing more than a hypothesis, which should be validated by confronting it with empirical data. An investigation of the relationship between semantic and morpho-syntactic parameters should also consider data from Old and Middle English. It is interesting that in earlier English both the particle construction and the dative case could be
238
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
used to express a comparison of inequality (cf. Mitchell (1985: 569-572), Small (1929)). Consider the following Old English example from Small (1929: 63): (42) And eft sanctus Paulus ne ongeat he no hiene selfne betran odran godum monnum.
‘And moreover Saint Paul did not assume that he was better than other good men’ The case construction disappeared in the second half of the tenth century. We turn now to a problem that receives considerable attention in ACE, viz. the meaning of the positive-degree form of relative adjectives. Rusiecki has succeeded (pp. 27-33) in presenting a strong case against the widely held view that such adjectives should be interpreted semantically in terms of the concept of average/norm. However, although I am essentially sympathetic to his thesis that fuzzy concepts play an important role in natural language, I am not convinced that he has got to the bottom of the matter. As stated above, he has used his theoretical framework effectively in coping with a vast array of recalcitrant data. Without in the least underestimating his achievement in this respect, one may legitimately ask whether there is any substantive difference between the author’s measure function and the concept of average/norm found in other semantic descriptions of relative adjectives. Despite his claim that the meaning of these adjectives can be described as a value of the measure function, without recourse to the concept of average/norm, the latter lurks behind many of his discussions in chapters 5-8. Nor do I feel that Rusiecki is entirely successful in his attempt to refute the view that the semantics of natural language can be described in terms of formal logic. His criticism never takes on any substance, although he comments on the limitations on the use of formal systems at numerous points in the book (e.g. on pp. 31-32). His discussion of this important topic is far too general and inexplicit; in particular, one misses a section in the introductory chapter in which the study of formal semantics is outlined and placed in perspective both with regard to Rusiecki’s own framework and with regard to the current state of logic and linguistics. As a result of his failure to confront squarely the problems involved, we have no grounds for assessing the validity’ of his statement that ‘there are two courses of action open to the student of language. He can either treat the language of formal logic as superior to natural languages and try to force the description of the latter into the mould of the former; or he can recognize the primacy and sovereignty of
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
239
natural languages, and treat formal systems as tools in their description _ valuable tools, but no more than tools - with due respect to observationally statable facts’ (pp. 191-192). This brings us to my final point. I would like to emphasize that, despite my critical remarks in the introductory paragraphs of this review, I do not belong to those who think that standard formal semantics is, a priori, inadequate for natural language (although I suspect that there may be inherent limitations to such an approach). Given our present ignorance of the diversity of language, there is surely no reason to be dogmatic. It is too early to tell whether the kind of work done by e.g. Hellan (1981,1984), von Stechow (1984), and the contributors to Guenthner and Rohrer (1978) will ultimately form part of our conception of the nature of meaning. The point made above was merely that model-theoretic studies of the comparative construction have reached an impasse because their empirical basis is weak or lacking. Like all other forms of scientific activity, the study of natural-language semantics is a waste of time if it does not lead to theoretical progress. The only way to achieve this goal is to test the hypotheses against empirical data. In conclusion, Rusiecki only partly achieves his ambitious goal, although ACE in many respects is a considerable advance on previous treatments of adjectives and comparison in English. The major strength of the book lies in making available a large amount of complex and interesting data; it is a sinequa-non source of information for anyone working on adjectives and comparison, in whatever theory. But the work of constructing a unified and linguistically sound theory of gradable adjectives in all their forms and uses is still mainly to be done.
References Allan, K., 1986. Review of: J. Rusiecki, Adjectives and comparison in English: a semantic study. (London/New York: Longman, 1985.) Language 62, 716. Andersen, P.K., 1983. Word order typology and comparative constructions. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Aoun, J., 1982. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Bartsch, R. and T. Vennemann, 1972. Semantic structures. Frankfurt/Main: Athenaurn. Bazell, C.E., 1967. Notes on ‘natural interpretation’. Word 23, 17-24. Bolinger, D., 1967. Adjective comparison: a semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics I, 2-10. Bolinger, D., 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. Bresnan, J.W., 1971. On a ‘non-source of comparatives’. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 117-I 12. Bresnan, J. W., 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-343.
240
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives and comparison in English
Bresnan, J. W., 1977. Variables in the theory of transformations. In: P. W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 1977, 157-196. Campbell, R.N. and R. J. Wales, 1969. Comparative structures in English. Journal of Linguistics 5, 215-251. Cantrall, W. R., 1977. Comparison, and beyond. Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 69-8 1. Chomsky, N., 1977. On wh-movement. In: P.W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 1977, 71-132. Chomsky, N., 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris. Chomsky, N., 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cresswell, M.J., 1976. The semantics of degree. In: B.H. Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 261292. New York: Academic Press. Culicover, P.W., 1984. Review article on: C.L. Baker and J.J. McCarthy (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.) Language 60, 115-122. Culicover, P.W., T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), 1977. Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. Doherty, P.C. and A. Schwartz, 1967. The syntax of the compared adjective in English. Language 43, 903-936. Fries, P.H., 1977. English predications of comparison. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 9, 95-103. Gnutzmann, C., 1974. Zur Graduierbarkeit von Adjektiven im Englischen. Linguistische Berichte 31(74), 1-12. Gnutzmann, C., R. Ilson and J. Webster, 1973. Comparative constructions in contemporary English. English Studies 54, 417438. Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H.P., 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics, 9: Pragmatics, 113-128. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H.P., 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 183-198. New York: Academic Press. Guenthner, F. and C. Rohrer (eds.), 1978. Studies in formal semantics: intensionality, temporality, negation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hale, A., 1970. Conditions on English comparative clause pairings. In: R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 30-55. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. Hankamer, J., 1973. Why there are two than’s in English. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 179-191. Hellan, L., 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Hellan, L., 1984. Note on some issues raised by von Stechow. Journal of Semantics 3, 83-92. Hendrick, R., 1978. The phrase structure of adjectives and comparatives. Linguistic Analysis 4, 255-299. Hoeksema, J., 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1, 403434. Hoeksema, J., 1984. To be continued: the story of the comparative. Journal of Semantics 3, 93-107. Huang, C.-T. J., 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives and comparison in English
Jensen,
H.,
1934. Der steigernde
Forschungen
Vergleich
in English
Jespersen,
O., 1929. The philosophy
Joly,
1967. Negation
l’universite Jorgensen,
Ausdruck.
lndogermanische
52, 108-130.
Jespersen, O., 1917. Negation Videnskabernes Selskab. A.,
und sein sprachlicher
241
and
and other
of grammar.
the comparative
languages.
Copenhagen:
London:
Allen & Unwin.
particle
in English.
Det kgl. danske
Quebec:
Les Presses
de
Laval.
E., 1980. Some notes on negated
Klein, E., 1980. A semantics
(+ than). English
comparatives
for positive and comparative
adjectives.
I.
Studies 61, 543-55
Linguistics
and Philosophy
4.
l-45. Klooster,
W.G.,
Klooster, Linguistic Lees,
1972. The structure
W.G.,
1978. Much
Society,
R.B.,
underlying
in Dutch.
measure
Papers
phrase
from
the
sentences. 14th
Dordrecht:
Regional
D. Reidel.
Meeting,
Chicago
217-228.
1961. Grammatical
analysis
of the English
comparative
construction.
Word
17.
171-185. Lehmann,
W.P.,
1972a. Comparative
K. Grimstad, Hague:
N. Hasselmo
constructions
and W.A.
in Germanic
of the OV type. In: E.S. Firchow,
O’Neil (eds.), Studies
for Einar Haugen,
323-330.
The
to the syntactic
component
Mouton.
Lehmann,
W.P.,
language. Mitchell,
1972b.
Canadian
The comparative
Journal
B., 1985. Old English syntax,
Oxford
University
Mittwoch,
method
of Linguistics
as applied
of
17, 167-174.
I: Concord,
the parts of speech, and the sentence.
Oxford:
Press.
A., 1974. Is there an underlying
negative
element
in comparative
clauses?
Language
52, 81 l-838.
Linguistics
122, 3945. Napoli,
D.J. and M. Nespor,
Panagl,
O., 1973. Prasuppositionen
Beitrlge
zur Linguistik
Perlmutter, D.M., and semantics,
1976. Negatives
in comparatives.
und die Syntax
der Lateinischen
Komparation.
Salzburger
I, 361-375.
1980. Relational grammar. In: E.A. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth (eds.), Syntax 13: Current approaches to syntax, 195-229. New York/London: Academic
Press. Pesetsky,
D., 1982. Paths and categories.
Pilch, H., 1965. Comparative Pinkham,
J.E.,
IN: Indiana
1982. The formation University
Puhvel, J., 1973. Nature Indo-European
R. and J. Svartvik, R. and S. Greenbaum. London:
1966. Investigating
Rizzi, L., 1982. Negation, Ross,
J.R..
Modern
acceptability.
experiments
G. Leech and J. Svartvik,
R., 1975. How many comparatives syntax,
Bloomington.
grammar.
Journal
of
in English:
The Hague: linguistic
Mouton.
studies in use and
Longman.
R., S. Greenbaum.
in Italian
and English.
in Proto-Indo-European
linguistic
1970. Elicitation
English language. London: Longman. Reichenbach, H., 1947. Elements of symbolic Rivara,
41, 37-58.
1, 145-154.
Quirk,
attitude.
Language
clauses in French
Club.
and means of comparison
Studies
MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
in English.
of comparative
Linguistics
Quirk,
Quirk,
Cambridge,
constructions
&movement,
117-185.
1969. A proposed studies in English,
Dordrecht:
logic. New York:
are there? Linguistics
grammar
of the
Free Press. 163, 35-51.
and the null subject parameter.
In: L. Rizzi (ed.). Issues
Foris.
rule of tree pruning. 2888299.
1985. A comprehensive
Englewood
In: D.A.
Reibel and S.A. Schane
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(eds.).
242
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
Ross, J.R., 1974. More on -ER-globality. Foundations Russell, B., 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479493. Sag, I.A., 1976. Deletion ced by the Indiana
Sapir, E., 1949. Grading:
of Language
and logical form. Cambridge
University
Linguistics
Club,
a study in semantics.
Edward Sapir in language, sity of California Press.
culture
Selkirk, E.O., 1977. Some remarks
in English
12, 269-270.
MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
(Reprodu-
1977.)
In: D.G.
and personality,
Mandelbaum 122-149.
on noun phrase structure.
(ed.), Selected writings
Berkeley/Los
Angeles:
In: P. W. Culicover
of
Univer-
et al. (eds.), 1977,
285-316. Seuren, P.A.M.,
1973. The comparative.
in Europe,
Dordrecht:
Seuren,
528-564.
P.A.M.,
In: F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet (eds.), Generative
1978. The structure
Papers from the Parasession
grammar
D. Reidel. and selection
on the Lexicon,
of positive
14th Regional
and negative
Meeting,
gradable
Chicago
adjectives.
Linguistic
Society,
336346. Seuren, P.A.M., 1984. The comparative revisited. Small, G. W., 1923. The comparison of inequality:
Journal of Semantics 3, 109-141. the semantics and syntax of the comparative
particle in English. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University. Small, G. W., 1929. The Germanic case of comparison, with a special study of English. Monographs, Smith, C.S., Stanley,
4. Philadelphia,
PA: Linguistic
1961. A class of complex
Meeting,
Chicago
Linguistic
Society,
Stassen,
L., 1984. The comparative
Stassen,
L., 1985. Comparison
R., 1972. Some features
Universals.
Stanford
compared.
37, 342-365.
Papers
from the 5th Regional
Journal
of Semantics
3, 143-182.
grammar.
Oxford/New
York:
semantic theories of comparison. Journal to logical theory. London: Methuen. constructions.
Working
Basil Blackwell. of Semantics Papers
9. 1177162.
Visser, T., 1963. An historical
syntax
Williams,
and logical
E., 1977. Discourse
Language
construction.
287-292.
of basic comparative
University,
Language
of America.
in English.
adjective
and universal
von Stechow, A., 1984. Comparing Strawson, P.F., 1952. Introduction Ultan,
modifiers
R., 1969. The English comparative
Society
of the English
language
form. Linguistic
I. Leiden:
Inquiry
E.J. Brill.
8, 101-139.
3, l-77.
on Language
72 (1987) 225-242.
North-Holland
22s
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ADJECTIVES AND COMPARISON IN ENGLISH
Review of: Jan Rusiecki, Adjectives and comparison in English. A semantic study* Leiv Egil BREIVIK University of Tromse, Norway Received
January
1987
Rusiecki has bravely taken on a large and messy task; anyone who has scrutinized an extensive corpus of English comparative constructions will know that they constitute a thicket of subtle semantic distinctions. According to the preface (p. xiii), the book under review ‘is an attempt at presenting a unified approach to the semantics of gradable adjectives in English, in all their forms: the positive degree, the comparative degree, and the superlative degree; and in all their uses: both as predicates of sentences and as attributes in noun phrases’. Adjectives and comparison in English (henceforth ACE) is the most exhaustive and detailed treatment of gradable adjectives so far. The author discusses an impressive amount of data within a framework that makes reference to both semantic and pragmatic parameters. ACE thus reflects the growing tendency of linguists and philosophers to focus attention not only on the problem of constructing a theory to describe natural language but also on the relationship between such a theory and a theory of language use. Here, the book will be approached from various perspectives. Most important of course is an appraisal of Rusiecki’s central claims, and the evidence presented for them. A recurrent theme in ACE is the limitations on the use of formal logic in linguistic description. The dialectic between language and theory will be discussed at various points below. In the last part of the review, I will point to a few potential topics for future investigation. My major emphasis will be on the kind of further work that might be done with this
*
Published
by Longman
(Longman
Linguistics
Library,
31), London
and New York,
xiv + 206 pp.
0024-3841/87/$3.50
0
1987, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V. (North-Holland)
1985.
226
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
book as a starting point. Before taking up these matters, however, it is necessary to place ACE in the context of related research. In traditional grammar, there are no in-depth studies of the semantics of the comparative construction in English, but the discussions in Jespersen (1917,1929), Sapir (1949), and Small (1923,1929) contain many interesting statements about the semantic relationships holding between comparative structures and others.’ The comparative construction has, however, figured prominently in literature written within the generative paradigm. It is not surprising that the early days of transformational-generative grammar witnessed an upsurge of interest in comparatives. At this time, it became one of the chief concerns of linguists to make their descriptions maximally explicit. Many ambiguities like that of Peter likes Mary more than Janet were cited as evidence for the need to distinguish between deep and surface structure. As implied above, the comparative construction impinges on a number of central issues in syntax and semantics. Among the questions that have been discussed are the phrase structure rules and derivation of comparatives (Bresnan (1971,1973), Doherty and Schwartz (1967), Hale (1970), Hendrick (1978), Klooster (1972), Lees (1961), Pilch (1965), Rivara (1975), Ross (1974), Seuren (1973), Smith (1961), Stanley (1969)); the status of the particle than (Hankamer (1973), Pinkham (1982)); the use of negative polarity items in comparative clauses (Cantrall (1977), Joly (1967), Mittwoch (1974), Napoli and Nespor (1976), Rivara (1975), Seuren (1973)), and the syntactico-semantic properties of degree words (Klooster (1978) Seuren (1978)). The analysis of comparatives is also relevant to the controversy about the status of WHmovement versus unbounded deletion (Chomsky (1977), Bresnan (1977)); deletion rules (Sag (1976), Williams (1977)), and X-bar syntax (Selkirk (1977)). In recent years, the adherents of model-theoretic semantics have shown great interest in comparatives (Cresswell (1976) Hellan (1981, 1984), Hoeksema (1983,1984), Klein (1980), von Stechow (1984)). What these studies have in common is a general predilection for a semantics which crucially involves the surface (or shallow) structure. A perusal of the works referred to above makes it strikingly clear that fundamental issues pertaining to the semantics of adjectives and comparison are far from being resolved - indeed it would be hard to achieve any consensus about what the fundamental issues are. This is hardly surprising in view of the development of linguistics in the past three decades. In this period, we have * Comparatives are also discussed by logicians (see e.g. Reichenbach (1947: 251-253, 315-316), Russell (1905), Strawson (1952: 202-203)).
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
227
seen a wide spectrum of ways of constructing grammar and of conceptualizing the issues of grammatical theory and analysis. Hypotheses about the comparative construction have generally been linked to specific models, and as a result of the frequent changes in grammatical constructs and components these hypotheses have never been given any substance or tested in the fine-grained description of an extensive body of data. z It should also be mentioned that until recently ‘linguists for the most part have concerned themselves with the linguistic theory itself, and have only paid lip service to the notion that a language learner must be able to select a grammar characterized by a linguistic theory on the basis of primary data’ (Culicover (1984: 115-l 16)). Closely related to the point made by Culicover is the fact that most recent studies of the comparative construction have focused almost exclusively on English, despite the widespread recognition that ‘A theory’s ability to explain data in individual languages is directly linked to its claims concerning the entire class of natural languages’ (Perlmutter (1980: 196)). It is unfortunate that linguists working within the generative paradigm have generally failed to take account of the valuable cross-linguistic data on comparatives found in e.g. Jensen (1934), Lehmann (1972a,b), Puhvel (1973), Small (1923,1929), and Ultan (1972).3 Particular mention should be made of two recent studies which contain a wealth of cross-linguistic information on comparative constructions, viz. those by Andersen (1983) and Stassen (1985). Both these typological studies are model-neutral; they do not affiliate themselves with any of the theoretical frameworks currently in favour. The unconcern for primary data is particularly conspicuous in studies oriented towards model-theoretic semantics, where explicit discussion is generally limited to a handful of hackneyed examples. In this connection, we may note the following statement by Allan (1986: 716): ‘The Journal of semantics 3: l/2 (1984) was a special issue supposedly on the comparative construction; in fact it was devoted almost entirely to X > Y comparatives (X = primum, Y = secundum comparationis), and there was surprisingly little insight into the 2
More eclectic treatments
(1977), Gnutzmann 3
Happily,
change.
and binding
since the Pisa lectures
(1967, 1972), Campbell
et al. (1973), and Jorgensen
there are signs that this unfortunate
The government
research
are found in Bolinger
(1974), Gnutzmann
and unsatisfactory
(GB) framework
were given in April
and Wales (1969). Fries
(1980). state of affairs
has generated
a tremendous
1978. The goal is to construct
is going to amount
of
a modular,
parameterized theory (see e.g. Aoun (1982) Chomsky (1981,1982), Huang (1982), Pesetsky (1982). Rizzi (1982)). (Dimensions of variation are often referred to as ‘parameters’ by linguists working within the GB framework.)
Recent work has been characterized
programme
syntax.
Romance
of comparative languages,
This programme
but also languages
includes
like Chinese, Hungarian,
by an effort to move towards
not only the familiar Russian.
Quechua,
Germanic
a
and
and Warlbiri.
228
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
meaning of even that comparative’. I agree with Allan that as a whole the issue does not come up to expectations (although I find Seuren’s (1984) and Stassen’s (1984) contributions very interesting). In some of the articles, extensive formalization is carried out prior to collecting sufficient data and making arguments for the general nature of the operations posited. This is particularly true of the lead article by von Stechow (1984), who adopts a possible-worlds semantics. His primary data are so lacunary that the reader comes away with the feeling that essential features of the logic of comparatives have eluded the investigator. The formalization of an analysis does not, per se, render that analysis either true or insightful. Even Hellan’s (1981) book-length treatment of comparatives is extremely restricted in its scope; only a few English types are treated (with occasional side remarks on Norwegian). I have no desire to downplay the creativity and originality displayed by the author, who uses the syntax of the Extended Standard Theory coupled with a revised version of Montague’s semantics. There is no denying that Hellan’s book is an important contribution to the field of theoretical syntax and semantics; but we learn very little about comparatives, since the author is primarily concerned with the technicalities of a linguistic model. I shall return to the question of the adequacy of a model-theoretic semantics in connection with my discussion of Rusiecki’s hypotheses. ACE is a most welcome contribution to a field that has long been dominated by dogmatism and theoretical myopia. Its solid empirical basis and breadth of scope will be evident from a summary of the nine chapters into which it is organized. Chapter 1 (pp. l-22) introduces a number of terms and concepts that play a crucial role in the subsequent chapters. According to Rusiecki, an adjective is gradable if it can be substituted for A in (1): (1) Aer (or: more A) than As A as less A than the Aest (or: most A) of very A Gradability implies the existence of a semantic scale, which grades the relevant dimension. A scale is unary if it is defined by one adjective (e.g. green), and binary if it is defined by two adjectives (e.g. tall - short). Only adjectives that are gradable and come from the same lexical field can define a binary scale; that is, the two adjectives must come ‘from a set of lexemes each of which is in some respect semantically related to, but at the same time incompatible with,
L. E. Breivik / Adjeclive.f and comparison
in English
229
any other lexeme in the set’ (p. 5). Two adjectives are incompatible if they satisfy the entailment formula in (2) (‘3’ signals the relation of logical entailment) : (2) NP, is A 3 NP, is not A’ Adjectives of shape and colour can be cited to illustrate lexical fields: (3) NP, is square 5 NP, is not round/hexagonal, (4) NP, is green = NP, is not red, blue, etc.
etc.
However, (2) is not a sufficient condition for two gradable adjectives to define a binary scale; they must also be at least semi-reciprocal. Two adjectives are reciprocal if they satisfy the pair of entailment formulae in (5a,b). Old and young constitute a pair of reciprocal adjectives: (5a) (5b) (6a) (6b)
NP, is Aer than NP, * NPj is A’er than NP, NPj is A’er than NP, * NPi is Aer than NPj Peter is older than John = John is younger than Peter John is younger than Peter = Peter is older than John
Pairs of adjectives (e.g. economical - uneconomical) that satisfy only one of the entailment formulae in (5a,b) are defined as semi-reciprocal. Binary scales defined by reciprocal pairs of adjectives are referred to as antonymic, while those defined by semi-reciprocal pairs are called quasiantonymic. Antonymic scales are either symmetric or asymmetric. Symmetric scales, which are defined by pairs like tall - short and full - empty, are the same at both ends, either open or bounded. Asymmetric scales are open at one end and bounded at the other. In the scale defined by the pair dry - wet, the former member signals the end of the scale. Rusiecki also distinguishes between unary symmetric (open at both ends) and unary asymmetric scales (bounded at one end). Red defines a unary symmetric scale, while (in)jammable (or non-(in)jlammable) defines an asymmetric one. Unary-scale and binary-scale adjectives are concomitantly classified as relative (e.g. old) or absolute (e.g. wet), marked (e.g. short) or unmarked (e.g. tall)), and numerical (e.g. long) or non-numerical (e.g. happy). Numerical adjectives can be substituted for A in the formula ‘NP, is n units Aer than NPj’. In chapter 2 (pp. 2341), Rusiecki first discusses certain problems related to
230
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
the derivation and interpretation of comparatives. He argues against the widely postulated theory that comparatives should be derived from positives. (This is the derivation generally proposed in transformational-generative grammar as well as in some logico-semantic treatments.) He points out (pp. 25-26) that such a derivation accounts only for adjectives that are semantically absolute. Thus, while Peter’s towel is wetter than yours entails that Peter’s towel is wet, John is older than Peter does not entail that either John or Peter is old. A large portion of chapter 2 is devoted to the semantic question whose long history revolves around the search for the meaning of the positive-degree form of relative adjectives. A number of scholars have hypothesized that this form signifies a value that is greater than average on the dimension scale for the adjective in question (cf. Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), Gnutzmann (1974)). Thus Peter is tall is interpreted as ‘Peter is taller than an average man’, and Peter is short as ‘Peter is shorter than an average man’. Rusiecki rejects such an interpretation, arguing that concepts like ‘tall’, ‘wide’, and ‘old’ are illdefined and fuzzy: ‘The assessment of the value on the dimension-scale ascribed to a given adjective varies from reference set to reference set, from speaker to speaker, from one moment to the next, and, what is more, is hardly ever done in the either/or terms characteristic of mathematics and classical formal logic; on the contrary, it is usually approximate and unstable. Any attempt to describe the semantics of numerical adjectives which uses only welldefined concepts is therefore doomed to go wrong’ (p. 32). Fuzzy concepts, then, are crucial cornerstones in Rusiecki’s account of relative adjectives. In his view, the meaning of such adjectives can be described most adequately in set-theoretical terms. Under Rusiecki’s analysis, the proposition underlying Peter is sixfeet tall is represented as follows (‘Mu’ stands for ‘the measure function of height’): (7) Peter is six feet tall. M, (Peter) = 6 feet The semantic formula in (7) can be paraphrased as ‘The value of the measure function of height for Peter is six feet’. In the case of sentences in which the value of the measure function is not specified, a statement is made about the required or preferred range of the values of the measure function, expressed in terms of membership of the fuzzy sets MANY or FEW. Additionally, if the reference set is not specified, as in (7) the speaker assumes that the addressee will correctly identify it. This is a pragmatic assumption reminiscent of Grice’s
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
231
(1975, 1978, 1981) theory of implicature. Peter is tall can be interpreted as follows: (8) Peter is tall. M,, (Peter) E MANY feet and inches Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will identify correctly the set S of which the referent of the argument is a member. (7) and (8) then, are instances of the same basic structure, ‘NP is n units A’. In the latter example, n is a member of the fuzzy set MANY. Peter is short translates as ‘Mm (Peter) E FEW feet and inches’. Finally, the addressee expects the value of the measure function to fall within the range of the measure function for the reference set (cf. six feet in (7)). Thus not only a pragmatic assumption but also an empirical normality condition should be added to the semantic formula in (7). On page 73, Rusiecki formulates this condition as follows: n units E lD,l, ‘where lD,l is the fuzzy set of numbers expressing the possible values for the set S on the scale for the dimension D’. The analysis sketched above can be extended to cover non-numerical adjectives, e.g. such antonymic pairs as difficult - easy and slim -fat. Rusiecki states (p. 37) that ‘AN antonymic pairs are terms on scales for dimensions, only in the case of non-numerical adjectives the scales are blank: the units of measurement are not stated, there are no figures making it possible to read off the values of the M, [ = measure function]‘. Peter is fat is analysed as follows (‘0’ stands for ‘obesity’): (9) Peter is fat. Mo, (Peter) E MANY ‘degrees’ Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will identify correctly the S of which the referent of the argument is a member. Before fleshing out his scheme, Rusiecki pauses to provide an overview of the sentence types to be examined (chapter 3, pp. 42-57) as well as a description of the elicitation tests, which he considers an important source of data (chapter 4, pp. 58-67). The experimental design is an extension of the techniques developed in Quirk and Greenbaum (1970) and Quirk and Svartvik (1966). All of Rusiecki’s 80 test items were designed so as to elicit information concerning the semantic interpretation of sentences with gradable adjectives. The next four chapters (5-8, pp. 68-180) constitute the heart of the book. Here, no less than 24 sentence types with gradable adjectives in predicative
232
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
function are subjected to a rigorous semantic analysis. As already stated, Rusiecki’s account aims at being maximally integrative. He argues that the semantic interpretation of adjectives in predicative function is largely valid also for adjectives in attributive function (pp. 8687, 124-126, 135-141). Since recent studies of adjectives and comparison have been rather restricted in scope, it may be useful to outline Rusiecki’s typology of sentences with adjectives in predicative function. The 24 types are set out in (lo)-(33): (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33)
John is six feet tall. John is tall. John is taller than Cedric. John is an inch taller than Cedric. The swimming pool is wider than it is long. The swimming pool is ten yards longer than it is wide. This swimming pool is longer than that one is wide. This swimming pool is a yard longer than that one is wide. Polly is less tall than Joan. Peter is an inch less tall than John. This swimming pool is less wide than it is long. This swimming pool is a yard less wide than it is long. This swimming pool is less wide than that one is long. This swimming pool is a yard less wide than that one is long. John is the (second) tallest in his class. Peter is twice as tall as his son. John is as tall as Martin. This swimming pool is half as wide as it is long. ‘This swimming pool is as wide as it is long. This table is twice as wide as that one is long. This table is as wide as that one is long. Norman is taller than six feet. Peter is less tall than six feet. Adam is as tall as six feet.
A scrutiny of the examples in (lo)-(33) will show that sentences with gradable adjectives are categorized into types according to whether they are one- or two-argument propositions; whether they refer to one or two dimensions; whether the value of the measure function (or the difference, or the ratio, between the values of the measure function) is overtly stated.
234
L. E. Breivik 1 Adjectives
und comparison
in English
Condition (i) states that there is at least one element of the set B for which the value of the measure function for the dimension D is greater than the value of the measure function for the same dimension for at least one element of set C. Condition (ii) ‘specifies that the value of the measure function for dimension D for the smaller term, increased by n units, should be an element of the fuzzy set of possible values of the measure function for dimension D for the other term’ (p. 105). In the final chapter 9 (pp. 181-192), Rusiecki sums up the main results of his investigation. He points out (pp. 18l-l 82) that the semantic analysis of any sentence with a gradable adjective in predicative function must take account of a number of factors. It must consider (a) the type of sentence (cf. (lo)-(33)), and (b) the class and subclass of the adjective (e.g. whether it defines a unary or binary scale). (c) If the adjective is a member of an antonymic pair, we must note whether it is marked or unmarked. (d) NP arguments must be distinguished according to whether they are singular referring expressions, or generic or general expressions. (e) In certain constructions, a distinction must be made between a broad interpretation and a narrow interpretation. (f) Sometimes the semantic interpretation must make reference to the fuzzy sets MANY and FEW. (g) Many semantic interpretations must be supplemented with pragmatic assumptions and empirical normality conditions. Rusiecki’s monograph is a valiant attempt to deal with an intractable subject. Clearly, there is something to be said for a framework that has yielded rich insights into a variety of data from spoken and written English. ACE is well organized and lucidly written; the author does an excellent job of guiding the reader through a tortuous maze of adjectival constructions and semantic/ pragmatic formulae. This-much said, I would like to emphasize that I also have reservations about the book. Thus I find Rusiecki’s position unlikely and his arguments unconvincing on several central and important points. Above all, I disagree with his decision to exclude a negative element from the formal representation of comparative sentences like John is taller than Sue. A number of scholars have argued that at least some comparative constructions contain an underlying negative element (see in particular Bazell (1967), Jespersen (1917: SO), Joly (1967) Mittwoch (1974), Ross (1969) Seuren (1973,1984), Stassen (1985: chs. 3,9)). One of the main arguments for this hypothesis derives from the fact that many negative polarity items (e.g. yet, can possibly) occur naturally in than-clauses, while elements that show positive polarity (e.g. already, stirI) are not compatible with such clauses. Consider the following examples (from Seuren (1973 : 5333534)) :
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison in English
235
(37)
He was a greater bore than I could possibly put up with. (38a) You have already got less support than he has. (38b) *He has got more support than you already have.
In his discussion of negation and comparatives, Rusiecki claims (p. 27) that this argument fails on two counts: ‘Firstly, non-assertive forms are not characteristic of negative sentences only: they also occur in questions. Although it is true that the presence of negation triggers the use of nonassertive forms, it is not true that the use of a non-assertive form signals the presence of negation in sentence-structure - surface or deep. Secondly, nonassertive forms are not just contextually conditioned variants of assertive ones: they have meanings of their own - both in comparative and in negative sentences’. Rusiecki seems to be unaware of the fact that there are other arguments in favour of the hypothesis that than-clauses contain an underlying negative element. First, in some languages, this element appears to have become incorporated into the comparative particle (cf. Small (1923: ch. I), Stassen (1985: chs. 3, 9)). In Gaelic, Scottish English, Latvian, and perhaps also Classical Greek, the comparative particle has the form of a negative conjunction. In his study of the English comparative construction, Joly (1967: 26) states that the use of nor as a comparative particle, as in He is bigger nor Z, ‘is still alive in modern dialects, from the Shetland Islands to Cornwall, from Ireland to the United States...‘. In other languages, the comparative particle is identical to the adversative coordinator ‘but’ (e.g. Basque) or the disjunctive coordinator ‘or’ (e.g. Old Slavonic) (cf. Small (1923 : ch. l), Stassen (1985: chs. 3, 9)). The use of the adversative coordinator as a comparative particle is also attested in earlier English (e.g. in Shakespeare) and in some dialects of modern American English. Secondly, it is a commonplace that we find evidence of an underlying negative element also in languages where the comparative particle is not isomorphic with a negative, adversative or disjunctive conjunction. Thus French has ‘expletive’ negation in cases like: (39) 11est plus riche que je ne pensais. This kind of negation also occurs in certain comparatives in Italian and Spanish. Seuren (1984: 109) points out that ‘in those English dialects that have Negation Copying, such as Cockney, one finds copies of the underlying negation after than.. .‘. He cites the following example: (40) She did a better job than what I never thought she would.
236
L. E. Breivik
1AdjPctives and comparison in English
In his discussion of cases like (39), Small (1923: 16) states: ‘This use of the negative may be explained on psychological grounds. The speaker probably has in mind a negative conception when he thinks of inequality’. Finally, observe that the comparative construction in A is big, B is nor (big) is attested in a number of languages (cf. Andersen (1983 : ch. 3), Jensen (1934) Stassen (1985: passim). According to Andersen (1983: 109), this type is basically the same as that in A is big, B is small. Here, we may note that Klooster (1978) and Seuren (1978) present internal linguistic evidence for the inherent negative-positive polarity in antonymic pairs like big - small. I agree with Rusiecki that the presence of negation is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the occurrence of non-assertive forms in than-clauses. However, taken together, the pieces of evidence mentioned above make out a fairly impressive case for the existence of an underlying negative element in comparatives of inequality. Or as Small (1923 : 12 1) puts it: ‘By a comparative study of the related languages I have brought out that the adversative relation, which is very evident in the phenomenon of comparison in English, is genuine Germanic idiom. It is this feature in English comparison, especially in the particle than, that forms the semantic connection or link between our speech and the older members of the [Indo-European] family; as, Old Indic and Skt. na, Greek #, Old Slavic neie, li, Gothic Pad. A natural project for future research, then, would be to re-examine the data presented in ACE, with a view to arriving at an analysis that accounts for the underlying negation of English comparatives. Such an analysis could of course be based on the framework developed by Rusiecki. It is also possible that Seuren’s analysis, proposed in several publications (e.g. Seuren (1984)) and adopted by Stassen (1985) is a first approximation towards an adequate representation of English comparative constructions. In this proposal, a sentence like Jim is taller than Joe is interpreted as (41) 9e: extent [Jim is tall to e A N [Joe is tall e]] (There is an extent e such that Jim is tall to e and Joe is not tall to e) A related investigation that might have interesting results would involve a systematic and explicit attack on the relationship between semantic and morpho-syntactic factors in English comparatives. Rusiecki claims that the use or non-use of the verb after the secundum comparationis in cases like James is stronger than Mark (is) is a purely syntactic problem: ‘Whatever interpretation of the syntactic structure of comparative constructions we adopt, it will not have a decisive influence upon their semantic interpretation’ (p. 92). It
L. E. Breivik 1 Adjectives
and comparison
in English
237
seems to me that Rusiecki is a bit rash in excluding syntactic factors from his explanatory framework. As noted by Andersen (1983: 119) ‘Once a language uses diverse [comparative] constructions the way is open for a semantic differentiation to go hand-in-hand with the morpho-syntactic variation’. The two methods for NP-comparison in Latin afford an example of this. In particle comparatives with quum ‘than’, the secundum comparationis derives its case assignment from the case into which the primum comparationis has been put, as in maior quam tu (nominative) / maior quam te (accusative) ‘bigger than you’. In the other construction, the secundum comparationis is invariably marked for the ablative case, as in te maior / maior te. According to Panagl (1973: 373) the two constructions differ not only morphologically and syntactically but also semantically: while the case construction exhibits presupposition, the particle construction does not. It is a well-known fact that in English the particle than (originally a conjunction) has been reinterpreted as a preposition in cases like I weigh more than 200 pounds and It goes faster than 100 miles per hour (cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 1129)). In these examples, it is not possible to expand the than-phrase into a clause (cf. *It goes faster than ZOOmiles per hour goes). Compare also He’s taller than me with He’s taller than I, which most native speakers of English find stilted and old-fashioned. Prescriptive grammar still frowns on the use of me, her, etc. after than. If we wish to avoid the object form of the secundum comparationis, we may of course expand the than-phrase into a full clause: He’s taller than me = He’s taller than I am. The point of citing the above examples is to show that we here have an on-going change. The reinterpretation of than started only a few centuries ago; the first instances of the type Aer than me are attested in the second half of the sixteenth century (cf. Visser (1963 : 249)). One of the main conclusions emerging from Rusiecki’s study is that comparatives in present-day English refuse to be neatly pigeonholed. In the final chapter, he has to admit that it is often extremely difficult to elucidate the relevant semantic parameters and their interaction in phrases and clauses introduced by than. In my opinion, it is not unlikely that these semantic parameters also interact with morpho-syntactic parameters and, furthermore, that the whole situation is complicated by the syntactization process described in the preceding paragraph. However, this is nothing more than a hypothesis, which should be validated by confronting it with empirical data. An investigation of the relationship between semantic and morpho-syntactic parameters should also consider data from Old and Middle English. It is interesting that in earlier English both the particle construction and the dative case could be
238
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
used to express a comparison of inequality (cf. Mitchell (1985: 569-572), Small (1929)). Consider the following Old English example from Small (1929: 63): (42) And eft sanctus Paulus ne ongeat he no hiene selfne betran odran godum monnum.
‘And moreover Saint Paul did not assume that he was better than other good men’ The case construction disappeared in the second half of the tenth century. We turn now to a problem that receives considerable attention in ACE, viz. the meaning of the positive-degree form of relative adjectives. Rusiecki has succeeded (pp. 27-33) in presenting a strong case against the widely held view that such adjectives should be interpreted semantically in terms of the concept of average/norm. However, although I am essentially sympathetic to his thesis that fuzzy concepts play an important role in natural language, I am not convinced that he has got to the bottom of the matter. As stated above, he has used his theoretical framework effectively in coping with a vast array of recalcitrant data. Without in the least underestimating his achievement in this respect, one may legitimately ask whether there is any substantive difference between the author’s measure function and the concept of average/norm found in other semantic descriptions of relative adjectives. Despite his claim that the meaning of these adjectives can be described as a value of the measure function, without recourse to the concept of average/norm, the latter lurks behind many of his discussions in chapters 5-8. Nor do I feel that Rusiecki is entirely successful in his attempt to refute the view that the semantics of natural language can be described in terms of formal logic. His criticism never takes on any substance, although he comments on the limitations on the use of formal systems at numerous points in the book (e.g. on pp. 31-32). His discussion of this important topic is far too general and inexplicit; in particular, one misses a section in the introductory chapter in which the study of formal semantics is outlined and placed in perspective both with regard to Rusiecki’s own framework and with regard to the current state of logic and linguistics. As a result of his failure to confront squarely the problems involved, we have no grounds for assessing the validity’ of his statement that ‘there are two courses of action open to the student of language. He can either treat the language of formal logic as superior to natural languages and try to force the description of the latter into the mould of the former; or he can recognize the primacy and sovereignty of
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
in English
239
natural languages, and treat formal systems as tools in their description _ valuable tools, but no more than tools - with due respect to observationally statable facts’ (pp. 191-192). This brings us to my final point. I would like to emphasize that, despite my critical remarks in the introductory paragraphs of this review, I do not belong to those who think that standard formal semantics is, a priori, inadequate for natural language (although I suspect that there may be inherent limitations to such an approach). Given our present ignorance of the diversity of language, there is surely no reason to be dogmatic. It is too early to tell whether the kind of work done by e.g. Hellan (1981,1984), von Stechow (1984), and the contributors to Guenthner and Rohrer (1978) will ultimately form part of our conception of the nature of meaning. The point made above was merely that model-theoretic studies of the comparative construction have reached an impasse because their empirical basis is weak or lacking. Like all other forms of scientific activity, the study of natural-language semantics is a waste of time if it does not lead to theoretical progress. The only way to achieve this goal is to test the hypotheses against empirical data. In conclusion, Rusiecki only partly achieves his ambitious goal, although ACE in many respects is a considerable advance on previous treatments of adjectives and comparison in English. The major strength of the book lies in making available a large amount of complex and interesting data; it is a sinequa-non source of information for anyone working on adjectives and comparison, in whatever theory. But the work of constructing a unified and linguistically sound theory of gradable adjectives in all their forms and uses is still mainly to be done.
References Allan, K., 1986. Review of: J. Rusiecki, Adjectives and comparison in English: a semantic study. (London/New York: Longman, 1985.) Language 62, 716. Andersen, P.K., 1983. Word order typology and comparative constructions. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Aoun, J., 1982. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Bartsch, R. and T. Vennemann, 1972. Semantic structures. Frankfurt/Main: Athenaurn. Bazell, C.E., 1967. Notes on ‘natural interpretation’. Word 23, 17-24. Bolinger, D., 1967. Adjective comparison: a semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics I, 2-10. Bolinger, D., 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. Bresnan, J.W., 1971. On a ‘non-source of comparatives’. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 117-I 12. Bresnan, J. W., 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-343.
240
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives and comparison in English
Bresnan, J. W., 1977. Variables in the theory of transformations. In: P. W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 1977, 157-196. Campbell, R.N. and R. J. Wales, 1969. Comparative structures in English. Journal of Linguistics 5, 215-251. Cantrall, W. R., 1977. Comparison, and beyond. Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 69-8 1. Chomsky, N., 1977. On wh-movement. In: P.W. Culicover et al. (eds.), 1977, 71-132. Chomsky, N., 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris. Chomsky, N., 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cresswell, M.J., 1976. The semantics of degree. In: B.H. Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 261292. New York: Academic Press. Culicover, P.W., 1984. Review article on: C.L. Baker and J.J. McCarthy (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.) Language 60, 115-122. Culicover, P.W., T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), 1977. Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. Doherty, P.C. and A. Schwartz, 1967. The syntax of the compared adjective in English. Language 43, 903-936. Fries, P.H., 1977. English predications of comparison. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 9, 95-103. Gnutzmann, C., 1974. Zur Graduierbarkeit von Adjektiven im Englischen. Linguistische Berichte 31(74), 1-12. Gnutzmann, C., R. Ilson and J. Webster, 1973. Comparative constructions in contemporary English. English Studies 54, 417438. Grice, H.P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H.P., 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics, 9: Pragmatics, 113-128. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H.P., 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 183-198. New York: Academic Press. Guenthner, F. and C. Rohrer (eds.), 1978. Studies in formal semantics: intensionality, temporality, negation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hale, A., 1970. Conditions on English comparative clause pairings. In: R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 30-55. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. Hankamer, J., 1973. Why there are two than’s in English. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 179-191. Hellan, L., 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Hellan, L., 1984. Note on some issues raised by von Stechow. Journal of Semantics 3, 83-92. Hendrick, R., 1978. The phrase structure of adjectives and comparatives. Linguistic Analysis 4, 255-299. Hoeksema, J., 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1, 403434. Hoeksema, J., 1984. To be continued: the story of the comparative. Journal of Semantics 3, 93-107. Huang, C.-T. J., 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives and comparison in English
Jensen,
H.,
1934. Der steigernde
Forschungen
Vergleich
in English
Jespersen,
O., 1929. The philosophy
Joly,
1967. Negation
l’universite Jorgensen,
Ausdruck.
lndogermanische
52, 108-130.
Jespersen, O., 1917. Negation Videnskabernes Selskab. A.,
und sein sprachlicher
241
and
and other
of grammar.
the comparative
languages.
Copenhagen:
London:
Allen & Unwin.
particle
in English.
Det kgl. danske
Quebec:
Les Presses
de
Laval.
E., 1980. Some notes on negated
Klein, E., 1980. A semantics
(+ than). English
comparatives
for positive and comparative
adjectives.
I.
Studies 61, 543-55
Linguistics
and Philosophy
4.
l-45. Klooster,
W.G.,
Klooster, Linguistic Lees,
1972. The structure
W.G.,
1978. Much
Society,
R.B.,
underlying
in Dutch.
measure
Papers
phrase
from
the
sentences. 14th
Dordrecht:
Regional
D. Reidel.
Meeting,
Chicago
217-228.
1961. Grammatical
analysis
of the English
comparative
construction.
Word
17.
171-185. Lehmann,
W.P.,
1972a. Comparative
K. Grimstad, Hague:
N. Hasselmo
constructions
and W.A.
in Germanic
of the OV type. In: E.S. Firchow,
O’Neil (eds.), Studies
for Einar Haugen,
323-330.
The
to the syntactic
component
Mouton.
Lehmann,
W.P.,
language. Mitchell,
1972b.
Canadian
The comparative
Journal
B., 1985. Old English syntax,
Oxford
University
Mittwoch,
method
of Linguistics
as applied
of
17, 167-174.
I: Concord,
the parts of speech, and the sentence.
Oxford:
Press.
A., 1974. Is there an underlying
negative
element
in comparative
clauses?
Language
52, 81 l-838.
Linguistics
122, 3945. Napoli,
D.J. and M. Nespor,
Panagl,
O., 1973. Prasuppositionen
Beitrlge
zur Linguistik
Perlmutter, D.M., and semantics,
1976. Negatives
in comparatives.
und die Syntax
der Lateinischen
Komparation.
Salzburger
I, 361-375.
1980. Relational grammar. In: E.A. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth (eds.), Syntax 13: Current approaches to syntax, 195-229. New York/London: Academic
Press. Pesetsky,
D., 1982. Paths and categories.
Pilch, H., 1965. Comparative Pinkham,
J.E.,
IN: Indiana
1982. The formation University
Puhvel, J., 1973. Nature Indo-European
R. and J. Svartvik, R. and S. Greenbaum. London:
1966. Investigating
Rizzi, L., 1982. Negation, Ross,
J.R..
Modern
acceptability.
experiments
G. Leech and J. Svartvik,
R., 1975. How many comparatives syntax,
Bloomington.
grammar.
Journal
of
in English:
The Hague: linguistic
Mouton.
studies in use and
Longman.
R., S. Greenbaum.
in Italian
and English.
in Proto-Indo-European
linguistic
1970. Elicitation
English language. London: Longman. Reichenbach, H., 1947. Elements of symbolic Rivara,
41, 37-58.
1, 145-154.
Quirk,
attitude.
Language
clauses in French
Club.
and means of comparison
Studies
MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
in English.
of comparative
Linguistics
Quirk,
Quirk,
Cambridge,
constructions
&movement,
117-185.
1969. A proposed studies in English,
Dordrecht:
logic. New York:
are there? Linguistics
grammar
of the
Free Press. 163, 35-51.
and the null subject parameter.
In: L. Rizzi (ed.). Issues
Foris.
rule of tree pruning. 2888299.
1985. A comprehensive
Englewood
In: D.A.
Reibel and S.A. Schane
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(eds.).
242
L. E. Breivik / Adjectives
and comparison
Ross, J.R., 1974. More on -ER-globality. Foundations Russell, B., 1905. On denoting. Mind 14, 479493. Sag, I.A., 1976. Deletion ced by the Indiana
Sapir, E., 1949. Grading:
of Language
and logical form. Cambridge
University
Linguistics
Club,
a study in semantics.
Edward Sapir in language, sity of California Press.
culture
Selkirk, E.O., 1977. Some remarks
in English
12, 269-270.
MA: MIT Press. (Dissertation.)
(Reprodu-
1977.)
In: D.G.
and personality,
Mandelbaum 122-149.
on noun phrase structure.
(ed.), Selected writings
Berkeley/Los
Angeles:
In: P. W. Culicover
of
Univer-
et al. (eds.), 1977,
285-316. Seuren, P.A.M.,
1973. The comparative.
in Europe,
Dordrecht:
Seuren,
528-564.
P.A.M.,
In: F. Kiefer and N. Ruwet (eds.), Generative
1978. The structure
Papers from the Parasession
grammar
D. Reidel. and selection
on the Lexicon,
of positive
14th Regional
and negative
Meeting,
gradable
Chicago
adjectives.
Linguistic
Society,
336346. Seuren, P.A.M., 1984. The comparative revisited. Small, G. W., 1923. The comparison of inequality:
Journal of Semantics 3, 109-141. the semantics and syntax of the comparative
particle in English. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University. Small, G. W., 1929. The Germanic case of comparison, with a special study of English. Monographs, Smith, C.S., Stanley,
4. Philadelphia,
PA: Linguistic
1961. A class of complex
Meeting,
Chicago
Linguistic
Society,
Stassen,
L., 1984. The comparative
Stassen,
L., 1985. Comparison
R., 1972. Some features
Universals.
Stanford
compared.
37, 342-365.
Papers
from the 5th Regional
Journal
of Semantics
3, 143-182.
grammar.
Oxford/New
York:
semantic theories of comparison. Journal to logical theory. London: Methuen. constructions.
Working
Basil Blackwell. of Semantics Papers
9. 1177162.
Visser, T., 1963. An historical
syntax
Williams,
and logical
E., 1977. Discourse
Language
construction.
287-292.
of basic comparative
University,
Language
of America.
in English.
adjective
and universal
von Stechow, A., 1984. Comparing Strawson, P.F., 1952. Introduction Ultan,
modifiers
R., 1969. The English comparative
Society
of the English
language
form. Linguistic
I. Leiden:
Inquiry
E.J. Brill.
8, 101-139.
3, l-77.
on Language