The paper discusses the internal and external syntax of comparison constructions in the light of diachronic as well as dialectal German data. As far as the syntactic position of comparison particles is concerned, the data present evidence against the widespread analysis as prepositions or complementizers and in favour of a syntactic position above the standard-of-comparison CP. This is demonstrated in detail for the German comparison particles
Comparison constructions represent intriguing complex sentences which – despite decades of research not least within the generative tradition (
As Kayne (
By way of providing the necessary background for the ensuing discussion, we will first introduce some basic terminology concerning comparisons and give a rough overview of their diachronic development in German. In a prototypical comparison construction, two entities – the comparandum and the standard of comparison – are compared with respect to some manner/set of properties or to the degrees of some property which is expressed by an AP (or AdvP) referred to as Tertium Comparationis. While most of the world’s languages use functional (esp. local/directional) cases to mark the standard of comparison, cf. Stassen (
(1)
a.
Comparative
Anna
Anne
läuft
walks
schneller
faster
than
Maria
Mary
(läuft).
walks
‘Anne walks faster than Mary (does).’
b.
Equative (degree equative)
Anna
Anne
läuft
walks
so
as
schnell
fast
as
Maria
Mary
(läuft).
walks
‘Anne walks as fast as Mary (does).’
c.
Equative (non-degree equative)
Anna
Anne
läuft
walks
so
so
as/like
Maria
Mary
(läuft).
walks
‘Anne walks as Mary does. / Anne walks like Mary.’
d.
Hypothetical comparison
Anna
Anne
läuft
walks/runs
(so schnell),
as fast
as if
sie
she
um
for
ihr
her
Leben
life
liefe
ran
/
as
liefe
ran
sie
she
um
for
ihr
her
Leben.
life
‘Anne is running as if she was running for her life.’
In German, the modern standard language shows the comparison paricle
The comparative cycle in German.
Thus
As will become evident, the complex patterns of diachronic and dialectal variation constitute valuable evidence with respect to a number of questions regarding the syntactic analysis of comparison constructions. In particular, three specific questions will be addressed in this paper, suggesting conrete syntactic analyses on the basis of the new data for the first two while with respect to the third question, the data and discussion mainly serve to sharpen our understanding of the contradictory characteristics of the construction and only a tentative solution will be indicated, leaving scope for future research.
Section 2 focusses on the question of the syntactic position of comparison particles. Whereas comparison particles are widely assumed to constitute complementizers or prepositions, it will be argued on the basis of dialectal, diachronic and partly cross-linguistic data that neither analysis holds, but that comparison particles such as Modern German
As far as the internal syntax of comparison constructions is concerned, one central issue is the syntactic position of the comparison particles such as English
Besides the fact that comparison particles may, like prepositions, combine with mere DPs, the main argument for a supposedly prepositional status of comparison particles is that, in these phrasal comparisons, a pronominal DP often appears in a morphological shape corresponding to an oblique case form rather than to the form it would take in a full comparison clause. This is illustrated for English, Dutch and French in (2)–(4), cf. Hoeksema (
(2) | a. | He is taller than |
b. | He is taller than |
(3) | a. | Hij is groter dan |
b. | Hij is groter dan |
(4) | a. | Il est plus grand que |
b. | Il est plus grand que |
However, I would like to argue that the special morphological form of the pronoun is not due to case government by the comparison particle. It rather constitutes the strong form of the respective pronoun in the sense of Cardinaletti & Starke (
(5) | a. | We talked a lot, my father and |
b. | Wij hebben veel gepraat, mijn vader en |
|
c. | Nous avons beaucoup parlé, mon père et |
In German, there is no case government by the comparison particle either (whether past or present).
(6)
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
mich
me
mehr
more
als
than
{
you.
you.
‘Anne loves me more than {(she loves) you / you (do)}.’
Besides these morphosyntactic observations, further syntactic evidence against the prepositional analysis comes from the fact that not only a DP but also for instance a mere AP may follow the comparison particle cf. (7a), which is ungrammatical with prepositions, cf. (7b).
(7)
a.
Die
the
Tür
door
ist
is
breiter
wider
than
[AP
hoch.]
high
‘The door is wider than high.’
b.
*{
in
with
on
at
over
from
until
[AP
hoch]
high
‘in/with/on/at/over/from/until high’
(8)
a.
Er
he
erzählt
talks
öfter
more-often
von
about
nach
after
dem
the
Krieg
war
than
[PP
von
about
[PP
vor
before
dem
the
Krieg.]]
war
‘He talks more often about after the war than about before the war.’
b.
*{
in
with
on
at
over
from
until
[PP
von
about
[PP
vor
before
dem
the
Krieg]]
war
‘in/with/on/at/over/from/until about before the war’
The second common syntactic analysis of comparison particles treats them as complementizers, cf. for English the classic analysis by Bresnan (
(9)
Regarding the German comparison particle
As
(10)
While the C0 position remains phonetically empty in comparatives with
(11)
Si
she
isch
is
grosser
taller
than
{
what
that
i
I
dänkt
thought
ha.
have
‘She is taller than I thought.’
(12)
The assumption that
Based on non-degree equatives in which the OHG equative particle
(13)
Andem
on-the
dritten
third
tage.
day
so
so
wirdit
becomes
er,
he
as-he
ê
before
was.
was
‘On the third day, he becomes as he was before.’
The phenomenon of synaloepha is known to occur with elements in C0, viz. the finite verb in left-peripheral position or complementizers such as
Another set of data that constitutes evidence for
(14)
a.
…
so
so
ligit
lies
er
he
[
also
as
er
he
tôt
dead
was
‘So he lies as if he was dead’
b.
*…
so
so
liegt
lies
er,
he
[
als
as
er
he
tot
dead
was
c.
…
so
so
liegt
lies
er,
he
[
als
as
was
er
he
tot]
dead
(15)
a.
do
there
kam
came
ain
a
grosser
big
ludem
noise
vnd
and
gerumppel,
rumbling
[
als
as
vil
many
mit
with
harnasch
armour
an
at
der
the
tuer
door
were
‘There was a big noise and rumbling as if many men in armour were at the door.’
b.
*…
als
as
viele
many
mit
with
Harnischen
armour
an
at
der
the
Tür
door
were
c.
…
als
as
were
viele
many
mit
with
Harnischen
armour
an
at
der
the
Tür
door
(16)
The tree marker in (16) illustrates the syntactic structure of the ENHG example (15a) in contrast with the corresponding Modern German sentence (15c) in the line below. In the historical example,
(17)
Filweiniger
much-less
soellet
should
jr
you
darab
therefore
vrsach
cause
nemmen/
take
an
at
meinen
my
worten
words
zu
to
zweifelen/
doubt
as
that
jch
I
solchs
such
zu
to
thun
do
nit
not
vermoechte.
might
‘All the less should you therefore doubt my words as if I was not able to do this.’
(18)
da
then
erkam
feared
der
the
man
man
als
as
hart,
much
daz
thet
er
he
die
the
varib
colour
verkerat,
turned
as
if
er
he
halber
half
tod
dead
wër
was
‘The man was frightened so much that he changed colour as if he was half-dead.’
(19)
so
so
bedunckt
seems-to
jn
him
zun
at
zyten
times
er
he
hoere
heard
etwas
something
susen
whistle
oder
or
prastlen
crackle
as
if
es
it
windete
was-windy
‘So it seemed to him at times as if he heard a whistling or crackling as if it was windy.’
(20)
Die
the
speiß
food
die
which
jch
I
euch
you
geben
give
werde
will
(
wolche
which
wort
words
hie
here
Emphatica
Emphatica
sein)
are
as
through
which
der
the
Herr
Lord
nit
not
ein
a
gemein/
common
aber
but
ein
a
sondere
special
speiß […]
food
zuverstehen
to-understand
geben
give
wil …
wants
‘The food which I will give you (which words are Emphatica here) by which the Lord did not want to denominate a common food but a special one …’
The diachronic movement of
For the Modern German comparison particle
At first sight, it might seem straightforward to analyse the comparison particle
(21)
Ich
I
weiß,
know
how
Anna
Anne
lebt,
lives
aber
but
ich
I
möchte
like
mal
wissen,
know
how
Maria
Mary
*(lebt).
lives
‘I know how Anne lives but I would like to know how Mary lives.’
(22)
a.
Anna
Anne
mag
likes
{den
the
Menschen
person
/
den(jenigen)},
the (one)
whom
Maria
Mary
*(mag).
likes
‘Anne likes the person / him whom Maria likes.’
b.
Anna
Anne
mag,
likes
whom
Maria
Mary
*(mag).
likes
‘Anne likes whom Mary likes.’
(23)
a.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
{
an
at
dem
the
Ort
place
/
da}
there
leben,
live
where
Maria
Mary
*(lebt).
lives
‘Anne wants to live at the place/(there) where Mary lives.’
b.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
leben,
live
where
Maria
Mary
*(lebt).
lives
‘Anne wants to live where Mary lives.’
(24)
a.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
{
in
in
der
the
Art /
way
so
so
/
so
as
gut}
well
leben,
live
as
Maria
Mary
(lebt).
lives
‘Anne wants to live the way that / as well as Mary lives.’
b.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
leben,
live
as
Maria
Mary
(lebt).
lives
‘Anne wants to live as Mary does/like Mary.’
Besides being used as a wh-item meaning ‘how’ as in (21),
(25)
Er
he
hörte,
heard
how
der
the
Schlüssel
key
im
in-the
Schloss
keyhole
herumgedreht
around-turned
wurde.
was
‘He heard that (/how) the key was being turned in the keyhole.’
(26)
as
sie
they
sich
R
dem
the
Haus
house
näherten,
appoached
bemerkten
noticed
sie,
they
dass
that
es
it
ganz
rather
verfallen
dilapidated
war.
was
‘As (/when) they were approaching the house, they noticed that is was rather dilapidated.’
(27)
so
so
das
that
ma
we
do
there
ned
not
iba
above
de
the
norm
norm
khema
come
san,
have
[
de
which
as
se
they
aufgschdaid
put-up
ham]
have
‘so that we could not surpass the norm which they had established’
The question is thus, whether the comparison particle
(28)
Anna
Anne
stieg
climbed
die
the
Treppe
stairs
(so
as
schnell)
quickly
hinauf,
up
as/like
Maria
Mary
(die
the
Treppe
stairs
hinaufstieg).
up-climbed
‘Anne climbed up the stairs (as quickly), as/like Mary (climbed up the stairs).’
(29)
Als
when
Anna
Anne
die
the
Treppe
stairs
hinaufstieg,
up-climbed
hörte
heard
sie,
she
{
that
/
how
Maria
Mary
*(die
the
Treppe
stairs
hinauftieg).
up-climbed
‘When Anne was climbing up the stairs she heard that/how Mary was climbing up the stairs.’
Depending on the analysis of hypothetical comparisons including
(30)
Hanno
Hanno
hustet,
coughes
as
if
ein
a
Hofhund
watchdog
bellt.
barks
‘Hanno is coughing (as if/) like a watchdog barks.’
= (i) Hanno hustet. Der Husten klingt, wie es klingt, wenn ein Hofhund bellt.
‘Hanno is coughing. The cough sounds as it sounds if a watchdog barks.’
≠ (ii) Hanno hustet, wie er hustet, wenn ein Hofhund bellt.
‘Hanno is coughing as he is coughing if a watchdog barks.’
If accordingly,
(31)
Note that the comparison particle
With
(32)
De
the
Vader
father
dirmeld
staggers
(so)
(so)
[wie
as
had
er
he
gesuf].
drunk
‘The father is staggering as if he was drunk.’
(33)
Ear
he
hot
has
szo
so
to
done
[wie
as
had
szi
they
eam
him
zum
to-the
Treschn
flailing
otinnka].
ordered
‘He behaved as if they had called him for flailing.’
Furthermore, there is another set of dialectal data supporting the suggested analysis. Just as with
(34)
a.
D’Sabine
the Sabine
laaft
walks
so
as
schnej
fast
as
that
d’Anna
the Anne
raalfod.
cycles
‘Sabine walks as fast as Anne cycles.’
b.
D’Sabine
the Sabine
mochts
does-it
asoo
so
as
that.2.
as
it
du
you
imma
always
gmocht
done
hosd.
have
‘Sabine is doing it as/like you have always done it.’
c.
Und
and
drum
for-that
z’bittn,
to
dass
ask
aa
that-it
so
so
bleibt
stays
as
that-it
is:
is
friedli.
peaceful
‘And to ask for it to stay as it is: peaceful.’
d.
Die
they
hen
have
eh
anyway
alle
all
meah
more
Geld,
money
than
that
se’s
they-it
braucha
use
kennat.
can
‘They all have more money than they can use, anyway.’
e.
Die
the
Wäie
cake
isch
is
jo
schlimmer,
worse
than
that
si
it
usgseet.
looks
‘The cake is worse than it looks.’
(35)
Further support for this analysis comes from historical data. As mentioned above, the use of
(36) | [CP1 … so [CP2 wio [C20 so] …]] > [CP1 … [CP2 so wio [C20 so] …]] |
(37)
er
he
bi
with
unsih
us
tod
death
thulti
suffered
·
so
how
so he
selbo
self
wolti
wanted
‘He suffered death among us just as (/however) he himself wanted to’
(38)
Iâ
PTCL
uuóltôn
wanted
îuuere
your
fórderen
ancestors
.
álso
as
dû
you
uuâno
believe
îh
I
kehúgest
remember
.
as/how
dû
you
lâse
read
.
úmbe
because-of
dîa
the
úbermûoti
presumption
dero
of-the
consulum
consuls
.
tîligôn
efface
iro
their
ámbácht
post
‘Because of the presumption of the consuls, your ancestors, as you will, I trust, remember, as you read, wanted to efface consulship’
(39)
Walther (48, 7; after
how/as
si
they
sint,
are
sô
so
wil
want
ich
I
sîn
be
‘However/as they are, so do I want to be.’
A first syntactic change of
(40)
ir
you
habt
have
mirs
me-it
noch
still
vil
very
wenich
little
her
here
ce
to
lande
country
braht
brought
although-he
mîn
my
eigen
own
wære
was
‘You have as yet brought very little of it [= the treasure] to me into this country, although it used to be my own’
Secondly, as mentioned above, the second
(41) | [CP1 … [CP2 so wio [C20 so ]] > [CP1 … [CP2 [C20 (s)wie] …]] |
The change from a specifier to the head of the same projection is again a common kind of syntactic change, notably since both generally agree with respect to crucial grammatical features (Spec-head agreement, cf.
A second syntactic change of
(42) | [CP1 … [ConjP [Conj0 wie] [CP2 [C20 ] …]]] |
As discussed above, before the ENHG period, i.e. during OHG and MHG,
(43)
Darumb
for-which
sie
they
auch
also
also
as
schmehlich
ignominiously
vnd
and
Gotteslesterlich/
blasphemously
[
as
die
the
Mahometisten]
muslims
vom
of-the
Abendmal
supper
des
of-the
HERRN
Lord
[…]
gedencken
think
vnd
and
reden.
talk
‘because of which they also think and talk of the Lord’s supper as ignominiously and blasphemously as the muslims’
ENHG and early NHG equative particles
Equative particle | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Standard of comparison | phrasal | clausal | phrasal | clausal |
2nd half of 16th century | 59% (41) | 41% (29) | 20% (85) | 80% (339) |
2nd half of 17th century | 67% (56) | 33% (27) | 30% (99) | 70% (234) |
Three further sets of data also constitute evidence for the reanalysis of the comparison particle
(44)
Ludwig Rauwolf (32, 22–24)
ein
a
Erden/
soil
die
which
sie
they
Iusabor
Iusabor
nennent/
call
welche
which
jre
their
Weiber
women
offt
commonly
vnd
and
dick
often
essen/
eat
as
[bey
with
vns]
us
[etwa]
perhaps/at-times
[die
the
schwangere]
pregnant
[Kolen
coal
vnd
and
andere
other
ding].
things
‘a soil which they call Iusabor, which their women commonly and often eat as here, pregnant women (eat) coal and other things.’
(45)
a.
Maria
Mary
hat
has
die
the
Büchse
box
so
so/as
(schnell)
fast
aufgemacht,
opened
like/as
[Anna]
Anne
[die
the
Schachtel].
case
‘Mary opened the box (as fast) as/like Anne (opened) the case.’
b.
*Ich
I
weiß,
know
wie
how
Maria
Mary
die
the
Büchse
box
aufgemacht
opened
hat,
has
aber
but
ich
I
frage
ask
mich,
myself
how
[Anna]
Anne
[die
the
Schachtel].
case
‘I know how Mary opened the box but I wonder how Anne (opened) the case.’
c.
*Als
when
Maria
Mary
die
the
Büchse
box
aufmachte,
opened
hörte
heard
sie,
she
how
[Anna]
Anne
[die
the
Schachtel].
case
‘When Mary opened the box she heard how/that Anne (opened) the case.’
(46)
Wer
who
durch
by
seine
his
vernunfft
reason
Recht
justice
fand
found
vnnd
and
Recht
justice
thet
did
dem
to-the
Armen
poor-one
as
dem
to-the
Reichen
rich-one
‘whoever by his reason found and did justice to the poor as to the rich’
(47)
Do
then
kamen
came
dem
to-the
purkgrafen
count
die
the
mër,
stories
how
that
ich
I
këm
came
nach
after
den
the
Junkchfrawn.
maidens
‘At that time, the story that I was coming for the maidens reached the count.’
Another crucial question concerning the internal syntax of the standard of comparison relates to its syntactic status. As already mentioned above, the standard of comparison may, at the surface, take the form of a full clause or a single phrase, e.g. DP cf. (1), AP cf. (7), PP cf. (48) or AdvP cf. (49), which is connected to the rest of the clause by the comparison particle.
(48)
In
in
Köln
Cologne
regnet
rains
es
it
öfter
more-often
than
[PP
in
in
Halle].
Halle
‘In Cologne, it rains more often than in Halle.’
(49)
Heute
today
ist
is
besseres
better
Wetter
weather
than
[AdvP
gestern].
yesterday
‘Today, the weather is better than yesterday.’
There are two basic approaches in the literature regarding phrasal comparisons. According to the so-called reduction analysis, phrasal comparisons always constitute elided clausal comparisons, cf. Bresnan (
Besides the advantage of a uniform analysis for all comparisons, what speaks in favour of the reduction analysis is the fact that ellipsis is possible and has to be assumed in comparisons at any rate. Thus, the Tertium Comparationis and possibly further elements are typically elided even in clearly clausal standards – phenomena referred to as comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion, illustrated in (50) and (51). Furthermore, as mentioned above, Gapping may occur within the standard of comparison, i.e. deletion of the finite verb leaving several independent constituents behind, evidencing a clearly clausal underlying structure, cf. (52).
(50)
Anna
Anne
läuft
walks
so
as
schnell,
fast
as
Maria
Mary
schnell
fast
läuft.
walks
‘Anne walks as fast as Mary does.’
(51)
Anna
Anne
hat
has
mehr
more
Feinde
enemies
than
Maria
Mary
viele
many
Freunde
friends
hat.
has
‘Anne has more enemies than Mary has friends.’
(52)
Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
mehr
more
Bücher
books
vor,
than
Maria
Mary
ihren
her
Kindern.
children
‘Anne reads more books to her students than Mary (reads) to her children.’
Another observation that is considered as supporting the reduction analysis is the fact that in languages such as German, in a standard consisting of a simple DP following the comparison particle, this DP may occur in different cases with the semantic interpretation varying accordingly. According to the reduction analysis as indicated in (53a/b), the different cases are licensed by different parts of the elided clausal structure (e.g. accusative by V0, nominative by I0/Agr0).
(53)
a.
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
mich
me
mehr
more
than
sie
she
dich
you.
liebt.
loves
‘Anne loves me more than (she loves) you.’
b.
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
mich
me
mehr
more
than
du
you.
mich
me
liebst.
love
‘Anne loves me more than you (do).’
Finally, a syntactic argument in favour of the reduction analysis comes from the fact that in German, the standard of comparison is preferably extraposed, even with phrasal comparisons, as illustrated in (54). This position generally remains empty within the sentence except for subordinate clauses which are also typically extraposed. Thus comparisons – even phrasal ones – seem to pattern with subordinate clauses rather than with simple DPs (especially in the case of pronouns) or AdvPs etc., the extraposition of which results in degraded if not ungrammatical sentences, cf. (55). On the other hand, centre embedding appears to be better with phrasal than with sentential comparisons, cf. (56 a vs. b). (This is in fact evidence for a syntactic difference between phrasal and clausal comparisons as assumed under the direct analysis.)
(54)
a.
wenn
if
Anna
Anne
mehr
more
sieht
sees
than
[DP
Maria
Mary
/
sie]
she
‘if Anne sees more than Mary / her’
b.
wenn
if
Anna
Anne
dort
there
mehr
more
sieht
sees
than
[AdvP
hier]
here
‘if Anne sees more there than here’
c.
wenn
if
Anna
Anne
mehr
more
sieht,
sees
than
[CP
Maria
Mary
sieht]
sees
‘if Anne sees more than Mary sees’
(55)
a.
*wenn
if
Anna
Anne
sieht
sees
[DP
Maria
Mary
/
sie]
her
‘if Anne sees Mary / her’
b.
*/??wenn
if
Anna
Anne
Maria
Mary
sieht
sees
[AdvP
hier]
here
‘if Anne sees Mary here’
c.
wenn
if
Anna
Anne
Maria
Mary
sieht
sees
[CP
nachdem
after
sie
she
ankommt]
arrives
‘if Anne sees Mary after she has arrived’
(56)
a.
wenn
if
Anna
Anne
mehr
more
than
[DP
Maria
Mary
/
sie]
she
sieht
sees
‘if Anne sees more than Mary / her’
b.
??wenn
if
Anna
Anne
mehr,
more
than
[CP
Maria
Mary
sieht],
sees
sieht
sees
‘if Anne sees more than Mary sees’
It is often implied that the semantics of comparisons constitutes another argument in favour of the reduction analysis. Within the standard semantic theory of comparisons (cf.
The different cases that can be observed for DPs in phrasal comparisons in languages such as German, as illustrated in (53), can equally be explained under the direct analysis. The reduction analysis appeals to elided syntactic structure (e.g. V0, I0/Agr0 etc.) for licensing the case of the standard-of-comparison DP. Under the direct analysis, the case can instead be explained in terms of case agreement with another DP in the rest of the clause, e.g. the subject, object etc., as is generally assumed in small clauses, for instance also for predicative DPs.
Several further observations clearly speak in favour of the direct analysis. Thus, while it cannot be used as an argument for a prepositional analysis on the basis of presumed case government by the comparison particle (see Section 2 above), the special morphological form in which pronominal standards of comparison appear in some languages and varieties constitutes a strong argument for the direct analysis. As discussed above, in languages such as English, French or certain Dutch varieties, a pronoun occurring in a phrasal comparison – but not in a clausal comparison – may appear in its strong form in the sense of Cardinaletti & Starke (
(57) | a. | He is taller than |
b. | He is taller than |
The direct analysis is further supported by dialectal and diachronic data. As already mentioned in Section 2, the comparison particle in comparatives and equatives may co-occur with a complementizer such as
(58)
a.
S’Resl
the
fod
Resl
besser
drives
Raal
better
bicycle
than
that
da
the
Sepp
Sepp
Raal
bicycle
fod.
drives
b.
*S’Resl
the Resl
fod
drives
besser
better
Raal
bicycle
than
(*
that
da
the
Sepp.
Sepp
‘Resl cycles better than Sepp (does).’
(59)
a.
D’Sabine
the Sabine
laaft
walks
so
as
schnej
fast
as
that
d’
the
Anna
Anne
laaft.
walks
b.
*D’Sabine
the Sabine
laaft
walks
so
as
schnej
fast
as
(*
that
d’
the
Anna.
Anne
‘Sabine walks as fast as Anne (does).’
Crucially, this pattern is restricted to clausal comparisons and ungrammatical in phrasal comparisons, cf. (58)/(59) a vs. b. This is unexpected if phrasal comparisons always constitute elliptical variants of clausal comparisons. Under ellipsis of phonetically identical material, the complementizer following the comparison particle and preceding the DP (or PP etc.) should remain. There is no obvious reason for why it would obligatorily be elided.
A second set of dialectal data supporting the direct analysis consists of examples including so-called complementizer inflection (complementizer agreement, on this phenomenon see also
(60)
a.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
gresser
taller
than.2.
du
you
bisd.
are
b.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
gresser
taller
than
that.2.
du
you
bist.
are
c.
*S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
gresser
taller
than.2.
du.
you
d.
*S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
gresser
taller
than
that.2.
du.
you
e.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
gresser
taller
than
du.
you
‘Resl is taller than you (are).’
(61)
a.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
genau
just
so
as
groass
tall
as.2.
du
you
bisd.
are
b.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
genau
just
so
as
groass
tall
as
that.2.
du
you
bisd.
are
c.
*S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
genau
just
so
as
groass
tall
as.2.
du.
you
d.
*S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
genau
just
so
as
groass
tall
as
that.2.
du.
you
e.
S’Resl
the Resl
is
is
genau
just
so
as
groass
tall
as
du.
you
‘Resl is just as tall as you (are).’
If clauses with a simple phrase following the comparison particle were always elliptical versions of constructions with a full sentential standard of comparison, one would expect (60)/(61) c/d as the result of verbal ellipsis on the basis of (60)/(61) a and b, respectively. The fact that the c and d examples are ungrammatical as opposed to the e examples remains unexplained under the reduction analysis. According to the direct analysis, on the other hand, complementizer agreement is straightforwardly predicted not to be possible in phrasal comparisons because these do not include the relevant clausal functional projections licensing complemetizer agreement (and optionally offering a position for
Finally, the diachronic development of
The stepwise diachronic development of
In sum, the dialectal and diachronic data support the direct analysis of phrasal comparisons. Accordingly, while the comparison particles were argued to be positioned in Conj0 in all comparisons, the standard of comparison that they combine with may vary in syntactic complexity, i.e. may consist of a full clause (CP) or a mere phrase (DP, PP etc.). This further explains the contrasts observed in 2.3 between the comparison particle
With respect to the external syntax of the standard of comparison i.e. its linking to the remainder of the clause, different analyses have been suggested due to the fact that comparison constructions share crucial characteristics with subordinate clauses, especially relative clauses, on the one hand, but also with coordinate structures, on the other hand. Diachronic and dialectal data provide further evidence for this Janus-headed nature of comparisons on the basis of which previous syntactic analyses are critically reviewed and options to pursue in future research are discussed.
Traditionally, comparisons are considered as subordinate clauses and are treated in the context of adverbial clauses, cf. Schrodt (
(62)
a.
Anna
Anne
mag
likes
{den
the
Menschen
person
/
den(jenigen)},
the (one)
den
that
Maria
Mary
mag.
likes
‘Anne likes the person / the one that Mary likes.’
b.
Anna
Anne
mag,
likes
wen
whom
Maria
Mary
mag.
likes
‘Anne likes whom Mary likes.’
c.
Anna
Anne
mag
likes
Maria,
Mary
was
what
ich
I
bereits
already
vermutet
suspected
habe.
have
‘Anne likes Mary, as I have already suspected.’
(63)
a.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
{
in
in
der
the
Art
way
/
so
as
(gut)}
well
leben,
live
wie
as
Maria
Mary
lebt.
lives
‘Anne wants to live in the way / so / as well as / like Mary lives.’
b.
Anna
Anne
möchte
wants
leben,
live
wie
like
Maria
Mary
lebt.
lives
‘Anne wants to live like Mary lives.’
c.
Anna
Anne
mag
likes
Maria,
Mary
wie
as
ich
I
bereits
already
vermutet
suspected
habe.
have
‘Anne likes Mary, as I have already suspected.’
Generative syntactic theory has revealed further similarities between comparisons and relatives: As illustrated in (64) and (65), extraction from the standard of comparison produces wh-island effects (both in equatives and comparatives) as it does with relative clauses and other wh-clauses. While extraction from a
(64)
a.
*Er
he
hat
has
so
as
viele
many
Bücher
books
gelesen,
read
as
sie
she
sagte,
said
who
gelesen
read
hat.
has
‘He has read as many books as she said (that) who read.’
b.
Er
he
hat
has
so
as
viele
many
Bücher
books
gelesen,
read
as
sie
she
sagte,
said
that
er
he
gelesen
read
hat.
has
‘He has read as many books as she siad that he read.’
(65)
a.
*Er
he
hat
has
mehr
more
Bücher
books
gelesen,
read
than
sie
she
sagte,
said
who
gelesen
read
hat.
has
‘He has read more books than she said (that) who read.’
b.
Er
he
hat
has
mehr
more
Bücher
books
gelesen,
read
than
sie
she
sagte,
said
that
er
he
gelesen
read
hat.
has
‘He has read more books than she said that he read.’
These syntactic similarities correspond to semantic parallels between comparison and relative constructions. According to the standard semantics of comparisons (
Diachronic data also highlight similarities of comparison and relative constructions. In historical German, asyndetic comparison clauses, i.e. standards of comparison not introduced by a comparative particle as in (66)
(66)
so
as
schiere
soon
ich
I
danne
then
mines
my
vatir
father’s
pfellince
palace
ane
at
gesehin
look
mac
may
so
so
laz
let
mich
me
sterbin
die
‘As soon as I can see my father’s palace, let me die.’
(67)
in
in
droume
dream
sie
they
in
them
zelitun
told
then
the
uueg
way
sie
they
faran
go
scoltun
should
‘In the dream, they told them the way (that) they should go.’
The link between relatives and comparisons is furthermore evident in a diachronic perspective from the fact that equative comparison particles are commonly grammaticalised into relative particles (relative complementizers), cf. Erdmann (
(68)
Alberus: Fabeln (20, 26; after
Der
the
hielts
took-it
dafür,
for-that
das
that
jm
him
der
the
zan,
tooth
so
jhm
him
zuvor
before
hat
had
weh
pain
gethan,
done
solt
should
heylen.
heal
‘He assumed that the tooth that had hurt him before should heal.’
(69)
Frankfurter Urkunden (138; after
die
the
zwene
two
gulden,
guldens
as
sie
they
yme,
him
wie
as
vorstet,
before-stands
geben
given
han
have
‘the two guldens that they gave to him as mentioned before’
(70)
Wiener Genesis (3687f.; after
in
in
elliu
all
diu
that
and
er
he
tete,
did
so
so
hête
had
er
he
gůte
good
site.
demeanour
‘in everything that he did, he had a good demeanour’
(71)
Wickram (57; after
der
the
ein
one
war
was
aber
however
insunderheit
in-particular
ein
a
nidrige
lowly
hadermetz
shrew
as
man
one
ir
of-them
wol
well
mer
more
findt
finds
‘one of them in particular was a mean shrew that you probably find more of’
In many European languages
Another parallel between relative and comparison constructions is finally evident from the development of new equative particles on the basis of originally matrix-internal elements and the original equative particle. Due to the lack of a possibly intervening Tertium Comparationis in non-degree equatives, recurring matrix-internal elements such as the equative correlate or a matrix-internal noun referring to manner, extent etc. regularly occur in a position adjacent to the equative particle. They are then reanalysed as part of the introduction of the standard of comparison, forming a new equative particle by univerbation with or substitution of the former equative particle. This process is repeatedly attested in historical German, cf. (72a) for the OHG equative particle
These developments are reminiscent of the common grammaticalisation of new complementizers on the basis of a relative clause and its immediately preceding matrix-internal head noun. This can for instance be observed in the development of the noun
(72) | a. | … so [so …] | > | … [soso…] |
… als [wie …] | > | … [als wie …] | ||
… in massen [als/wie …] | > | … [inmassen (wie) …] | ||
‘…{so/as / to the extent} like/as …’ | ‘… like/as …’ | |||
b. | … so lange [so/als …] | > | … [solange …] | |
‘… as long as …’ | ‘… while …’ |
(73) | … die wîle [so/daz/unde …] | > | … [(die)weil …] |
‘… the time that …’ | ‘… while/because …’ |
Accordingly, the diachronic data suggest that the standard of comparison is linked to the equative correlate and, if present (i.e. in degree equatives), the Tertium-Comparationis AP/AdvP in a relative-clause like fashion.
This syntactic analysis is also supported by topicalisation data as illustrated for Modern German in (74)–(76). In degree equatives, the standard of comparison forms one constituent with the equative correlate
(74)
[Schneller
faster
than
Maria
Mary
(läuft)]i
walks
läuftj
walks
Anna
Anne
ti tj.
‘Faster than Mary (walks), Anne walks.’
(75)
[So
as
schnell
fast
as
Maria
Mary
(läuft)]i
walks
läuftj
walks
Anna
Anne
ti tj.
‘As fast as Mary (walks), Anne walks.’
(76)
[
(So)
so
as
Maria
Mary
(läuft)]i
walks
läuftj
walks
Anna
Anne
ti tj.
‘Like/as Mary (walks), Anne walks.’
(77)
[{
Den
the
Menschen
person
/
den(jenigen)},
the one
den
whom
Maria
Mary
mag]i
likes
magj
likes
sicher
probably
auch
also
Anna
Anne
ti tj.
‘The person / the one whom Mary likes, Anne probably likes, too.’
Relative-clause like analyses in which the standard of comparison forms one constituent with the Tertium-Comparationis AP and/or the equative correlate have been suggested various times in the literature, as illustrated for German in (78)–(80). It is generally assumed that the equative correlate (in degree equatives) and the comparative morpheme –
(78)
(79)
(80)
In all of these structures, some additional movement operation is necessary to derive certain types of comparison constructions: In (78) rightward-movement of the complete DegP in comparatives and of the standard of comparison (here called ConjP) in equatives has to take place. In (79) rightward-movement of Deg0 in (synthetic) comparatives has to be involved, whereas equatives and English analytic comparatives with Deg0
Applying these syntactic approaches to non-degree equatives, which have not been considered in the literature so far, the minimal structure to assume would be the one in (81). The standard of comparison is again an argument of the equative correlate
(81)
Since the equative correlate is optional in non-degree equatives (similarly to the optional correlate of a free relative clause e.g. … (
While the widely-held relative-clause like analysis of comparisons can thus explain a number of crucial syntactic and diachronic observations, there are also several characteristics of comparisons that clearly set them apart from (free and headed) relatives as well as other subordinate clauses and that they share with coordinate structures.
(82)
a.
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
es
it
mehr,
more
[
zu
to
trinken]
drink
than
[
zu
to
essen].
eat
‘Anne loves to drink more than to eat.’
b.
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
es
it
so
so/as
(sehr)
(much)
[zu
to
trinken]
drink
as
[zu
to
essen].
eat
‘Anne loves to eat (as much) as to drink. / Anne loves to drink like she eats (i.e. to drink and to eat in the same manner).’
c.
Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
es,
it
[zu
to
trinken]
drink
and
[zu
to
essen].
eat
‘Anne loves to eat and to drink.’
d.
*Es
it
liebt
loves
[zu
to
trinken],
drink
who
[zu
to
essen].
eat
‘He who (loves) to eat loves to drink.’
e.
*Anna
Anne
liebt
loves
es,
it
[zu
to
trinken],
drink
because
[zu
to
essen].
eat
‘Anne loves to drink because (she loves) to eat.’
(83)
a.
Maria
Mary
steigt
climbs
eher
rather
[auf]
up
than
[ab].
down
‘Mary will rather go up than down.’
b.
Maria
Mary
steigt
climbs
so(viel)
so/as much
[auf]
up
as
[ab].
down
‘Mary will go up as much as down. / Mary will go up like she goes down.’
c.
Maria
Mary
steigt
climbs
[auf]
up
and
[ab].
down
‘Mary will go up and down.’
d.
*Es
it
steigt
climbs
[auf],
up
who
[ab].
down
‘He who (goes) down will go up.’
e.
*Maria
Mary
steigt
climbs
[auf],
up
after
[ab].
down
‘Mary goes up after (she has gone) down.’
Another feature that comparisons share with coordination is the possibility of Gapping already mentioned above, see examples (45) and (52), repeated here as (84a) with an additional example of degree and non-degree equatives in (84b). While this is also typical of coordination, cf. (84c), it is ungrammatical in relatives (including free relatives) and subordinate clauses introduced by a complementizer, cf. (84d/e).
(84)
a.
Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
mehr
more
Bücher
books
vor,
than
Maria
Mary
ihren
her
Kindern.
children
‘Anne reads more books to her students than Mary (reads) to her children.’
b.
Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
Bücher
books
so (oft)
so/as often
vor
as
[Maria]
Mary
[ihren
her
Kindern].
children
‘Anne reads books to her students as often as / like Mary to her children.’
c.
Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
Bücher
books
vor
than
[Maria]
Mary
[ihren
her
Kindern].
children
‘Anne reads books to her students and Mary to her children.’
d.
*Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
vor,
what
[Maria]
Mary
[ihren
her
Kindern].
children
‘Anne reads to her students what Mary (reads) to her children.’
e.
*Anna
Anne
liest
reads
ihren
her
Studenten
students
vor,
because
[Maria]
Mary
[ihren
her
Kindern].
children
‘Anne reads to her students because Mary (reads) to her children.’
Concerning deletion and movement of syntactic material, one may furthermore observe so-called Coordinate Structure Effects in comparisons. For instance, the Tertium-Comparationis AP is typically deleted in the standard of comparison (Comparative Deletion) but not in the preceding part of the clause. Similarly, identical material is deleted in the second, not the first conjunct in coordination. A fourth characteristic that comparisons share with coordination is the possibility of Across-The-Board movement (ATB). Here, several traces of the same type are linked to a single left-peripheral wh-item. As (85) illustrates, this is again possible in comparisons but not in relatives or other subordinate clauses.
(85)
a.
Wasi
what
ist
is
Anna
Anne
mehr
more
ti
than
Maria
Mary
ti
ist?
is
‘What is Anne more than Mary is?’
b.
Wasi
what
ist
is
Anna
Anne
so
so/as
(sehr)
much
ti
as
Maria
Mary
ti
ist?
is
‘What is Anne as much / in the same way as Mary is?’
c.
Wasi
what
mag
likes
Anna
Anne
ti
and
hasst
hates
Maria
Mary
ti?
‘What does Anne like and Mary hate?’
d.
*Wasi
what
gibt
gives
Anna
Anne
ti,
whom
auch
also
Maria
Mary
ti
gibt?
gives
‘What does Anne give to whom also Mary gives (it)?’
e.
*Wasi
what
mag
likes
Anna
Anne
ti,
although
Maria
Mary
ti
hasst?
hates
‘What does Anne like although Mary hates (it)?’
Furthermore, Right Node Raising (RNR, “Linkstilgung”) may also apply in comparisons as in coordination, but again not in relatives or other subordinate clauses, as demonstrated in (86).
(86)
a.
dass
that
Anna
Anne
schneller
faster
hinfährt
there-goes
than
zurückfährt
back-goes
‘that Anne goes there faster than she goes back’
b.
dass
that
Anna
Anne
so
so/as
(schnell)
fast
hinfährt
there-goes
as
zurückfährt
back-goes
‘that Anne goes there as fast / in the same way as she goes back’
c.
dass
that
Anna
Anne
hinfährt
there-goes
and
zurückfährt
back-goes
‘that Anne will go there and back’
d.
dass
that
hinfährt,
there-goes
who
zurückfährt
back-goes
‘that he will go there who goes back’
e.
dass
that
Anna
Anne
hinfährt,
there-goes
if
Maria
Mary
zurückfährt
back-goes
‘that Anne will go there if Mary goes back’
Finally, as discussed in Section 2.1, certain languages and varieties optionally or obligatorily use a strong pronoun in phrasal comparisons, cf. examples (2)–(5) and (57) above. Crucially, the same form of the pronoun also typically occurs in coordination (e.g.
The diachronic data also constitute evidence for the intimate link between comparison constructions and coordination. As mentioned above in Section 4.1,
(87)
Ez
it
sol
shall
auch
also
ieclich
every
flaischhacker
butcher
seín
his
flaisch
meat
svnd’n […]
separate
vn̄
and
sol
shall
ieclich
every
flaisch
meat
da
that
fuͤr
for
geben,
give
vnd
and/that
es
it
ist.
is
als
as
dicke,
often
and/as
er
he
daz
that
bricht,
breaks
als
as
dick
often
gibt
gives
er
he
sehtzic
sixty
pfenninge
pfennigs
‘Every butcher shall separate his meat and shall give each meat for what it is. As often as he breaks this (rule), as often shall he give sixty pfennigs.’
The link between comparison and coordination is also exploited diachronically in developments from comparison particles into coordinating conjunctions. In German for instance, the comparison particles
(88)
Die
the
Buͤrger
citizens
Reich
rich
vnd
and
Arm/
poor
Trachteten
sought
nicht
not
nach
after
eigenem
own
sondern
but
nach
after
gemeinem
common
nutze/
benefit
dem
to-the
Armen
poor
as
dem
to-the
Reichen.
rich
‘The citizens rich and poor did not seek their own but common benefit for the poor as/and for the rich.’
(89)
Und
and
wie
as
ein
a
Medicus
doctor
damit
so-that
er
he
as
well
seiner
his
eignen
own
Wissenschafft/
science
as
also
andrer
others’
Wolstand
well-being
aufhelffe/
promote
den
the
Außrath
excrement
des
of-the
Leibs
body
besichtiget …
inspects
‘And as a doctor, in order to promote his own science as well as the well-being of others inspects the excrements of the body …’
(90)
Vnd
and
ist
is
nit
not
nur
only
mit
with
der
the
Schrifft/
script
sondern
but
auch
also
mit
with
den
the
as
geschribenen
written
as
muͤndlich
orally
vbergegebenen
transmitted
Glaubens
faith
bekantnuͤssen
testimonies
geschehen/
happened
was
what
S.
St.
Augustinus
Augustin
sagt: …
says
‘And not only to the bible, but also to the written and the orally transmitted testimonies of faith, it happened as St. Augustin says: …’
(91)
Goeckingk (1, 80 (1772), after
lasz
let
die
the
thoren,
fools
die
who
zu
in
wagen,
carridges
so
as
die
those
zu
on
rosz
horseback
und
and
fusz,
foot
böses
bad
oder
or
gutes
good
sagen.
say
‘Let the fools in their carridges just as those on horseback and by foot say bad or good things.’
On the basis of the similarities between comparisons and coordination, it has occasionally been suggested that comparison constructions represent instances of coordination syntactically and that comparison particles are in fact coordinating conjunctions. This has been proposed for German by Lang (
(92)
The same basic structure has been suggested for comparatives by Matos & Brito (
Applied to German, the structure looks as given in (93). Here, the comparison particle fills the functional head position of the coordinating conjunction, joining the standard of comparison as a second conjunct (equivalent to YP in (92)) to the rest of the clause as the first conjunct (equivalent to XP in (92)). Adapting this analysis to equatives, one could assume a syntactic structure as in (94). (The analysis of comparison particles as Conj0 elements argued for in Section 2 sits very naturally with this analysis, although Conj0 status of the comparison particles is in principle also compatible with a relative-clause like analysis.)
(93)
(94)
Assimilating comparisons to coordination can easily explain why typical characteristics of coordination such as Gapping, ATB movement, RNR etc. may occur in comparisons. However, an obvious problem for this analysis is the fact that, as discussed above, the Tertium-Comparationis AP and/or the correlate may be topicalised together, i.e. moved to SpecCP in German, cf. (74)–(76), suggesting that they form one constituent. In (93) and (94), the standard of comparison is situated too high within the syntactic structure to derive this constituency in a straightforward way. The relevant constituent could only be formed by complex and hardly motivated syntactic operations such as emptying of the entire ConjP except for the Tertium-Comparationis AP and the standard of comparison (Conj’) and subsequent remnant movement. Furthermore, as Reich & Reis (
The challenge for a syntactic analysis of the external syntax of comparisons thus consists in capturing their subordinate-clause like, especially relative-like characteristics (including the option of forming a constituent with the correlate and/or Tertium-Comparationis AP) as well as their coordination-like characteristics.
One such kind of structure in between coordination and subordination is so-called asymmetric coordination. It consists of two clauses joined by the coordinating conjunction
Another possible model structure to be considered is V2 adverbial clauses, in particular
A third kind of structure at the intersection of coordination and subordination that appears particularly promising is V2 relatives, which – like comparisons – combine relative-clause like and coordination-like characteristics according to recent analyses.
(95)
Applying the structure in (95) to comparisons, in fact basically yields the analysis suggested by Matos & Brito (
(96)
a.
Anna
Anne
hat
has
einen
a
Freund,
friend
der
who
hat
has
Kaninchen.
rabbits
‘Anne has a friend who has rabbits.’
b.
*Anna
Anne
hat
has
einen
a
Freund,
friend
der
who
Kaninchen.
rabbits
‘Anne has a friend who (has) rabbits.’
However, rather than speaking against a coordination-based analysis of comparisons, this shows that comparisons are even more coordination-like than V2-relatives and thus in fact supports the coordination analysis for comparisons whilst casting some doubt on whether the coordination analysis in (95) is indeed correct for V2-relatives as it would predict these operations characteristic of coordination to be possible.
In sum, none of the non-canonical sub-/coordination constructions that are also somehow ‘in between’ subordination and coordination, viz. asymmetric coordination,
While a final analysis of the external syntax of comparisons that captures all relevant features will have to be left to future research, a tentative solution that combines a relative-like and a coordination-like analysis will be outlined here, based on the reanalysis of an original correlative construction as embedding, i.e. integration into the main clause. In most European languages, equatives are based on correlative constructions, cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz (
In order to integrate the analysis of the internal syntax of comparisons including a functional head Conj0 above the standard-of-comparison CP, as argued in Section 2, and to capture the coordination-like charactersitics of comparisons, an underlying correlative structure including a coordination head will be assumed basically following Matos & Brito (
(97) | a. | b. |
As indicated by the dotted lines in (97a/b), the reanalysis discussed in Section 2 of the comparison particle
Diachronic and dialectal data constitute valuable evidence for syntactic theory, as has been demonstrated in this paper for central issues in the syntax of comparison constructions. With respect to the internal syntax, more specifically the syntactic status and position of the comparison particle, case transparency speaks against a prepositional analysis of comparison particles. Apparent case government by the comparison particle is in fact due to occurrences of strong pronouns in the respective languages and varieties. Co-occurence of comparison particles with complementizers and the finite verb in its left-peripheral position in hypothetical comparisons furthermore speaks against an analysis of comparison particles as complementizers and for a syntactic position above the actual standard-of-comparison CP (Conj0). This is corroborated by dialectal co-occurences of the comparison particle in comparatives and equatives with complementizers (DFC). The analysis is furthermore supported by diachronic data in which the comparison particle
Concerning the syntactic status of phrasal comparisons, the occurrence of strong pronouns in phrasal comparisons as opposed to weak pronouns in clausal comparisons in certain languages and varieties constitutes evidence against the reduction analysis and in favour of the direct analysis. This analysis is further supported by the dialectal and diachronic data: The restriction of DFC and complementizer inflection to clausal comparisons cannot be explained under the reduction analysis. The stepwise diachronic development of the distribution of
With respect to the external syntax, i.e. their linking to the rest of the clause, comparisons on the one hand display characteristics of subordinate clauses, specifically relatives. Thus wh-island effects and topicalisation data suggest that the standard of comparison is a kind of relative clause which forms a constituent, depending on the type of comparison, with the correlate and/or the Tertium-Comparationis AP. Non-degree equatives could accordingly be assumed to be complements of the equative correlate or free relative clauses in adverbial, predicative or attributive function. The relative-clause like analysis is supported by diachronic data: Wh-items in modal free relatives commonly grammaticalize into comparison particles (cf.
The paper builds on and extends parts of Jäger (
The diachronic observations are based on a corpus analysis of texts from the
While the semantics of comparatives and degree equatives has been well-researched (cf.
Some languages do indeed employ prepositions to mark the standard of comparison as the only strategy or as an alternative to comparison particles. However, these prepositions are functional equivalents of comparative case marking and are thus typologically different from particle comparisons which are discussed here (e.g. preposition
Similarly also Bücking (
A preposition may combine with a nominalized adjective, which then, however, constitutes a DP, not an AP.
Cf. also Duden (
All of these mark the respective clause as a combination of comparison and conditional,
Note that, in contrast to Bücking (
Building on this account, this is also assumed in Demske (
SpecCP is filled in degree-based comparisons by an operator coindexed with the embedded degree phrase and responsible for semantic abstraction over degrees as well as island effects typical of wh-movement, cf. Chomsky (
Similarly, DFC in German dialects is generally employed as evidence for a position of wh-pronouns and adverbs above C0 also in the standard language, cf. Sternefeld (
Note that
While, as Axel-Tober (
Cf. also (1d) above. Hypothetical comparisons introduced by a combination of
The combination of
A prepositional analysis of
Bücking (
Note that the tendency for
Bücking (
Note, however, that we obtain the reading in (ii) if
For a different approach see Bücking (
The example in (33) is contained in the data of the Wenker dialect survey that formed the basis for the
The ungrammaticality of the combination of
According to Bayer (
The complementizer
(i) ( i I wünsch wish da you ois all guade good und and bleib stay a so so, as that d you bist are !!!! ‘I wish you all the best and stay as you are!’
(ii) ( wennst if-you as it genau precisely nimmst, take miassatn must de they vui much mehra more Punkte points ham, have than that-they ham. have ‘Strictly speaking, they should have a lot more points than they have.’
This example is from the data that was illicited for Friedli (
See also Harm (
A third kind of evidence comes from MHG hypothetical comparisons introduced by simple
The same reanalysis from SpecCP to C0 also occured with
This holds both for comparatives and equatives. Hypothetical comparisons, on the other hand, are necessarily sentential because the conditional that is combined with the equative comparison has to appear as a full clause.
The exact syntactic analysis under this approach varies, but it is widely assumed that the comparison particle in phrasal comparisons represents a preposition embedding a DP or a Small Clause (for arguments against a prepositional analysis see Section 2). Both, the direct analysis as well as the reduction analysis are, however, also compatible with the analysis proposed here, of comparison particles as occupying Conj0. The difference between the reduction analysis and the direct analysis then amounts to the question whether the comparison particle in Conj0 invariably takes a (possibly elliptically reduced) CP as its complement, or whether its arguments can be mere DPs, PPs etc. For proportional comparisons (also referred to as dynamic comparisons, comparative correlatives or comparative conditional constructions, English
If, on the other hand, the DP can only occur in one specific case, this is often taken as evidence for the direct analysis applying in the respective language, e.g. with Polish
The comparative morpheme in clausal comparisons is interpreted as in (i), in phrasal comparisons it receives the interpretation in (ii):
(i)
[[
(ii)
[[-erphrasal]] = λy.λR.λx max(λd.R(d)(x)) > max(λd’.R(d’)(y))
An anonymous reviewer mentions as another potential argument in favour of the reduction analysis the fact that in phrasal comparisons, the standard may additionally contain an adverbial clause that would be evidence for an elided verbal/clausal projection that it is linked to, e.g.
Case agreement can also hold with a phonetically empty phrase, cf. the agreement with the subject PRO (rather than e.g. the accusative of the object
On
The investigated texts from the
For a relative-clause like analysis of proportional comparisons see Fortmann (
(63a) demonstrates that this holds both for degree (
In comparisons, the wh-movement is assumed to involve movement of an empty operator (see also the structures in (10) and (31) as well as fn. 11) as in English asyndetic relative clauses or relatives introduced by
Brandner & Bräuning (
In this text, virtually the same construction is also attested with the comparison particle
This development from equative to relative particles is also attested in other languages, cf.
This is also attested for instance in Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian and Serbo-Croatian, cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz (
While Axel-Tober (
As one anonymous reviewer points out, this suggests that recent approaches according to which a number of subordinate clauses such as complement clauses or adverbial clauses are essentially relative clauses (cf.
This structure corresponds to the one assumed by von Stechow & Sternefeld (
This structure corresponds to the one suggested by Sternefeld (
A similar analysis is also suggested by Bacskai-Atkari (
For independent reasons, additional movement (for instance rightward-movement of the standard of comparison) is necessary in all three approaches in attributive comparisons where the noun intervenes between the Tertium-Comparationis adjective and the standard of comparison (
Bücking (
The fact that the entire phrase shares the range of syntactic functions (predicative, adverbial, attributive) and accordingly its syntactic distribution with APs can be taken as an argument that it should be an AP supporting the analysis in (78).
In the case of adverbial use, different positions and resulting interpretations occur (involving +/– integrated subordinate clauses in the sense of
Under the assumption of a phonetically empty correlate as an alternative to
The fact that hypothetical comparisons do not show this coordination-like behaviour does not, as Bücking (
These developments are not necessarily due to the syntactic similarity of comparison and coordination but due to their semantics: if some property applies to A as (well/much) as it applies to B it obviously applies to A
For clausal comparisons, whereas for phrasal comparisons, she assumes that
Osborne (
Weisser (
An alternative analysis of German V2-adverbial clauses is suggested by Freywald (
As mentioned above, Brandner & Bräunig (
In fact, Antomo & Steinbach’s (
For a critical discussion of the coordination analysis of V2-relatives based on similar arguments see Catasso (
In so far, comparisons appear to constitute coordinate (rather than subordinate) and typically (but not always) integrated structures (similar to e.g. phrasal coordination).
For an approach based on the CP-adjunction analysis of correlatives and a reanalysis as left-dislocation following Axel-Tober (
Whether and how this change, too, is driven by economy must remain open at this point.
As discussed at the end of Section 4.1, the comparison is linked to the rest of the clause at different heights within the structure resulting e.g. in (low) manner or (high) continuative interpretation, and via different projections depending on the kind of comparison and its specific syntactic function. In comparatives and degree equatives, the ConjP is the complement of Deg0 (-
Note that, as discussed in fn. 13 and captured in (41), the comparison particle originally typically (but not always) starts out as a pronominal (wh-) item in SpecCP2 into C20 (development of SpecCP relative adverb to C0 relative particle/complementizer, and eventually to proper comparison particle in Conj0).
The author has no competing interests to declare.