Abstract
The purpose of this study is to conduct a contrastive study of comparative constructions in Chinese and in Taiwanese Southern Min. It aims to see how it can contribute to the understanding of comparative constructions on the one hand, and to see how the characterization of Comparative Deletion in Chinese within the framework of generative syntax on the other. On the strength of the insights stemmed from previous studies, the study argues for a clausal-manipulation of bi-comparatives. It is assumed that bi plays a role reminiscent of a prepositional complementizer projecting a self-completed CP, which is a preverbal adjunct in the wake of Liu (1996). The adjunction of bi-clause fulfills the role to saturating and restricting the degree argument of the adjective. The degree variable inside the bi-clause (comparative clause) is under operator movement to provide a description of degree (Chomsky 1977). The adjectival or verbal constituent within the bi-clause is deleted (Bresnan 1973, 1975). A constraint on the compared constituent as well as one on the comparison predicate is offered. A manner adjunct can not be a compared constituent, in that it does not pattern alike with other adverbials in the distribution, and it must occur after the bi-clause. It is suggested that such an instantiation is highly explanatory for a variety of linguistic facts in bi-comparatives, along with alternatives on other grounds that could possibly pose problems. Through examining the characteristics of the exceed comparatives, viz., the surface word order of comparatives is X A Y in Taiwanese Southern Min, it is assumed that the construction be captured by a hierarchy of projection, vP1>vP2>DegP>AP, where vP1 is projected by a light verb COMPAREE and vP2 STANDARD under the lexical decomposition analysis (Hale & Keyser 1993; Huang 1997; Lin 2001). To saturate and restrict the degree argument of the adjective in the exceed comparative, the occurrence of the measure phrase, degree complement, degree adverb koe ‘exceed’ and khah ‘KHAH’ is motivated. The theoretical significance of our unifying analysis is that we make comparatives, non-contextual sensitive degree adverbs, measure phrases/degree complements pattern together in restricting the degree argument of an adjective in syntax (von Stechow 1984; Kennedy & McNally 2005; Liu 2007ab). Issues such as subcomparison, embedded standard, the object-preposed comparative are also included in the discussion. The subcomparison is prohibited because of an identity requirement on the comparison predicate in Chinese bi-comparatives. The comparative operator in the bi-comparative can not undergo overt movement, thereby resulting in the absence of the embedded standard in Chinese. The occurrence of the object-preposed comparative is greatly owing to the idiosyncratic properties of the verb xihuan ‘like’. The object-preposed comparative is not subject to a clausal analysis, not a gapping in essence either. Comparative Deletion in the bi-comparatives is explored and emphasized in order. It is shown that Comparative Deletion applies to the bi-comparatives in Chinese, but does not to the exceed comparatives in Taiwanese Southern Min. A diachronic study of comparative constructions in Chinese is presented. As a full-fledged verb, bi has developed into a comparative marker through syntactic restructuring and reanalysis. The comparative marker bing is argued to be a result of a dialectal self-development of Min, especially in Quanzhou. Some notes on the origin of X + A + guo + Y are offered, combined with considerations in an areal perspective. The study attempts to propose an in-depth analysis of comparative constructions in Chinese and Taiwanese Southern Min in the hope that it will shed light on comparative constructions in the generative grammar, linguistic typology and historical linguistics.