Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese

National Chung Cheng University 

Graduate Institute of Linguistics 

國立中正大學語言學研究所 

A Thesis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 

For the Degree of Master of Arts 

碩士論文 

Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction 

in Mandarin Chinese 

漢語比字比較句的句法 

Supervisor:Dr. Niina Ning Zhang 

指導教授: 張寧博士 

Student:Sally Hsiu-Ju Chung 

研究生: 鍾繡如撰 

July, 2006 

中華民國九十五年七月

Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese 


Sally Hsiu-Ju Chung 

Institute of Linguistics 

National Chung Cheng University, 2006 

ABSTRACT 

Under the framework of the minimalist approach, this thesis attempts to figure 

out the syntactic structure of the Bi Comparative Construction (BCC) in Mandarin 

Chinese (MC) with gradable predicates like (1). 

( 1 ) a. Zhangsan bi ni (geng) gao 

Zhangsan COM you more tall 

'Zhangsan is taller than you are.' 

b. Zhangsan bi ni (geng) xihuan bangqiu 

Zhangsan COM you more like baseball 

'Zhangsan likes baseball more than you do.' 

In the literature, discussions on the syntax of the bi-constituent lead to 

the coordination analysis and the adjunction analysis of the syntactic structure of BCC. 

However, in my complementation analysis, it is claimed that the degree adverb geng 

is the core elements of BCC as well as bi. The degree adverb geng is the head of the 

comparative structure and requires two complements to be the compared elements. 

The comparative marker bi is a complementizer introducing a comparing constituent 

to be the comparing datum. The projection of the degree head needs to be licensed by 

the bi-clause in the specifier position. That is, degree is always relative to its 

comparative datum. Finally, there is PF deletion on the bi- clause so that we may get 

comparative sentence of asymmetrical comparing elements. 

i 

中正大學 e-Thesys (94 學年度)


Abstract 

Table of contents 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………….…...………1 

1.1 Various Sentence Patterns of CC in Mandarin Chinese……………..…….……..1 

1.2 Focus of the thesis…………………………………………………..…………... 5 

1.3 The Proposal and Claims……………...…………...……………..…...……….…6 

1.4 Organization of the Thesis……………...…………...……………..…...…….…..6 

Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………...8 

2.1 Introduction…………….....…………...………………...………………...……..8 

2.2 Previous Studies in Mandarin Chinese...………..………...……………...……..8 

2.2.1 Compositional Analyses... …………………..………………………...9 

2.2.1.1 The Formula of CC (Li and Thompson 1981)..………………….9 

2.2.1.2 A Topic-Comment Approach (Tsao 1989)………..…………….11 

2.2.2 Conjunction Analysis…………………………..…………………….16 

2.2.3 Adjunction Analyses……………………………..…………………..22 

2.2.3.1 A Transformational Analysis (Fu 1978) …………….…….……22 

2.2.3.2 A Quantificational Structure with ACD (Liu 1998)…….………25 

2.2.3.3 Adjunctional Structure in VP (Hsing 2003)………………..…...28 

2.2.4 A Complementation Analysis (Chao 2005)……….……………..…...35 

2.2.5 Summary…………………………………………….…………….…41 

2.3 Previous Analyses on Comparative Construction in English…………..…….…41 

2.3.1 Bresnan (1973)………………...……………………………………..42 

ii 



2.3.2 Late Merge of Degree Clauses (Bhatt and Pancheva 2004)………….43 

2.4 Summary………………...………. …………………………………………….44 

Chapter 3 The Proposed Complementation 

Analysis……………………………………………………………...….45 

3.1 Introduction…………………………………….……………………………….45 

3.2 The Syntactic Properties of bi in Comparative Constructions……………...…..46 

3.2.1 bi As A Verb …………………………………….…………….……..…….46 

3.2.2 bi As A Preposition……………………………………………….……......50 

3.2.3 bi As A Conjunction …………………………………………..……..……52 

3.2.4 bi As A Complementizer ………………………………………………..56 

3.3 The Syntatic Status of the Degree adverb- geng………………………….…….61 

3.3.1 A Default Comparative Degree on the Gradable Predicate/Proposition .....62 

3.3.2 Co-occurrence Restriction Between bi And geng ……………………..….66 

3.4 The Syntactic Structure of BCC ……………………………..……………...….69 

3.4.1 A Functional Head Hypothesis……………………………..…...…………69 

3.4.2 A geng-headed Comparative Structure…………………………...…..……71 

3.4.3 Comparative Deletion……………………………………………..………73 

Chapter 4 Concluding Remarks………………………………………76 

4.1 Summary of the Thesis…………………...……………………………………..76 

4.2 Implications………………..……………………………………………………77 

4.3 Remaining Issues……………………...………………………………………...77 

References…………………………………………………...……….....79 

iii 



iv 



Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1.1 Various Sentence Patterns of CC in Mandarin Chinese 

Comparative Construction (CC) usually involves two or more items to be 

compared along some dimension. There are three types of relationships these two 

compared items can have to each other, in which one item can be more than the other 

(the superior degree) like (1a), less than the other (the inferior degree) like (1b), or the 

same as the other (the equal degree) such as (1c). The compared dimension (the 

predicate) such as gao in (1) and xihuan ‘like’ (2) should be gradable, that is, it should 

be able to be modified by the degree adverb hen ‘very’ so that the degree can be 

compared (Li and Thompson 1981). Those predicates that cannot be modified by 

the degree adverb hen like shuijiao ‘sleep’ in (3) also fail to occur in CC. 

(1) a. ta bi ni (geng) gao 

3sg COM 1 you more tall 

‘S/He is taller than you are.’ 

b. ta mei(you)/buru ni (name) gao 

3sg not/not as you (that) tall 

‘S/He is not as tall as you are.’ 

c. ta gen ni yiyang gao 

3sg with you the same tall 

‘S/He is as tall as you are.’ 

1 

COM is the abbreviation for the comparative marker like bi and xiang in the comparative 

constructions in Mandarin. 

1 



(2) a. ta hen xihuan shu 

3sg very like book 

‘S/He likes books very much. 

b. ta bi ni (geng) xihuan shu 

3sg COM you more like books 

‘S/He likes books more than you do.’ 

(3) a. *ta hen shuijiao 

3sg very sleep 

‘He sleeps a lot.’ 

b. *ta bi ni geng shuijiao 

3sg COM you more sleep 

‘He sleeps more than you do.’ 

The sentences pattern discussed in this study would be CC in the superlative 

degree such as (4). With the marking of the comparison word bi like (4a), we get the 

meaning that the first NP Zhangsan, the subject and also the topic, has a higher degree 

on the comparing dimension gao ‘tall’ than the second NP ni ‘you.’ That means, 

Zhangsan is taller than ni ‘you’. Similarly, in (4b), the degree that Zhangsan likes 

baseball is also higher than that of ni ‘you.’ Since Mandarin Chinese (MC) is an 

uninflected language, instead of using inflections on the adjectives, the syntactic 

structures are the way to express the meaning of comparison (Li and Thompson 1981, 

Chao 1968, Fu 1978). 

2 



(4) a. Zhangsan bi ni (geng 2 ) gao 


‘Zhangsan is taller than you are.’ 



‘Zhangsan likes baseball more than you do.’ 

Besides, CC of the superlative degree such as (5a) and (5b) can also be expressed 

without the comparison word bi such as (6a) and (6b). Chao (1968) considers this 

comparative sentence without bi (6) as a double object like construction, in which the 

adjective is a predicate taking two objects- a cognate object and an analogical indirect 

object. The cognate object express the extent or quantity such as san gongfen ‘three 

centimeters’ in (6a) and san sui ‘three years’ in (6b), while Lisi and ni ‘you’ in (6a) 

(6b) are similar to indirect objects. In Chao’s study, BCC and CC without bi are 

different constructions. BCC is a serial verb construction, in which bi is the first verb; 

while CC without bi is adjectives in a double objects like construction. 

(5) a. wo bi Lisi (*geng) gao san gongfen [BCC] 

I COM Lisi more tall three centimeter 

‘I am three centimeters taller than Lisi is.’ 

b. gege bi ni (*geng) lao san sui 

brother COM you more old three year 

‘My brother is three years older than you.’ 

2 geng/hai(yao) are the alternative forms of the superior degree adverbs with similar meanings like 

‘more’ and ‘still.' Sometimes they even covert in the PF. This issue will be made clear in Chapter 3. 

3 



(6) a. wo gao Lisi san gongfen [CC without bi] 

I tall Lisi three centimeter 

‘I am three-centimeters taller than you are.’ 

b. gege da ni san sui 

brother old you three year 

‘My brother is three years older than you.’ 

Although it seems that many BCC sentences have corresponding forms in 

sentence patterns without bi like (6), we can still find out some restrictions on CC 

without bi. First of all, only adjectival verbs 3 can be the comparing dimension (the 

predicate) in CC without bi. Gradable non-adjectival verbs such as xihuan ‘like’ in (7) 

cannot occur in this pattern. Moreover, in BCC the measure expressions like san 

gongfen ‘three centimeters’ is in complementary distribution with the degree adverb 

geng; however, it is obligatorily to occur in CC without bi, and the occurrence of the 

degree adverb geng makes the sentence unacceptable. 4 Therefore, we consider the 

superlative construction without the marker bi is different from BCC like (4), and thus 

exclude this pattern of CC from this study. 

(7) a. * wo bi Lisi (*geng) xihuan xiezuo shi bei 

I COM Lisi more like writing ten times 

‘I like writing (ten times) more than Lisi. 

3 In Mandarin, words like gao ‘tall’ should be categorized as adjectives, verbs, or even adjectival verbs 

has long been a controversial issue. In this study, we take those ‘adjective-like’ words as one kind of 

predicates-adjectival verbs. 

4 As cited by Chao (2005:35), (von Stechlow 1984, Kennedy 2001, ect.) English comparative 

sentences with the measure phrases like (i) are termed as Differential Comparatives. Therefore, in our 

analysis CC without bi is taken as Differential Comparatives, while BCC is Degree Comparatives. 

(i) John is 3 inches taller than Bill (is). 

4 



b. *wo bi Lisi shi bei xihuan xiezuo 

I COM Lisi ten times like writing 


c. *wo xihuan xiezuo Lisi shi bei 

I like writing Lisi ten times 


1.5 Focus of the thesis 

In the literature, bi is regarded as the comparative marker of BCC, thus the role 

and the place of bi-constituent is the main entry in studying the overall architecture of 

BCC. Semantically, the compared targets in both sentences (8a) and (8b) are wo ‘I’ 

and shugui ‘the bookshelf,’ however, sentences (8b’) is unacceptable because of the 

unacceptability of the clause [shugui kuai] ‘The bookshelf is fast.’ Therefore, we take 

the idea that in BCC sentences involves two clauses to be compared. 

Generally, the clausal comparatives analysis on BCC is widely accepted, in 

which it is assumed that the compared items are clauses in the LF. The degree 

bi-clause is either coordinated or adjoined to the main clause. This clausal analysis 

brings about the ellipsis issue as well. 

(8) a. [wo] bi [shugui] gao 

I COM bookshelf tall 

‘I am taller than the bookshelf.’ 

a’. [wo gao] bi [shugui gao] 

I tall COM bookshelf tall 

5 



b. *[wo] bi [shugui] kuai 

I COM bookshelf tall 

‘I am faster than the bookshelf.’ 

b’. *[wo kuai] bi [shugui kuai] 

I fast COM bookshelf fast 

Compared to CC in English like (9) and (10), the degree elements –er or more, 

together with the degree clause, quantified the degree of the main predicate. 

(9) a. John is tall. 

b. John is taller [than Mary was last year.] 

(10) a. John loves books 

b. John loves books more [than Mary does.] 

In this study, we attempt to see whether the degree adverb in BCC such as geng 

or hai(yao) ‘more’ are as crucial in comparative sentences like –er and more in 

English CCs. If so, the issue on the syntactic strucrure of BCC can be condensed as 

issue on the interactions among the degree adverb, the degree clasue, and the gradable 

predicate. 

1.6 The Proposal and Claims 

This study is based on the minimalist program trying to find out a more general 

analysis on the syntax of CC crosslinguistically. In this study, I claim that the 

comparative degree adverb like geng/hai(yao) in MC behaves like more in English 

CC syntactically. Thus, I try to argue that BCC is a complementation structure rather 

6 



than an adjunction structure (Fu 1978, Liu 1996, Hsing 2003, Chao 2005) or 

coordination structure (Tsao 1989, Hong 1991). In addition, I adopt the clausal 

analysis, and claim that the comparative marker bi is a complemtizer taking a 

proposition that share an identical predicate to that of the main clause, which the 

degree adverb modifies. The degree adverb is the head of the comparative structure, in 

which it requires two gradable clauses as its complements in the LF. Finally, the 

comparative deletion derived the BCC sentences in the PF level. 

1.7 Organization of the Thesis 

The study is focused on BCC in MC, and the organization of this thesis is as 

follows. A literature review of CC in both MC and in English will be examined in 

chapter 2. In the beginning sections of chapter 3 (3.1 and 3.2), we have a discussion 

on the core elements of BCC bi and geng. To proceed, in Section 3.3 the discussion is 

on the complementation analysis on the BCC structure, and also the comparative 

deletion in PF. Finally, I will try to make a conclusion in chapter 4. 

7 



2.3 Introduction 

Chapter 2 

Literature Review 

This chapter reviews the literature on the syntactic analysis of CC in both MC 

and English. In Section 2.2, we review the early literature of CC on the compositional 

analysis in the first part. To proceed, the following parts are the studies on the 

structural analyses on BCC, which can be divided into three main types, the 

coordination analysis, the adjunction analysis, and the complementation analysis. In 

Section 2.3, I review the two main literatures in English CC to see if there are any 

similarities or differences on CC in these languages. 

2.4 Previous Studies in Mandarin Chinese 

Previous studies on CCs in Mandarin usually focus on the Superlative CCs with 

the comparative marker bi. In addition to the prelimilary Compositional Analysis (Li 

and Thompson 1981, Tsao1989), there are three main types of analyses- the 

Adjunction Analysis, the Conjunction Analysis (Hsing 2003), and the 

Complementation Analysis (Chao 2005). The Adjunction Analysis suggests that the 

bi-phrase is adjoined to the main clause (Fu 1978, Liu 1998, Hsing2003, Chao 2005). 

And, the Conjunction Analysis claims that bi is the coordinator of the two compared 

items (Tsao 1989, Hong 1991). Mandarin adjectives can have the function of degree 

word that takes two internal arguments, the comparative datum and the comparative 

predicates. Besides, whether there is movement or deletion is another crucial issue to 

the syntactic structure of CC. 

8 



2.2.1 Compositional Analyses 

Early works on CC make a clear compositional analysis. In this section we will 

discuss studies by Li and Thompson’s (1981) generalization on CC, Tsao’s (1989) 

topic-comment analysis. 

2.2.1.1 The Formula of CC (Li and Thompson 1981) 

Li and Thompson (1981) have generalized a formula for CC in MC as (11), in 

which there are two compared items to be linked by a comparison word and then 

followed by the predicate that expresses the dimension along which two items are 

compared. In this formula, X must be the subject or the topic of the verb phrase that 

expresses the dimension, and Y must be understood as the standard of comparison. 

These predicates should be capable of being quantified or measured so as to express 

the different degree of the compared dimension. 

(11) X comparison word 5 Y (adverb) dimension (Li and Thompson 1981) 

This generalization gives some characteristics of CC in MC. First, what is being 

compared in MC must be stated grammatically in terms of the subject or the topic, not 

the direct object. For example, to express sentences like ‘I like dogs better than cats’ 

in MC, comparison of the direct objects in (12) would be unacceptable. 

5 According to different degree of the topic X in contrast to that of the comparing target, the 

comparison word can be bi, mei(you)/buru, or gen in (1). The comparison marker of the superlative 

comparative sentence is bi, which is later termed as the comparative marker of BCC and abbreviated as 

COM. 

9 



(12) a. *wo xihuan mao bi gou (Li and Thompson 1981) 

I like cat COM dog 

‘I like dogs better than cats.’ 

b. *wo gou bi mao xihuan 

I dog COM cat like 

‘Same as (a).’ 

c. *gou bi mao wo xihuan 

dog COM cat I like 


Secondly, coverb phrases cannot be compared. Again, sentences comparing such 

phrases is not acceptable. 

(13) * wo xihuan zai chizi li bi zai hai li youyong 

I like at pool in COM at ocean in swim 

Thirdly, while the comparative relationship between the terms X and Y is not directly 

specfified, must be inferred. In (14a), we know that X– wo ‘I’ and Y– zuotian 

‘yesterday’ are not able to be compared; instead, wo jintian and wo zuotian in (14b) 

are the compared X and Y. Speaker of Mandarin must sometimes infer what makes 

sense from a comparative sentence in which X and Y are not directly comparable. 

(14) wo bi zuotian shufu 

I COM yesterday comfortable 

‘I feel better than I did yesterday.’ 

10 



This analysis gives a general description of the Mandarin comparative sentences. 

However, Tsao (1989 points out the inadequacies of Li and Thompson’s 

generalization and rules above, which will be examed in the next section. 

2.2.1.2 A Topic-Comment Approach (Tsao 1989) 

Tsao (1989) takes the Topic-Comment approach in analyzing CC in MC. In this 

work, he starts out by examining Li and Thompson’s analysis and then finds out some 

counterexamples to their generalization. 

First of all, in contrast to Li and Thompson’s analysis, Tsao points out that direct 

objects seems to be comparable in sentences like (15) (Tsao 1989:154). 

(15) ta lanqiu bi paiqiu da-de hao 

S/He basketball COM valleyball play-DE well 

‘S/HE plays basketball better than s/he does valleyball.’ 

Second, Li and Thompson’s generalization implies that coverb phrases cannot be 

compared. However, Tsao finds many examples in which the compared items are 

coverb phrases (Tsao 1989:155). 

(16) a. ta dui ni bi dui wo hao (Tsao 1989:155) 

he to you COM to I well 

‘He is nicer to you than to me.’ 

b. yong shou bi yong kuaizi chi fangbian (Tsao 1989:155) 

with hand COM with chopstick eat convenient 

‘It is more convenient to eat with hands than with chopsticks.’ 

11 



Third, according to the pragmatic principle, Li and Thompson (1981) try to make 

sentences (14) more clearly as (17b); yet it obeys their first hypothesis that the 

compared items should be the topic or subject, and the compared items X and Y are 

not constituents. Tsao attemps to account for them by deletion rules. 

(17) a. wo bi zuotian shufu 



b. wo jintian bi wo zuotian shufu 

I today COM I yesterday comfortable 


In Tsao’s Topic-Comment analysis, he claims that the compared items which are 

on both sides of the comparative marker-bi should be topics of an equal rank- primary, 

secondary, or tertiary, which in order are given examples in (18), (19), and (20). And 

the comparing dimension is expressed by the Comment part, which is either an adverb 

or a verb capable of being modified by the adverb hen ‘very.’ The idea that the 

compared topics can be of different rank gives an explanation to those compared 

items that are not full constituents such as (19) and (20). 

(18) ta bi wo nenggan (primary topics) 

s/he COM I competent 

‘S/He is more competent than I am. 

12 



(19) a. ta lanqiu bi paiqiu da de hao (secondary topics) 

s/he basketball COM valleyball play DE well 

‘S/He plays basketball better than s/he does valleyball.’ 

b. wo jintian bi wo zuotian shufu 



(20) ta zuotian zai xuexiao bi zai jiali gaoxing (tertiary topics) 

s/he yesterday at school COM at home happy 

‘S/He was happier being at school than at home yesterday.’ 

Being the topic in a comparative sentence, the compared items share the 

characters of topics as follows: 

A. The two compared items occur in the initial position of the clause. 

B. The two compared items together are either definite or generic as in (21). 

(21) a. na zhang zhuozi bi zhe ba yizi gao 

that piece table COM this piece chair high 

‘That table is higher than this chair.’ 

b. zhuozi bi yizi gao 

table COM chair high 

‘Tables are higher than chairs.’ 

c. *zhuozi bi na zhang yizi gao 

table COM this piece chair high 

‘Tables are higher than this chair.’ 

13 



C. The two compared items can be followed by particles such as a and ya, 

which indicates that the compared items can be topics. 

(22) Zhangsan a, bi Lisi congming 

Zhangsan PART 6 COM Lisi smart 

‘Zhangsan is smarter than Lisi.’ 

D. Since topic is super-clausal, the two compared constituents may extend their 

domain to more than one clause. 

(23) Zhangsan bi Lisi congming, ken hua shijian (Tsao 1989) 

Zhangsan COM Lisi smart willing spend time 

‘Zhangsan is more clever and more willing to spend time (doing it) than Lisi.’ 

Furthermore, Tsao proposes four principle of Comparative Deletion. 

Principle A: Compared Constituents Deletion 

Forward deletion applies to compared topics of the same rank; that is, the identical 

level of topic can be deleted. In (24), compared items all have tertiary topics sharing 

one identical topic, and the identical topics are deleted. 

(24) a. [ta]i zuotian zai xuexiao bi [ ]i jintian zai jiali gaoxing 

s/he yesterday at school COM today at home happy 

‘S/He was happier at school yesterday than s/he is at home today.’ 

6 PART is the abbreviation for Particle. 

14 



b. ta [zuotian]j zai xuexiao bi wo [ ]j zai jiali gaoxing 

s/he yesterday at school COM I at home happy 

‘S/He was happier at school yesterday than I was at home yesterday.’ 

c. ta zuotian [zai xuexiao]k bi wo jintian [ ]k gaoxing 

s/he yesterday at school COM I today happy 

‘S/He was happier at school yesterday than I was today.’ 

Principle B: Present-time Deletion 

Expressions of present time in the first compared topic can be deleted. 

(25) wo jintian bi zuotian shufu 

I today COM yesterday comfortable 

‘I feel better than I was yesterday.’ 

Principle C: Second-topic Genitive Deletion 

In the second compared topic, the genitive marking (GEN 7 ) de which shows the 

relations of possession or kinship is obligatorily deleted. 

(26) ta de shenti bi wo de hao 

his/her OBL body COM I GEN good 

‘He is healthier than I am.’ 

Principle D: Identical Element Deletion 

7 GEN is referred to genitive case marking. The word de is taken as a particle that marks the 

possessive relationship between two nouns. In the following sentence, the second noun is possessive by 

the first noun. 

(i) wo de chenshan 

I GEN shirt 

‘My shirt’ 

15 



(27) ta zhaoxiang zhao de bi wo zhaoxiang zhao de hao 

s/he take picture take DE COM I take picture take DE well 

‘S/he takes pictures better than I do.’ 

Tsao suggests a coordination analysis for the syntactic structure of CC. The 

comparative marker bi is a coverb and functions like a conjunction linking two 

compared clauses in the underlying structure. He puts much emphasis on different 

rank of topics, also the semantic and pragmatic parallel relationship between the two 

compared topics. 

2.2.2 Conjunction Analysis 

Logically, the two compared items in the CC should be parallel both 

semantically and syntactically so that the comparison can be made, which conform to 

the characteristics of the conjuncts in the coordinate structure (CS) (Napoli 1983, Tsao 

1989, Hong 1991). Therefore, grounded on the Generalized Phrase Structure 

Grammar (GPSG), Hong (1991) proposes that BCC is a Binary Coordination in which 

the VP is obligatorily raised. 

Hong (1991) regards bi as the coordinator of the two compared clauses, for bi 

shares four main characteristics of conjunctions as follows. First of all, examples in 

(28) show that the two compared constituents in CC should be of the same category. 

Second, in addition to categorical identity, the compared constituents also have to be 

semantically parallel as illustrated in (29). Third, parallel phrases can be extracted out 

of both the compared constituents. That is, extraction works across-the-board (ATB). 

See (30). Fourth, the two elements connected by bi bear the same co-occurrence 

restriction to the main verb as (31). 

16 



(28) a. gou bi mao zhongshi [NP bi NP] 

dog COM cat faithful 

‘Dogs are more faithful than cats.’ 

b. kan dianying bi kan dianshi youqu [VP bi VP] 

see movie COM watch TV interesting 

‘It is more interesting to see a movie thatn to watch TV.’ 

c. zai jiaoshi- li bi zai qiuchang- shang liang [PP bi PP] 

at classroom in COM at baseball ground surface cool 

‘It is cooler in the classroom than on the baseball field.’ 

d. ta qi jiaotache bi wo zoulu fangbian [S bi S] 

he ride bicycle COM I walk convenient 

‘It is more convenient for him to ride a bicycle than for me to walk.’ 

(29) a. taibei bi taizhong re 

Taipei COM Taichung hot 

‘Taipei is hotter than Taichung.’ 

b. *jintian bi waimian leng 

today COM outside cold 

(30) a. [ta chang zhe-shou ge] bi [wo chang zhe-shou ge] haiyao hao 

he sing this CL song COM I sing this CL song still good 

‘It’s better for him to sing this song than for me to sing this song.’ 

a. [zhe-shou ge] ta chang [e] bi wo chang [e] haiyao hao 

this CL song he sing COM I sing still good 


17 



(31) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi qinlao 

Zhangsan COM Lisi diligent 

‘Zhangsan is more diligent than Lisi.’ 

b. *Zhangsan bi zhuozi qinlao 

Zhangsan COM table diligent 

To analyze BCC like (28a), Hong uses Comparative Schema (CS) and Gazdar’s (1981) 

the Feature Co-occurrence Restriction (FCR) to analyze the syntactic structure of 

BCC as a clausal coordination with the verb to be raised obligatorily. 

(28) a. gou bi mao zhongshi (NP bi NP) 

dog COM cat faithful 

‘Dogs are more faithful than cats.’ 

(32) Hong’s (1991) coordinate structure 

S’ [+COM] 

qp 

NP [+COM] VP [+COM] 

3 g 

H [+N –V, CONJ NIL] H[+N –V, CONJ bi] V 

g 2 g 

NP bi NP zhongshi 

g g 

gou mao 

There are two dominance rule of BCC, the Immediate Dominance (ID) statements, 

and the Linear Precedence (LP) statements, which together with Binary Coordination 

Schema (BCS) make a Comparative Schema. In (33), H refers to Head; the syntactic 

categories are not specified yet. +COM refers to comparative feature; CONJ refers to 

coordinate feature. [+ N, + V] refers to the syntactic category. 

18 



(33) a. Comparative Schema (CS) (Hong 1991: 43 ) 

XP[+ COM ] → H[aN bV, CONJ NIL], H[aN bV, CONJ bi] 

b. Coordinate LP Schema 

H[CONJ NIL ] < H[CONJ bi ] 

As for the FCR, Hong only uses part of the features of FCR here. The relevant feature, 

SLASH as shown in (34) is interpreted as: constituents with a phrase missing from it. 

Thus S/NP is to be read as: an S with an NP missing from it (Hong 1994: 51-52). 

(34) [CONJ & COM ] כ H[SLASH VP ] (Hong 1991: 52 ) 

It is assumed that Mandarin CC can be viewed as coordinated-sentences structures 

with ‘raised’ VPs, and they thus can be taken as Right-Node Raising (RNR). The 

coordinate conjuncts are two clauses, and the rightmost sequences of both the 

coordinate sentences can be ‘raised’, as long as they are verb phrases 8 . Hong indicates 

that this extension of the traditional notion of category allows accounting for 

non-constituent comparatives. The following (35) (Hong1991: 54-55) are the 

supportive examples. All of the rightmost VP in these examples can be raised. Hong 

explain that sentence (35d) is unacceptable because the raised part lanqiu da de hao is 

not a VP, not because that ta da and wo da are not constituents. 

(35) a. [ta da lanqiu] bi [wo da lanqiu] da de hao 

he play basketball COM I play basketball play PART well 

‘He play basketball better than I do.’ 

8 Verbs are also taken as VPs in GPSG.. 

19 



b. [ta da lanqiu da de] bi [wo da lanqiu da de] hao 

he play basketball play PART COM I play basketball play PART good 


c. [ta] bi [wo] da lanqiu da de hao 

he COM I play basketball play PART well 


d. *[ta] da bi [wo] da lanqiu da de hao 

he play COM I play basketball play PART well 


e. [ta] bi [wo] lanqiu da de hao 

he COM I basketball play PART good 


f. [ta lanqiu] bi [wo lanqiu] da de hao (Chao 2005) 

he basketball COM I basketball play PART good 


With regard to the comparative ellipsis that causes asymmetry between the 

compared conjuncts, Hong uses Ellipsis and Focus together with semantic 

interpretation principle to explain CD. It is assumed that constituent with ellipsis 

feature can dominance the coordinate bi-clause with at least one focus feature, which 

is shown as (36). This explains the asymmetry between the compared clauses. 

However, it still needs the semantic interpretation principle to illustrate that the 

meaning of the elliptical clause can be gained by tracing back to the first compared 

one. 

(36) S[ELL CONJ bi] → bi X 2 [FOC] + 

20 



(37) Zhangsan song hua gei Wang xiaojie bi 

Zhangsan give flower to Wang miss COM 

song hua gei Li xiaojie heshi 

give flower to Li Miss appropriate 

‘It is more appropriate for Zhangsan to give flowers to Miss Wang than to Miss 

Li.’ 

(38) (Hong 1911:75) 

S’ [+COM] 

qp 

NP [+COM] /VP VP [+COM] 

3 g 

S [CONJ NIL]/VP S[ELL CONJ bi]/VP VP 

g 3 g 

S/VP bi S/VP[ELL] heshi 

3 3 

NP VP VP [FOC] VP/VP 

9 g g 

V NP PP PP [FOC] t 

g g 6 6 

Zhangsan song hua gei Wang xiaojie gei Li xiaojie 

In sum, Hong’s analysis takes bi as a conjunction that coordinate two clauses that 

are parallel in both semantics and syntax. She is of the opinion that MC allows only 

backward deletion, and also the rightward dependency explains why the identical VPs 

are obligatorily raised rightwardly to the position of the main predicate. 

Nevertheless, according to Kayne (1994), there is no right-node-raising in the 

coordination structure. Also, in BCC like (1) the degree expression geng is to mark 

the superior degree of the conjunct. In Hong’s tree, the degree expressions and the 

position of the degree adverb are neglected, thus it may lack the clues to tell which 

compared item is of the superior degree. Hsing (2003:82-84) points out that to adopt 

21 



the idea of common predicte of BCC in the surface structure may bring some 

problems shown in (39). If the first comparative clause is the antecedent clause, then 

the elliptical clause can have only the meaning of only (39b), not (39c). 

(39) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi congming, Wangwu ye shi 

Zhangsan COM Lisi smart Wangwu also AUX 

‘Zhangsan is smarter than Lisi, and so does Wangwu.’ 

b. Zhangsan bi Lisi congming, Wangwu ye bi Lisi 

Zhangsan COM Lisi smart Wangwu also COM Lisi 

congming 

smart 

‘Zhangsan is smarter than Lisi, and so does Wangwu.’ 

c. Zhangsan bi Lisi congming, Wangwu ye hen congming 

Zhangsan COM Lisi smart Wangwu also very smart 

‘Zhangsan is smarter than Lisi, and Wangwu is very smart, too. 

Hsing thinks that sentences like (39a) should be analyze as “[Zhangsan] [VPbi Lisi 

congming]” not “[Zhangsan bi Lisi] [VPcongming]”. In other words, the second 

compared items should be of the adjunction relationship to the main predicate. 

2.2.3 Adjunction Analyses 

2.2.3.1 A Transformational Analysis (Fu 1978) 

Fu (1978) studies the Chinese CC with bi under a transformational framework. 

He proposes a hypothesis that the underlying structure of BCC consists of three 

clauses as shown in (a). He takes the abstract bijiao ‘compare’ as a predicate which 

takes two parallel propositions as its arguments. The two compared propositions, S1 

22 



and S2, are modified by variables (X and Y) of indefinite degree modifiers, and X >Y. 

The word bi is a complementizer-like element, which does not exist in the underlying 

structure but is added by the process of transformation. Taking sentence (40) as an 

example, the transformation process is as (41). 

First, NP1 in (a) has undergone Subject Raising and Chomsky adjunction to So, 

like (b). Second, bi-placement adjoins the comparative bi to NP2 and Y is deleted, 

then we get (c). Third, the variable degree marker X has undergone VP lowering and 

substitutes the VP of So’, yielding (d). Fourth, delete the identical adjective from S2, 

then S2 is replaced by the left NP, and we get (e). Finally, bijiao-deletion brings out 

the surface structure in (f). 

(40) Zhangsan bi Lisi gao 

Zhangsan COM Lisi tall 

‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi is.’ 

(41) Fu’s transformational analysis (1978: 86-141) 

a. The underlying structure of BCC b. 

So So’ 

qgp 3 

NP1 NP2 V NP1 VP 

g g g g 3 

S1 S2 bijiao S1 NP2 V 

6 6 6 g g 

Zhangsan X gao Lisi Y gao Zhangsan X gao S2 bijiao 

6 

Lisi Y gao 

23 



c. d. 

So’ S1 

3 3 

NP1 VP NP VP 

g 2 g 6 

S1 NP2 V Zhangsan X gao bi S2 bijiao gao 

6 tg g 5 

Zhangsan X gao bi S2 bijiao Lisi gao 

5 

Lisi gao 

c. d. 

So’ S1 

3 3 

NP1 VP NP VP 

g 2 g 6 

S1 NP2 V Zhangsan X gao bi S2 bijiao gao 

6 tg g 5 

Zhangsan X gao bi S2 bijiao Lisi gao 

5 

Lisi gao 

e. f. The surface structure 

So’ S1 

3 3 

NP VP NP VP 

g 6 g 3 

Zhangsan bi NP bijiao gao Zhangsan bi NP gao 

g g 

Lisi Lisi 

In (f), we can see that Fu takes an Adjunction Analysis on the syntactic structure of 

Mandarin BCC. The compared items are clauses that undergone a series of 

transformation and deletion, therefore gives a reason for the in-constituency of the 

compared items such as NP+ PP and NP+PP such as (42). 

(42) ta dui ni bi ta dui bieren keqi 

he to you COM he to others polite 

‘S/He is more polite to you than to others.’ 

24 



However, Hong (1991) claimed that the abstract predicate serves to bring about 

the comparative paradigm and is then deleted by transformation. Thus it is abstract 

and syntactically vacuous and its existence cannot be verified. Hsing (2003) points 

out that the transformation is too powerful and lack of enough motivation. 

2.2.3.2 A Quantificational Structure with ACD (Liu 1996, 1998) 

Liu (1996, 1998) suggests that BCCs in MC such as (44a-b) are of adjunction 

structure with Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD). In other words, the 

comparative marker bi is a preposition taking a CP 9 complement in which there is 

elided site (or empty predicate), and the deleted elements can be provided by the 

antecedent VP. The bi-phrase, an elliptical comparative clause, functions as a 

preverbal adjunct in BCC. In this analysis, the bi-constituent is a prepositional phrase 

and form quantification to modify the main predicate VP. 

(43) IP 

3 

NP VP 

3 

PP VP 

2 

P CP 

g 5 

bi degree clause 

(44) a. Zhangsan jintian bi Lisi zuotian gaoxing 

Zhangsan today COM Lisi yesterday tall 

‘Zhangsan is happier today than Lisi was yesterday. 

9 As cited by Hsing (2003), Waltratraud (1993) claims that Mandarin preposition can take clausal 

complements. Therefore, bi in BCC can be preposition and takes a clause as its complement. 

(i) wo zuo zhe jian shi dui ni zuo na jian shi meiyou yingxiang 

I do this CLASSIFIER thing to you do that CLASSIFIER thing no effect 

‘That I do this has no effect on you do that.’ 

25 



b. Zhangsan qi ma bi Lisi qi niu qi-de kuai 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi ride bull ride-de fast 

‘Zhangsan rides a horse faster than Lisi does a bull.’ 

In (44a) Lisi and zuotian ‘yesterday’ are not of subject-predicate relationship, and are 

not constituents either. The bi word cannot occur in the TP domain, for the word 

zuotian ‘yesterday’ is a temporal adjunct and needs to be licensed by T o , therefore the 

second compared item has an empty predicate. The phonological form (PF) of (44a) is 

as (45). 

(45) Zhangsan jintian [PP bi [CP Lisi zuotian [___]]] gaoxing 

Zhangsan today COM Lisi yesterday happy 

‘Zhangsan is happier today than Lisi was yesterday. 

The descriptive complement structure in (44b) cannot be explained without the 

ellipsis analysis. 

(46) a. [CPZhangsan qi ma] bi [CP Lisi qi niu] qi-de kuai 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi ride bull ride-de fast 


b. *[CPZhangsan qi ma] bi [CP Lisi gan yang] qi-de hao 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi drive sheep ride-de good 

‘Zhangsan rides a horse better than Lisi drives the sheep.’ 

Thus, Liu suggests an ellipsis analysis for the structure of BCC as shown in (47). 

According to the LF Identity Condition on Ellipsis (Heim & Kratzer 1998), the 

26 



meaning of the elided site must be identical to its antecedent. 

(47) a. Zhangsan qi ma [PP bi [CP Lisi qi niu [___]]] qi-de hao 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi ride bull ride-de well 


b. *Zhangsan qi ma [PP bi [CP Lisi gan yang [___]]] qi-de hao 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi drive sheep ride-de well 


Liu (1998) states that the degree bi-clause can be taken as a generalized quantifier and 

thus requires Quantifier Raising (QR). After reconstruction, we get (48b). Yet, it is 

unacceptable for that V2 is not identical to V1 in its derverbalized adjunct [V1-NP]. 

(48) a. *Zhangsan [Adjunctqi ma] [VP[PPbi [CP Lisi gan yang [__]]] [VP qi-de hao] 

Zhangsan ride horse COM Lisi drive sheep ride-de well 


b. *[PP bi Lisi [Adjunct [V1gan]-[NP yang] [V2 qi]-de[Result ti-hao]]] i 

COM Lisi drive sheep ride-DE well 

Zhangsan [Adjunctqi ma qide ti hao] 

Zhangsan ride horse ride-DE good 


In sum, Liu take BCC as elliptical comparatives with ACD, and the degree 

clause is a general quantification over the gradable predicate. The PF deletion should 

be compliable to stripping. 

27 



2.2.3.3 Adjunctional Structure in VP (Hsing 2003) 

To study the syntax of BCC in MC, Hsing (2003) begins his analysis on the 

syntactic properties of the bi word, by which he further approves of the adjunction 

analysis of the syntactic structure of BCC. In discussing BCC, Hsing considers three 

kinds of BCC sentences- simple common predicate (49a), common predicate with 

adjunctional adverb (49b), and common predicate with a complementational object 

(49c). 

(49) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao. (Hsing 2003: 31) 


‘Zhangsan is taller than Lisi (is).’ 

b. Zhangsan bi Lisi dazi kuai. 

Zhangsan COM Lisi type fast 

‘Zhangsan types faster than Lisi (does).’ 

c. Zhangsan bi Lisi xihuan paobu 

Zhangsan COM Lisi like jogging 

‘Zhangsan likes jogging more than Lisi (does).’ 

To examine the syntactic categories of the bi word, Hsing points out that bi 

shares some of the syntactic properties of conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and 

complementizer. However, to classify bi as any of these categories leaves some 

different defects and unsolved problems. First of all, if bi is a conjunction, the 

reflexive pronoun ziji in (50) can go across Lisi and refers to Zhangsan, yet cannot 

refer to both Zhangsan and Lisi at the same time, which is not the character of a 

conjunction. 

28 



(50) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi xihuan ziji i/j/*i+j de haizi 

Zhangsan COM Lisi like oneself GEN children 

‘Zhangsan likes his own children more than Lisi does.’ 

‘Zhangsan likes his own children, and Lisi likes Zhangsan’s children, too.’ 

b. Zhangsan huo Lisi dou xihuan ziji i/j/i+j de haizi 

Zhangsan or Lisi both like oneself GEN children 

‘Both Zhangsan and Lisi likes his own children.’ 

Secondly, the transitive verb bi can act like the general transitive verbs allowing 

the topicalization of the object, elliptical answers to questions, the A-not-A question, 

and so forth. However, the comparative marker bi shares none of the above features, 

and thus cannot be a verb. Thirdly, prepositions do not take prepositional phrases (PP) 

as their complements; however, bi in BCC does take PP as complement. Thus, bi 

cannot be preposition. Finally, if the bi is a prepositional complementizer, it is like a 

ECM verb that assigns case to the subject in the CP. This assumption makes the 

clausal comparative analysis more promising. 

Hsing lists a table trying to compare the advantages and syntactic category of bi. 

And finally he is more apt to support the analysis that bi is a prepositional 

complementizer. 

29 



(51) The Possible Syntactic Category of bi (Hsing 2003: 62) 

bi as a 

conjunction 

bi as a 

preposition 

bi as a 

verb 

bi as a 

prepositional 

complementizer 

Advantage Disadvantages 

This answers that the two 

compared conjuncts are parallel 

in both semantics and syntax. 

It corresponds to than in English, 

which supports preverbal 

adjunction analysis 

This indicates that the bi word 

has the meaning of comparing. 

30 

This fails to explain 

sentences 

pronouns. 

with reflexives 

It fails to explain CC with 

preposition phrases. 

The syntactic behavior is 

different from real verb. 

The structure is simple. The morphology and 

syntactic structure lacks 

strong motivation. 

To get more clues, Hsing make a list to compare Comparative Deletion and VP 

ellipsis. 

(52) Comparison between Comparative Deletion (CD) and VP Ellipsis 

(Hsing 2003: 69) 

The properties of ellipsis VP Ellipsis Chinese CD 

(1) Occur in phrase-final position √ ? (subj del. & 

stripping 

temporal 

adverb) 

& 

(2) Operate on phrasal categories √ ? (stripping) 

(3) Occur in either a subordinate or coordinate clause √ × (can be in 

separate from that containing its antecedent 

main clause) 

(4) Obey the Backward Anaphora Constraint √ √ 

(5) Occur across sentence boundaries √ √ 

(6) Able to have a pragmatic antecedent √ √ 

(7) Strict/ sloppy ambiguity √ √ 

(8) ECP: NON-pronominal empty category must be 

properly head-governed 

√ ? (stripping) 



Hsing discusses Comparative Deletion (CD) relatively to VP ellipsis and sluicing 

in MC aims to find out more evidence to support the Adjunctional analysis of BCC 

structure. Hsing starts with making a comparison between CD and the four types of 

VP ellipsis in MC stated by which are shi-support, negation, modal, and verbs. He 

finds out that CD is somewhat different from VP ellipsis. There is no shi-support in 

BCC, and the distributions of negation words meiyou/mei are different, too. Based on 

the eight properties of VP ellipsis in MC and English proposed by Wu (2002), Hsing 

tries to compare the difference between CD and VP ellipsis. In this part, it is shown 

that subject deletion and stripping in MC behave a bit different from that in English. 

Besides, CD and VP ellipsis are quite alike in MC except for subject deletion and 

stripping cases. When using VP ellipsis to tackle Mandarin CD, it seems that it needs 

to add the Pro issue to deal with subject deletion and some other ways for stripping. 

Hsing points out that Chomsky (1995) mark the ellipsis site as E for the parallel 

requirement between PF deletion and its LF. The E feature must move from the I 

position of the elided clause to the head position of C to check its feature, which at the 

same time brings about IP deletion in PF. And there is focus movement in sluicing 

sentences; therefore, there is a FP for the focus marker shi. 

31 



(53) (Hsing 2003:76) 

CP 

3 

Opi[+wh] C’ 

3 

C FP 

2 

wh-phrase F’ 

2 

F’ IP (elided) 

2 

I’ 

2 

I 

32 

[E] 

(54) (Hsing 2003: 77) 

VP 

2 

V CP 

2 

Spec C’ 

g 2 

Opi[Q] C FP 

shi 2 

DP F’ 

g 2 

shei F IP (elided) 

qp 

Zhangsan zuotian yujian ti 

In sluicing sentences, E feature makes wh-adjunct moved out, then the left elements 

are deleted in PF level. Hence, the wh-phrase is left. On the contrary, in BCC the 

deleted part is wh-phrase. Consequently, we cannot suppose FP in BCC have similar 

characters. 



(55) a. Zhangsan jueding yao likai, keshi wo bu zhidao weisheme 

Zhangsan decide want leave but I not know why 

‘Zhangsan decided to leave, but I don’t know why.’ 

b. Zhangsan weisheme jueding yao likai, bi Zhangsan 

Zhangsan why decide want leave COM Zhangsan 

[weisheme] jueding yao liuxia geng yinqi zhengyi 

why decide want stay more arise debate 

‘The reason why Zhangsan decided to leave arouse more debate than the 

reason why he decided to stay.’ 

Both VP ellipsis and sluicing concern about coordination, in which there are two 

clauses of similar structures and ellipsis takes place in the second one. Both syntactic 

phenomena do not require common elements, and the conjuncts can be easily told via 

the conjunction; however, these do not work in BCC. Also, to take CD as a kind of VP 

ellipses, it would be more restricted as (56). 

(56) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi congming, Wangwu ye shi/ 

Zhangsan COM Lisi smart Wangwu too AUX/ 

bi Zhaoliu ye shi. 

COM Zhaoliu too AUX 

‘Zhangsan is smarter than Lisi/Zhaoliu, and so does Wangwu.’ 

b. Zhangsan bi Lisi dazi kuai, Wangwu ye shi/ 

Zhangsan COM Lisi type fast Wangwu too AUX/ 



‘Zhangsan types faster than Lisi/Zhaoliu, and so does Wangwu.’ 

33 



c. Zhangsan bi Lisi xihuan paobu, Wangwu ye shi/ 

Zhangsan COM Lisi like jogging Wangwu too AUX/ 



‘Zhangsan likes jogging more than Lisi/Zhaoliu, and so does Wangwu.’ 

When the subjects are compared in these three sentences, we can only get the 

meaning of comparison between Wangwu and Lisi. That it, Wangwu is the subject of 

the second clause, which support the idea that the second conjunct together with the 

common predicate form a predicate for the first subject. All these give more support 

to the adjunction analysis. 

As for the semantic reconstruction, it seems that PF deletion is more plausible. 

(57) a. Zhangsan zuotian dazi bi Ø Ø xiezi kuai 

Zhangsan yesterday type COM write fast 

‘Zhangsan typed faster than wrote yesterday.’ 

b. Zhangsan Ø youyong bi Ø zuotian paobu hai kuai 

Zhangsan swim COM yesterday run more fast 

‘Zhangsan swims faster than he ran yesterday.’ 

Besides, Hsing states that we cannot use focus to explain deletion, for shi may 

occur in the F position or moves to the C position as (54), yet we cannot tell whether 

it is auxiliaries or the word shi that serves as the emphatic marker, and the positions of 

bi word and the operator are not specified yet. 

Regarding the syntactic structure of BCC, Hsing’s research is in favor of the 

Adjunction analysis, rather than the Coordination analysis. Relative to the syntactic 

34 



distribution of modal, negation, adverb, we get to know that the bi-phrase should be 

an adjunct element somewhere in the VP-domain, but he does not give a precise tree 

structure of BCC. 

According to the studies of Liu (1996) and Tsao (1989), Hsing (2003) expresses 

that bi in BCC may still be undergoing neutralization process, thus syntactically it 

inclines to the adjunction, yet semantically there are still much evidence supporting 

coordination analysis, which causes the difficulties of the studies of BCC. 

2.2.4 A Complementation Analysis (Chao 2005) 

Besides BCC, Chao (2005) includes CC without the comparative marker bi (58a), 

which she terms it as “comparatives with a double-object-like construction” 

(DOC-comparatives)" in her study. In the investigation of the syntactic and semantic 

phenomenon of CC, this study develops two derivative types in BCC, which are the 

phrasal comparatives (58b) and the clausal comparatives (58c). 

(58) a. Zhangsan gao Lisi san gongfen (Chao 2005: 33) 

Zhangsan tall COM three centimeters 

‘Zhangsan is three centimeters taller than Lisi.’ 

b. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao (san gongfen) 

Zhangsan COM Lisi tall (three centimeter) 


c. Zhangsan jintian bi zuotian {gaoxing/wan hui jia} 

Zhangsan today COM yesterday happy/ late go home 

‘Zhangsan is happier/ goes home earlier today than yesterday.’ 

Following the government-binding theoretical framework, Chao tries to claim 

35 



that phrasal comparatives and clausal comparatives should be distinguished from one 

another and cannot be derived in the same process. That is, Phrasal Comparatives are 

derived from the DOC-comparatives via the syntactic movement, similar to Larson’s 

(1988) analysis of the Double object construction (DOC); on the other hand, the 

Clausal Comparatives are derived by bi-clause that are post-cyclically adjoined to the 

main clause and subsequently undergo PF-deletion operation. 

First of all, base on the phenomenon that DOC-comparatives such as (58a) has 

corresponding forms in Phrasal Comparatives like (58b); Chao analogies the 

DOC-comparatives to Larson’s (1988) analysis of the Double object construction 

(DOC). To study DOCs, Larson (1988) proposes a VP Shell analysis to the structure 

of the double object construction as (60). Sentence (59b) has undergone a dative shift 

operation so as to get (59a). When the indirect object Mary is moved forwardly, the 

verb sent looses its inherent case to the direct object Mary so the preposition to is 

deleted. The direct object a letter is dethermatized as an adjunct, and adjoined to the 

V’ in VP2. The verb sent is moved to the head position of VP1 and assign case to Mary 

in VP2, then we can get (60b). 

(59) a. John sent a letter to Mary. 

b. John sent Mary a letter. 

36 



(60) a. (Chao 2005: 46) 

IP 

3 

NP …VP 

g 3 

John Spec V’ 

3 

V VP 

g 3 

send NP V’ 

5 3 

a letter V PP 

g 5 

t to Mary 

b. (Chao 2005: 48) 

VP1 

3 

Spec V’ 

3 

V VP2 

g 3 

send NPi V’ 

g 3 

Mary V NP 

3 5 

V NP a letter 

g g 

t e 

In the light of Larson’s analysis on the structure of DOCs, Chao suggests that the 

37 



comparatives without bi are similar to this DOC structure and takes the open degree 

adjectives as the predicate, and the first NP is the comparative datum while the second 

one indicates the value of the different degree, which conform to what Kennedy & 

McNally (2005) claims- the relative value of the degree is determined by the 

relationship between the comparative value in the context. In other words, 

DOC-comparatives can be regarded as a syntactic behavior of the degree of 

predicative adjectives. Similar to the ditransitive verb in Larson’s (1988) analysis of 

the DOCs, the degree predicative takes two internal arguments, the comparative 

datum in the Spec of AP, and the value of the comparative degree in the 

complementation position of the predicative AP. Moreover, as is shown in (61), it is 

supposed that the degree predicative adjective is overtly moved to the head of Deg for 

some feature checking requirement, then we get (58a). 

(61) (Chao 2005: 45) 

IP 

3 

NP …DegP 

g 3 

Zhangsan Spec Deg’ 

3 

Deg AP 

g 3 

gao NP1 A’ 

g 3 

Lisi A NP2 

g 6 

t san gongfen 

Phrasal comparative sentences like (62a), is similar to (62b) both semantically and 

38 



syntactically. Similar to the derivation of DOC, it is suggested that the Phrasal 

comparatives are derived from DOC-comparatives. In the phrasal comparative, the 

adjective is said to behave like an adverb and project a DegP that requires two internal 

arguments, the comparative datum, NP1, and NP2. Sentences like (62a), bi introduces 

NP and its PF is shown as (62b). The bi-phrase in the phrasal comparatives is derived 

by the Argument Demotion and functions as a preverbal adjunct, and there is no 

deletion appears in the derivation process. 

(62) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao (san gongfen) 



b. Zhangsan [PPbi [NPLisi] gao (san gongfen)] 


(63) (Chao 2005: 50) 

IP 

3 

NP …DegP 

g 3 

Zhangsan Spec Deg’ 

3 

PP Deg’ 

eg 3 

P NP Deg AP 

g g g 3 

bi Lisi gao NP A’ 

g 2 

Pro A NP 

g 6 

t san gongfen 

39 



Second, clausal comparatives are derived by bi-clauses that are post-cyclically 

adjoined to the main clause and subsequently undergo PF-deletion operation. Both the 

bi-phrase and the bi-clause are preverbal adjunct of the gradable predicate. It is 

suggested that the comparative datum is a contextually controlled PRO in the DET 

position of AP. 

(64) Zhangsan jintian bi Lisi zuotian gaoxing 

Zhangsan today COM yesterday happy 

‘Zhangsan is happier today than he was yesterday.’ 

(65) (Chao 2005: 63) 

IP 

3 

NP I’ 

g 2 

Zhangsan I DegP 

3 

Spec Deg’ 

3 

PP Deg’ 

qg 3 

P CP Deg AP 

g 6 g 3 

bi [CP Opi [IP Lisi gao NP A’ 

zuotian ti-gaoxing ]] g 2 

PRO A NP 

g 6 

t san gongfen 

In sum, while bi takes a NP in the phrasal comparative, in the clausal 

40 



comparatives bi takes a clause instead. Besides, the preverbal adjunct bi-phrase has 

undergone Argument Demotion, yet phrasal comparative clausal comparatives are 

derived by bi-clauses that are post-cyclically adjoined to the main clause. Last but not 

least, phrasal comparatives are derived from DOC-comparatives via some 

transformation process; however, clausal comparatives undergo PF-deletion 

operation. 

2.2.5 Summary 

Generally, there are two main types of analysis on the structure of BCC, the 

Conjunction Analysis (Tsao1989, Hong 1911), and the Adjunction Analysis (Fu 1978, 

Liu 1998, Hsing 2003). The Conjunction Analysis considers that the coordinate 

conjuncts are semantically and syntactically parallel conjuncts, sharing predicates 

right peripherally. On the other hand, the Adjunction Analysis is accepted in most 

analyses in the literature. It claims that the degree clause is adjoined to the main 

clause as modifications, the differences among this analyses is the place of the 

adjunction, either the preverbal place of the sharing predicate or somewhere inside the 

adjunctional predicate. 

2.3 Previous Analyses on Comparative Construction in English 

In studying the syntactic structure of CC in English like (66), it concerns the 

syntactic interactions among the degree expression, the degree clause, and the 

gradable predicate that marks the dimension of the comparison. Chao (2005) points 

out that the adjunction analysis is more plausible in the literature, in which the 

adjunction site of the than phrase is the main issue (Bresnan 1973, Larson 1987, 

Abney 1987, and so on). However, there is also the coordination analysis in which 

than is the coordinator (Napoli 1983). 

41 



(66) a. John is taller than Mary (was tall). 

b. John walks faster than Mary (walks). 

Besides, there are another two approaches to the structure of the CCs in English. 

(67) a. The lexical head hypothesis b. The functional head hypothesis 

AP DegP 

3 3 

DegP A Deg’ than-clause 

2 2 

Deg than-clause Deg AP 

(-er/ more) (-er/ more) 

In the lexical head hypothesis in (67a), it is ignored that morphologically, degree 

expression together with the gradable predicate forms a constituent. Besides, as Bhatt 

and Pancheva (2004) have pointed out, the obligatory movement of the degree 

than-clause is not motivated by anything apart from the need to derive the correct 

surface word order. The functional head hypothesis in (67b) avoids the extraposition 

problem in (67), and the constituency of the degree expression -er and the matrix 

predicate conform to the morphological rule. Besides, there is a close relationship 

among these elements, which makes them stay in the same phrase. There is 

s-selectional restriction between the degree morpheme -er and the degree clauses that 

justifies their co-occurrences. The degree expression s-selects the predicate to be 

gradable. Based on the locality concern, the functional head hypothesis provides a 

better architecture with a closer syntactical relationship among the core elements of 

CC. 

2.3.1 Bresnan (1973) 

Bresnan (1973) proposes that than in English CC is a complementizer 

42 



introducing a comparative clause S’, which together with the comparative 

determiner –er form a discontinuous dependency element in the deep structure to 

modify the main predicate XP (either AP, advP, or NP). The comparative than clause 

is extraposed and adjoined to XP as (68). 

(68) a. b. 

XP’ XP’ 

3 3 

QP’ XP XP’ S’ 

3 g 3 5 

Det Q X QP’ XP than S 

3 g 2 g 

-er S’ much -er much X 

5 

than S 

2.3.2 Late Merge of Degree Clauses (Bhatt and Pancheva 2004) 

The study by Bhatt and Pancheva (2004) on the syntactic structure of CC in 

English is in the framework MP. They focus the interactions among the degree head, 

the degree clause, and the matrix gradable XP. In their analysis (69), they take the 

functional hypothesis and propose that Degree head –er and the degree than-clause 

form a degree quantifier argument, which must have a higher scope over the matrix 

gradable XP. And, the degree clause is merged after the DegP is moved from the 

specifier position of AP. This analysis explains the issues of the scope of the degree 

head –er and the word order. 

43 



(69) Bhatt and Pancheva (2004) 

XP 

3 

XP DegPi 

g 3 

AP Deg 6 merged after 

3 g degree than-clause movement 

A -er/more 

g (predicate) 

Deg 

However, in MP, the order of the operations is merging before movement. 

Although the proposal of countercylic merge explains the puzzle of the scope of the 

degree, it is a big challenge to MP. 

2.4 Summary 

It is widely accepted to use the adjunction analysis on CC in English. The –er 

marker and than, which is categorized either as preposition or complementizer, 

determine the complementation structure. However, as for BCC, bi is taken as the 

comparative marker serving both the degree marking function as –er and the function 

of than that introduces comparing elements. In our analysis, we are going to claim 

that MC adverb geng can have the function like –er, and thus BCC may be analyzed 

similarly to that of English. 

44 



3.1 Introduction 

Chapter 3 

The Proposed Complementation Analysis 

For that this paper focuses on the Comparative Constructions with the 

comparative marker bi (BCC) like (70), including the three types predicates that 

Hsing (2003) has discussed, simple common predicate (70a), common predicate with 

adjunctional adverb (70b), and common predicate with a complementational object 

(70c). Yet, this paper proposes a clausal analysis, in which there are two clauses 

sharing the same predicates to be compared, thus all the three types of BCC can be 

derived via similar process. 










Like CC in English, the structure of BCC concerns the interactions among the 

degree head, the degree clause, and the matrix gradable XP. In this chapter, we are 

going to adopt the functional head hypothesis for the structure of BCC. The syntactic 

45 



behavior of the word bi, which is widely taken as the comparative marker, will be 

discussed firstly in 3.1. Base on the idea that bi is a complementizer that introduces a 

comparative clause; we then adopt the functional hypothesis for the BCC structure. 

3.3 The Syntactic Properties of bi in Comparative Constructions 

Previous studies of BCC often start with classifying the category of the 

comparative morpheme bi, based on which they try to study the syntactic structure. In 

this section, we examine the possible syntactic categories of bi, and then propose that 

with some historical change, bi behaves more like a complementizer that introduces 

the degree clause to adjoin as the datum of the comparison. 

3.2.1 bi As a Verb 

Originally, bi has the meaning of “compare” and “compete;” however, after long 

years of historical derivation, behaves quite differently in both context. Chao (1968) 

maintains that bi is always a verb and thus analyzes BCC as an instance of serial verb 

construction (SVC). However, lots of syntactic evidence have been listed to manifest 

that bi in BCC does not behave like a verb (Hong 1991, Hsing 2003). Though the verb 

bi ‘to compete’ and the comparative marker bi were historically related, they are 

actually homophones today. 

First, aspect markers can be added to a verb like (71a), which is also feasible 

when bi is used as a verb (71b). However, there is no way to add the aspect markers to 

the bi in the comparative construction (71c). 

(71) a. Laoli na le maojin qu xizao. [SVC] 

Laoli take ASP towel go take a bath. 

‘Laoli took a towel to take a bath.’ 

46 



b. tamen yijing bi guo liqi le 

they already compete ASP strength ASP 

‘They have already competed for their strength.’ 

c. *wo bi guo Lisi geng ai ni 

I COM ASP Lisi more love you 

Second, objects of transitive verb can be proposed, while object of bi in CC cannot. 

(72) a. maojin, Laoli na qu xizao. [SVC] 

towel Laoli take go take a bath. 

‘The towel, Laoli took it to take a bath.’ 

b. [liqi], tamen bi e le 

strength they compete ASP 

‘Strength, they have already competed.’ 

c. *Lisi, wo bi e geng ai ni 

Lisi I COM more love you 

Third, while transitive verb can be an elliptical simple positive answer to a yes-no 

question, but bi in CC cannot. 

(73) a. Q: Laoli qu shangdian mai dongxi le ma? (SVC) 

Laoli go store buy things ASP PART 

‘Did Laoli go to the store to buy things?’ 

A: qu le. 

go ASP 

‘Yes, he did.’ 

47 



b. Q: tamen yijing bi-guo liqi ma? 

they already compete- ASP strength PART 

‘Have they already competed for their strength?’ 

A: bi le. 

Compete ASP 

‘Yes, they did.’ 

c. Q: ta bi Lisi geng ai ni ma? 

A: *bi 

he COM Lisi more love you PART 

‘Does he love you more than Lisi does?’ 

COM 

‘Yes.’ 

Fourth, many verbs occur in the V-yi-V reduplication form, while bi in CC cannot. 

(74) a. nimen bi-(yi)-bi liqi ba? 

you(plural) compete-(one)-compete strength PART 

‘You can (try to) compete for your strength!’ 

b. *Wo bi-(yi)-bi Lisi geng ai ni 

I COM-(one)-COM Lisi more love you 

Finally, verbs usually take a nominal complement, while bi has more alternations in 

the category of its following element, such as NP, VP, PP, CP, and even a 

non-constituent. 

48 



(75) Zhangsan kan shu 

Zhangsan read book 

‘Zhangsan reads books.’ 

(76) a. [NP mama] bi [NPbaba] geng zao qi 

mother COM baba more earl get-up 

‘Mother gets up earlier than Father.’ 

b. [VPkanshu] bi [VPxiezi] geng qingsong 

read COM writing more easy 

‘It is easier to read than to write.’ 

c. [PPzai jia] bi [PPzai waimian] geng shushi 

at home COM at outside more comfortable 

‘It is more comfortable staying home than staying outside.’ 

d. [CPni lai] bi [CPwo qu] geng kuai 

you come COM I go more fast 

‘It is faster for you to come than for me to go.’ 

e. [Zhangsan jintian] bi [ni zuotian ] geng shengqi 

Zhangsan today COM you yesterday more angry 

‘Zhangsan is angrier today than you were yesterday.’ 

Based on the above discussions, the comparative marker bi ‘compare’ which has 

very different syntactical behaviors is just a homophone to the verb bi ‘compete.’ And 

BCC cannot be a serial verb construction. 

49 



3.2.2 bi As a Preposition 10 

McCawley (1992) lists several criteria to distinguish the preposition from verb in 

MC. The comparative marker bi obeys most of the following criteria, which support 

the idea that bi does not behave like a preposition. 

(77) a. A preposition normally takes one NP 

b. the prototypical use of a prepositional phrase is as a modifier 

c. prepositions are subject to Pied-piping 

d. Objects of Ps are less free in allowing extraction or deletion 

e. Ps allow their objects to have scope over higher constituents 

Yet, in (78a), the prepositional phrase of gen mama is an adjunct so that without the 

modification of it, (78a) is still grammatical. However, without the phrase bi paobu, 

(78b) would become unacceptable, for the meaning is unclear. The prototypical use of 

a prepositional phrase is as a modifier; however, the bi-phrase is the key element, the 

datum of the comparison that makes the comparison works so it is not a modifier. 

So, while bi-phrase in cannot be omitted. 

(78) a. wo (gen mama) qu taibei 

I with mother go-to Taipei 

‘I go to Taipei with my mother.’ 

10 

Whether there are prepositions in Mandarin Chinese has been a controversial issue, some claim 

that it is coverb rather than preposition (Li and Thompson (1981), however, I’ll propose that bi is a 

complementizer later, the issue will not be discussed here and they will be termed as “preposition,” 

instead. 

50 



b. wo chifan *(bi paobu) geng kuai. 

I eat(rice) COM run more fast 

‘I eat faster than run.’ 

In the literature, Tsao (1989), Liu (1996), Pu (2002), Waltraud (1993), Chao 

(2005) tries to find out some syntactic evidence to support the idea that bi is a 

preposition. Hsing (2003) points out that if we consider (79b) is derived from (79a), 

then the bi-phrase can be taken as a preverbal adjunct (Chao 2005). 

(79) a. Zhangsan gaoxing (Hsing 2003) 

Zhangsan happy 

‘Zhangsan is happy.’ 

b. Zhangsan bi Lisi gaoxing 

Zhangsan COM Lisi happy 

‘Zhangsan is happier than Lisi.’ 

c. Zhangsan [PPbi Lisi] gaoxing 

Zhangsan COM Lisi happy 

Nevertheless, a preposition usually requires a complement that is a full 

constituent (Hsing 2003), but bi does not have this limitation. 

(80) a. *Zhangsan xihuan zai [taibei jintian] 

Zhangsan likes at Taipei today 

b. [taibei jintian] bi [xinzhu zuotian] re 

Taipei today COM Hsinchu yesterday hot 

‘It is hotter in Taipei today than in Hsinzhu yesterday.’ 

51 



Also, MC prepositions do not take PPs as the complement, but bi does. 

(81) a. *Zhangsan dui zai taibei mei yijian 

Zhangsan to at Taipei no opinion 

b. Zhangsan [PPdui youxi] bi [PPdui shuben] geng youxingqu 

Zhangsan to games COM to book more interest 

‘Zhangsan is more interested in games than in books.’ 

Historically bi is a verb, and it also shares some characteristics to the 

prepositions, however, undergoing some neutralization process with time, it lost some 

as well. We will try to propose that bi may behave like a complementizer later in 

Section 3.2.4. 

3.2.3 bi As a Conjunction 

Categorical identity across conjuncts is a characteristic feature of coordinate 

construction 11 (Chomsky 1957). CC involves two items that are semantically parallel 

to be compared; it seems that the comparative marker bi behaves similarly to a 

conjunction, which coordinate conjuncts of different categories (see (82) ~ (84)). 

However, even when the conjunts are syntactically identical, the asymmetry in 

semantics may still cause the sentences unacceptable. 

11 In the coordination stentences, the conjuncts should be parallel both semantically and syntactically. 

(i) a. Zhangsan tiaowu you change 

Zhangsan dance also sing 

‘Zhangsan dance and sing.’ 

b. * Zhangsan tiaowu you chuben 

Zhangsan dance also book 

52 



(82) a. [NP Zhangsan] bi [NPLisi] nuli 

Zhangsan COM Lisi work hard 

‘Zhangsan works harder than Lisi.’ 

b. *[NP Zhangsan] bi [VPyundong] nuli 

Zhangsan COM exercise work hard 

(83) a. Zhangsan [VP paobu] bi [VP youyong] fast 

Zhangsan run COM swim fast 

‘Zhangsan runs faster than swims.’ 

b. * Zhangsan [VP paobu] bi [NP shuben] fast 

Zhangsan run COM books fast 

(84) a. [CPdajia yiqi zhao ziliao] bi [CPni ziji xiang] geng kuai 

everyone together find data COM you self think more fast 

‘It is faster that all of us find the data together than you do it by yourself.’ 

b. * Zhangsan bi [yundong] nuli 

Zhangsan COM exercise work hard 

Coordination sentences such as (85) reveals that asymmetrical syntactic 

categories of the coordinate conjuncts are not acceptable in coordination, yet BCCs do 

not have this limitation, and the compared items are even at times not full constituent 

(86) ~ (87). 

(85) a. *[NPwo] han [zuotian] qu taibei 

I and yesterday go to Taipei 

53 



b. *wo [jintian] han [zuotian] qu taibei 

I today and yesterday go to Taipei 

c. *[NPwo jintian] han [wo zuotian] qu taibei 

I today and I yesterday go to Taipei 

(86) a. wo [shuxue kao-de] bi [yingwen] hao 

I Math take exam-PART COM English good 

‘I did better in the math exam than in the English one.’ 

b. wo [shuxue kao-de] bi [yingwen kao-de] hao 

I Math take exam-PART COM English take exam-PART good 


(87) a. [NP wo] bi [zuotian] shufu 


‘I feel more comfortable than yesterday.’ 

b. *[wo jintian] bi [zuotian] shufu 

I today COM yesterday comfortable 


c. [ wo jintian] bi [wo zuotian] shufu 


As we can see from the above sentences, there may be some ellipsis operation 

that works on the compared items, which causes the asymmetry in their syntactic 

categories. Thus, some may hypothesize that the compared items are two clauses 

which later undergo some comparative ellipsis process. Semantically, in both (88a) 

and (88b), the proposition lies in the first clauses. That is, the first clause has higher 

54 



degree over the second one. 

(88) a. [wo shuxue kao-de hao] bi [wo yingwen kao-de hao ] 

I Math take exam-PART good COM I English take exam-PART good 

‘I did better in the math exam than in the English one.’ 

b. [NP wo jintian shufu] bi [wo zuotian shufu] 

I today comfortable COM I yesterday comfortable 


In Zhang’s (2004) coordinate structure, the syntactic structure of the coordinate 

construction is like (89), in which the external conjunct (the first conjunct) is a Spec 

of the coordinator. It may lack evidence and clues to explain the reason why the main 

clause is the external conjunct rather than the internal one. 

(89) (Zhang 2004) 

&P 

qp 

(external conjunct) &’ 

ei 

& (internal conjunct) 

(coordinator) 

If bi is a coordinator, then sentence (90) has only meaning of (90); coordination 

do not have ambiguity. However, according to the intuition of most native speakers, 

sentence (90) has both meanings of (i) and (ii). 

55 



(90) wo ai ta bi ni duo 

I love him COM you many 

(i) ‘I love him more than I love you.’ 

(ii) ‘I love him more than you do.’ 

However, coordination sentence do not bring such ambiguity. 

(91) a. Zhangsan jiao [Lisi han ni] dou hen younaixin 

Zhangsan teach Lisi and you both very patient 

‘Zhangsan is very patient in teaching both you and Lisi.’ 

b. [Zhangsan jiao Lisi han ni Ø] dou hen younaixin 

Zhangsan teach Lisi and you both very patient 

*‘Both Zhangsan and Lisi is very patient in teaching you.’ 

Thus we know that sentence like (90) makes involve two clauses with 

contrasting objects to be compared, there may be some ellipsis occurs. 

3.2.4 bi As A Complementizer 

As English is an inflectional language, after some comparative ellipsis, we can 

still tell from the tense marking that it involves two propositions in different clauses to 

be compared (92). Thus, Bresnan (1975) takes than in CC as a coordinator in her 

analysis. 

(92) a. I am taller than John (is). 

b. I love you more than John does. 

56 



It is widely accepted that BCC concerns two clauses to be compared as CCs in 

English (Fu 1978, Hong 1991, Liu 1998, Xing 2003). To take bi as a complementizer 

also indicates that the bi-clause is adjoined later to the main clause. Compared items 

of different categories, such as NPs, VPs, PPs, and IPs (76), are actually CPs with 

gradable comparative predicates and undergoes some comparative ellipsis operation. 

When it comes to comparison, the compared items are required to be semantically 

parallel and mostly identical syntactic category so as to be the basis for the 

comparison. Thus, they may be taken as coordinate structure. In Hong’s (1991) 

coordination analysis, sentences like (93) are comparison of NPs, and this coordinate 

NP complex share a predicate nuli. 

(93) [[NP Zhangsan] bi [NPLisi]] geng ai yundong 

Zhangsan COM Lisi more love exercise 

‘Zhangsan loves exercise more than Lisi does.’ 

However, in (94a), the coordinate NP complex do not have a collective reading so as 

to be the antecedent of the reflexive ziji in their common predicate. Yet, as we can see 

in (94b), Zhangsan and Lisi are subjects of different clauses that are compared, and 

thus they do not share the same predicate and even the object reflexive ziji. Also, the 

elements that bi takes can also have tense like (95). We can thus conclude that the 

element that bi introduces is a clause. 

(94) a. [[NP Zhangsani] bi [NPLisij]] geng ai zijii/j 

Zhangsan COM Lisi more love oneself 

‘Zhangsan loves himself more than Lisi does.’ 

57 



b. Zhangsani [bi Lisij _____ ] geng ai zijii/*j 

Zhangsan COM Lisi more love oneself 

(95) a. ta zuotian zai xuexiao bi [wo jintian zai jiali] gaoxing 

s/he yesterday at school COM I today at home] happy 

‘S/He was happier at school yesterday than I am at home today.’ 

Moreover, both English and MC have the close historical relation between a 

complementizer and a preposition. The words before, after, and for are the examples 

in English (96), while yinwei ‘because’ and jiaru ‘if’ are the examples in MC (97). 

(96) a. After graduation, he went abroad. 

b. After he graduated, he went abroad. 

(97) a. yinwei zhe jian shi, ta shou dao biaoyang 

because this CL event he accept to praise 

‘Because of this event, he was praised.’ 

b. yinwei tianqi buhao, women quxiao huodong 

because weather bad we cancel activity 

‘Because the weather was bad, we cancel the activity.’ 

In (96a), the word after functions as a preposition takes the nominal graduation. But, 

in (96b) the word after is called a subordinate conjunction in traditional grammars, 

which joins the two clauses together. It is a complementizer in generative approaches. 

Similarly, in MC, yinwei is a preposition in (97a), but it is a complementizer in (97b). 

It seems that, complementizers in MC have a pretty close relationship with 

58 



prepositions, and verbs as well. Her (2006) examines the original account for the 

syntactic categories of gei in MC by Ting and Chang (2004), in which gei may act 

either as a verb, a preposition, and even a complementizer. Among all, gei can be a 

complementizer in the goal-marking structure like (98) where gei-NP is not a PP 

subcategorized for by the predicate, as shown in (99a~b). 

(98) [V NP gei NP VP] 

(99) a. wo chang-le yi shou ge [CP gei [IP ta ting]] (Her 2006) 

I sing-ASP one CL song GEI she listen-to 

‘I sang a song for her to listen to.’ 

b. *wo chang-le yi shou ge [P gei] ta. 

I sing- ASP one CL song to she 

‘I sang a song to her.’ 

Ting and Chang (2004) also cite binding facts and prosodic features to support their 

analysis on the complementizer in MC. Their analysis do not complicate the grammar 

given the independently motivated complementizer of shuo, as in (100b), which 

likewise has arisen from the grammaticalization of the verb shuo ‘say’, as in (100a). 

Thus, shuo as a complementizer is similar to that in English and gei is like for in the 

“for-to construction.” 12 However, unlike their English counterparts, MC 

complementizers needs to be licenses and thus cannot stand alone, as in (101). 

12 The purposive gei is parallel to the ‘for..to’ construction in English 

(i) Wo fei [CP gei [IP ni kan e]] (Her 2006) 

I fly GEI you watch 

‘I will fly for you to watch.’ 

(ii) ‘I will fly for you to watch.’ 

59 



(100) a. wo shuo zhe ge didian bucuo. (Her 2006) 

I say this CL location not-bad 

‘I say this location is not bad.’ 

b. wo tongyi shuo zhe ge didian bucuo. 

I agree COMP this CL location not-bad 

‘I agree that this location is not bad.’ 

(101) a. (??shuo) zhe ge didian bucuo, wo tongyi. (Her 2006) 

COMP this CL location not-bad I agree 

‘That this location is not bad, I agree.’ 

b. *gei wo chi shengyupian, ta qu mao yu. 

for I eat sasimi he go buy fish 

‘For me to have sasimi to eat, he went to buy fish.’ 

Just like the MC complementizer gei and shuo, which have some historical 

relations with verbs and prepositions, the word bi that shares some syntactic features 

with verbs and prepositions (see Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) can behave as 

complementizers, too. Sentence (102a) is a typical BCC, however, it is the two 

clauses with gradable predicates ai ni that can be compared. Giving further analysis in 

(102b), we can tell that the embedded clause has undergone vP-ellipsis leaving the 

contrasting part Lisi in its PF. The bi in BCC is a complementizer that introduces a 

clause to be the comparative datum. 

(102) a. wo bi Lisi geng ai ni 

I COM Lisi more love you 

‘I love you more than Lisi does.’ 

60 



b. wo [CPbi Lisi ai ni] geng ai ni 

I COM Lisi love you more love you 

Note that, according to Her (2006), MC complementizers such as gei and shuo 

needs to be licensed and thus cannot stand alone, the comparative marker bi is not an 

exception. The comparative bi-clause occurs only with gradable phrases that are 

modified by the degree adverb geng. The complementizer determines the type of IP 

which it introduces. English that selects finite clauses and English for selects 

infinitival clauses (Hageman 1997:53), similarly bi in MC selects gradable 

comparative clauses. 

In the following section 3.3, we are going to find out more evidence to support 

the hypothesis that bi and geng has co-occurrence restriction and maintain the 

necessity of geng in BCC. 

3.3 The Syntactic Status of the Degree adverb- geng 13 

Gradable predicates can include nominal, adjectival, and verbal predicates (Sapir 

1944, Bolinger 1972) in (103), it is the gradable feature that makes the clauses 

comparable. In this section, we are going to propose that though the comparative 

degree adverb geng is often covert in the PF, it is actually the head of the comparative 

DegP that assign feature to the comparative bi-clauses. 

13 Besides geng, the comparative degree adverbs can also have its alternations haiyao/ hai, ‘more,’ for 

some phonological or pragmatic reason; they cannot alternate for each other in some cases, and 

sometimes even both of them can be covert. Phonologically, the stress on geng is heavier than haiyao/ 

hai, so we hopothesize that the degree of emphatic meaning on these alternative comparavie degree 

adverbs are geng >haiyao/ hai>φ. Yet, geng seems to occur in most cases, we take geng as the 

representitive of the comparative degree adverb. 

(i) a. wo bi Lisi (geng/haiyao) gao 

I COM Lisi more tall 

‘I am taller than Lisi.’ 

b. wo bi Lisi (*geng)/(haiyao) gao san gongfen 

I COM Lisi more tall three centimeter 

‘I am three centimeters taller than Lisi is.’ 

61 



(103) a. wo-de shu [bi ni-de ___ ] (geng) gui 

I-OBL book COM you-OBL more expensive 

‘My books are more expensive than yours.’ 

b. ta [bi ni ___ ] (geng) gao 

3sg COM you more tall 


c. ta [bi ni ___ ] (geng) xihuan shu 

3sg COM you more like book 

‘S/He likes books more than you do.’ 

3.3.1 A Default Comparative Degree on the Gradable Predicate/Proposition 

Chang (2004) addresses a semantic requirement between adjective predicates 

and adverbial modifiers. Chang explains that the structure of scales (Kennedy and 

McNally 2002) entailing gradability 14 (Sapir 1944,Bolinger 1972) plays an important 

role in grammaticality when adjective predicates and adverbial modifiers co-occur. 

According to Sapir (1944) and Bolinger (1972), gradability is a property not just of 

adjectives (104), but also of verbs (105), adverbs and even nouns (106). Adverb hen 

makes the nouns manifest the property of adjectives and makes both of them become 

gradable predicates, however its meaning of ‘very’ is getting blurred in both cases. 

(104) a. zhe-duo hua *(hen/feichang) da/xiao 

this-CL flower very big/little 

‘This flower is *(very) big/ little.’ 

14 Sapir (1949:123): Every quantifiable, where existent (say “house”) or occurrent (say “run”) or 

quality of existent (say “red”) or quality of occurrent (say “gracefully”) is intrinsically gradable. 

62 



b. zhe-duo hua bi na-duo geng da 

this-CL flower COM that-CL more big 

‘This flower is bigger than that one.’ 

(105) a. wo (hen/feichang) xihuan ni 

I very like you 

‘I like you very much.’ 

b. wo bi ta geng xihuan ni 

I COM he more like you 

‘I like you more than he does.’ 

(106) a. ta *(hen) nűren 

she very women 

‘S/He is very woman-like.’ 

b. ta bi ni geng nűren 

he COM you more woman 

‘S/He is more women-like than you.’ 

As for the absolute adjectives like (107), dui/cuo ‘correct/wrong,’ which are 

defined as the fixed true-false standard in the truth-conditional semantics (precise 

value) cannot be gradable predicates, and thus disallow comparative forms. 

(107) a. *ni-de da’an dui/cuo 

you-OBL answer correct/wrong 

63 



b. *ni-de daan hen/feichang dui/cuo 

you-OBL answer very correct/wrong 

‘Your answer is very correct/wrong.’ 

c. *wo-de daan bi ni-de geng dui/cuo 

I-OBL answer COM yours more correct/wrong 

‘My answer is more correct than yours.’ 

This semantic requirement between adjective predicates and adverbial modifiers 

hypothesizes that gradable predicates require a degree modifier that indicates a 

relative degree of the predicate, such as implicit comparative degree hen or an explicit 

comparative degree geng. In BCC, where the contrastive reading is clearly addressed 

by the bi-clause, the degree adverb may be omitted and covert in PF. 

What’s more, Liu (2005) proposes that adjective predicates have comparing 

event implied, so in Chinese a degree adverb takes over the job which the English 

grammatical tense does. A predicate of an unmodified gradable adjective like 

expensive in (this pair of socks is expensive) always implies a comparison between the 

standard value of comparison. Language must have some grammatical mechanism to 

make the comparing event implied possible. In Inflectional languages such as English, 

it is grammatical tense that interacts with the gradable adjective to make the 

comparison implied possible. As a Non-inflectional language, MC adopts at least 

three ways to mark the implied comparison and thus license the predicative 

adjectives. 

(a) strategy 1: To create and environment where the contrasting reading is possible. 

64 



(108) zhe ge pingguo hong; na ge huang 

this CL apple red that CL yellow 

‘This apple is red; that one is yellow.’ 

(b) strategy 2: To insert a degree adverb such as hen, to modify the adjective. 

(109) ta-de lian hen hong 

he-OBL face very red 

‘His cheeks are blushed.’ 

(c) strategy 3: Have the adjectival predicate in a reduplicated form. 

(110) ta-de lian youdian hong-hong-de 

he-OBL face somewhat red-red-PART 

‘His cheeks are a little blushed.’ 

Liu then claims that degree modifier like very is obligatory for Chinese predicative 

adjectives in the Implicit Comparatives, when the other two strategies are not 

available. 

(111) Implicit Comparatives 

a. wo [IMPLICIT COMPARATIVE DATUM] hen pang 

I very fat 

‘I am very fat.’ 

65 



b. [xiangjiao yu Zhangsan], wo hen pang 

in contrast to Zhangsan I very fat 

‘Compare to Zhangsan, I am very fat.’ 

c. [xiangjiao yu Lisi], wo buhui hen pang 

in contrast to Lisi I not very fat 

‘Compare to Lisi, I am not very fat.’ 

In (111 ), whether the degree of I am fat is relative to some comparative datum which 

may be absent in it PF. Likewise, BCC that belongs to explicit comparatives are of 

this case, too. As we can see in (112), the comparative datum is explicit, and the 

degree adverb of BCC is geng. The the degree head s-selects a comparative bi-clause 

to be one of its complements. And as we have discussed in Section 3.1.2, bi has the 

meaning of comparison historically, thus the comparative degree adverb geng is often 

covert in PF. 

(112) Explicit Comparatives (BCC) 

a. wo [CPbi Zhangsan pang] geng pang 

I COM Zhangsan fat more fat 

‘I am fatter than Zhangsan.’ 

3.3.2 Co-occurrence Restriction Between bi And geng 

According to Li and Thompson (1981), CC in Mandarin can be divided into three 

types. With respect to the different degrees of the dimension, one item can be more 

than the other (the superior degree), less than the other (the inferior degree), or the 

same as the other (the equal degree). In the following examples, bi and geng in (113a), 

mei(you)/buru and name in (113b), and also gen and yiyang in (113c) have some 

66 



co-occurrence restriction, they cannot be replaced by any others. There is s-selection 

relation between the comparative clause and the degree adverb. 

(113) a. ta [bi ni] geng gao 

3sg COM you more tall 


b. ta [mei(you) /buru ni] name gao 

3sg not/not as you that tall 

‘S/He is not as tall as you are.’ 

c. ta [gen ni] yiyang gao 

3sg with you same tall 

‘S/He is as tall as you are.’ 

Also, Jackendoff (1980) has mentioned a parallelism, which is pointed out by Bowers 

(1968), between NPs with restrictive relatives and APs with degree clauses associated 

with the degree word so, too, enough, as, more and less, such as those in (114) 

(114) a. He is so tired that he will never get up in time. 

b. He is too tired to get up. 

c. He is tired enough to sleep 14 hours. 

d. He is as tired as he has ever been. 

e. He is more/ less tired than you are. 

The selectional restrictions between the degree head and the degree clause works 

in other languages and dialects, too. Just like Comparative Constructions in MC can 

be divided in CC with and without bi, Southern Min has corresponding 

67 



categorizations, too. In Southern Min, BCC is the most common types of all CCs (Li 

1994). In (115) the degree adverb ka marks the superlative degree of the main 

predicate, while the degree clauses bi yi provides the context of the comparison. 

Though the bi-clause can mark the meaning of comparison, ellipsis of the degree 

adverb makes the sentence unacceptable. 

(115) a. wa bi yi *(ka) guan (Southern Min) 

I COM him more tall 

‘I am taller than you. 

Adjective in Japanese are said to have similar syntactic behavior in the predicate 

position, in which the adjectival predicates need to co-occur with some adverb or 

particle. In Japanese comparatives like (116), there is also s-selectional restriction 

between yori and motto/mo. 

(116) a. watashi-ha totemo segaitakai 

I-TOP very tall 

‘I am very tall.’ 

b. watshi-ha [Taro yori] (motto/mo) segatakai-desu 

I-TOP Taro than more tall-PART 

‘I am taller than Taro.’ 

(117) a. watashi-ha anatta-wo totemo aishitei-ru 

I-AGENT you-ACC very love-PRESENT 

‘I love you.’ 

68 



b. watashiha [Taro yori](motto/mo) anata-wo aishiteiru 

I-AGENT Taro than more you- ACC love-PRESENT 

‘I love you more than Taro does. 

The cross-linguistic evidence make our argument more promising that the degree 

adverb on the gradable predicate is the head of BCC. Base on this we will then 

propose a geng-headed comparative structure in the following section. 

3.4 The Syntactic Structure of BCC 

In the literature, there are three main types of analysis on the structure of BCC, 

the Adjunction Analysis (Fu 1978, Liu 1998) and the Conjunction Analysis (Tsao1989, 

Hong 1911), and a Complementation Analysis headed by the adjectives, which is 

similar to ditransitive verbs (Chao 2005). A new complementation analysis headed by 

the degree adverb geng will be proposed in this study. From the previous Sections 3.1 

and 3.2, we can get the widely accepted conclusion that BCC in MC are like that in 

English, which involves comparison of two propositions (Bresnan 1975, Fu 1978, 

Hong 1991, Liu 1998, Chao 2005 and so forth). In discussing the syntactic structure 

of BCC, we are going to incise from the syntactic relation among the degree geng, the 

degree clause, and the matrix gradable predicate. 

3.4.1 A Functional Head Hypothesis 

To make clear the relationship between the degree adverb, the degree clause, and 

matrix gradable predicate, Bhatt and Roumyana (2004) collect two main approaches, 

the lexical head hypothesis and the functional head hypothesis (118). 

69 



(118) a. The lexical head hypothesis b. The functional head hypothesis 

AP DegP 

3 3 

DegP A Deg’ 6 

2 2 degree clause 

Deg 6 Deg AP 

g degree clause g 

geng geng 

In the lexical head hypothesis (118a), the degree adverb and the degree clause form a 

degree quantifier argument in the specifier position of the gradable predicate. 

However, in this analysis the degree clause has to be obligatorily raised, this 

movement is not motivated by anything apart from the need to derive the correct 

surface word order. Contrarily, the original functional head hypothesis for CC in 

English as in (118b), the degree clause is in the specifier position. Based on the 

locality restriction, the functional head hypothesis provides a better architecture with a 

closer syntactical relationship among the core elements of CC. In BCC there are two 

possible tree structures under the functional head hypothesis. See (119a). 

(119) The functional head hypothesis 

a. DegP b. DegP 

ei ei 

vP/ aP Deg’ 5 Deg’ 

ei bi-clause ei 

Deg 5 Deg vP/ aP 

(geng) bi-clause (geng) 

The configuration in (119a) goes against the morphological constituency between the 

degree adverb geng and the main predicate, which is a common morphological rule in 

both MC and English; that is, a degree adverb should take a gradable predicate as its 

70 



complement. In BCC the degree head geng does not work without the degree 

bi-clause; in other words they should co-occur with each other. For this reason, we 

hypothesize that in BCC the degree head geng has a strong requirement on two 

arguments, the gradable predicates as the internal argument and the degree bi-clause 

as the specifier to license the projection of Deg which is shown as (119b). 

3.4.2 A geng-headed Comparative Structure 

Take the sentence in (120a) as an example; based on the pragmatics rule for the 

daily conversation, we can get that (120a) involves two gradable clauses to be 

compared, which is illustrated in (120b). The proposed syntactic tree structure of BCC 

is shown as (121). 

(120) a. wo bi zuotian xiang ni 

I COM yesterday miss you 

‘I miss you more than I did yesterday.’ 

b. [wo jintian (geng) xiang ni] [bi wo zuotian xiang ni]] 

I today more miss you COM I yesterday miss you 

71 



(121) ForceP1 

2 

C topicP 

2 

wo FocusP 

2 

jintian IP 

2 

DegP 

3 

ForceP2 Deg’ 

2 3 

bi topicP geng vP1 

2 2 

(wo) FocusP vP1 

2 5 

zuotian IP xiang ni 

2 

vP2 

2 

vP2 

5 

 

In (121), wo jintian xiang ni is the main proposition, with the modification by the 

comparative degree adverb geng, there comes the bi-CP to make the comparative 

datum. 

According to the studies on the cartography of the left periphery of the clause, 

(Belletti 2004) indicates that the clause (IP) external area, traditionally labeled CP, is 

indeed a much richer and articulated space than traditionally assumed. She makes a 

different definition on “Topicalization” (Top) refers to the process through which that 

72 



element is dealt with as a/the “topic” of discourse, the “given” information. In the 

literature the term “topicalization” often indicates the process that here we refer to as 

“focalization” (Focus): the singling out of an element of the clause as the “new” or 

“contrastive” information. Based on Belletti’s (2004) analysis, the given informational 

topic of (120) is wo, thus is topicalized to the TopP, while the new/constructive 

information topic is jintian, is in the FocusP. The movements and the landing sites are 

more legitimate with Belletti’s (2004) analysis. Also, in the proposed syntactic 

structure of BCC, I adopt Rizzi’s (1997) skeleton, in which he decompose CP into the 

following projections: ForceP > TopicP* > FocusP > TopicP* > FiniteP > IP so as to 

give a plausible explanation on the surface word order of BCC. 

Last but not least, this geng-headed structure also undergoes a Comparative 

Deletion (CD) on CP2 in the PF; therefore, in (121) xiang ni in vP2 is not spelled out 

in PF. The issue of CD will be discussed more in the next section. 

3.4.3 Comparative Deletion 

Under the previous hypothesis that a CC is composed by at least two clauses, it is 

accepted that BCC involve some ellipsis operation (Bresnan 1975, Hong 1981, Napoli 

1983, Liu 1996, 1999, Kennedy 1999, Lechner 2001, Hsing 2003, Chao 2005 and so 

on). By Napoli’s (1983) definition, Comparative Deletion (CD) is an obligatory rule 

that deletes a phrase in the subordinate clause under identity to the quantified phrase 

in the higher clause, while Comparative Ellipsis (CE) is an optional rule that delete 

elements from the subordinate clause under identity with elements in the main clause. 

In (122), wo is obligatorily deleted by CD, while it is optional to delete chi without 

changing the meaning of the sentences. Yet, this CD analysis helps to make the 

ambiguous sentence (123) clear in (123b) and (123c). Sentence (123b) are comparison 

of two clauses with the same gradable predicate xiang ta, thus the one in the 

73 



subordinate clause undergoes CD, then there is only one meaning that ‘I love him 

more than you do.’ In (123c) the identical part of the compared clauses is wo, thus has 

CD; to prevent from ambiguity, not using CE helps to disambiguate this sentence. 

(122) a. wo chi mian [bi fan] geng kuai 

I eat noodle COM rice more fast 

‘I eat noodles faster than I do rice.’ 

b. wo chi mian [bi woCD (chi)CE fan] geng kuai 

I eat noodle COM I eat rice more fast 


(123) a. wo ai ta [bi ni ] (geng/ hai) duo 

I love him COM you more many 

(i) ‘I love him more than you do.’ 

(ii) ‘I love him more than I love you.’ 

b. wo ai ta [bi ni ai taCD ] (geng/ hai) duo 

I love him COM you love him more many 

‘I love him more than you do.’ 

c. wo ai ta [bi woCD (ai)CE ni ] (geng/ hai) duo 

I love him COM I love you more many 

‘I love him more than love you.’ 

Since CD involve the interaction between the two compared items, while CE concerns 

material outside the compared constituent in the CC; for this reason our study will 

focus on CD and skip CE. 

As is mentioned in the previous section, the internal argument of DegP is vP1 

74 



which is the main proposition of the sentence, also the antecedent of the degree 

bi-clause. When CD occurs, it needs to be Antecedent Contained Deletion (ACD). 

That is, the elements in the degree clause, which identical to that in the antecedent 

main-proposition will be obligatorily deleted. This ACD analysis is more consistent in 

explaining the different categories of the compared items of different syntactic 

categories in PF. Furthermore, semantically, with the marking of the degree 

expression geng on the matrix proposition, the meaning of the comparative is clear, in 

which the degree of the main proposition (vP1) marked by geng is more than the other 

(vP2), which is the comparative basis. Thus, the contrasting argument, bi-clause in the 

bracket is embedded in the main clause with an omitted empty site for the VP, ai ni. 

As for those comparative elements with complex sentences, clausal comparing 

elements by Hsing (2005) as (124), or adjunctional predicates of the compared 

elements like (125), they can be included in our clausal analysis without exception. 

(124) a. wo chi mian [bi ni chi fan] geng kuai 

I eat noodle COM you eat rice more fast 

‘I eat noodles faster than you do rice.’ 

b. wo chi mian geng kuai [bi ni chi fan kuai] 

I eat noodle more fast COM you eat rice fast 

(125) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi xihuan paobu 


‘Zhangsan like jogging more than Lisi does.’ 

b. Zhangsan (geng) xihuan paobu [bi Lisi xihuan paobu] 

Zhangsan more like jogging COM Lisi like jogging 

75 



4.4 Summary of the Thesis 

Chapter 4 

Concluding Remarks 

The proposed analysis tries to discuss the syntactic structure of BCC sentences 

with gradable predicates like (126). 

(126) a. Zhangsan bi ni (geng) gao 


‘Zhangsan is taller than you are.’ 



‘Zhangsan likes baseball more than you do.’ 

In the literature, it has long been claimed that Comparative Construction (CC) usually 

involves two or more items to be compared along some dimension. However, in our 

analysis, it is claimed that the degree adverb geng is the core elements of BCC as well 

as bi. The degree adverb geng is the head of the comparison structure and requires 

two complements to be the compared elements. The comparative marker bi is a 

complementizer introducing a comparing constituent to be the comparing datum. In 

other words, the projection of the degree head needs to be licensed by the bi-clause in 

the specifier position. In other words, degree should be always relative to its 

comparative datum. Finally, the Comparative Deletion deletes the identical parts of 

the compared items in the PF so that we may get comparative sentence of 

asymmetrical comparing elements. 

76 



4.5 Implications 

The proposed geng-headed analysis gives a more simplified and unified analysis 

on the different variants of BCC sentences. Comparative clauses of different types of 

predicates as Hsing (2003) mentioned in (127), and even BCCs of asymmetrical 

comparative elements mentioned by Chao (2005) in (128), can all be reduced to 

comparisons between two clauses with the same gradable predicates. 










(128) a. Zhangsan bi Lisi gao (san gongfen) (Chao 2005: 33) 



b. Zhangsan jintian bi zuotian {gaoxing/wan hui jia} 

4.6 Remaining Issues 

Zhangsan today COM yesterday happy/ late go home 

‘Zhangsan is happier/ goes home earilier today than yesterday.’ 

In the first chapter of this thesis, we have mentioned that CCs in MC have 

77 



abundant sentences patterns. We have included most of them, except CC without the 

comparative marker bi. Although we state that it behaves quite differently from BCC, 

some CCs without bi have corresponding forms in BCC as Hong (2005) have 

mentioned. However, unlike adjective in English, adjectives in MC have long been 

a controversial issue on its syntactic behavior and categories. Studies on CC without 

bi may help to know more about adjectives in MC. Also, to make the comparison 

issue more thoroughly, comparatives of different degrees, the superlative degree and 

even the inferior degree may be needed. 

78 



References 

Belletti, Adriana. 2004. “Aspects of the low IP area”. In Rizzi (ed.) The structure of 

CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2, 16-51. Oxford 

University Press, New York. 

Bhatt, Rajesh and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late Merge of Degree Clauses. 

Linguistic Inquiry 35, 1-45. 

Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. 

Bresnan, Joan. 1973. The Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English. 

Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-343. 

Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations. 

Linguistic Analysis 1, 25-27. 

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977.Amount Relatives. Language 53, 520-542. 

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. California: University of 

California Press. 

Chao, Chun-Ping. 2005. On Phrasal and Clausal Comparatives in Mandarin Chinese. 

Unpublished MA thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Hsingchu, Taiwan. 

Chang, Edison Chun. 2004. Gradability of Chinese Adjective Predicates. NCL 2004. 

Chang, Edison Chun. 2004. Cognition and Conceptual Manipulation: A Corpus Study 

of Collocation Asymmetry in Chinese Gradable Predicative Adjectives. 

ROCLING XVI: Student Workshop II. September 3, 2004. 

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 

Fu, Yi Chin. 1978. Comparative Structure in English and Mandarin Chinese. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Michigan. 

Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Elements of Grammar, Kluwer. 

79 



Her, One-Soon. 2006. Justifying part-of-speech assignments for Mandarin gei. Lingua 

116, 1274–1302. 

Hsing, Philip Jen-Chieh. 2003. On Comparative Sentences with Bi-marker in 

Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, 

Hsingchu, Taiwan. 

Hong, Wei-mei. 1991. Comparative Structure in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA 

thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsingchu, Taiwan. 

Jackendoff, Ray. 1980. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. The MIT Press. 

Kennedy, Christopher. Polar Opposition and the Ontology of ‘Degrees.’ Linguistics 

and Philosophy 24, 33-70. 

Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure, Degree 

Modification and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81, 

345-81. 

Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 

335-91. 

Lechner, Winfried. 2001. Reduced And Phrasal Comparatives. Natural Language & 

Linguistic Theory 19, 683-735. 

Li, Charles N., and S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional 

Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California 

Press. 

Li, Chiachun. 1994. Comparative Construction in Southern Min- A Diachronic and 

Typological Perspective. Unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua 

University, Hsingchu, Taiwan. 

Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng. 1996. A note on Chinese Comparatives. UCI Working 

Papers in Linguistics 4, ed. By Hidehito Hoshi, 141-62. Irvine, CA: Irvine 

Linguistics Studies Association. 

80 



Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng. 1998. Parallelism and Economy. Studies in the Linguistic 

Science 26.1, 217-235 

Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng. 1999. Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the 

Interface. Ph. D dissertation, University of California, Irvine. 

Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng. 2005. Grammatical Tense, Degree Modifiers, and Chinese 

Gradable Adjectives. The Third Workshop on Formal Syntax and Semantics; 

April 16-17,2005. 

McCawley, James D. 1992. Justifying part-of speech assignments in Mandarin 

Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20, 211-245. 

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative Ellipsis: A Phrase Structure Analysis. Linguistic 

Inquiry 14, 675-694. 

Pu, Min-Ting. 2002. Bi-zi-jufyuyong fenxi ji fouding xingshi. (The Pragmarical 

Analysis and the Negation Forms in the Bi-Construction.) Unpublished MA 

thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. 

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, in L. Haegeman (ed.), 

Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, 281-337. 

Ryan, K. 1981. Than as Coordinator. Chicago Linguistic Society 19,353-361. 

Sapir, Edward. 1944. GRding: A Study in Semantics. Philosophy of Science 11, 

93-116. 

Ting, J., Chang, M., 2004. The category of gei in Mandarin Chinese and 

grammaticalization. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 2, 45–74. 

Tsao, Feng-Fu. 1989. Comparison in Chinese: A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua 

Journal of Chinese Studies, new series 19, 151-89. 

von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing Semantics theories of Comparison. Journal of 

Semantics 3, 1-77. 

Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris. 2002. On Ellipsis and Gapping in Mandarin Chinese. Master 

81 



thesis, National Tsing Hua University. 

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2004. The Syntax of Coordination. National Chung Cheng 

University manuscript. 

82

Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?