Two categorial issues of degree constructions in Mandarin

This squib argues against Yiwen Zhang’s (J East Asian Linguist 29:393–434, 2020) adjective analysis of the Mandarin word you ‘have’ to the left of a gradable noun, as in you yongqi ‘have courage’, showing that it is a verbal element. It also shows that for a gradable predicate of any category, if the question under discussion is about a comparison of individuals with respect to a gradable property, the degree word hen ‘very’ is banned; if the question under discussion is about the content of a gradable property of an individual, hen must occur; and finally, if the question under discussion is not about either of the two above, hen is optional.

On reciprocal degree constructions

A degree sentence such as John and Mary are equally tall conveys both reciprocity and equivalence and hence are termed “Reciprocal Equatives” (RE). Building on Schwarz’s (2007) pioneer study, I suggest an account for this degree construction that covers a wider range of data. To the extent that the proposal is on the right track, it provides new support for building in plurality in the domain of degrees, an idea that has been put forward by Beck (2010; 2014) and Dotlačil & Nouwen (2016).

The Grammar of Degree: Gradability Across Languages

In this review, we discuss the empirical landscape of degree constructions cross-linguistically as well as the major analytical avenues that have been pursued to account for individual languages and cross-linguistic variation. We first focus on comparatives and outline various compositional strategies for different types of comparative sentences as well as points of cross-linguistic variation in the lexicalization of comparative operators and gradable predicates. We then expand the discussion to superlatives, equatives, and other degree constructions. Finally, we turn to constructions beyond the prototypical degree constructions but where degree-based analyses have been pursued; we focus on change-of-state verbs and exclamatives. This is an area that is especially ripe for future cross-linguistic research. We conclude by mentioning connections to other subfields of linguistics, such as language acquisition, historical linguistics, and language processing.

Percentages, Relational Degrees, and Degree Constructions

Comparatives and equatives are usually assumed to differ only in that comparatives require that one degree be greater than another, while equatives require that it be at least as great. Unexpectedly, though, the interpretation of percentage measure phrases differs fundamentally between the constructions. This curious asymmetry is, we suggest, revealing. It demonstrates that comparatives and equatives are not as similar as one might have thought. We propose an analysis of these facts in which the interpretation of percentage phrases follows straightforwardly from standard assumptions enriched with two additional ones: that percentage phrases denote ‘relational degrees’ (type <d,d>) and that the equative morpheme is uninterpreted.

Acquisition of Comparatives and Degree Constructions

This chapter looks at the acquisition of comparatives from formal, theoretical, and cross-linguistic perspectives. It begins by reviewing children’s aberrations from adults in the form of the comparative constructions that they produce through at least age 6, and then turns to theoretical accounts of comparatives and degree constructions across a range of languages to pinpoint specific areas in the construction of a comparative in which children’s representations and interpretations may go astray, or converge with adults. A range of studies and methodologies used over the years are reviewed in order to present a clear picture of what we currently know about children’s developing understanding of comparison and comparatives, and to clear a path for future research in this area.

Surprise-Predicates, Strong Exhaustivity and Alternative Questions

Factive emotive verbs like surprise and disappoint disallow the strongly exhaustive reading of wh-questions and do not embed alternative questions (nor polar questions) (Guerzoni & Sharvit 2007; Lahiri 1991; a.o.). This paper develops a novel account of this correlation by exploiting a property of surprise-type verbs so-far overlooked in the question literature: their focus-sensitivity. These verbs are treated as degree constructions where the comparison term –the selected type of answer to the question– must be a member of the comparison class C shaped by focus. Strongly exhaustive answers of wh-questions do not match the comparison class and are thus ruled out. Alternative questions fail to produce a suitable C both for strongly and for weakly exhaustive answers and are, hence, entirely disallowed.

Quantificational and modal interveners in degree constructions

Heim (2001) points out that the relational semantics for degrees predicts ambiguities in sentences with comparatives and quantifiers such as _every girl_ that are not observed. She also notes that the same ambiguities do appear with strong modals such as _must_ and _have to_, but not with weaker modals such as _should_, _ought_, and _want_. The problem is to explain why these classes of expressions would behave differently, given that they are all standardly treated as universal quantifiers. I present several counter-examples to Heim's account of this data and then argue that the puzzle involving universal DPs is the same as the puzzle of weak islands in amount wh-expressions, and that it yields to the analysis of weak islands due to Szabolcsi & Zwarts (1993), who argue that degree expressions are restricted in their interaction with the semantic operations meet. This accounts for universal DPs but leaves to be explained the possibility of modal intervention with strong modals. I argue that the split between universal DPs and strong modals supports recent work proposing that modals are not quantifiers over worlds but scalar expressions. An independently motivated scalar semantics for strong modals generates the ambiguity in a way that is compatible with Szabolcsi & Zwarts' theory, and that the predicted truth-conditions are correct for both readings with strong modals. The corresponding account of mid-strength modals explains their lack of ambiguity as merely apparent, due to the fact that the truth-conditions of the two readings are virtually indistinguishable, and neither embodies the missing reading that the quantificational theory leads us to look for. These results support both the scalar semantics for modality and Szabolcsi & Zwarts' semantic approach to intervention constraints.