Section 2.3 ended with a puzzle: standard expressions like for-PP's and
compared-to phrases can appear in the same gradable adjective phrase.
(107) These are expensive for a pair of shoes compared to those.
Recall that the traditional degree-argument analysis and the measure function analysis both posit a single slot for the standard expression. The structures that they assume are repeated below.
(108) Degree-Argument Theories AP wo DegP A' 5 2 standard A PPθ degree
(109) Measure Function Theories DegP wo Deg' XP 3 5 Deg AP standard ! 3 degree POS A PPθ
The puzzle for these theories that is presented by (107) is obvious: how do two different standard expressions fit into the single standard degree slot? The purpose of this section is to show that the traditional degree-argument analysis is inadequate and cannot be modified such that it's primary assumption, that adjectives take an internal degree argument, is maintained. Measure function theories, however, can be
modified such that they can allow stacking of multiple standard expressions. But, before we modify this analysis, let's consider one alternative.
One possibility is that for-PP's and compared-to do not individually supply a standard degree. Rather, they can combine to supply a degree. So, suppose that for-
PP's and compared-to phrases can constitute a complex phrase as in (110) that sits in
(110) XP
wo XP XP 5 5
for-PP compared-to
The compositional semantics would have to be such that it could produce a standard degree out of this structure. I'm going to ignore how this might be done, since I believe that the syntax of gradable adjectives is not compatible with this alternative. Something so simple cannot be correct. There are ordering restrictions on stacking multiple standard expressions.
(111) a. These are expensive for a pair of shoes compared to those. b. ??These are expensive compared to those for a pair of shoes.
The second example sounds odd (when the for-PP is not set off with comma intonation, which would indicate that the for-PP has been extraposed). If the standard expressions were simply conjoined as in (110), this fact would be left unexplained, since it would be expected that either standard could be pronounced first. This problem could be corrected by positing a more hierarchal structure to the complex standard expression, as in (112).
(112) YP wo XP Y' 5 3 for-PP Y ZP 5 compared-to
This structure could fit into the standard degree slots of (108) and (109). It would also get the word order correct provided that we assume some type of obligatory extraposition.22,23 This line of thought starts to become much less manageable when
we consider the fact that phrasal comparatives can also stack on top of for-PP's and
compared-to phrases, with ordering restrictions, as well.
(113) a. John is more tall for wrestler than Bill. b. *John is more tall than Bill for a wrestler.
(114) a. John is more tall compared to Tom than Fred. b. *John is more tall than Fred compared to Tom.
(115) a. ?John is more tall for a wrestler compared to Tom than Fred.
22 Obligatory extraposition of standard phrases is not very appealing, I admit. But it
has been standard in traditional analyses since Bresnan (1973) to assume such a mechanism for comparative than-phrases. I won't focus on challenging this assumption, however, for two reasons. First, I will supply other arguments for discarding this option, and second, the projectionist theories (and the analysis I will propose) have to make a similarly ad hoc assumption that places standard expressions in a right adjoining specifier.
23 The other possibility is one in which the compared-to phrase c-commands the for-
PP. But then this would not get the word order correct: the compared-to phrase
b. *John is more tall than Fred for a wrestler compared to Tom.
The example in (115)a is admittedly difficult to comprehend, but there is definitely a distinction between it and (115)b.24 In order to maintain the idea that for-PP's and
compared-to can stack inside of the positions for the standard degree in (108) or
(109), one would also have to allow comparative phrases to stack as well. Maybe this is a tenable solution for the semantic component, but it certainly wouldn't be easy and I won't pursue it here. On the syntactic side, however, this proposal makes
predictions. Specifically, it predicts that for-PP's and compared-to phrases25 form a constituent to the exclusion of other adjectival material. I will show in the follow subsections that this is not the case. For-PP's can form a constituent with the
adjective, to the exclusion of compared-to phrases, but not vice versa, indicating that the for-PP is closer to the adjective head than the compared-to phrase. Other
evidence will be presented that indicates that thematic-PP's such as in patient with
Mary and angry at Tom sit between the for-PP and the compared-to phrase. These
thematic-PP's are introduced above the adjective in a functional projection. Given this structural asymmetry between for-PP's and compared-to phrases, it can be concluded that they do not form a constituent.
A second, more promising alternative arises if we do not assume that both for-
PP's and compared-to phrases must be in the same argument slot. The necessary
modification is the addition of several new positions in the extended projection of the
24 I will discuss why it is preferable to pronounce the comparative morpheme as more
adjective, each of which introduce their own specific standard expression. These projections can be ordered such that compared-to phrases sit higher than for-PP's. This proposal, combined with the idea that thematic-PP's are introduced in the extended projection of adjectives as well, points to an analysis in which adjectives enter the derivation as simple lexical heads and receive the functional aspect of their meaning, including their relations to arguments and standard expressions, through their interaction with functional material.26 I will provide a more detailed analysis of what these functional heads do semantically in the next chapter. For now, I will refer to them as Deg morphemes, and it is sufficient to know that Deg morphemes are functions that take standard expressions as one of their semantic arguments.
To summarize, it was shown that standard expressions can stack. Degree- argument theories have trouble accounting for this fact since they would posit every standard expression into the same syntactic slot, that of an internal argument of the adjective. Measure function theories, however, can be modified such that each standard expression is introduced by its own Deg head in the extended projection of the adjective. In the next section, I provide evidence that compared-to phrases are structurally higher than thematic-PP's and for-PP's.