LA SENTENCIA EJECUTIVA.

A comparison between genitive-marked standards of comparatives in Russian and Greek turns out to be worthwhile as it brings to light an interesting distinction between the two languages: Only in Russian are adverbial genitive-marked comparatives grammatical.

When we turn back to the cross-linguistic picture, Russian is like English and Greek in that it has comp(Kennedy)at its disposal. Russian and Greek are, however, morpholog-

ically more transparent than English in that they indicate which operator a comparative employs by introducing the standard of comparison differently depending on the operator. The whole pattern in summarized in Table 2.3 below.

Russian compclausal (čem-clause)

compKennedy (genitive-marked standard)

Greek

(Merchant 2009, Merchant 2012)

compclausal (ap’oti-clause)

compHeim (apo-phrase)

compKennedy (genitive-marked standard)

Table 2.3: Comparison of the Inventory of Operators in Russian and Greek

The two languages differ, when it comes to adverbial comparatives in which the standard is marked by genitive case. Consider the minimal pair in (46) and (47). While the adverbial comparative is ungrammatical in Greek, it is perfectly natural in Russian. Another example from Russian is (48).

(46) I the Maria Maria pezi plays kithara guitar kalitera better {apo{from

mena/*mu}. me/me(gen.)}

‘Maria plays the guitar better than me.’(Merchant 2012: 6) Greek (47) Masha Masha igraet plays na on gitar-e guitar-prep. lučše better menja. me(gen.)

‘Masha plays the guitar better than me.’ Russian (48) Masha Masha bežala ran bystr-ee fast-comp Van-i. Vanya-gen.

‘Masha ran faster than Vanya.’ Russian

comparatives seem to represent a challenge for this plot. Berezovskaya & Hohaus (2015) provide a possible solution to this question in terms of a type-shifting analysis which I present here. Adverbial comparatives require a slightly different analysis than the predicative and attributive cases discussed above, an analysis which takes into account the fact that what is compared in (47) and (48) are events (music sessions, running). Their Phrasal Analysis thus requires a somewhat different operator. Here’s how Berezovskaya & Hohaus (2015) proceed: They first propose a suitable operator for phrasal adverbial comparatives which is derived from but not identical to compKennedy, then put it to

work.

Considering the comparison in (48), the relation underlying it is the one in (49) rather than the relation lexically provided by the adverbial, in (50). The standard of the comparison, Vanya, is mapped by (49) into his running event, whose speed is then measured.

(49) λdd.λze. λev.run(e)(z) & speed(e) ≥ d

(50) λdd.λev.speed(e) ≥ d

In (52), a phrasal, adverbial operator (compKennedy-adverbial) is suggested (cf. Kennedy’s

original operator in (7) repeated in (51)) which requires a relation such as (49) for its first argument. The operator is parallel to compKennedy as far as its argument structure

is concerned, merely enriched with events. The type of semantic ellipsis in the phrasal comparatives requires that the adverbial operator introduce and existentially close the event associated with the genitive-marked standard. In the case of (48), this is the running event associated with Vanya. It would also be conceivable that the operator presupposes the existence of such an event rather than asserts it. But I will go for the other option here.

(51) J comp_{(Kennedy ) K}= λRhd,he,tii. λye. λxe. max(λd. R(d)(x)) > max(λd

0_{. R(d}0_)(y))

(52) J comp_{(Kennedy-adverbial ) K}= λRhd,he,hv,tiii. λye. λxe. λev . ∃e

0_{[max(λd. R(d)(x)(e)) >}

max(λd0. R(d0)(y)(e)0)]14

14_{Sigrid Beck, p.c., brought the following to my attention: Potentially, there is an issue with max}

Let us now apply (52) to our example in (48), which has the LF in (53). (53) t closure hhv,ti,ti hv,ti Mashae he,hv,tii he,he,hv,tiii compKennedy(1997)-adverbial hhd,he,hv,tiii,he,he,hv,tiiii hd,he,hv,tiii 1, d by Event Identification he,hv,tii bežala ’ran’ he,hv,tii hv,ti bystro ’fast’ hd,hv,tii t1,d e Vani

(54) JclosureK = λPhv, ti.∃e[P (e)]

(55) ∃e, e0_{[max(λd.run(e)(M ary)&speed(e) ≥ d) >}

max(λd0.run(e0)(J ohn)&speed(e0) ≥ d0)]

‘There are two events e and e0 _{such that the maximal speed of Mary’s running}

event e exceeds the maximal speed of John’s running event e0_’

A couple of remarks might be helpful, from bottom to top. As indicated in (50), we as- sume gradable adverbials to be of type hd, hv, tii. The verb combines with the adverbial phrase via Event Identification (EI) (Kratzer 2002, an operation that will be compared to Restrict by Chung & Ladusaw and to my new Degree Restrict). Type mismatch

be verified by a slow step of Vanja. A way out might be to make the event arguments free and not quantify them off by the existential. In that case, we would need two salient events in the context. A careful investigation would be required here paired with solid understanding of adverbial modification and event semantics. This can clearly not be accomplished in the scope of this dissertation.

forces the degree operator to move from its base position. It is this movement which creates the relation in (49). Note that while adverbial comparatives thus require move- ment at LF, the movement in is not parasitic, as it would have to be in the external attributive case. I neglect the contribution of aspect and tense here and merely assume the operation closure, in (54), which existentially quantifies off the event argument (Heim 1982). The resulting truth conditions are in (55) above.

This solution provided by Berezovskaya & Hohaus (2015) is a type-shift from a basic hd, hd, tiicomparison via the available phrasal comparative operators. This accounts for the data in Russian genitive-marked comparatives, such as (47) and (48). But what does it tell us about the grammar of comparison? I want to argue with Berezovskaya & Ho- haus (2015) that the contrast we observe between Greek and Russian can be explained as a case of lexical variation: Russian decided to add this phrasal adverbial operator to its lexical inventory, while Greek did not. It would be good to work out this comparative case on the basis of a solid understanding of adverbial modification and to try to under- stand harder what this possibility of yet another type shift tells us about the grammar of comparison. However, this seems clearly out of the scope of this dissertation and must be left for future research.

Let us now update Table 2.3 from above adding the operator in (52).

Russian

compclausal (čem-clause)

compKennedy (genitive-marked standard)

compKennedy -adverbial (genitive-marked standard)

Greek

(Merchant 2009, Merchant 2012)

compclausal (ap’oti-clause)

compHeim (apo-phrase)

compKennedy (genitive-marked standard)

Table 2.4: Revised Inventory of Operators in Russian and Greek