The data that has been presented so far indicates that for-PP's should form a constituent with the adjective head to the exclusion of the thematic-PP, and
compared-to phrases should not. The constituency diagnostics presented in this
section also point to this conclusion.
First, let us look at wh-fronting. First notice that each of the phrases under question can be fronted in questions.
(180) a. Exactly how patient compared to Tom is he? b. Exactly how patient with Tom is he?
c. Exactly how patient for a doctor is he?
But while the compared-to phrase and the thematic-PP can be stranded, stranding the
for-PP is somewhat less acceptable.
(181) a. Exactly how patient was he compared to Tom yesterday? b. Exactly how patient was he with Tom yesterday?
c. ?Exactly how patient was he for a doctor yesterday?
This would be explained if the how-phrase targeted a constituent that was below the thematic-PP but included the for-PP. The more relevant test is whether the thematic- PP can be fronted and the compared-to or for-PP stranded, and vice versa.
(182) a. ?How patient for a nurse is she with the doctor today? b. ??How patient with the doctor is she for a nurse today?
Stranding the for-PP is worse than stranding the thematic-PP, indicating that the for-
PP is closer to the adjective than the thematic-PP. We get the opposite judgments
with compared-to phrases.
(183) a. ??How patient compared to Sue is she with the doctor today? b. ?How patient with the doctor is she compared to Sue today?
This data can be explained if compared-to phrases are above thematic-PP's which are above the for-PP.
Another constituency test yields the same results. The adjectival pro-form so can target an adjectival constituent that includes any of the phrases we are testing.
(184) a. Although John isn't very patient compared to Sam, Brett is very much so.
b. Although John isn't very patient with Mary, Brett is very much so. c. Although John isn't very patient for a doctor, Brett is very much so.
And, so can target a constituent that excludes each of these phrases. (Perhaps the case of excluding the for-PP is a bit degraded, which if true, would indicate that the
(185) a. Although John isn't very tall compared to Sam, he is very much so compared to Bill.
b. Although John isn't very happy with Mary, he is very much so with Sam.
c. ?Although John isn't very tall for a basketball player, he is very much so for a wrestler.
Most relevant here is whether the pro-form so can target a constituent that includes the thematic-PP, but excludes the compared-to or for-PP phrases. It appears to be able to do so with compared-to (186), but not with a for-PP (187). (The second conjunct of the example in (186)b must be read with the interpretation …he is very
happy with Tom compared to Sam.)
(186) a. Although John isn't very happy with Mary compared to Sam, he is very much so compared to Tom.
b. ??Although John isn't very happy with Mary compared to Sam, he is very much so with Tom.
(187) a. ??Although John isn't very happy with the doctor for a patient, Sue is very much so for a nurse.
b. Although John isn't very happy with the doctor for a patient, he is very much so with the nurse.
Again, we come to the conclusion that for-PP's can form a constituent with the adjective head to the exclusion of the thematic-PP, but not the other way around.
Compared-to phrases, on the other hand, can not form a constituent with the adjective
to the exclusion of the thematic-PP.
Pseudogapping facts provide further evidence for the constituency structure being argued for here. Pseudogapping is the result of deleting a constituent that can be recovered under identity with an antecedent in the previous clause. (Lasnik, 1995) In the case of adjectival clauses, the deletion can target an adjective to the exclusion of a compared-to phrase (188) and a thematic-PP (189).
(188) Although John wasn't very patient compared to Sam yesterday, he was compared to Bill today.
(189) Although John wasn't very patient with Sam yesterday, he was with Bill today.
But, pseudogapping cannot strand the for-PP (at least not very easily).
(190) ??Although John wasn't very patient for a doctor yesterday, Mary was for a doctor today.
In addition, it is impossible to strand the thematic-PP and not the compared-to phrase. (The second conjunct in example (191)b must be interpreted such that Mary's
happiness with Tom is being compared to Sam.)
(191) a. Although Mary isn't very patient with John compared to Sam, she was compared to Bill.
b. ??Although Mary isn't very patient with John compared to Sam, she was with Tom.
The opposite is true for for-PP's. It is easier to strand the for-PP than to strand only the thematic-PP.
(192) a. ??Although Mary wasn't very patient with Sam for a doctor yesterday, Sue was for a nurse today.
b. Although Mary wasn't very patient with Sam for a doctor yesterday, she was with Bill today.
Thus the pseudogapping facts coincide with the results from each of the other tests:
for-PP's can form a constituent with the adjective head to the exclusion of thematic-
PP's. Compared-to phrases are again shown to be higher in the gradable adjective phrase than either of the other two phrases.
Each of the constituency tests applied in this section might not individually provide decisive evidence for these conclusions. But because the results of each test
are consistent with the others, we should take them together as offering the strongest kind of evidence: evidence that is repeatable across a number of different domains.