Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:24:18.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative rather1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Thomas G. Dieterich  and
Donna Jo Napoli
Thomas G. Dieterich
Affiliation:
Portland State Univ. and University of Michigan
Donna Jo Napoli
Affiliation:
Portland State Univ. and University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

English rather than clauses display obvious surface similarities with comparative clause constructions. The parallelism between expressions where rather than is followed by clause remains, and such ordinary comparative expressions as better than, taller than, etc., followed by a clause or clause remains, suggests that the rather than expressions are just comparatives, derived in much the same way as the more familiar comparative forms. However, the derivation of rather than expressions as comparatives is not entirely straightforward. First, although rather has the form of a comparative adjective, rath+er (as required in comparative clause constructions), this is apparently a fossil form: in current English there is no adjective rath of which rather is the comparative. Thus, any treatment that derives comparatives from structures containing compared adjectives (e.g., -er much tall in Bresnan [1973]), would have to postulate an ajective rath, never realized in modern English, in order to give a unified treatment of rather than expressions as comparatives. Part of the purpose of this paper will be to argue for just such an account.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 137 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Lln 7. 639–642.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Lln 4. 275–343.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1974). The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure. Lln 5. 614–619.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1975). Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. LAn 1. 25–74.Google Scholar
Dieterich, T. (1977). Front end shift. Lln 8. 713–723.Google Scholar
Dieterich, T. (1978). Why there are two rather thans in English. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on deletion in syntax. Unpublished Dissertation, Yale University. New Haven.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1973). Why there are two thans in English. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. & Pullum, G. (1976). Truth-functional connectives in natural language. Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1975). Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.Google Scholar
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. (1971) Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1978). Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. Unpublished mimeo.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1976). Avoiding reference to subject. Lln 7. 151–181.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished Dissertation, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1977). Constraints on coordination. L 53. 86–103.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. (1972). Instead of and rather than clauses in English. JL 8. 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar