Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comparative Constructions PDF
Comparative Constructions PDF
Comparative
constructions
Rodney Huddleston
1 Preliminaries 1099
1.1 Two cross-cutting distinctions: scalar vs non-scalar, equality vs inequality 1099
1.2 Term and set comparison 1101
1.3 Comparative complements, comparative governors, and comparative phrases 1103
2 Comparative clauses 1106
2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1107
2.2 Than/as + single element (Bob is as generous as Sue ) 1113
2.3 Likeness and contrast between comparative clause and matrix 1118
2.4 The comparative phrase 1119
3 Metalinguistic comparison (more apparent than real ) 1121
4 Scalar term comparison 1122
4.1 The major governors in comparisons of inequality 1122
4.1.1 More and less : analytic markers vs inflectional forms 1122
4.1.2 Comparative forms of the degree determinatives 1126
4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality (rather, prefer, superior ) 1128
4.3 Scalar comparisons of equality: as, so, such 1130
4.4 Modification 1131
4.4.1 Degree modification 1131
4.4.2 Modification by the 1131
4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis 1132
4.6 The correlative comparative construction 1135
5 Non-scalar comparison 1137
5.1 Same 1138
5.2 Similar 1141
5.3 Such 1142
5.4 Different, other, else 1143
5.5 As 1146
5.6 Like 1154
5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1154
5.6.2 Like + finite clause 1158
5.6.3 Other constructions 1158
5.6.4 Unlike 1160
6 Scalar set comparison 1161
6.1 Plain, comparative, and superlative grade 1161
6.2 Comparative grade in set comparison 1162
1097
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1098
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1099
1 Preliminaries
English has a rich system of specialised syntax and morphology for the expression of
comparisons of various types. The two inflectionally marked terms in the system of
grade, exemplified in such forms as bigger and biggest, have the expression of comparison
as virtually their only use, and one of the three major kinds of finite subordinate clause –
the type of clause underlined in She is much bigger than she was then or She went to the
same school as I went to – is reserved for the expression of comparison.
We use the traditional terms comparative form and superlative form for the inflec-
tional categories bigger and biggest, and comparative clause for subordinate clauses like
she was then and I went to.1 This chapter is concerned with constructions containing
these categories and others bearing significant syntactic resemblances to them. In this
preliminary section we introduce the main subtypes of comparative construction and a
number of syntactic categories needed for their description.
1
Recall that on our analysis (see Ch. 11, §8.1) than is a preposition taking the comparative clause as its complement,
not part of the subordinate clause as in traditional grammar.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1100 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
comparisons in [1] compare the two buses (the one I took and the one I had taken last
time) for identity.
Scalar comparison can be regarded as the more central type: inflectionally marked
comparatives are scalar and, within the inequality category, comparative clauses are rare
in the non-scalar constructions.
Equality vs inequality
These terms apply reasonably transparently to scalar comparison. If Kim is as old as Pat,
then Kim’s age is (at least) equal to Pat’s, and if Kim is older than Pat, their ages are not
equal.
We do not so readily invoke these terms in describing the meaning of non-scalar
comparisons (for example, I took the same bus as last time does not mean “The bus I took
equals the bus I took last time”). Non-scalar comparison is concerned with identity vs
non-identity or likeness vs unlikeness. Grammatically, however, there are grounds for
recognising a single contrast applying to scalar and non-scalar comparisons alike: as is
the main marker of equality comparison, whether scalar (as old as Pat) or non-scalar
(the same bus as last time), while than marks both scalar inequality (older than Pat) and
certain types of non-scalar inequality (other than Pat or, in some varieties of English,
%
different than last time).
Subtypes of inequality: superiority and inferiority
Within certain kinds of scalar comparison we need to distinguish two different kinds of
inequality, giving in all a contrast between three categories, not just two:
[2] equality as heavy as as careful as
superiority heavier than more careful than
inequality
inferiority less heavy than less careful than
Superiority may be marked inflectionally (heavier) or analytically, by more, while the
other categories are marked just analytically: inferiority is marked by less, and equality
by as. What is standardly called the comparative inflection, therefore, is the marker of
just one type of comparative relation, scalar superiority.2
Scalar orientation
Superiority and inferiority are to be interpreted relative to the particular scale at issue:
younger than is just as much a comparison of superiority as older than. Scales have an
orientation, or direction, which depends on the lexical meaning of the compared item.
Old and young both denote scales concerned with age but have opposite orientations:
the older something is, the further it is from age zero, whereas the younger it is the closer
it is to that zero point. Superiority and inferiority are grammatical categories, marked
as indicated above, whereas orientation is a matter of lexical meaning.
Scalar comparison of equality indicates “at least equal”
In the absence of indications to the contrary, a scalar comparison of equality is interpreted
as “at least equal”, not “exactly equal”:
2
The term ‘equative’ is often used in contrast to ‘comparative’ for what we are calling scalar comparison of
equality. The view taken here is that X is as heavy as Y involves comparison just as much as X is heavier than
Y, and syntactically they are alike in that the Y element can in both cases be realised by a comparative clause.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 1.2 Term and set comparison 1101
[5] i a. Ed is more tolerant than he used to be.
[term comparison]
b. Kim’s version is much superior to Pat’s.
ii a. Ed made the most mistakes of them all.
[set comparison]
b. It sold for the highest price ever paid for a Cézanne.
The examples in [i] express comparison between a primary term and a secondary term,
labels which reflect the fact that the secondary term is syntactically subordinate relative to
the primary one. In [ia] the comparison is between how tolerant Ed is now, the primary
term, and how tolerant he used to be, the secondary term: the primary term is expressed
in the matrix clause, the secondary term in a subordinate clause (he used to be). In [ib]
3
This can indeed apply also to equal itself, as in Kim is the equal of Pat when it comes to solving crossword puzzles
(which is consistent with Kim being better) or We hope to equal last year’s profit (consistent with bettering it).
4
This applies to ordinary negation. With metalinguistic negation (Ch. 9, §1.2) it is possible to say Jill isn’t as
clever as Pat, she’s a good deal cleverer: this rejects Jill is as clever as Pat not because it is false, but because it
doesn’t say enough.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1102 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
the comparison is between Kim’s version (primary) and Pat’s version (secondary); in
this case there is no immediate syntactic relation between the NPs expressing the two
terms, but Pat’s is lower in the constituent structure, and in that sense can be regarded
as subordinate relative to the primary term.
The examples in [5ii] express comparison between the members of some set: in the
type of set comparison illustrated here, one member of the set is picked out as being at
the top of the scale. In [iia] the set is identified by the NP them all: the comparison is
between the members of this set with respect to how many mistakes they each made,
with Ed ranked at the top of the scale. It is possible to omit the PP of them all, in which
case the set being compared is identified contextually. In [iib] the comparison is between
the prices paid for paintings by Cézanne, and again one is picked out as being at the top
of the scale.
The scalar vs non-scalar and equality vs inequality contrasts apply to both types
The two dimensions of contrast introduced in §1.1 apply to set comparisons as well as to
term comparisons, as illustrated in [8–9]:
[8] set comparison
Equality Inequality
Scalar Sue and Ed are equally good. Sue is the best of the three.
Non-scalar Sue and Ed are in the same class. Sue and Ed go to different schools.
5
This is one place where scalar equality is interpreted as exact equality rather than as giving a lower bound: we
understand “in four years”. Compare, similarly, This is their sixth victory in as many matches (“in six matches”).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 1.3 Comparative complements, governors, and phrases 1103
6
In a few cases the secondary term is expressed in a genitive subject-determiner in NP structure, as in my betters,
“those who are better than me”.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1104 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 1.3 Comparative complements, governors, and phrases 1105
by the adverb as which introduces the comparison. In [ii] it is the preposition as itself
that introduces the comparison.
Comparative phrase
We apply the term comparative phrase to a phrase containing a comparative governor.
In [12], for example, the comparative phrases are more satisfactorily than we did last year
and superior to last year’s. In other cases it may be a larger phrase:
[17] This may be a more serious problem than you think.
Although more modifies serious, it is the phrase headed by problem that is the comparative
phrase. This is another place where we can invoke the metaphor of upward percolation:
the comparative feature percolates up from more to more serious and thence to the whole
NP. We take up in §2.4 below the issue of how far such upward percolation can go, i.e.
how much is encompassed by a comparative phrase.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1106 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
vi This illustrates the delayed right constituent construction, which is more often found
with coordination than with subordination (and hence is described in Ch. 15, §4.4).
A typical coordinate example would be Three-quarters of them oppose and only 15%
actually support the proposed office reorganisation. The final NP, the proposed office
reorganisation, is understood as object of both oppose and support. If the comparative
complement were in final position, it would need a separately realised object: More
people oppose the proposed office reorganisation than support it.
The most usual position for the comparative complement is at the end of the clause
containing the comparative phrase, as in [18i–iii]. This means that if the clause con-
tains material (other than the comparative complement itself) following the head, the
complement will characteristically be postposed, very often to a position outside the
comparative phrase. In [18ii–iii] postposing is optional: we can also have She’s more
experienced than I am in these matters; More people than ever before attended the meeting.
The longer, or heavier, the complement is, relative to the other material, the more likely
it is to be postposed. There are also cases where postposing is grammatically obligatory:
[19] i He knew more about Paris than any of his friends. [postposing preferred]
ii It is better to tell her now than to wait till after the exam. [postposing required]
Example [i] is more natural than the version without postposing because the than phrase
is significantly heavier than about Paris. In [ii] postposing is obligatory because the main
contrast is between to tell her now and to wait till after the exam, and as the former belongs
to the primary term it must precede the latter, which belongs to the secondary term.
It will be clear, then, that expanded comparative complements are very often indirect
complements, in the sense explained in Ch. 2, §5: in these cases they are licensed not by
the head of the construction in which they occur, but by some dependent of the head.
In [18i], for example, than was necessary is complement of the bracketed NP, but it is not
licensed by the head of that NP, loan.
2 Comparative clauses
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1107
Variables vs constants
The comparison in [1i] is between how good it was and how good I had expected it to
be – but the sentence doesn’t say how good it actually was or how good I had expected it
to be. To describe the meaning we therefore need to invoke variables: we will informally
represent the primary term as “It was x good” and the secondary one as “I had expected
it to be y good”. The governor, the comparative inflection, then indicates that x exceeds y:
“x > y”. This kind of comparison is thus to be distinguished from that where one or both
of the terms is a constant. Compare, for example:
[2] i It was better [than I had expected]. [variable–variable comparison]
ii I stayed longer [than six weeks]. [variable–constant comparison]
iii Sue is just like her mother. [constant–constant comparison]
In [ii] the primary term again contains a variable “I stayed x long”, but the secondary
term this time is simply “six weeks”. Six weeks here is an NP, not a clause: comparative
clauses always express secondary terms involving a variable. Example [iii] illustrates the
case where both terms are constants: this is simply a comparison between Sue and her
mother.
Inversion
While a particular kind of structural reduction is the chief syntactic factor distinguishing
comparative clauses from other clauses, there is also a difference with respect to the
position of the subject, which can occur after the verb under conditions illustrated in:
[3] i Spain’s financial problems were less acute than were those of Portugal.
∗
ii The water seems significantly colder today than was it yesterday.
iii It is no more expensive than would be the system you are proposing.
∗
iv It is no more expensive than would the system you are proposing be.
∗
v He works harder than works his father.
The effect of the inversion is almost invariably to place a contrastive subject in end
position: in [i], for example, those of Portugal contrasts with Spain’s financial problems.
In [ii], then, where the contrast is between the non-subjects today and yesterday the
inversion is out of place: we need than it was yesterday. Note, moreover, that in [iii]
the subject follows the sequence would be: it cannot invert with would alone, as we see
from [iv]. The construction therefore has strong affinities with postposing (cf. Ch. 16,
§4) – yet it also resembles subject–auxiliary inversion in that the verb normally has
to be an auxiliary: we can have He works harder than his father works but not [v].
The construction therefore has something of the character of a blend between subject
postposing and subject–auxiliary inversion, and this mix of properties is found only in
comparative clauses.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1108 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1109
examples are:
[7] i She wrote more plays than [her husband wrote novels].
ii You couldn’t be a worse polo-player than [you are a singer].
iii He is more afraid of her than [she is of him].
iv There is no more reason to invite him than [there was to invite her].
In [i] novels contrasts with plays and hence we have an overt counterpart to the com-
parative phrase: both the comparative phrase and its counterpart are NPs functioning
as object of their clause, the former headed by plays, the latter by novels. Example [ii]
is similar, except that the comparative governor is here within an attributive adjective
(worse) rather than a determinative (more). In [iii–iv] the contrast lies not in the heads of
the comparative phrases (afraid and reason) but in the post-head dependents: ‘ of him’
is therefore an AdjP with a missing head (and missing degree modifier), and analogously
for ‘ to invite her’. It is possible to repeat the head in such circumstances; thus [iii] can
be expressed as He is more afraid of her than [she is afraid of him].8
8
An exceptional case where a head is retained even though it is neither distinct nor accompanied by a distinct
dependent is that where the head is contrastively stressed in a correction of what has just been said, as in A:
She writes as many books as you write articles. B: No, that’s an exaggeration; but she writes as many books as I
write BOOKS.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1110 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
non-comparatives:
[10] i ∗I didn’t enjoy the concert as much as [Kim had enjoyed ].
ii ∗Kim enjoyed the concert and I enjoyed too.
The reduced VP is commonly headed by the verb do, which in some varieties of
English is best considered as an auxiliary verb that can be stranded like those in [8] and
in other varieties as a pro-form (see Ch. 17, §7.2):
[11] i I get it wrong more often than [she does].
ii We treat our apprentices better than [they do their career employees].
Here too the reduced comparative clauses are formally identical to non-comparative
clauses found in other anaphoric constructions: I often get it wrong and she does (too); We
treat our apprentices well and they do their employees. And again the possible replacements
for the do forms are subject to the restrictions given in (a)–(b), so while we can have I
often get it wrong and she often gets it wrong too, we can’t have ∗I get it wrong more often
than [she often gets it wrong].
In varieties (especially BrE) where do is a pro-form, it can occur after auxiliaries or
infinitival to, and this yields the possibility of a choice between the stranding and pro-
form constructions. Compare, for example, [8ii] on the one hand and %I didn’t enjoy the
concert as much as [Kim had done] on the other.
Examples are occasionally found where the do clause is passivised in such a way that
no simple replacement for the pro-form is possible. Compare:
%
[12] i We must attend to it more closely than [people have usually done].
%
ii We must attend to it more closely than [has usually been done].
We can expand [i] to people have usually attended to it. However, if we replace do in [ii]
by a version of its antecedent the it will appear as subject, and attended to in place of
done: it has usually been attended to. The subjectless passive that we have in [ii] bears
some resemblance to the construction with an understood embedded clause, to which
we now turn.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1111
to just a past participle (than expected). In [14] we give a sample of verbs figuring in
this construction, with the annotation ‘–aux’ indicating the possibility of omitting the
auxiliaries.
[14] acknowledge admit –aux allow anticipate –aux appear
assume –aux believe dream expect –aux hope
imagine imply indicate –aux intend –aux justify
like plan –aux predict –aux realise –aux recognise
remember require –aux schedule –aux show –aux suggest
suppose suspect think –aux warrant wish
Dream takes the preposition of: The Ariadne was going to be much hotter than our space
people had ever dreamt of.
The verbs in [14] are predominantly non-factive (in the sense explained in Ch. 11, §7.4), but
it is worth noting that the class does include factive realise. Consider, then:
[15] i The draft had more mistakes in it than I had realised.
ii I had realised that the draft had five mistakes in it.
iii “The draft had five mistakes in it”
Example [ii] entails [iii]: if [ii] is true, [iii] must be true too. This property of realise might
at first seem problematic for [i]. The secondary term in the comparison is “I had realised the
draft had x many mistakes in it”, which entails “the draft had x many mistakes in it” – yet
the sentence says it had more than x mistakes in it. There is, however, no contradiction here:
[ii] does not say that there were exactly five mistakes, only that there were at least five. If the
draft contained seven mistakes it follows that it contained five, though one generally wouldn’t
say that it contained five if one knew that it contained seven (cf. Ch. 5, §5.2). This is why
[i] makes perfect sense. It says that there were more mistakes in the draft than I had been
aware of: contrast #The draft didn’t have as many mistakes in it as I had realised.
In addition to the verbs listed in [14], we also find adjectives and other predicative
expressions in these missing-clause comparatives:
[16] i Don’t spend any longer on it than [ (is) necessary].
ii The score is higher than [ would have been the case if no one had cheated].
iii The danger may be greater than [any of us is aware (of ) ].
The understood missing parts are something like “spending that long on it” in [i], “the
score being that high” in [ii], and “the danger being that great” in [iii]. The lexical items
allowing this sort of construction include:
[17] acceptable aware justifiable necessary –v normal –v
polite possible –v usual –v the case one’s habit
With necessary and others marked ‘ –v’, the verb be can be omitted, so that the clause
may consist simply of the adjective: than [ necessary].
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1112 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
In [i] just the verb is optionally omitted (we could insert loved or did ), whereas in [ii]
the subject is omitted as well as the verb (we could supply he sent or he did ).
The resultant structures are again like ones found in various types of coordination:
[19] i Max loved Jill and she him.
ii He sent postcards to his friends and letters to his mother.
As before, the permitted expansions are different: in [19], for example, we could expand
to and she loved him even more or and he sent many letters to his mother, but the even
more and many cannot be added in [18] by virtue of conditions (a)–(b). There are also
differences with respect to negation. In [18] the comparative clause is interpreted as
positive (“as she loved him”, “as he sent letters to his mother”), even though the matrix
clause is negative – and changing the matrix to positive has no effect on the polarity of
the comparative clause (cf. Max loved Jill as much as she him and Max sent as many
postcards to his friends as letters to his mother). But to get a positive interpretation of the
second coordinates in [19] we had to make the first coordinate positive too: Max didn’t
love Jill and she him, for example, doesn’t allow the interpretation “and she loved him”.
9
Examples like He was more shy than rude involve metalinguistic comparison (§3).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.2 Than/as + single element 1113
Subject:
NP
as Liz as Liz
We refer to [a] as the reduced clause analysis and to [b] as the immediate comple-
ment analysis. On this immediate complement analysis, Bob is as generous as Liz will
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1114 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
be syntactically like Bob is similar to Liz, where there is no question of Liz being a
clause.
One initial point to make is that there are unquestionably some constructions where
a single element following than/as is an immediate complement, not a reduced clause:
[25] I saw him as recently as Monday. It is longer than a foot. He’s inviting more
people than just us. He’s poorer than poor. Sue deals with matters such as
sales. I saw no one other than Bob.
The underlined expressions here can’t be reduced clauses, because they can’t be expanded
into clauses: cf. ∗I saw him as recently as I saw him Monday; ∗I saw him as recently as Monday
is; and so on.
The question then is whether all single element constructions should be treated alike
or whether a distinction should be drawn such that some, like [25], are immediate com-
plements while others, including [23], are reduced clauses. We review below a number
of factors relevant to the choice between these analyses. They do not provide conclusive
evidence in favour of one over the other. We have to allow, therefore, for co-existing
alternative analyses.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.2 Than/as + single element 1115
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1116 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.2 Than/as + single element 1117
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1118 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
There is nothing special about [i]: what we gave her is not significantly different from
any other NP, such as the book we gave her, for example. Note, in particular, that [i]
could be expanded to She apparently liked it more than she liked what we gave her. The
meaning of [ii] (at least in the salient and intended interpretation) is “She apparently
liked it more than we liked it”. Here what we did can’t be expanded: on the contrary,
what can be dropped to give She apparently liked it more than we did. It is therefore
using a fused relative NP instead of a comparative clause. This second construction is
commonly encountered in speech, but it is not normally found in published writing: it is
very doubtful whether it can be regarded as belonging to the standard variety of English.
11
In this type of comparison there is generally an implicature that the value of the variables is relatively high –
she’s quite high on the scale of fitness. Similarly : With the weather being as hot as it is, the weeds should dry out
quickly enough.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 2.4 The comparative phrase 1119
[37] i The trains arrive on time more often than [they do in England ].
ii It tastes better than [it does with sugar in].
The implicit elements are recoverable deictically (i.e. from the time, place, or other
circumstances of the speech act) or anaphorically (from previous mention). In [i] the
contrast is between England and the country we are in or have been talking about; in
[ii] we understand “like this/that, i.e. without sugar in”.
Temporal contrasts
The main contrast may be a matter of time, expressed by tense:
[38] i It is better than [it was].
ii It wasn’t as good as [it is now].
Note, however, that where contrastive present time is associated with the comparative
clause the present tense normally needs reinforcing with a temporal modifier: it would
be unusual to drop now from [ii].
12
One respect in which there is a grammatical difference is that the comparative clause in examples like [39ii]
can’t be reduced to a pronoun in the ‘sensible’ reading, but allows a reflexive in the nonsensical one: #Jill thinks
Max is better off than himself.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1120 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
In [i] the comparative phrase is more powerful (than my car had been):13 we understand the
secondary term as “my car had been y powerful”. In [ii], however, the comparative phrase
is not more powerful but the larger sequence a more powerful motor-bike: this is why the
example is anomalous, for we have to interpret the secondary term as “my car had been a
y powerful motor-bike”. Instead of this we need examples like [iii], where the secondary
terms “I had had a y powerful motor-bike” and “mine had been a y powerful motor-bike”
make sense. As suggested in §1.3, we can think of the comparative feature as ‘percolating’
upwards from the AdjP to the NP in which it functions as attributive modifier.
AdvP
Compare similarly:
[41] i She spoke more persuasively than her father had .
ii He was more conspicuously shy than Max was .
∗
iii He was more conspicuously shy than Max leered at Jill.
iv This is a more carefully researched article than I have read this semester.
∗
v This is a more carefully researched article than his book was .
In [i] the comparative phrase is the AdvP more persuasively. In [ii–iii] it is the AdjP
more conspicuously shy : [iii] is unacceptable because there is no place in the comparative
clause for an understood “shy”. And in [iv–v] the comparative phrase is a more carefully
researched article, with [v] being anomalous because it requires the interpretation “his
book was a y carefully researched article”. Again, then, we have upward percolation of
the comparative feature from the AdvP to the AdjP in [ii–iii], and to the NP in [iv–v].
Postpositive AdjP
Where an AdjP modifier is postpositive (after the noun) rather than attributive (before
the noun) there is normally no such upward percolation:
[42] i ∗He had a more powerful motor-bike than my car had been . [attributive]
ii He had a motor-bike more powerful than my car had been . [postpositive]
In [i] (discussed above as [40ii]) the comparative phrase is a more powerful motor-bike,
whereas in [ii] it is just more powerful: the difference in acceptability reflects the fact that
while a car can be powerful, a car cannot be a powerful motor-bike. The postpositive
AdjP here behaves in the same way as a relative clause: He had a motor-bike which was
more powerful than my car had been. It also behaves like a clause in that the comparative
complement cannot be postposed out of it: Anyone less thick-skinned than Kim would
have resigned long ago, but not ∗Anyone less thick-skinned would have resigned long ago
than Kim.
PP
In general upward percolation does not extend from an NP to a PP containing it, but
there are nevertheless some constructions where it does:
[43] i He lectured on more topics than were included in the syllabus.
ii He lectured on more topics than I had lectured on / ∗than I had lectured .
iii He returned to us in a far less buoyant frame of mind than he had left us .
13
Henceforth in this section we simplify by omitting the than or as phrase (the comparative complement) when
citing comparative phrases.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 3 Metalinguistic comparison 1121
In [i–ii] the comparative phrase is the NP more topics, not the PP on more topics: in [i] the
missing subject is understood as “y many topics”, not prepositional “on y many topics”,
and in [ii] on cannot be omitted from the comparative clause, as would be possible (and
indeed required) if it were part of the counterpart to the comparative phrase.14 In [iii],
however, the comparative phrase is the PP in a far less buoyant frame of mind: we interpret
the comparative clause as “he had left us in a y buoyant frame of mind” and it is not
possible to add in after us.
Examples like The problem was more apparent than real differ both syntactically and
semantically from the ordinary comparisons discussed so far. These differences are seen
in:
[1] i Ed is older than his brother.
[ordinary comparison]
ii Ed is older than middle-aged.
iii Ed is more old than middle-aged. [metalinguistic comparison]
In [i] we have a variable comparison between the degree to which Ed is old and the
14
On can be omitted if lectured is too (than I had ), but that results in the stranding construction where more
than the counterpart to the comparative element is omitted.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1122 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
degree to which his brother is old. In [ii] we have a variable–constant comparison (like
Kim is taller than six foot): middle-aged denotes a segment on the scale expressed by
old and [ii] puts his age beyond that part of the scale. What [iii] says, however, is that
Ed is more properly described as old than as middle-aged: we call this metalinguistic
comparison because it is concerned not with segments on the age scale but with the
relative applicability of the linguistic expressions old and middle-aged.
Syntactically, metalinguistic comparison differs from ordinary comparison in that it
allows only analytic comparative forms: older in [ii], for example, excludes this met-
alinguistic interpretation. The construction here also excludes a comparative clause as
complement to than/as : ∗Ed is more old than he is middle-aged.
Other examples of metalinguistic comparison are:
[2] i The office of Lord High Commissioner is now more ornamental than functional.
ii The buds were more red than pink.
iii He was more dead than alive.
iv It was more an error of judgement than a case of negligence.
v She had spoken more in sorrow than in anger.
The commonly used expression illustrated in [iii] brings out the point that this kind of
comparison can be used with non-gradable adjectives (contrast the ordinary comparison
#
He was more dead than we’d expected). The most obvious examples of metalinguistic
comparison involve adjectives, where – at least with shorter ones – we can contrast the
permitted analytic form (more red) with the excluded inflectional one (redder). But the
category certainly applies more generally, as evident from [iv] (NPs) and [v] (PPs).
Note, however, that this construction does not apply to verbs: ∗We more expect than
require you to make a contribution.
Semantically similar to the above core cases of metalinguistic comparison are:
[3] i He’s old rather than middle-aged.
ii He’s not so much stupid as lazy.
These may be contrasted with the ordinary comparisons I intend to do it my way rather
than yours or I haven’t got so much patience as you.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.1.1 More and less 1123
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1124 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
15
The adjective little has littler as its comparative form, but this and superlative littlest are rarely used, the
corresponding forms of small generally being preferred; see also the discussion of adjectival less(er) below.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.1.1 More and less 1125
would be applicable. How much money do you have?, for example, doesn’t presuppose
that you have much money, whereas How little money do you have? would generally be
used only in a context where it has been established that you have little money.
Adjectives
Some pairs of adjectives show the same behaviour as much and little, whereas for others
the relations are different. Consider the following comparisons of superiority:
[10] i a. Kim is older than Pat. b. Pat is younger than Kim.
ii a. Yours is better than mine. b. Mine is worse than yours.
iii a. Monday was hotter than Tuesday. b. Tuesday was colder than Monday.
In [i] we again have equivalence between [a] and [b]. In [ii] there is entailment in only
one direction: [b] entails [a], but [a] does not entail [b]. This is because [iia] is neutral
as to whether yours and mine are good or bad, whereas [iib] conveys that both are bad.
And in [iii] there is no entailment in either direction: [iiia] conveys that both days were
relatively hot, while [iiib] conveys that they were both relatively cold. Thus while old and
young, good and bad, hot and cold are opposites, they are opposites of somewhat different
kinds, and this of course is a matter of their lexical meaning.
Superiority and inferiority
Consider next the relation between the [a] examples in [10] and corresponding compar-
isons of inferiority:
[11] i a. Kim is older than Pat. b. Pat is less old than Kim.
ii a. Yours is better than mine. b. Mine is less good than yours.
iii a. Monday was hotter than Tuesday. b. Tuesday was less hot than Monday.
This time it is in [iii] that [a] and [b] are equivalent. In [i–ii] the [b] version entails the
[a], but [a] does not entail [b]. In [ia] Kim and Pat could both be young, whereas [ib]
conveys that both are relatively old, and similarly in [ii].
iii The first problem was easier than the second.
[entailed by [i]]
iv The second problem was more difficult than the first.
We noted in §1.1 that scalar equality is normally interpreted as “at least equal”, i.e. equal
or superior, and hence the negation of this is equivalent to inferiority: [i] and [ii] each
entail the other. The superiority comparisons [iii–iv] are entailed by [i], but do not entail
it because they don’t entail that the first problem was difficult.
Less occurs readily with adjectives of two or more syllables (less articulate, less inter-
esting, less likely, etc.) but not so commonly with short ones, especially where there is an
adjective of opposite meaning available: older is likely to be strongly preferred over less
young, smaller over less big, worse over less good, and so on.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1126 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Adjectival lessi
The less i that we have considered above is the comparative form of the determinative
little, but less i can also belong to the adjective category:
[13] i Is Soviet influence throughout the world greater or less than it was ten years ago?
ii They can employ apprentices provided they pay rates which are not less than those
of the other workers.
iii They too had felt the influence of Christianity to a greater or less extent.
Here less i contrasts with adjectival greater rather than with determinative more i . A non-
comparative construction corresponding to less in [i] might be Soviet influence is now
quite small, just as a positive orientation version would be along the lines of Soviet
influence is now very great/considerable (not much). Similarly, in [ii] a non-comparative
would have an adjective such as low rather than determinative little : These pay rates
are low/∗little. Adjectival less is clearly a comparative form, but it cannot be identified
as the comparative counterpart of any particular plain form. It is normally restricted
to predicative function, as in [i–ii]; its occurrence in attributive function is virtually
restricted to the particular phrase a greater or less extent. Note that in this example less is
in construction with a count singular noun, which is not possible for the determinative
little.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.1.2 Comparative forms of degree determinatives 1127
The relation between less and fewer is fairly complex. In non-count singulars only less
is possible: Kim has less/∗fewer money than Pat. In plural NPs we have:
[17] i She left less than ten minutes ago.
ii Less/Fewer than thirty of the students had voted.
iii He made no less/fewer than fifteen mistakes.
iv You pass if you make ten mistakes or less/?fewer.
v He took less/∗fewer pains to convince us than I’d expected.
vi He made fewer/less mistakes than the others.
Both [i] and [ii] have than + numeral. In [i] ten minutes expresses an amount of time
rather than a number of individuated units, and in such cases fewer is virtually impossi-
ble – just as few would be in a comparison of equality: She left as little/∗few as ten minutes
ago. Similarly with We paid less than thirty dollars for it ; She’s less than forty years old;
We were going at less than ten miles an hour. In [ii] we are concerned with countable
individuals and little cannot be used in a comparison of equality (∗as little as thirty of the
students); nevertheless, for inequality less is more common than fewer in this construc-
tion. The same applies with percentages: Less/Fewer than 30% of the students had voted.
Construction [iii] has the comparative form following no: though the interpretation is
count plural, less is here again more common than fewer. Construction [iv] has or after
a numeral: less is the usual form here, with fewer quite marginal; this construction is
widely seen in supermarkets, with the fast checkout labelled eight items or less, or the
like. In [v] pains is plural but non-count rather than count (we can’t ask how many pains
he took), and here only less is possible. Finally in [vi] (as also in [15ii]) the comparative
occurs directly with a count plural noun: both forms are found, but less is subject to
quite strong prescriptive disapproval, so that fewer is widely preferred in formal style,
and by many speakers in informal style too.16
16
Usage manuals are divided on the issue of less vs fewer. Some uncompromisingly brand such forms as less
mistakes as incorrect, while others note that though commonly condemned they are often used by speakers
of Standard English. Before the Early Modern English period (beginning around 1500) more was restricted
to non-count NPs with moe used as the comparative of many. At that time less was used along with fewer for
count NPs, but came to be stigmatised and quite rare in this use: it is only within the last generation or so that
it has become frequent. The current revival seems inexorable, given the strong pressure of analogy with more.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1128 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
contexts (She doesn’t trust you much), while unmodified little does not occur in this
position.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality 1129
governor – than can’t be replaced by rather than in simple structures like Kim is more
patient than Pat. Nor can it occur in combination with determinative more: ∗Kim has
more patience in situations of this kind, rather than Pat.
Prefer
The meaning is the same as that of like better, which is overtly comparative; prefer itself,
however, is at the periphery of syntactically comparative expressions. It occurs in the
following constructions:
[24] i They prefer kangaroo meat to beef.
ii She prefers to read rather than watch television.
?
iii He’d prefer to put David over the cliff than let him have the land for building.
iv They preferred to sell their produce for gold rather than the local currency.
v He prefers plucking the guitar string to the bow-string.
The most usual pattern is seen in [i], a term comparison with the primary term expressed
by the object NP, the secondary one by the complement of the preposition to. To cannot
take an infinitival complement, however, and hence can’t be used when the primary term
has this form: instead we generally find rather than, as in [ii]. This use of rather than
can be related to use (d) above, except that with prefer omitting the rather is not fully
acceptable: the construction with than alone, as in [iii], is rare (and generally condemned
by prescriptivists, in spite of the clear analogy with would rather). Rather than is also
used when the terms are contained within an infinitival clause, as in [iv], which allows
expansion to rather than sell it for the local currency. Example [v] shows that to can also
be used when the terms are contained within a clause, but this is normally restricted to
gerund-participials: to cannot substitute for rather than in [iv]. Prefer can also take a
declarative content clause; an overt secondary term is rare here, but the structure would
follow the pattern of infinitivals (I’d prefer that the meeting was postponed than that it
should take place without you).17
Superior, inferior
These adjectives come from Latin comparative forms, but their syntactic resemblance to
English comparative forms is very limited. Most notably, they don’t take than, but to:
[25] i They believe their culture is superior to any in the world.
ii It is absurd to speak of philosophy as a superior enterprise to sociology.
The meaning of superior here is “better” – and note that the attributive use in [ii]
resembles the attributive use of a comparative form (as in Students find philosophy
a more difficult enterprise than sociology) in that the head noun applies semantically
to sociology as well as to philosophy, i.e. sociology is presupposed to be an enterprise
(cf. [40] of §2.3).
The modifiers these items take can be like those of comparative forms (see §4.4):
we could, for example, add much or far to superior in [25]. But they also accept the
modifiers used with plain forms, such as very : This is a very inferior design. In such cases
the comparative meaning is usually lost too, with very inferior interpreted simply as “very
17
Other prepositions than those shown in [24] are occasionally found – e.g. over. This is more usual, however,
with the noun preference: their preference for the country over the city.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1130 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
poor quality”; the comparative meaning, “much poorer quality”, is nevertheless also
possible. Note finally that while an inflectional comparative cannot itself be compared,
such recursive comparison is much more acceptable with these forms:
[26] i ∗Our forces are more worse than theirs than you acknowledge.
ii Our forces are more inferior to theirs than you acknowledge.
Other adjectives deriving from Latin comparative forms are anterior, posterior, prior, senior,
junior, major, and minor. Except for the last two these can occur in the predicative construction
with a to complement, and senior/junior can take far and much as modifiers (cf. He’s far senior
to me in experience), but otherwise their syntactic resemblance to English comparative forms
is negligible.18
Omission of first as
Where the comparative complement consists of as + NP, the first as is sometimes omitted.
This is primarily found with familiar similes like good as gold, quick as lightning, safe as
18
Senior and junior allow the secondary term to be expressed as a genitive (cf. note 6 above), as in She is [two
years my senior]. The syntactic analysis of the bracketed phrase is problematic. The genitive dependent suggests
that it is an NP, but it cannot occur in core NP positions such as subject and object (cf. ∗[Two years my senior]
supported me). It cannot, moreover, be pluralised (They are two years my senior/ ∗seniors), and it alternates with
the clearly adjectival She is [two years senior to me].
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.4.2 Modification 1131
houses, etc.; cf. also the informal (as) like as not, “probably” (He’d like as not prefer to eat
his meals there).
4.4 Modification
4.4.1 Degree modification
The governors of scalar comparison may be modified by such expressions as:
[29] i inequality: much, far, immensely, a great deal, a lot, somewhat, rather,
slightly, a bit, (a) little, no, any
ii equality: at least, about, approximately, roughly, every bit, easily,
half, twice, nearly, nothing like, nowhere near
iii either type: hardly, scarcely, a third, three times
The modifiers used in comparisons of inequality are the same with inflectional com-
paratives as with analytic ones: far bigger, far more careful. Very does not serve this
function – we need much instead (much bigger, not ∗very bigger, and so on). Much itself
can as usual be modified by very : very much bigger. Except for no, the expressions in [29i]
are found with the more peripheral comparative governors superior, inferior, preferable.
Note that while the multipliers half and twice are restricted to the equality type, a
third and three times, etc., occur with both – with the semantic relations illustrated in:
[30] i a. I earn four times as much as Ed. b. I earn four times more than Ed. [a = b]
ii a. I earn a third as much as Ed. b. I earn a third more than Ed. [a =
b]
iii I earn a third as much again as Ed. [ = iib]
In [i], the [a] and [b] versions are equivalent: if Ed earns $15,000 a year, I earn $60,000.
The more usual version is [ia], and this is semantically straightforward: $15,000 is as
much as Ed earns, and $60,000 is four times that. The less usual [ib] might be seen as a
blend between I earn more than Ed and I earn four times what Ed earns. In [ii] there is
no such equivalence between the two constructions. In [iia] I earn $5,000, one third of
the sum Ed earns; in [iib] I earn $20,000, which is $5,000 more than Ed’s $15,000, hence
more by one third. This latter meaning can be expressed by a comparison of equality
with again, as in [iii] – here I earn Ed’s $15,000 plus a further third of that.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1132 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
iv The result is [all the more disappointing] because she had put in so much effort.
v That’s [all the more reason to avoid precipitous action].
vi He went prone on his stomach, [the better]to pursue his examination.
The here modifies the following comparative (more, less, better), forming a phrase which
in turn is modifier to an adjective ([i/iv]), an adverb ([ii]), a verb ([iii/vi]) or determiner
to a nominal ([v]).19 In [i–ii] the is freely omissible. In [iii] the underlined occurrence
of the would be omissible if it introduced a modifier rather than a supplement (which
would mean dropping the comma), but not as it stands. In [iv], all the might be glossed
as “even”, or all the + comparative as “especially”; the can only be omitted if all is omitted
too. Example [v] is similar, except that all the more is here a DP functioning as determiner
in NP structure. In [vi] the better is a fronted modifier in the infinitival clause of purpose;
the is obligatory in this position but optional in the basic position – compare in order to
pursue his examination (the) better.
The is completely excluded if the secondary term is expressed: ∗The result was the
better than I had expected. Nor is the permitted when the secondary term is recoverable
anaphorically, from what has gone before. We cannot, for example, insert the in It was
cloudy and cold for the first two days but on the third day the weather was better, where we
understand “better than on the first two days”.20
19
Historically this the is not the usual definite article but the fossilised remnant of an Old English instrumental
case-form meaning roughly “by so/that much”. It came to fall together phonologically with the definite article,
but its syntactic distribution still reflects its different origin.
20
In such an example as Kim was good but Pat was better we can insert the but doing so changes the term
comparison into a set comparison, for we understand not “better than Kim” but “the better of the two”.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis 1133
we can equally have a tensed form here: She more than doubled her capital. Example [iii]
shows the same reanalysis with a comparison of equality; these tend to occur in non-
affirmative contexts and to have the form so much as, as here; as good as, however, can
also be used, as in [iv], meaning much the same as virtually.
She more than doubled her capital may be contrasted with She did more than double her capital,
where double is required to be in the plain form: here there is no reanalysis, more being head,
and than double her capital its complement. The construction with do allows less instead of
more but the special construction of [32ii] does not. The two constructions differ semantically
as well as syntactically. Suppose, for example, that her capital was initially $10,000. She more
than doubled her capital means that she increased it to over $20,000. But that is not the
meaning of She did more than double her capital. This says that she doubled her capital and
more: the ‘more’ may involve a further increase in the capital or else something different,
such as achieving promotion in her job.
The reanalysis also applies to more than and less than followed by an adjective or
adverb, as in He’d given a [more than satisfactory]explanation for his behaviour, where
satisfactory is head of the bracketed AdjP, and more than an optional modifier. (We do
not postulate reanalysis, however, in examples like more than fifty people : see Ch. 5, §11).
b. We’d no sooner got home than the police arrived.
[idiom]
c. No sooner had we got home than the police arrived.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1134 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Example [ia] is a variable comparison comparing how soon the car will (possibly) be
ready and how soon I said it would be ready (cf. also the variable–constant comparison
It may be ready as soon as tomorrow). But such a comparative meaning is lost in [ib],
where as soon as is an idiom meaning “immediately” (and best regarded as a compound
preposition).
Similarly no sooner has its literal comparative meaning in [34iia], but is an idiom in
[iib–c], where the meaning is “The police arrived immediately after we got home”. The
version with fronting and subject–auxiliary inversion, [iic], is much the more frequent.
The meaning is essentially the same as the construction with hardly/barely/scarcely +
when: We had hardly got home / Hardly had we got home when the police arrived. And
as a result of this equivalence blends between the constructions are found, with when
appearing instead of than with no sooner and vice versa with hardly, etc.:
[35] i No sooner had we got home when the police arrived.
ii Hardly had we got home than the police arrived.
Such blends are accepted as established usage by the liberal manuals, but still condemned
by the more authoritarian ones.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 4.6 The correlative comparative construction 1135
[ib] as well on its own means “in addition” and functions as a connective adjunct. The
as well of [ii] normally combines with one of the possibility modals may, might, could;
it is possible to have a comparative complement consisting of as + bare infinitival (We
might as well have stayed at home as come here), but the version with the secondary
term unexpressed is more common. This use of as well is idiomatic in that there is no
corresponding non-comparative use of well: #We stayed at home well. In [iia] it serves to
indicate dissatisfaction with what we have done: we’re no better off than if we had taken
the simpler course of staying at home. In [iib] it indicates an unenthusiastic, somewhat
grudging suggestion: “There’s no reason why you shouldn’t leave it at that”. In [iii] (just)
as well means approximately “fortunate”.
Idiomatic uses of better and best are seen in:
[38] i I knew better than to question his decision.
ii We’ll manage as best we can.
Know better than to means “know one shouldn’t”. Example [i] has a negative implicature
(“I didn’t question his decision”), but You know better than to talk with food in your
mouth! has a positive one (“You have been talking with food in your mouth”). In [ii] we
have a curious use of the superlative form instead of the regular as well as : as best occurs
only with can. For the modal idiom had better/best, see Ch. 3, §2.5.6.
21
The basic version marginally allows a verb such as increase instead of a syntactic comparative: The violence
increases the more sanctions bite.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1136 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Structural reduction
Where the comparative phrase is a predicative AdjP, the verb be may be omitted, and in
the fronted version it is possible to reduce either the head clause alone or both clauses
to just the comparative phrase:
[44] i [The harder the task,] the more she relished it.
ii The more directly the sun strikes walls and roof, [the greater its heat impact].
iii The sooner you leave the firm, [the better].
iv [The sooner,] [the better].
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5 Non-scalar comparison 1137
and the present construction is one of the cases where there is no internal marking of
subordination.22
5 Non-scalar comparison
The differences between term and set comparison are less extensive in non-scalar com-
parison than in scalar comparison, and in this section we will therefore deal with them
together. Two general points concerning the relation between the two types should be
made before we review the various comparative governors in turn.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1138 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
5.1 Same
Inherent definiteness
In attributive function same is restricted to definite NPs, and in predicative function it
occurs with the. Contrast, then, the distribution of same with that of identical:
[3] i a. The same mistake was made by Ed. b. The identical mistake was made by Ed.
ii a. ∗A same mistake was made by Ed. b. An identical mistake was made by Ed.
iii a. The two copies are the same. b. The two copies are identical.
iv a. She treats them all the same. b. She treats them all identically.
In NPs same usually occurs with the, as in [ia], but demonstrative determiners are
also found: this same version. In [iiia] the same is an AdjP rather than an NP, with the
a dependent of an adjective, as in the comparisons of inequality discussed in §4.4.2.
Similarly, in [iva] same is head of an AdvP with the as dependent.23
23
In casual speech the is omissible in a few expressions: We stayed at home, same as usual/always. The is also
sometimes omitted in the anaphoric use of same seen in examples like Thank you for the application form; I
enclose (the) same herewith, duly completed.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.1 Same 1139
same symbol x in our representation of the meaning). Same is omissible in [ii],24 but its
presence serves to reinforce, to emphasise, the identity. Structurally the two constructions
are very similar – in [6], for example, both subordinate clauses have the complement of
at left understood. The main difference is that comparative clauses allow for a greater
amount of reduction than relatives. There is, for example, no relative corresponding to
the same hotel as usual, for the relative can’t be reduced to a verbless structure like this.
Note also that relatives do not allow the inversion that is characteristic of comparatives:
Sheep and goats turned up on Timor at the same time as/∗that did the dingo.25
24
This leads some of the more authoritarian usage manuals to condemn the relative construction – on the
grounds that same is here redundant. There is no empirical basis for proscribing it, however: it is very common
and thoroughly acceptable.
25
For these reasons we do not follow the common traditional practice of analysing as as a relative pronoun here:
the examples in [6] belong to syntactically distinct constructions even though they are semantically equivalent.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1140 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
earn more than you, then necessarily I earn as much as you and #If I earn more than you, then
necessarily I earn the same as you.26
Modification
In NPs same can be modified by very : the very same mistake as you made last time.
Semantically this serves to reinforce the same rather than to indicate degree: it is com-
parable to that of That’s the very point I was making rather than that of That’s very good.
The compound selfsame achieves the same emphasis. Same can also be modified by such
items as much, almost, roughly, exactly preceding the : much the same, etc.; apart from
much, these are the main items that modify scalar comparisons of equality (cf. [29] of §4).
26
The implicatures commonly conveyed by the [a] examples in [8] are also found with NPs that have no overt
comparison: I don’t earn your salary will tend to implicate that I earn less. The similarity between such pairs as
those in [8] provides the basis for the blend between non-scalar and scalar comparisons found in the attested
example He used a rod that was exactly the same length as the model tower was high.
27
There is a somewhat similar type of construction in more formal style: In exactly the same way as we best see
something faint (Halley’s Comet, say) by not looking directly at it, so the thinking part of our brain tends to work
better when we’re not conscious of thinking. Here too in exactly the same way as could be replaced by just as, and
the comparative clause is not understood as having an implicit modifier matching in exactly the same way.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.2 Similar 1141
5.2 Similar
We here examine similar as representative of a set of comparative governors that occur
with to, from, or with, but not the prototypical comparative prepositions as and than,28
and hence not with comparative clauses.
28
Examples with as are attested: The average Australian retiring in twenty years will need up to $2 million in assets
to live at a similar standard as today. They are not, however, frequent or systematic enough to be regarded as
grammatical; they appear to be restricted to relatively complex examples facilitating the analogical influence
of same : we do not find examples like ∗My views are similar as yours or ∗I have similar views as you.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1142 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Modification
Similar is a gradable adjective, and hence can be modified by such adverbs as very, quite,
rather, extremely, etc., and can itself be subject to scalar comparison (The Opposition’s
policy is more similar to the government’s than they care to admit). In general the degree
of likeness conveyed by similar falls short of complete identity, but it is sometimes used
for the latter, allowing such modifiers as exactly and almost.
Lexical derivatives
The corresponding noun and adverb are seen in:
[16] i The shooting had remarkable similarities with/to a terrorist execution.
ii Purchase of state vehicles is handled similarly to all state purchases.
The adjective dissimilar usually takes to, but from is found too.
5.3 Such
We focus here on such as it appears in non-scalar comparisons with a comparative
complement; for scalar such, see §4.3 above, and for the use of such with a resultative
complement, see Ch. 11, §4.6. Such does not occur in set comparisons.
29
The such phrase can also be postposed: No depression occurs such as is seen clinically or may be produced in
normal persons by drugs.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.4 Different, other, else 1143
relatively few roads.30 But in spite of the semantic similarity with relatives, such, unlike
same, does not normally take a relative clause instead of the comparative complement.
Examples like Such overseas interests that Australian companies do have are summarised
in Appendix 5 are attested, but rare, and of questionable acceptability.
Such + as is also found occasionally without a following head noun:
[18] i The concern they felt for me was such as I shall never forget .
ii We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
sufficient to explain their appearances.
Note that the missing object in [i] cannot be recovered from the such phrase itself : we need
to go to the subject NP (the concern they felt for me). In this respect the example differs
from normal comparative constructions (but compare [45] of §2 above); it may represent
a blend between the comparative and the resultative content clause construction The
concern they felt for me was such that I shall never forget it. In [ii] such is fused modifier-
head.
30
Such a deprecatory interpretation is also found in the idiomatic frame such as they are, etc.: My opinions, such
as they are, are my own suggests that the opinions are of limited value or significance.
31
In existential constructions with thing the comparison involves identity rather than likeness: There’s no such
thing as a free lunch, “There are no (genuinely) free lunches”.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1144 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Construction [iv] is simpler than the equivalent Type i construction formed by replacing
Anglicans by those of Anglicans.32
Differently
The adverb is found with the same range of prepositions as the adjective:
[22] i We need to remember that Israel treated sheep differently from us.
%
ii People often behave differently in a crowd than they would individually.
Note that in [i] the primary term is expressed by the subject Israel, but in [ii] it is given in
the comparative phrase differently, understood as “in a different way”. The comparison
is between the way people behave in a crowd and the way they behave individually.
Set comparison
[23] i The two versions of the incident are very different.
ii They proposed three different ways of solving the problem.
iii Different people hold different views on this matter.
iv The various candidates had reacted quite differently.
Different, like similar above, is used in set comparisons in predicatives ([i]) or Type i
attributives ([ii]). In the latter case different may occur in more than one NP, as in [iii];
the effect of the repetition is to pair people and views, excluding the case where a single
32
A comparable simplification is seen in the predicative Public attitudes to historical material were very different
then from now. The primary term here is expressed by then, not the subject, as it would be with from what they
are now.
33
The choice of preposition with different is much discussed in usage manuals. The most authoritarian insist that
only from is correct, but the majority recognise that this rule is in clear conflict with accepted usage. American
manuals accept than, especially with clausal complements, while British ones vary in their attitude to it: some
defend it as permitting a simpler construction in cases like [21iii–iv] (and on the grounds that different takes
modifiers like no and much, which makes it like a comparative form), but most do not allow it as standard in
BrE.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.4 Different, other, else 1145
person holds different views. Example [iv] illustrates the use of the adverb differently in
set comparison.
Modification
Different (like similar) is a gradable adjective, allowing the usual range of modifiers for
this class, such as very and a scalar comparative (His views were more different from mine
than I’d expected). At the same time, however, it takes those found with scalar comparison
of inequality (cf. [29] of §4): no, any, much (generally in non-affirmative contexts: It isn’t
much different from the previous version), far, a great deal, and so on.
Other + than
Other occurs only in term comparison. The comparative complement has than as
preposition.34 As an adjective, other occurs predicatively, postpositively, and in the Type
i attributive construction:
[24] i It turns out that the US policy is in fact other than he stated. [predicative]
ii He has no income other than his pension. [postpositive]
iii We must find some other means of restricting imports than tariffs. [attributive:i]
The predicative use is comparatively rare, and other here requires a complement. We
cannot therefore say, for example, ∗Our policy is other; instead we need Our policy is
different. The construction with other used predicatively is the only one where the than
can take a comparative clause, as in [i] – compare ∗He has no income other than the
government provides and He has no income other than that which the government provides,
with an NP as immediate complement of than.
The attributive use is much less frequent than the postpositive, but syntactically more
straightforward in that the than phrase is omissible and clearly a separate dependent in the
structure of the NP. Other can be coordinated with a scalar comparative form, showing
that we are here not far removed from the central type of comparative construction:
My mother had the faculty of gazing beyond people into space inhabited by other and
more exciting ones than those who were actually in the room. Also straightforward is the
construction where other is a nominal pro-form: These wrongs are public in the sense that
they involve others than the agent, with others head (“other people”) and than the agent
comparative complement.
In the postpositive construction than cannot be omitted: ∗He has no income other. This
is conducive to a reanalysis whereby other than is construed as a compound preposition
with a meaning like “besides, except, apart from”. Such a reanalysis certainly seems to
have applied in the construction where other than is not in construction with a head
noun, but introduces an adjunct:
[25] i [Other than this very significant result,] most of the information now available
about the radio emission of the planets is restricted to the intensity of radiation.
ii Little has changed [other than that it is now a silent and deserted place].
iii For a long time we didn’t talk [other than to confirm our common destination].
34
Other is occasionally found in combination with but instead: I wouldn’t want any other pet but a dog – a blend
between any pet but and any other pet than. This is different from the combination with except, as in He has no
other friends except you, which doesn’t say that you are his only friend: the interpretation here is “He has no
other friends than these except you” – i.e. there is an understood secondary term for comparative other.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1146 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Further constructions where other than appears to function as a constituent are illus-
trated in:
[26] i Did he consider the possibility of recording other than popular music in this way?
ii No one suggests these deals are other than legitimate commercial operations.
iii He is at pains to define his key terms other than anecdotally.
Again, other could not occur on its own in these positions, and it is doubtful if it can
properly be regarded as head. The underlined sequences are NPs in [i–ii] and an AdvP
in [iii], and it is plausible to take music, operations, and anecdotally as syntactic head
with other than a modifier, comparable to the reanalysed uses of more than and less than
discussed in §4.5.
Else
This is semantically equivalent to other, but it takes a complement headed by either
than or but that is always optional: anyone else (than/but you), nowhere else (than/but in
France). Like non-predicative other, it cannot take than + comparative clause: anything
else than what she gave you, not ∗anything else than she gave you. Else is restricted to
occurrence with interrogatives (who/what/how else, etc.), the compound determinatives
(everyone, anything, etc.), and much, little, and all in fused determiner-head function.
5.5 As
In this section we are concerned with term comparisons of equality where the preposition
as appears on its own, without a superordinate comparative governor such as same, such,
so, or a preceding as :
[27] i As you know, we face a difficult year. [adjunct of comparison]
ii I did it as I was told to do it. [manner]
iii The universe today looks just as it did millions of years ago. [predicative]
iv The plan as currently conceived is seriously flawed. [dependent of nominal]
This as is itself the comparative governor, and takes a bare comparative complement (cf.
§1.3). It does not occur in set comparison: it always introduces the secondary term in
term comparison.
We focus primarily on constructions where as takes a clausal complement, consid-
ering in turn the four categories illustrated in [27]. The causal as of As it was raining
they cancelled the match and the temporal one of She fell as she was going downstairs are
excluded as falling outside the domain of comparison: these simply take content clauses
as complement, whereas the complements of as in [27] are comparative clauses.
Adjunct of comparison
The underlined adjunct or complement in [27ii–iv] is only incidentally comparative:
the as phrase could be replaced without change of function by, for example, carefully,
remarkable, in its present state, and so on. The adjunct in [27i], however, is inherently
comparative, not replaceable by an expression with the same function that is not com-
parative: it is for this reason that we call it an adjunct of comparison, a semantic type of
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.5 As 1147
adjunct on a par with those described in Ch. 8. Further examples are given in:
[28] i [As I have already observed ,] no reason has yet been offered for this change.
ii The event was sponsored, [as is the fashion these days,] by a brewery.
iii He didn’t report the matter to the police [as you’d predicted ].
The comparative clauses functioning as complement to as are structurally incomplete
in that the clausal complements which their verbs would have in main clauses are missing.
They are recoverable from the matrix: in [28i], for example, what I have already observed
is that no reason has yet been offered for this change. Similarly in [ii]: what is the fashion
these days is for comparable events to be sponsored by a brewery. Example [iii] is
ambiguous: what you’d predicted may be that he would report the matter to the police
or that he wouldn’t.
Adjuncts of this kind cannot be foregrounded in the it-cleft construction (∗It’s as you
know that we face a difficult year). Nor can they fall within the scope of a negative – note, for
example, that in neither interpretation of [28iii] does the negative have the subordinate
clause within its scope: it cannot be used to convey that you had not predicted that he
would/wouldn’t report the matter to the police. They are generally prosodically detached,
having the status of supplements. As for the interpretation, the truth of the subordinate
clause is not at issue: it is taken for granted or presupposed.35
Other verbs often found in the comparative clause in this construction include:
[29] acknowledge argue claim demonstrate discover
expect find hear insist note
promise remark say show suggest
These are verbs that take content clauses as internal complement; such adjectives as
aware follow the same pattern (as you will be aware). The missing complement may
likewise be understood as subject of these verbs in the passive (as is widely known), or of
other expressions taking clausal subjects (as happens frequently), or verb + predicative
(as will be obvious). The structure is like that found in central comparative constructions:
compare [28iii] with Not as many people came [as you’d predicted ]. One difference,
however, is that in the present construction the as phrase can occupy a range of positions,
like many other adjuncts: front, end, or central (We face, as you know, a difficult year). This
difference is attributable to the fact that the as here is itself the comparative governor,
rather than being selected by some superordinate governor that it must follow.
Relationship with relative construction
The construction containing an adjunct of comparison bears a significant resemblance
to one with a supplementary relative clause:
[30] i a. He phoned home every day, [as he’d promised to do]. [comparative]
b. He phoned home every day, which he’d promised to do. [relative]
35
As I recall (or as I remember) has a somewhat different interpretation from the examples in [28]. The truth of the
subordinate clause is not here taken for granted; rather, the as phrase serves as a ‘hedge’, a modal qualification,
indicating that the information in the matrix clause is based on recollection. The meaning is similar to that
of as far as I recall. Note, by contrast, that as I well recall follows the usual pattern. Compare As I recall, no one
had raised any objections to the proposal, and The Society to which I myself belonged in my own college at Oxford
was, as I well recall, of this latter sort.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1148 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
ii a. She has recovered quickly, [as her doctor will confirm]. [comparative]
b. She has recovered quickly, which confirms that it wasn’t serious. [relative]
The underlining marks the subordinate clauses, comparative or relative, while the brack-
ets in the [a] examples mark the adjunct of comparison. In [ia] we have a comparison of
equality between two variables: “x (he phoned home every day); he promised to do y ;
x = y ”. In the relative construction [ib] we have two occurrences of the same variable:
“x (he phoned home every day); he’d promised to do x ”. The end result is the same
in the two constructions, just as we saw that same + as can be equivalent to same +
relative (§5.1). Nevertheless, there are pragmatic and syntactic differences between the
two constructions.
The informational content of the comparative clause is backgrounded, whereas the
relative presents the information it expresses as separate from that of the main clause. In
[30iia] as is much more likely than which, whereas in [iib] as would be impossible: the
relative here takes the matrix as the starting-point or basis for new information of equal
importance.
Syntactically, the comparative displays distinctive properties of the central compara-
tive construction, as illustrated in:
[31] i He was a devout Catholic, [as were both his brothers].
ii They claimed it as a deductible expense, [as permitted under US tax law].
iii Kim won convincingly, [as usual ].
iv I’ve also felt at times like leaving my wife, [as she has me].
In [i] we have postposing of the subject, which would not be possible in a relative: which
both his brothers were too, but not ∗which were both his brothers too. In [ii] the passive
auxiliary be is omitted, and again this is not permitted in a relative: cf. which is permitted,
but not ∗which permitted. In [iii] the comparative clause is reduced to an adjective: which
would require a finite construction, which is usual. And in [iv] has is stranded, but with
an object following the missing verb: relative ∗which she has me would again be quite
impossible.
Reduction not always obligatory
One respect in which this as construction differs from more central types is that the
subordinate clause is not necessarily structurally incomplete. Instead of [31iv], for ex-
ample, we could have as she has felt at times like leaving me, with no material missing
but understood. The minimum reduction required in central comparatives is that the
counterpart to the comparative governor be missing (cf. §2.1), but in this construction
the governor, as, is head of an adjunct which has no counterpart in the subordinate
clause.
This is not to say, however, that reduction is always optional: it is most clearly obliga-
tory in cases like [27i], [28], or [31ii–iii], where it would be impossible to add a pronoun
in place of the missing complement (∗as you know it, ∗as I have already observed it, etc.). In
these cases the y variable is understood as embedded as complement of a verb or verb +
predicative, rather than as constituting the whole complement of as.
No requirement for new or contrasting material
The comparative clause usually contains material distinct from that in the matrix: in [27i]
you know appears only in the subordinate clause, in [31iv] we have contrasting subjects
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.5 As 1149
(she vs I) and contrasting objects (me vs my wife), and so on. But as with scalar com-
parisons of equality (She’s as fit as she is because . . . ) the subordinate clause need not
contain new or contrastive lexical material:
[32] i If the aim is to create disunity, [as it is ,] we should reject his proposal.
ii She suggested he hadn’t been honest with her, [as indeed he hadn’t ].
iii The deadlock is a disappointment coming [as it does]after such a promising start.
What makes these possible is that the matrix does not state that the proposition is
true, whereas the comparative clause does. The latter does therefore introduce a new
feature, but it is not a matter of the lexical content. In [i] the aim is to create disunity is
complement to if and hence merely entertained conditionally, rather than stated, in the
matrix. Similarly in [ii] the x variable is expressed by the complement of suggested, and
hence is not entailed. And [iii] has non-finite coming, which is not itself a construction
used for stating: note that we could not here replace coming by because it comes.
Reduction to a single element
The comparative clause can be reduced to a single element:
[33] i In sport, [as in everything else], attitude is all important.
ii We took the precaution, [as always], of having the paintings authenticated.
iii These qualities are necessary today [as never before] if we are to march together to
greater security, prosperity, and peace.
We understand “as it is in everything else”, “as we always do/did”, “as they have never
been before”. Again the construction resembles central comparatives – cf. Attitude is as
all important in sport as in everything else ; These qualities are more necessary today than
ever before. There is, however, one major difference: in the present construction a clause
cannot normally be reduced to an NP understood as subject or object. For example, we
can’t omit the verb from [31i]: ∗He was a devout Catholic, as both his brothers. Instead we
need like : He was a devout Catholic, like both his brothers.
Manner
Here the as phrase functions as manner element in the matrix and the comparative clause
has an implicit manner element that is compared with it:
[34] i He uses statistics [as a drunk uses a lamppost ], for support rather than
illumination.
ii The louvres are constructed [as shown in the diagram].
iii These people don’t know how to go about complaining [as Europeans do].
Example [i] may therefore be analysed along the lines proposed for central comparatives:
“He uses statistics in way x; a drunk uses a lamppost in way y; x = y ”. And again there is
an equivalent with a relative clause: He uses statistics in the way a drunk uses a lamppost.
Example [ii] gives another illustration of the past-participial construction, with the
passive auxiliary be omitted; the missing subject can be interpreted as “how louvres are
constructed”.
There may be ambiguity between the manner and adjunct of comparison types, as
in [34iii]. The manner interpretation is concerned with the way Europeans go about
complaining – these people don’t know how to go about doing it in this way. In the
adjunct of comparison interpretation the equality is simply between what they don’t
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1150 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
know and what Europeans do know. Only the adjunct of comparison interpretation is
possible if the as phrase is placed before how : They don’t know, as Europeans do, how to
go about complaining.
Predicative
Here there is a comparison between two kinds or states:
[35] i His behaviour was [as we’d expected it to be ].
ii Make sure you leave everything [as you find it ].
iii The design of the building is [as shown in Figure 12].
These fit the familiar analysis: “His behaviour was x, we’d expected it to be y ; x = y ”,
with the variables representing predicative complements. Example [ii] is equivalent to
a relative construction with the noun state as head: leave everything in the state in which
you find it. And [iii] is a further past-participial passive. The as phrase functions as
predicative complement: subjective in [i/iii], objective in [ii]. The comparative clause
has a missing predicative complement in [i–ii]; [iii] has a missing subject, interpreted
as “the design of the building”, and it is arguable that there is also a missing predicative
complement here too: it’s a matter of how Figure 12 shows the design.
Idiomatic uses
Examples such as the following are of limited productivity:
[37] a. As it happens, I met her only yesterday. b. Do as I say / as you like.
It happens is structurally incomplete in that it couldn’t stand alone, but it is not clear what
missing element is understood: as it happens is a fixed phrase. Compare also as things stand, as
it is. Both versions of [b] have exceptional syntax in that do normally takes an NP object (cf.
Do this ; Do what I say); the pattern does not occur with other transitive verbs (e.g. ∗Take as
you like). A relatively recent such idiom is as is : All items are sold as is (“in their present state”).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.5 As 1151
As if and as though
These introduce phrases with the same range of functions as those discussed above for
as alone, except that they do not function as dependents to a noun:
[38] i He had scurried up the hatch as if we were abandoning ship.
ii They were treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens.
iii There was a ragged edge to her voice now, as if she’d been crying.
iv The effect is as if he had materialised out of nowhere.
The as if phrase is a manner adjunct in [i], a manner complement in [ii], an adjunct
of comparison in [iii], and a predicative complement in [iv].
As if and as though as compound prepositions
In the examples of [38] it is possible to fill out the construction, inserting material
between as and if :
[39] i He had scurried up the hatch as he would if we were abandoning ship.
ii They were treated as they would be if they were Commonwealth citizens.
iii There was a ragged edge to her voice, as there would have been if she’d been crying.
iv The effect is as it would have been if he had materialised out of nowhere.
This might suggest that there is nothing special about [38] – that the underlined phrases
simply consist of as as head with the if phrase as complement. Thus [38iii], for example,
would be comparable to There was a ragged edge to her voice, as when she’d been crying.
There is strong syntactic and semantic evidence, however, for saying that as and if have
merged into a single compound preposition taking a content clause as complement, that
the examples of [38] cannot be analysed as reduced versions of [39].
The first argument for the compound analysis is that as if in [38] can be replaced without
change of meaning by as though, whereas if in [39] cannot be replaced by though.
The second argument is that it is not possible to repeat if in coordination: ∗They were
treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens or if they had resided here for ten years or more.
The third argument is that expansion of the kind shown in [39] is very often not possible:
[40] i Don’t attack a mouth as if you’re dipping a mop into a slop-bucket!
ii It was highly imprudent of him to drink as if he were a youngster like ourselves.
iii She acts as if she hates me.
iv It seems/looks as if we’ve offended them.
v Max seems/looks as if he’s in difficulties.
vi As if this news wasn’t bad enough, I found that the printer wasn’t working either.
In [i] we have a comparison of equality (interpreted as resemblance) not between two ways
of attacking a mouth but between a way of attacking a mouth and the way of dipping a mop
into a slop-bucket. In [ii] the comparison is not between the way he drank and the way he
would drink if he were a youngster but between the way he drank and the way it would be
acceptable, appropriate, or reasonable to drink if he were a youngster. Example [iii] could be
expanded if it had modal preterite hated (She acts as she would act if she hated me), but it can’t
be expanded as it stands, with present tense hates.
Whereas in [40i–ii] the idea of comparison associated with as remains very evident, it is
much attentuated in [iii]: it is more a matter of the way she acts suggesting that she hates me.
This shift from comparison to the issue of whether the content clause is true is carried a step
further in [40iv]. In the version with seem, as if could be replaced by that with virtually no
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1152 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
change in meaning. In this construction the as if reinforces or harmonises with the modal
meaning expressed in the verb (essentially medium strength epistemic modality, in the sense
of Ch. 3, §9) – thus, roughly, “Judging from appearances, it is likely that we have offended
them”.
Other verbs of similar meaning likewise take a complement of this form: appear, feel,
sound, taste, and also be.36 In addition to the impersonal construction of [40iv] we find
ordinary subjects, as in [v].
Finally, [40vi] involves a special use of as if /though, where the matrix clause presents some
situation as a further instance of something, normally something bad – in this example, of
further bad news. In this use, the as if always has a negative complement, and again it is less
a matter of comparison than of the status of the content clause. This time the construction
indicates that the content clause is true (not merely likely): this news wasn’t bad enough (i.e.
bad enough to satisfy a malevolent fate, as it were, bad enough to make it unnecessary to
inflict further bad things on me).
The as if/though phrase standing on its own
The as if /though phrase may form an exclamatory clause by itself:
[41] i As if I didn’t have enough on my plate as it was !
ii As if I would try to cheat you !
The first of these is a structurally incomplete version of the construction shown in [40vi]:
the indication of what else I had on my plate is left unexpressed, being recoverable from
the context. Example [41ii] presents the content clause as false: it is an indignant rejection
of the suggestion that I would try to cheat you.
Irrealis were and the preterite
The as if /though construction is one of those that allow irrealis were or a modal preterite.
Where the matrix clause has present tense, we have the expected contrast in the content
clause between were or modal preterite and present tense:
[42] He moves about on camera, angular, emaciated, graceful, as if his body were /is
weightless.
The version with irrealis were is motivated by the fact that his body is not actually
weightless, i.e. by the counterfactuality of the content clause. The version with is, by
contrast, presents his body’s being weightless as an open possibility, thereby suggesting
that he gives the appearance of being weightless. Compare also She acts as if she hated
me and She acts as if she hates me (=[40iii]). The latter conveys that the way she acts
suggests that she does hate me or may well do so, whereas the modal preterite hated
presents her hating me as a more remote possibility (though it is certainly not presented
as counterfactual).
Less straightforward is the case where the matrix clause is in the preterite:
[43] i He was treated as if he were a Commonwealth citizen.
ii As the trooper left the room, the gambler turned to the army girl with an odd
expression, as though he were remembering painful things.
36
With be in the negative we actually have an entailment that the content clause is false : It’s not as if he wasn’t
trying entails that he was trying. This construction is used to deny a proposition that might otherwise have
been deduced (perhaps he didn’t perform as well as expected).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.5 As 1153
The natural interpretation of [i] is that he was treated like a Commonwealth citizen
although he wasn’t one. Example [ii], however, doesn’t imply that he wasn’t remembering
painful things: on the contrary, it suggests that he was or appeared to be. In [i] we could
have as if he had been a Commonwealth citizen, with the perfect marking backshift (or
past time) and the preterite marking modal remoteness; it is, however, much more usual
in such contexts to have an irrealis or simple preterite after as if /though than a preterite
perfect.
The irrealis in [43ii] does not appear to be semantically motivated: certainly if we had
a simple preterite in this context we would have no reason to regard it as a modal preterite.
This were is therefore probably best regarded as belonging with the ‘extended’ uses of the
irrealis discussed in Ch. 3, §1.7. Like them, it has the flavour of a hypercorrection: was
is a less formal variant of were in modal remoteness constructions like [i], so that some
speakers feel were to be stylistically preferable to was in similar constructions where was
was not traditionally stigmatised.37
As if/though with infinitival and verbless complement
A further difference between as if /though and if is that the former can take a subjectless
infinitival or verbless clause as complement:
[44] i He examined the notes thoroughly, as if to see if they were real.
ii She combed her hair back with her fingers as if to see better.
iii Unruly hair goes straight up from his forehead, standing so high that the top falls
gently over, as if to show that it really is hair and not bristle.
iv He rose up as if weightless.
The infinitival is interpreted as involving purpose or intention. The subject of the matrix
clause is normally a human agent: exceptional examples like [iii] are interpreted as
involving personification, with the hair conceived of as acting purposefully. The force of
the as if/though is much like that in [40iii]: his examining the notes thoroughly (or the
way he did so) suggested that his intention was to see if they were real. Example [44iv]
illustrates the case where subject + be is omitted to yield a verbless complement.
As if/though in scalar comparison
We have been concerned so far with non-scalar comparison (diluted in some cases in
such a way that there is little sense of comparison at all). Consider, finally, examples of
scalar comparison like the following:
[45] i Our aim is to be as competitive as if we had rivals breathing down our necks.
ii The part of her that was in control was as calm as though she were just shedding an
outer garment during a photo session.
In [i] the second as is head of the comparative phrase and has the if phrase as its
complement: as if is not here a compound preposition. Nevertheless one finds occa-
sional examples with though instead of if, as in [ii]; they are, however, of question-
able acceptability, and probably best treated as blends between the construction where
as and if /though form a compound preposition, as in the non-scalar examples, and
37
This extended use of irrealis were is occasionally found in constructions where the matrix has present tense: It
sounds from the guide book as if Verona were worth a visit. The flavour of hypercorrectness is stronger here: the
example falls under the use of as if seen in [40iv], which indicates that the content clause is relatively likely to
be true, making the irrealis semantically inappropriate.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1154 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
the one where if is head of the complement of the as marking scalar comparison of
equality.
5.6 Like
Like occurs with a comparative sense in a wide range of constructions. We look first at
those where it has an NP as complement, then in §5.6.2 at the use of like with finite clause
complements, and then review summarily a variety of other constructions in §5.6.3. For
the distinction between like as an adjective and as a preposition, see Ch. 7, §2.2.
38
I feel like an intruder belongs to this construction, but I feel like a drink does not: feel like is here an idiom
meaning approximately “want”, with feel a prepositional verb and like a drink a non-predicative complement.
In That looks like Kim over there the meaning is not comparative “resemble” but modal “is probably / seems to
be”.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1155
thought him like his father, ∗This got him like a raving lunatic, and so on). In [iv] like this
is a predicative adjunct.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1156 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
“Max is a keen gardener, but his brother is not”. With clausal negation we have (changing
the content of the propositions for greater naturalness):
[51] i Like his brother, Max had not received a distribution from the family trust.
ii Max had not, like his brother, received a distribution from the family trust.
iii Max had not been to university like his brother.
In [i] the like is outside the scope of negation: Max and his brother are alike in that they
had both not received a distribution from the family trust. Example [ii] is ambiguous:
like can be outside the scope of negation, giving the same meaning as for [i]; or it can be
inside the scope of negation, so that Max and his brother are not alike – Max’s brother
had received a distribution, but Max himself had not. In abstraction from prosody, the
same ambiguity applies in [iii]. If the sentence is read as a single intonation phrase, the
like phrase is inside the scope of negation (“His brother had been to university, but Max
hadn’t”), but if like his brother is read as a separate intonation phrase it will normally be
outside the scope of negation (“Both of them hadn’t been”).
Where the complement of like is a personal pronoun it normally takes accusative case; this is
the only possibility when the like phrase precedes the subject or follows the VP, but when it
comes between subject and verb nominative forms are occasionally attested:
[52] i Like us/∗we, Max is a keen gardener.
ii The Russians, like us/ %we, have an obvious interest in avoiding war.
The nominative suggests that the pronoun is construed as a subject, but it is not coordinate
with the Russians and could not in this position be expanded into a finite clause; it is probably
best regarded, therefore, as a hypercorrection (cf. Ch. 5, §16.2).
In the great majority of cases, the primary term in the comparison is expressed by the
subject of the clause – by Max in [52i], the Russians in [52ii], and so on. Departures from
this pattern are illustrated in:
[53] i Like any stray, his response to these comforts was instantaneous.
ii Like Moscow, the main streets in Leningrad are wide and tree-lined.
iii Like certain expensive restaurants, just sitting there gave you the illusion of being
wealthy yourself.
iv Like so many great successes, the ideas are surprisingly simple.
In [i] the primary term is expressed by the pronoun his, determiner within the subject NP,
not subject of the clause itself. In [ii] it is expressed by the complement of in within the
subject NP. In [iii] it is expressed by the locative adjunct there within the clause function-
ing as subject. And in [iv] it is not expressed at all, but is understood as the work or what-
ever whose ideas are surprisingly simple. Such examples are widely condemned in style
manuals, and would generally be avoided in careful writing. This can be done by reformu-
lating the clause so that the primary term is expressed by the subject (he responded . . . ),
or by using a construction with as + PP (as with so many great successes, . . . ).
Likeness of manner
[54] i These birds walk like human beings.
ii These birds don’t walk like human beings.
We interpret [i] as “These birds walk in the same way/manner as human beings” – hence
the label ‘likeness of manner’. In [ii] the like phrase falls within the scope of negation:
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1157
“These birds don’t walk in the same way/manner as human beings”; the implicature is that
the birds do walk, but in a different way from humans. As with manner complements, the
NP following like can itself refer to a manner: You should do it like this. The comparison
here is between the way you should do it and ‘this’.
Again, the primary term in the comparison is not invariably expressed by the subject:
[55] i He loved her like a sister.
ii Bergs will simply rip through sea ice like tissue-paper if the overall current is at
variance to the top few metres of the watermass.
Less specific likeness
[56] i The girls shrieked their applause like a mob of cockatoos.
ii The afternoon sun shone through her chestnut hair like a fiery halo.
iii He just slid his hand slowly out again like a snake.
iv I followed his instructions, like a coward.
The examples in [i–iii] bear some similarity to [54i], but the comparison is not with
the manner in which a mob of cockatoos might shriek their applause, in which a fiery
halo might shine through her hair, or in which he might slide a snake slowly out. It is
simply that the girls resembled a mob of cockatoos as they shrieked out their applause,
the afternoon sun resembled a fiery halo as it shone through her hair, his hand resembled
a snake as he slid it slowly out again. Like a coward in [iv] is somewhat different. It is
not a matter of any visual resemblance: rather, I was like a coward simply by virtue of
following his instructions.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1158 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 5.6.3 Other constructions 1159
(b) NP + PP
Like is often followed by the sequence (det) + nominal + PP, and it may be unclear
whether the PP is a post-head modifier of the nominal (with the whole sequence therefore
forming a single NP), or a separate element (with the sequence forming a verbless clause).
Compare the bracketed word sequences in these examples:
[62] i He looks like [a guy in my tutorial]. [single NP]
ii She took to it like [a duck to water]. [NP + PP]
iii At every problem he goes running to the sergeant like [a child to its mother].
iv Hate rose in him like [mercury in a thermometer].
v There were countless boats bobbing up and down like [corks in a bathtub].
The two possible structures are illustrated in the first two examples respectively. In [i],
in my tutorial is a modifier of guy, but to water in [ii] cannot be a dependent of duck, as
evident from the ungrammaticality of ∗She saw a duck to water, and suchlike. Like a duck
to water is a familiar expression, but the same structure must apply in [iii]: child does not
belong to the restricted set of nouns that can take a to phrase as dependent. Examples [ii]
and [iii] are quite grammatical, and not subject to prescriptive condemnation; it would
be unusual, of perhaps questionable acceptability, to replace like by as here. Examples
[iv–v], and numerous similar ones, can be construed either like [i] or like [ii–iii]. There
is nothing to stop the in phrase being modifier to mercury and corks, but nor is there
anything to block the other structure, with the interpretations “as mercury rises in
a thermometer”, “as corks bob up and down in a bathtub”. Note that the in phrase
is relevant to the comparison, whereas in [i] it simply gives information limiting the
denotation of the nominal. In [v] we could drop the PP because the boats were in the
sea and corks would bob up and down in the sea as well as in a bathtub. But it would be
pragmatically odd to drop the PP in [iv], for it is not a general characteristic of mercury
to rise.
(c) Gerund-participials
The distribution of gerund-participials is very similar to that of NPs, so that in most of
the constructions discussed in §5.6.1 above the NP complement of like could be replaced
by a gerund-participial. Instead of Max is just like his father, for example, we can have
Talking to Max is just like taking an oral examination. In addition, we should note the
following uses of the gerund-participial:
[63] i He shook the barman once more, like a bull-terrier shaking a rat.
ii The project looks like continuing another few years.
Example [i] raises the same issues as were discussed in (b) above: it is unclear whether
the complement of like is an NP (with shaking a rat a modifier to bull-terrier) or a non-
finite clause (with a bull-terrier as subject and shaking a rat as predicate). Example [ii]
illustrates a special use of look + like, with the gerund-participial an oblique catenative
complement; the meaning is the same as for look as if (cf. The project looks as if it will last
another few years).
(d) Reanalysis
[64] i We have [nothing like finished].
ii His results aren’t [anything like as good as they were last year].
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1160 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
We noted in §4.5 a number of places where sequences containing scalar than or as have
been reanalysed as modifying expressions: [64] illustrates a similar reanalysis with non-
scalar like. Example [i] cannot be analysed in the same way as, for example, We have
nothing like this specimen, where nothing is head of the object NP and like this specimen
is modifier. Rather, the bracketed sequence is complement of perfect have, so its head
must be finished, with nothing like a modifier; the example may be compared with We
haven’t [even nearly finished ]. Similarly, in [ii] anything like is a modifier of as, and in
We found something like thirty major errors the sequence something like is a modifier of
thirty.
5.6.4 Unlike
The negative form occurs in a subset of the constructions available with like :
[67] i Like poles repel, unlike poles attract.
ii Jill is quite unlike her mother.
iii It’s unlike Max to be late.
iv She came up with a proposal quite unlike any we had considered so far.
v Ice-bergs, unlike sea ice, are not greatly affected by winds.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 6 Scalar set comparison 1161
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1162 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
39
The traditional term for plain grade is ‘positive grade’, but we have preferred to restrict ‘positive’ to the sense
where it contrasts with ‘negative’. Another term found in the literature is ‘absolute’, but we regard this as
semantically inappropriate for reasons given in the text; ‘absolute comparative’, moreover, is a traditional term
for a comparative in which the secondary term is left unexpressed, as in This is cheaper.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 6.2 Comparative grade in set comparison 1163
denotes a subset who are above the mean age. In general, older covers a larger range
of the scale of age than the plain form old : women of fifty, for example, might well be
regarded as older women, but not as old.
40
There is also the archaic nether, found in the expressions nether regions /garments, and various place names.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1164 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
to be used for the last-named of a larger set – a manifestation of the weak degree of
grammaticalisation of the dual category in English. An alternative to latter in such cases
is last, and the ordinal numerals can also be used in a similar way.
6.3 Superlatives
6.3.1 Inflectional and analytic superlatives
The formation of superlatives is very similar to that of comparatives. They can be marked
inflectionally, with the suffix ·est corresponding to comparative ·er, or analytically, with
the adverbs most and least corresponding to comparative more and less. Again we add
subscript ‘a’ to indicate the analytic marker use:
[8] comparative superlative
i superiority easier more a difficult easiest most a difficult
ii inferiority less a easy less a difficult least a easy least a difficult
Superlatives of superiority and inferiority are illustrated in:
[9] i This is the most a difficult problem of them all. [superlative of superiority]
ii This is the least a difficult problem of them all. [superlative of inferiority]
We have here a comparison on a scale of difficulty between the members of a set of
problems: [i] picks out the problem at the top of the scale, [ii] the one at the bottom.
Like comparative more and less, superlative most and least can also be inflectional
forms of the degree determinatives, and as before we add subscript ‘i’ to represent this
inflectional use. The various forms are given in [10], with the superlatives illustrated in
[11]:
[11] i Kim shows (the) most i promise. [non-count
positive orientation]
ii Kim has (the) most i friends. [count
iii Kim has (the) least i patience. [non-count
negative orientation]
iv Kim made (the) fewest/least i errors. [count
The variation between least i and fewest is broadly similar to that between less i and fewer,
but superlative fewest and least i are very much less frequent than fewer and less i , and do
not enter into the wide range of construction types that we noted for the latter pair.
There is a traditional prescriptive rule requiring fewest with count plurals. This is
more often followed when the determinative is in construction with a plural noun than
when it is functioning as fused determiner-head, as in No one made many errors, but Kim
made the fewest/leasti .
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 6.3.2 Non-superlative uses of most 1165
Most i and least i also function as adjunct of degree in clause structure, but unlike
comparative more i and less i they are not used in the grading of count singular nominals:
[12] i Kim enjoyed it the most i /least i .
ii ∗Of all my teachers Kim was the most i /least i of a scholar.
Adjectival least
Least i is not only a determinative but also an adjective:
[13] i Its attractiveness as an investment is least during periods of high inflation.
ii [Even the least alteration to the plan] could prove fatal.
iii That’s [the least of my worries].
iv She didn’t seem [the least bit] interested in what they were saying.
Least here is the opposite of greatest, and means “smallest/slightest”. Example [i] illus-
trates the predicative use, where it is the superlative counterpart of adjectival less. In [ii–iv]
least is used attributively: it functions as modifier in NP structure (fused with the head
in [iii]). To a limited extent it here corresponds to adjectival lesser – [iii] is comparable
with That’s the lesser of my worries, and to the least degree with to a lesser degree.
Intensifier most
[14] i Kim is a [most enthusiastic] supporter. [intensifying]
ii This one is [most useful ]. [superlative or intensifying]
iii This one is [cheapest]. [superlative only]
iv You are [most kind ]. [intensifying as salient reading]
The most of [i], which belongs to relatively formal style, is an intensifier, a degree adverb
meaning approximately “highly, very, extremely”. It does not express comparison any
more than other intensifiers such as very.
There is a clear semantic difference between most enthusiastic here and in the su-
perlative Kim is the most enthusiastic supporter I’ve come across, where we do have a
comparison within the set of supporters I’ve come across. In this case, the two uses of
most are distinguished by the article, with a requiring the intensifying interpretation, the
the superlative one. Example [14ii] is ambiguous between a superlative reading equiva-
lent to “This one is more useful than all the others”, and an intensifying one, “This one
is extremely useful”; adding the before most forces the superlative reading.
In general, forms marked with the inflectional suffix ·est are not used in the intensi-
fying sense: we cannot, for example, replace most enthusiastic in [14i] with such a form:
∗
Kim is a keenest supporter. Cheapest in [iii] is thus unambiguously superlative, and allows
the insertion of the without change of meaning.
Example [14iv] has in principle the same ambiguity as [ii], but since kind allows
inflectional marking of grade, we would expect You are kindest as the superlative. As a
result, [iv] itself would generally be construed as intensifying.41
41
One exceptional case where an inflected form expresses intensification rather than set comparison is with
terms of endearment, as in my dearest Anna (“my very dear Anna”). Precisely because it is so exceptional, we
retain the term superlative for the inflectional form and treat my dearest Anna as an intensifying use of the
superlative form rather than saying, as we do of a most enthusiastic supporter, that it doesn’t belong to the
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1166 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
There is no corresponding use of least. This one is least useful, for example, is unam-
biguous, meaning “This is the least useful one among them”, not “This one is not very
useful”.
Proportional quantifier
[15] i Most people think he’s guilty.
[proportional quantifier]
ii I agree with most of your points.
iii Kim had interviewed most candidates. [superlative or proportional]
iv Kim had interviewed the most candidates.
[superlative only]
v Kim had interviewed (the) least candidates.
Most in [i–ii] means “more than half, the majority”: it expresses a kind of proportional
quantification (Ch. 5, §7.11). Many and much, by contrast, are non-proportional: I agree
with many of your points, for example, doesn’t indicate whether or not the number of
your points that I agree with exceeds the number that I don’t agree with, and analogously
for I agree with much of what you say.
The difference between this proportional sense and the superlative one can be brought
out by considering ambiguous examples like [15iii]. In the superlative reading Kim had
interviewed more candidates than anybody else: we have a comparison between the set
of interviewers with respect to how many candidates each had interviewed, with Kim
placed at the top of the scale. In this reading there is no indication as to what proportion
of the candidates Kim had interviewed. In the proportional reading of [iii], Kim had
interviewed more than half the candidates; this time there is no comparison between
Kim and anybody else, no indication that anybody else was interviewing candidates.
The two readings are grammatically distinguished in that only the superlative one
allows the insertion of the : [iv] is unambiguously superlative. Similarly most can be
replaced by least or fewest only in the superlative reading, so that [v] is likewise unam-
biguously superlative: least expresses set comparison, not proportion.
Reduction of almost
Most can also be a reduced form of almost, as in % I think most everybody would agree. This
use of most is found primarily in AmE and is characteristic of relatively informal style. It
functions as modifier to all, any, and every, and compounds containing them, such as anything,
everybody – and always.
superlative category at all. One additional special use of intensifying most is in titles for people holding certain
high offices in the judiciary or the church: Most Honourable, Most Reverend.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases 1167
job here, then, is not the most difficult in an absolute sense, but only relative to the jobs
assigned to members of the team. The difference can be brought out by comparing these
set comparisons with equivalent term comparisons:
[17] i Kim lives in a smaller house than any other house in England.
ii Kim had a more difficult job than any other member of the team.
In [ii] any other member of the team means “any other member than Kim”: Kim is involved
in the comparison in [ii] but not in [i].
Most in [16ii] is the analytic marker; the determinative most i , by contrast, is virtually
always relative:
[18] Kim scored the most points. [relative]
An absolute use of this most might be Kim scored the most possible points, but this is quite
marginal: we would generally express the intended meaning as Kim scored the highest
possible number of points or the like.
Absolute superlatives are often concerned with possible maximum or minimum
degrees:
[19] i We want to ensure that the fullest discussion takes place.
ii I have the strangest feeling of having lived through this very same event before.
iii The ground was so soft that the lightest step made a deep imprint.
iv She hasn’t the slightest/least recollection of what happened.
In such contexts the slightest/smallest/least and the like are equivalent to any at all: She
hasn’t any recollection at all of what happened. Special cases of this use are seen in the
phrases at least, at most, in the least. Note finally the contrast in meaning and structure
in such a pair as the following:
[20] i Kim was not the least concerned about what people might think. [absolute]
ii Kim was the least concerned about these developments. [relative]
In [i] the least is a constituent modifying concerned: the is obligatory and the modifying
phrase could be replaced by the least bit, in the least, at all. In [ii] the is optional and does
not form a constituent with least, and the superlative implies a comparison between Kim
and some set of which Kim is a member.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1168 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
The superlative phrases in [i] are incorporated into the structure of an NP, marked by
the bracketing – more precisely they occur before the head ([a–d]) or fuse with it ([e–f]).
Those in [ii] are either not contained within an NP at all ([b–d]) or are in post-head
position ([a]).
In [21ia–c] the superlative phrase constitutes all or part of a modifier of the head of
the NP. The the in [ia–b] does not form part of the superlative phrase but is determiner
in NP structure: it can be separated from the superlative by another modifier, as in
[ia], and can be replaced by other definite determiners, such as the genitive in [ic] or a
demonstrative (this most recent edition).
The most of [21id], however, is the inflectional superlative of many, and here the most
forms a DP functioning as determiner in the NP; this the is optional and cannot be
replaced by a genitive or demonstrative.
The same distinction applies in [21ie–f], where the superlative phrase is fused with
the head of the NP. In [ie] the is determiner and least valuable fused modifier-head. Note
again the possibility of inserting a modifier such as two between them. In [if] the most is
fused determiner-head; the is obligatory this time, but again not replaceable by a genitive
or demonstrative.
The free superlatives in [21ii] are more straightforward. The initial the in [iic–d] is
not determiner in a matrix NP, but part of the superlative phrase; it cannot be separated
from the superlative phrase and is not in contrast with definite determiners like genitives.
We will see below that there are also differences between the free and incorporated
constructions with respect to post-head elements.
42
Occasional exceptions are found where the NP is indefinite: Several of the competitors achieved personal best
times. Such examples tend to involve highly lexicalised collocations.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
§ 6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases 1169
The is obligatory in [i–ii], optional in the others. In [i] competitor is a count singular noun
and hence requires a determiner by the general rules of NP structure: the only effect of
the superlative youngest is to add the requirement that the determiner be definite. In [ii]
the impossibility of dropping the is not attributable to the head noun, but to the fact that
omission of the would make two the determiner: this would mark the NP as indefinite,
which is incompatible with the inherent definiteness conferred by the superlative.
No such factors apply in [23iii–v], and here the can be omitted. Note, however, that
its omission does not result in a change of meaning – in particular, there is no change
from definite to indefinite. In [v] the is part of the DP, as in [21id] above.
Relative clauses
One distinctive property of superlatives is that they can take integrated relative clauses
as dependents even when not incorporated into NP structure:
[24] i The price of gold is the lowest it has been for ten years.
ii The system seems to be working the most efficiently that it has ever worked.
Lowest in [i] is an adjective, efficiently in [ii] an adverb, and there is no plausible reason
to propose that the underlined phrases they head are NPs. Note, for example, that wh
relatives are not permitted (∗the lowest which it has been for years) and that the equivalent
term comparisons are simply lower than it has been for ten years, more efficiently than it
has ever worked before. The is obligatory in this construction.
Pre-head dependents
These fall into two groups, as follows:
[26] i very ; next and ordinal numerals other than first
ii absolutely, almost, altogether, barely, by far, easily, entirely, fully, hardly,
more or less, much, nearly, practically, quite, scarcely, virtually, . . .
Those in [i] follow the, while those in [ii] precede it:
[27] i It was the very best performance I can recall.
ii Kim’s the second youngest in the class.
iii This one works easily the most efficiently.
iv I made by far the most errors.
Very here means “absolutely”; it occurs with inflectional but not analytic superlatives.
The ordinal numerals indicate position in a rank ordering, counting from the top (or
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1170 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
from the bottom in the case of comparisons of inferiority, as in the third least expensive
model). In [27ii], for example, there is just one person younger than Kim. The fact that
the items in [26ii] precede the means that with incorporated superlatives such as that in
[27iv] they function as peripheral modifier in the structure of the NP rather than in the
structure of the superlative phrase itself (see Ch. 5, §13).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014