Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Mouton January 2, 2023

Phrasal subcomparatives: a comparative coordination analysis based on evidence from Basque, Spanish, and English

  • Laura Vela-Plo ORCID logo EMAIL logo
From the journal Linguistics

Abstract

By analyzing an understudied type of comparative, namely, subcomparatives with surface-phrasal standards of comparison, this article offers an answer to three long-debated questions regarding the internal structure and semantic composition of comparative constructions in opposition to traditional assumptions and reductionist analyses. First I offer syntactic tests evidencing the non-clausal status of the standard in these subcomparatives in Basque, Spanish and English. Second, regarding the question of the linkage type between the compared elements (either a dependence relation or a coordination relation), I present previous and novel syntactic evidence showing that phrasal subcomparatives invariably behave like common phrasal coordinates. Therefore, I defend an architecture of these comparatives involving a phrasal coordinate structure and offer a transparent mapping between the surface syntax and semantic interpretation of these constructions. Third, subcomparatives involve the obligatory omission of a measure modifier from the standard. This process known as comparative subdeletion cannot be explained as the result of wh-movement within a clause, given the non-clausal status of the standard. Alternatively, comparative subdeletion is defined not as an ad hoc deletion rule but rather as the result of an obligatory deletion operation independently attested in common coordinate structures.

1 Introduction

The term subcomparative was introduced by Bresnan (1973, 1975 to refer to sentences that compare quantities or degrees of different sorts of stuff and in which, crucially, an underlying measure-phrase modifier is subdeleted or omitted from the standard of comparison. In the subcomparative examples in (1) and (2), the standard is marked in bold italics and the dash (–) signals the position at which a measure element is seemingly missing.[1]

standard cluster ____________________
comparative base standard marker standard of comparison
(1) They have more enemies than we have _ friends .
(2) This box is wider than it is _ tall.

Bresnan (1973, 1975 and several authors after her (Corver 1993; Kennedy 2002; among others) have argued that the subdeleted string may be thought of as “that many” or “that much”, also represented as “d many/much” (where d stands for a degree variable). According to this proposal, the complement of the standard marker (than in English) would include an unspecified amount or degree with which the referent for comparison is established. One kind of evidence for this claim is that no measure phrase can appear at the point of subdeletion. The sentences in (3)–(4) exemplify that this position cannot be occupied by any overt quantifying element (Bresnan 1973, 1975; Corver 1993; Kennedy 2002).

(3)
*They have many more enemies than we have {ten/a few} friends.
(4)
*This box is wider than it is {that/40 cm} tall.

As Kennedy (2002) notes, the ungrammaticality of (3)–(4) does not seem to be triggered by a semantic restriction, since, in principle, an example like (3) could have a meaning along the following lines:

(5)
“The number of enemies they have is greater than the number of friends we have, which amounts to ten/a few”.

Although there is still a long-standing debate about the internal structure and semantic composition of subcomparatives (henceforth SCs), most of the literature assumes that the obligatory presence of a gap in the standard of these comparative constructions is due to a syntactic restriction. It is important to note, however, that previous studies have mostly focused on those SCs that show an obviously clausal standard of comparison, as in (1) and (2). In the meanwhile, SCs with surface-phrasal standards such as (6) or (7) have been overlooked [2]

(6)
More women than men attended the event.
(7)
This wider than tall box is of no use.

This article focuses on these understudied SCs with phrasal-looking standards of comparison to offer an answer to three long-debated questions in the literature on SCs: (i) the size and syntactic category of the standard, (ii) the obligatory presence of a gap and (iii) the linkage type between the compared elements.

The first point of discussion tackles the issue of the standard’s size and category in SCs like (6) and (7). We find two main proposals in the literature regarding surface-phrasal comparatives. Proponents of a reductionist analysis (Bresnan 1973; Chomsky 1977; Heim 1985; Lechner 2001; inter alia) defend that the standard marker always subcategorizes for a clausal complement, even in SCs with surface-phrasal standards. According to this approach, the standard in Example (6), for instance, would contain a reduced clause resulting from some ellipsis process[3] operating on this CP, as represented in (8).

(8)
Reductionist analysis: surface-phrasal standards involve a reduced clause.
More women than [CP _ men attended the event] attended the event].

Alternatively, one could defend a direct analysis (Hoeksema 1983; Napoli 1983; Pinkham 1982; inter alia) of the standard in SCs like (6) and (7). According to this proposal, the standard does not derive from a clausal source. Rather, the standard marker directly takes a phrasal constituent in its complement position, as illustrated in (9).

(9)
Direct analysis: surface-phrasal standards do not derive from a clause but are directly phrasal.
More women than [XP _ men] attended the event.

These are the two main proposals in the literature regarding the issue of the standard’s size and category in surface-phrasal comparatives.[4]

The second long-standing question that this article addresses is that of how to analyze the obligatory presence of a gap in the standard of SCs. Bresnan (1972, 1973, 1975 proposed to analyze the lack of a measure phrase modifier as the result of an obligatory and construction-specific ellipsis rule named Comparative Subdeletion. The effects of this rule are represented in (10).

(10)
They have many more enemies than we have that many friends .

However, the suitability of such an ad hoc deletion rule has been called into question, particularly, under the optic of the Minimalist enterprise, since this descriptive deletion rule lacks explanatory power.

Chomsky (1977) presented a second, more explanatory approach to the obligatory presence of a gap in SCs. According to this author, the gap would be generated as the result of syntactic wh-movement of a phonetically empty, left-branch quantifier to the left periphery of a clausal standard of comparison. As illustrated in (11), the null operator would raise from its base position to [Spec, CP] within the clausal standard.

(11)
Wh-movement analysis:
They have many more enemies than [CP Opi [C’ we have ti friends]].

It is important to highlight that this movement-based account forces one to assume that all SCs involve a (possibly reduced) clausal standard of comparison. In light of the discussion on the standard’s size and category in surface-phrasal SCs, this proposal is not without controversy, as the clausal or phrasal status of the standard in the SCs under examination in this article is yet to be determined.

In addition to the debates on the standard’s size and category and the justification for the missing modifier, the third issue discussed in this article concerns the linkage type between the compared constituents in SCs. Since the seventies, there has been a long-standing debate with respect to the categorial nature of the standard marker. Does the standard marker behave as a coordinating conjunction, does it function as a dependent marker (an adposition or a complementizer), or does this element have a dual nature? This question is still open for all types of comparative structures, not only for SCs. Napoli (1983) proposed that languages like English employ two types of comparatives: (i) a coordinate or parallel type (see also Hendriks 1991; Pinkham 1982 inter alia) in which the standard marker than flanks and coordinates two items of the same type (see the SC example in [12]); and (ii) a prepositional type that manifests dependent-like properties, such as being susceptible to movement (see Example [13]). The possibility of being dislocated is a characteristic feature of dependent constituents that is very much restricted in coordinate structures (Ross 1967).

(12)
Her speech was more insightful than clever .[5]
(Napoli 1983: 685 [23b])
(13)
Happier than she had ever been before, Sue picked up her suitcase and boarded the plane.
(Napoli 1983: 690 [68])

Many authors have observed that comparatives and coordinate structures are somehow related in diverse languages. Some proponents of the comparative coordination hypothesis are Pinkham (1982) for French and English, Napoli (1983) for English, Napoli and Nespor (1983) for Italian, Emonds (1985), Hendriks (1991) for English, Dutch and German, Sáez (1992, 1999) for Spanish, Lechner (1999, 2001, 2004, 2018) for English and German, Matos and Brito (2002, 2008) for European Portuguese, Osborne (2009) for English and German, or Vela-Plo (2018a, 2018b) for Basque and Spanish. However, these authors disagree on whether all or just a subset of comparative structures involve a coordinate structure and a coordinating standard marker.

On this basis, although Napoli defended a split approach to comparatives that distinguished coordinate from prepositional comparatives, it might be more reasonable to first address the question as to whether the relationship between the two compared elements is that of coordination or dependence; secondly, to examine which comparatives involve which linkage type; and finally, to tackle the issue on the categorial nature of the standard marker. Namely, whether the standard marker functions as a complementizer (as argued by Bresnan 1973), a preposition (Chomsky 1977), or a coordinating conjunction (Napoli 1983; Napoli and Nespor 1986; Sáez 1999).

With these three main questions in mind (the standard’s size and category, the obligatory presence of a gap and the linkage type between the compared elements), the present article offers a thorough examination of the syntactic and semantic properties of SCs with surface-phrasal standards such as (6) and (7). For that purpose, I review previous observations from typologically distinct languages, concretely, English (Germanic language, head-initial; Corver 1993; Lechner 2018; Napoli 1983; Pinkham 1982) and Spanish (Romance language, head-initial; Sáez 1992, 1999; Vela-Plo 2018a), in addition to presenting novel evidence from Basque surface-phrasal SCs (isolate, head-final; Goenaga 2012; Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003).

There are various reasons that make the study of phrasal-looking SCs in Basque for the first time particularly relevant to our purposes. Firstly, its rich morphology will facilitate the choice between competing analyses regarding the underlying structure of these constructions. In particular, the case morphology attested in arguments of verbal predicates will help determine the clausal or phrasal status of the standard of comparison. Secondly, Basque exhibits a very flexible word order and is hence defined as a free word order language, with its linearization depending largely on information structure (de Rijk 1969). Despite its freedom of word order, we will see that the Basque SCs under study show some striking restrictions with respect to movement. Hence, these two properties will be vital to test the hypotheses on the structure of comparatives that are present in the literature.

The article is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly presents the basic features of Basque comparative structures and summarizes previous approaches to their syntactic structure. In Section 3, I deal with the question concerning the standard’s size and category in SCs of the likes of Examples (6) and (7). Based on observations from typologically distinct languages (English, Spanish and novel evidence from Basque), I show that these SCs involve a phrasal standard that can by no means derive from a clausal source. Section 4 concentrates on the linkage type between the compared elements in SCs. Several syntactic tests will make evident that the SCs under examination behave just like phrasal coordinates in the three languages considered here. Thus, this section provides supporting evidence for the comparative coordination analysis. In Section 5, I offer a novel and comprehensive syntactic and semantic analysis of phrasal SCs. Section 6 discusses one of the present analysis’s benefits: Comparative Subdeletion no longer needs to be explained as an ad hoc deletion rule or as wh-movement within a clausal constituent. Rather, it is explained as a construction-independent obligatory deletion rule that is also attested in other common coordinate structures. Finally, Section 7 concludes the article with a summary of the main claims.

2 An overview of Basque comparative structures

Standards of comparative structures in Basque have traditionally been categorized as subordinate clauses (Euskaltzaindia 1999; Euskara Institutua 2019; Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003). The clausal nature of the standard of comparison is particularly obvious in examples like (14), in which the standard (in italics) contains a clause headed by the complementizer -en (Artiagoitia 2003; Artiagoitia and Elordieta 2016; Goenaga 1985; Ortiz de Urbina 1999).[6]

(14)
Ekarri dituen baino sagar gehiago jan nahiko nituzke.[7]
bring has.en than apple many.er eat want.fut aux
‘I would like to eat more apples than (s)he has brought.’

The availability of such clausal comparatives has led Basque grammarians to assume that the element that introduces the standard of comparison, that is, the standard marker baino ‘than’, always subcategorizes for a clause in this language (Euskaltzaindia 1999; Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003; Goenaga 2008, 2012; de Rijk 2008). Thus, even surface-phrasal comparatives like (15) are considered to involve a (reduced) clausal standard in this language.

(15)
Zuriñe Zeian ( den ) baino bizkorr-ago-a da.
Zuriñe.abs Zeian.abs is.en than fast-er-sg is
‘Zuriñe is faster than Zeian (is).’

As the above examples reflect, in Basque comparisons of inequality the standard cluster ([XP baino] ‘[than XP]’) usually precedes the comparative adjective or adverb. According to Euskaltzaindia (1999), Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) and Goenaga (2008, 2012, this cluster can also move quite freely and surface in different positions within the sentence. The following examples from Goenaga (2012: 143) illustrate this observation.

(16)
a.
Ni-k [zu-k baino] bi litro ardo gehiago edan ditut.
me-erg you-erg than two litre wine many.er drink aux
‘I have drunk two litres of wine more [than you].’
b.
Ni-k ti bi litro ardo gehiago edan ditut [zu-k baino]i.
me-erg two litre wine many.er drink aux you-erg than
‘I have drunk two litres of wine more [than you].’

In order to handle the availability of clausal standards as well as the mobility of the standard cluster, Goenaga (2008, 2012) proposes that the Basque standard marker baino ‘than’ functions as an adposition (concretely, a postposition) that takes a possibly reduced CP as its complement. This author’s proposal is represented in the tree diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 1: 
Tree diagram for “… -en baino bi litro ardo gehiago” ‘two liters of wine more than …’.
Figure 1:

Tree diagram for “… -en baino bi litro ardo gehiago” ‘two liters of wine more than …’.

Basque dictionaries sometimes classify baino ‘than’ as a conjunction. However, Goenaga (2008, 2012 claims that, on the assumption that conjunctions are morphemes that coordinate, this designation is inappropriate for comparative baino. Rather, this author defends that a comparison of inequality with -ago ‘-er’ selects for a P(ostpositional) P(hrase) headed by baino, which governs a clause (cf. Figure 1).

With this background in mind, the following sections study the syntactic properties of surface-phrasal subcomparatives such as (17)–(18) in Basque or (6)–(7) in English and Spanish.

(17)
Gizon baino emakume gehiago-k parte hartu zuten ekitaldian.
man than woman many.er-erg part take did in.the.event
‘More women than men participated in the event.’
(18)
Kutxa luze baino zabalago honek ez digu balio horretarako.
box long than wide.er this.erg not aux value for.that
‘This wider than tall box is of no use to us for that purpose.’

Concerning the specific case of Basque surface-phrasal subcomparatives, instead of ratifying the claim that all Basque comparatives are derived from a clausal source, Section 3.1 evidences that this language does possess comparatives with phrasal standards that cannot be analyzed as reduced clauses. In line with this evidence, in Sections 3.2. and 3.3. I show that, more generally, the reductionist analysis cannot deal with the properties of the SCs under examination in neither Basque, English nor Spanish.

3 Phrasal subcomparatives

This section examines the syntactic properties of surface-phrasal SCs with a nominal or adjectival base such as (19) and (20) (which correspond to [6], [7], [17] and [18] above) in English, Spanish and Basque.

(19)
a.
More women than men attended the event. (English)
b.
Más mujeres que hombres asistieron al evento. (Spanish)
more women than men attended to.the event
‘More women than men attended the event.’
c.
Gizon baino emakume gehiago-k parte hartu zuten ekitaldian. (Basque)
man than woman many.er-erg part take did in.the.event
‘More women than men participated in the event.’
(20)
a.
This wider than tall box is of no use. (English)
b.
Esta caja más ancha que larga no nos sirve. (Spanish)
this box more wide than long not us of.use
‘This wider than tall box is of no use to us.’
c.
Kutxa luze baino zabalago honek ez digu balio horretarako. (Basque)
box long than wide.er this.erg not aux value for.that
‘This wider than tall box is of no use to us for that purpose.’

3.1 Bare nouns in the standard of Basque phrasal SCs

In spite of the general assumption on the clausal origin of all standards of comparison in Basque, the morphological properties of the standard in surface-phrasal SCs like (19c) point in an opposite direction. In the standard of this SC, the bare nominal (henceforth BN) gizon cannot be functioning as the subject of a (partially elided) clause (see [21b]). Gizon surfaces as a bare noun, that is, both determinerless and caseless. BNs are banned from argumental positions in Basque and, further, all ergative subjects bear an article and morphological Case in Basque (cf. Artiagoitia 1997, 2002; Laka 1993). As exemplified in (21a)–(21b), this language does not accept bare nominals as ergative subjects (Artiagoitia 1997, 2002; Laka 1993).[8]

(21)
a.
Gizon*(-ek) parte hartu zuten ekitaldian.
man-det.pl.erg part take did in.the.event
Intended: ‘(The) men participated in the event.’
b.
Emakume-ek parte hartu zuten ekitaldian eta gizon*(-ek)
woman-det.pl.erg part take did in.the.event and man-det.pl.erg
ere bai.
too
Intended: ‘(The) men participated in the event.’

The absence of an article with case-marking on the nominal in the standard in (19c) thus signals its non-clausal status. In (22) I present a similar example with a potential representation of the constituent structure of the SC.

(22)
Barkatuko zait [[ erantzun baino] galdera gehiago-rekin] etorri izana.
forgive.fut aux answer than question many.er-com come been
‘Forgive me for having come here with more questions than answers.’
(23)
Erantzun*(-ekin) etorri da.
answer-det.pl.com come is
‘(S)he has brought answers.’ (Lit: ‘She has come with answers.’)

In these two cases, Basque clearly evidences the phrasal status of the standard, since a single case marker (ergative case in [19c], and comitative case in [22]) surfaces in the constituent containing the comparative structure. Consequently, these novel observations favor a direct analysis of surface-phrasal SCs like (19c) or (22) in Basque.

3.2 Clausal expansion test

The morphological properties of the single constituent in the standard of (19)–(20) in English and Spanish do not conclusively determine the phrasal or clausal status of the standard. We will thus employ another syntactic test, the clausal expansion test (based on Pinkham 1982: 11, 128–130; see also Hoeksema 1983), so as to clarify the issue on the standard’s size and category. Following a reductionist analysis of the type of SCs under discussion, one would expect the clausal versions of these SCs to be grammatical. In fact, clearly clausal SCs are possible in these languages:

(24)
a.
More women attended the event than men {did/came yesterday}.
b.
Más mujeres asistieron al evento que hombres vinieron
more women attended to.the event than men came
ayer.
yesterday
‘More women attended the event than men came yesterday.’
(25)
a.
This box is wider than that table is tall .
b.
Esta caja es más ancha que larga es esa mesa.
this box is more wide than long is that table
‘This box is wider than that table is tall.’

However, applying the clausal expansion test to the phrasal-looking SCs under examination ([19a]–[19b] and [20a]–[20b]) yields an ungrammatical result in these languages:

(26)
a.
*More women than men {did/came yesterday} attended the event.
b.
*Más mujeres que hombres vinieron ayer asistieron al
more women than men came yesterday attended to.the
evento.
event
Lit: ‘More women than men came yesterday attended the event.’
(27)
a.
*This wider than it is tall box is of no use.
b.
*Esta caja más ancha que larga es esa mesa no nos sirve.
this box more wide than long is that table not us of.use
Lit: ‘This wider than it seems tall box is of no use to us.’

The ungrammaticality of (26)–(27) evidences the fact that the particular surface-phrasal SCs that we are analyzing do not have the same distribution as obviously clausal SCs.[9] Whereas the standard of clausal SCs obligatorily appears clause finally in these languages (see [24]–[25]), the standard in phrasal-looking SCs always follows the first term of the comparison, wherever it may appear. The standard in (19) appears sentence-initially, close to the main subject (more women or más mujeres), which is the first term of the comparison. In the case of Example (20), the standard seems to be contained within the subject DP of the main clause, closely after the first term of the comparison (wider or más ancha).

With respect to Basque nominal SCs, this language also has surface-phrasal SCs whose standard clearly derives from a reduced clause where some ellipsis operation has left a single DP remnant, as in the examples in (28). In these SCs, the single constituent in the standard bears ergative case. Given that ergative case is assigned to subjects of transitive or unergative predicates in Basque, these DPs are clearly functioning as subjects of partially elided clauses. But, as we will see in Section 4, the distributional properties of surface-phrasal SCs that involve case-marked DPs in the standard like (28) in Basque differ from those of surface-phrasal SCs with BNs such as (19c). An observation that we will take to suggest that (19c) does not involve a reduced clause, unlike the SCs in (28) (more on Section 4.1).

(28)
a.
Emakume gehiago-k parte hartu zuten ekitaldian gizon-ek
woman many.er-erg part take did in.the.event man-det.pl.erg
baino.
than
‘More women participated in the event than men did.’
b.
Gizon-ek baino emakume gehiago-k parte hartu zuten
man- det.pl.erg than woman many.er-erg part take did
ekitaldian
in.the.event
‘More women participated in the event than men did.’

Regarding the application of the clausal expansion test in Basque adjectival SCs, expanding the standard of (20c) into a clausal one also leads to an ungrammatical result, just as in English and Spanish (recall the ungrammatical examples in [27]).

(29)
*Kutxa luze den baino zabalago honek ez digu balio horretarako.
box long is.en than wide.er this.erg not aux value for.that
Lit: ‘This wider than is tall box is of no use to us for that purpose.’

In sum, the availability of BNs in the standard of Basque phrasal-looking SCs and the results of the clausal expansion test appear to argue against a reductionist analysis of the SCs in (19)–(20) in English, Spanish and Basque.

3.3 Unattested ellipsis

The final argument that favors a direct analysis over a reductionist analysis of SCs like (19)–(20) concerns the alleged ellipsis process that might cause its reduced or phrasal appearance. If we were to apply a reductionist analysis to nominal SCs with surface-phrasal standards in the languages the article is taking into account, we would be forced to propose an ad hoc type of ellipsis. Concretely, following a reductionist analysis would force us to assume the availability of an ellipsis process that deleted a pre or post-positional head without its complement, as I represent in (30)–(32).

(30)
English:
a.
The room was filled with more supporters than opponents of Mao .
b.
The room was filled with more supporters than [ the room was filled [PP with opponents of Mao]].
(31)
Spanish:
a.
La sala estaba llena de más partidarios que detractores de
the room was full with more supporters than opponents of
Mao.
Mao
‘The room was filled with more supporters than opponents of Mao.’
b.
La sala estaba llena de más partidarios que [ la sala
the room was full with more supporters than the room
estaba llena [PP de detractores de Mao]]
was full with opponents of Mao
‘The room was filled with more supporters than opponents of Mao.’
(32)
Basque:
a.
Mao-ren aurkari baino jarraitzaile gehiago-ri buruz egin
Mao-gen opponent than supporter many.er-dat about made
zituzten film-ak.
had film-det.pl.abs
‘(They) have made films about more supporters than opponents of Mao.’
b.
[[PP Mao-ren aurkari- ei buruz ] egin zituzten film-ak ] baino
Mao.gen opponent-det.pl.dat about made had.en film-det.pl.abs than
jarraitzaile gehiago-ri buruz egin zituzten film-ak.
supporter many.er-dat about made had film-det.pl.abs
‘(They) have made films about more supporters than opponents of Mao.’

The type of ellipsis represented in English (30b), Spanish (31b) or Basque (32b)[10] is unattested elsewhere in these languages.[11] For this reason, if one wanted to defend a reductionist analysis of the above SCs, it would be necessary to postulate a type of ellipsis operation that is otherwise unattested.

Regarding the question on the standard’s size and category, to this point I have provided evidence that favors a direct analysis over a reductionist analysis of the standard of comparison of surface-phrasal SCs such as (19), (20), (22) and (30)–(32) in Basque, English and Spanish. The availability of BNs in the standard of Basque surface-phrasal SCs (Section 3.1), the results of the clausal expansion test (Section 3.2) and the need to posit an ad hoc ellipsis operation to defend a reductionist analysis (Section 3.3) suggest that the standard does not derive from a clausal source in these Basque, English and Spanish SCs. Based on these observations, the traditional assumption that all Basque comparatives are derived from a clausal source needs to be abandoned, as well as the assumption that comparatives are invariably clausal in English or Spanish, which should not be taken for granted. The novel observations presented in this section evidence that these languages do possess comparatives with phrasal standards that cannot be analyzed as reduced clauses. The following section contains previously unacknowledged observations on the similar behavior between phrasal SCs and phrasal coordinate structures that support a direct analysis of the SCs under examination.

4 Comparative coordination in phrasal subcomparatives

Those deletion operations that are characteristic of coordinate structures are known as Conjunction Reduction ellipsis operations. Gapping and Right-Node-Raising (henceforth RNR) are two of those ellipsis processes that operate on coordinate structures, but are disallowed in subordinate contexts (Corver 1990; Hendriks 1991; Huang 1977).[12] The contrast between (33a) and (33b) illustrates this restriction on Gapping in Spanish and English (see translations).

(33)
Gapping
a.
Juan estaba en el cine y Luis (estaba) en el teatro.
Juan was in the cinema and Luis was in the theatre
‘Juan was in the cinema and Luis (was) in the theatre.’
b.
Juan estaba en el cine mientras Luis *(estaba) en el teatro.
Juan was in the cinema while Luis was in the theatre
‘Juan was in the cinema while Luis (*was) in the theatre.’ (Sáez 1999: 114 ([80c])

The observation that Conjunction Reduction can operate on comparative structures has been widely noted in the literature on comparative structures (for English: Chomsky and Lasnik 1977: 495; Corver 1993: 777; Emonds 1985: 329; Hendriks 1991: 42; Lechner 2004: 91; Napoli 1983: 676; McCawley 1998: 700; see also Sáez 1992 for Spanish). For example, clausal SCs show a coordination-like behavior in allowing both Gapping (34) and RNR (35) (cf. Corver 1993, 2006 for English; Sáez 1999 for Spanish).

(34)
Gapping in comparatives
a.
John knows more Romance languages than Pete knows Germanic languages . (Corver 1993: 777)
b.
Juan compró más libros en Madrid que Luis compr ó discos en
Juan bought more books in Madrid than Luis bought CDs in
Lugo.
Lugo
‘Juan bought more books in Madrid than Luis CDs in Lugo.’
(adapted from Sáez 1999: 1145 [89b])
(35)
RNR in comparatives (cf. Corver 1993: 777)
a.
More professors avoided than students attended [the talk about RNR].
b.
Más profesores evitaron que estudiantes escucharon [la charla
more professors avoided than students listened the talk
sobre RNR].
about RNR].
‘More professors avoided than students listened to the talk about RNR.’

In this section I show that the coordination-like behavior of SCs is not restricted to clausal SCs, but also extends to the phrasal SCs under examination in the three languages considered in this article.

4.1 Immovable standards in Basque phrasal SCs

In the light of the availability of phrasal SCs with BNs in the standard, and given the restricted distribution of these elements in Basque, the question arises as to how BNs are licensed in the structure. Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 843) discuss the properties of the SC example presented in (36) and provide a plausible answer to this question. These authors assume that all comparatives in Basque contain a (potentially reduced) clausal standard. Under a reductionist analysis, one would expect not the determiner-less diru ‘money’ (BN) in the standard of (36), but dirua ‘the/some money’, as represented in (37).

(36)
Diru baino amets gehiago zuen agure-ak
money than dream many.er.abs had old.man-det.sg.erg
‘The old man had more dreams than money.’
(Euskaltzaindia 1999: 277 [13b])
(37)
Agure-ak diru-a zuen.
old.man- det.sg.erg money-det.sg.abs had
‘The old man had (the) money.’

Nonetheless, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) propose that the BN diru is also expected under a reductionist analysis if there is some sort of an unpronounced quantifier within the partially elided clausal standard, in the lines of ‘than whatever amount of money he had’. Even though their proposal might offer a plausible solution to how BNs are licensed in the standard of phrasal SCs, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina’s analysis does not explain a further restriction on the standard cluster of SCs with BNs such as (19c), (22), (32) or (36). The critical observation, which had been previously unacknowledged, is that movement of the standard cluster in these Basque SCs is banned, in contrast with previous assumptions in the literature on the freedom of movement of this element (recall Section 3). Compare the grammaticality of the above mentioned phrasal SCs with BNs and base-generated standards, with the ungrammaticality of (38)–(41) with BNs and dislocated standards.

(38)
*ti Emakume gehiago-k parte hartu zuten ekitaldian [ gizon baino]i.
woman many.er-erg part take did in.the.event man than
‘More women than men participated in the event.’ (compare with [19c])
(39)
*Barkatuko zait ti galdera gehiago-rekin etorri izana [ erantzun baino]i.
will.forgive aux question many.er-com come having answer than
‘Forgive me for having come here with more questions than answers.’
(compare with [22])
(40)
* ti Mao-ren jarraitzaile gehiago-ri buruz egin zituzten film-ak
Mao-gen supporter many.er-dat about made had film-det.pl.abs
[ aurkari baino].
opponent than
‘(They) have made films about more supporters than opponents of Mao.’
(compare with [32])
(41)
* ti Amets gehiago zuen agure-ak [ diru baino].
dream many.er.abs had old.man-det.sg.erg money than
‘The old man had more dreams than money.’ (compare with [36])

In contrast, this limitation on movement is not attested in comparatives whose surface-phrasal standard results from a reduced clause, as in (16) or (42). The standard in these comparatives contains an ergative-marked DP (zu-k ‘you-erg’ in [16] or Jon-ek ‘Jon-erg’ in [42]). Hence, both DPs are clearly functioning as subjects of partially elided clauses (see a potential representation in [42b]).

(42)
a.
Ana-k [ Jon-ek baino] lagun gehiago ekarri ditu afarira.
Ana-erg Jon-erg than friend many.er.abs brought has to.dinner
‘Ana has brought more friends to dinner than Jon has.’
b.
Ana-k [ Jon-ek afari-ra ekarri dituen lagunak baino]
Ana-erg Jon-erg to.dinner brought has.en friends than
lagun gehiago
friend many.er.abs
ekarri ditu afarira.
brought has to.dinner
‘Ana has brought more friends to dinner than Jon has.’
c.
Ana-k ti lagun gehiago ekarri ditu afarira [ Jon-ek baino]i.
Ana-erg ti friend many.er.abs brought has to.dinner Jon-erg than
‘Ana has brought more friends to dinner than Jon has.’

What the ungrammaticality of (38)–(41) shows is that movement of the standard cluster is banned in Basque surface-phrasal SCs with BNs, unlike in surface-phrasal comparatives with case-marked DPs such as (16) or (42). In view of this characteristic, the generalization on the freedom of movement of the standard cluster in Basque needs to be revised, as it just holds for a subset of Basque comparative structures such as reduced clausal comparatives like (16) or (42). Dislocation of the standard cluster is impossible in phrasal SCs with a BN or a bare adjective[13] in the standard:

(43)
a.
Kutxa [ luze baino] zabal-ago honek ez digu balio horretarako. (Basque)
box long than wide-er this.erg not aux value for.that
‘This wider than tall box is of no use to us for that purpose.’
b.
*Kutxa zabalago honek ez digu balio horretarako [ luze baino].
c.
*Kutxa zabalago [ luze baino] honek ez digu balio horretarako.
(44)
a.
Kutxa hau [ luze baino ] zabal-ago-a da. (Basque)
box this.abs long than wide-er-sg is
‘This box is wider than long.’
b.
*Kutxa hau zabalagoa da [ luze baino ].
c.
*Kutxa hau zabalagoa [ luze baino ] da.

Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina’s proposal on the presence of a silent quantifier may account for the availability of BNs in the standard of Basque SCs. However, their approach cannot explain why these standards cannot be dislocated. This novel remark and the observations presented in the following subsections will make evident that an alternative analysis is necessary. In particular, I will follow Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) and take that an elided quantificational element is present in all nominal SCs to explain the licensing of BNs in the standard of these comparative constructions. However, my analysis of the surface-phrasal SCs under examination in this article departs from their approach in several respects. First, I defend a direct analysis of the Basque, English and Spanish SCs under discussion. Second, the syntactic tests presented in the following subsections manifest that these surface-phrasal SCs behave just as phrasal coordinates do in the three languages that are examined. Consequently, I will take the largely identical behavior of phrasal coordinates and these surface-phrasal SCs to evidence that the architecture of these comparatives involves an underlying phrasal coordinate structure.

4.2 Coordinate Structure Constraint and across the board movement

As stated by Ross (1967), coordinate structures must obey two syntactic conditions:

(45)
Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC): In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.

This descriptive rule accounts for the blocking of asymmetric extraction from just one of the conjuncts of both phrasal and clausal coordinates (see examples in [46]).

(46)
a.
Whoi did you see pictures of ti (*and books about Nancy Reagan)?
(Napoli 1983: 682 [iiib])
b.
the apples thati (*I cooked themi and) Fred ate ti .

Nonetheless, the constraint in (45) is lifted if a constituent is moved from all conjuncts simultaneously in an across-the-board (ATB) manner, following the terminology of Williams (1978). Compare the examples in (46) with those in (47):

(47)
a.
Whoi did you see pictures of ti and books about ti?
b.
The apples thati I cooked ti and Fred ate ti

As discussed by Napoli (1983: 682), Hendriks (1991: 45), Corver (1993: 777) and Lechner (2004: 19), among others, comparatives display the same restrictions on movement that affect coordinate structures. In English, while asymmetric extraction results in ungrammaticality (cf. [48]), ATB extraction is allowed in nominal SCs such as (49a) or adjectival comparatives such as (49b), for instance.

(48)
a.
*Whoi did you see more pictures of ti than books about Ronald Reagan?
b.
*Whoi did you see more pictures of Ronald Reagan than books about ti?
(adapted from Napoli 1983: 682 [iiia] and [iiib])
(49)
a.
[Nancy Reagan]i , I’ve seen more pictures of ti than books about ti. (adapted from Napoli 1983:683 [15a])
b.
A person whoi Mary is more proud of ti than Peter is ti .
(Lechner 2004: 221 [101])

Regarding Spanish, Sáez (1992, 1999 observes that both coordinate structures and clausal SCs must obey the CSC. The grammaticality pattern of clausal SCs in (51) parallels that of the coordinate examples in (50) with respect to availability of asymmetric versus symmetric extraction (data adapted from Sáez 1992: 392 [17] and [18]).

(50)
a.
*¿[A quién]i compró Pedro manzanas ti y vendió Juan peras a Luis?
to whom bought Pedro apples and sold Juan pears to Luis
Lit. ‘To whom did Pedro buy apples and Juan sold pears?’
b.
¿[A quién]i compró Pedro manzanas ti y vendió Juan peras ti?
to whom bought Pedro apples and sold Juan pears
Lit. ‘To whom did Pedro buy apples and Juan sold pears?’
(51)
a.
*¿[A quién] compró Pedro más manzanas ti que vendió Juan peras
to whom bought Pedro more apples than sold Juan pears
a Luis?
to Luis
Lit. ‘To whom did Pedro buy more apples than Juan sold pears to Luis?’
b.
¿[A quién]i compró Pedro más manzanas ti que vendió Juan peras ti?
to whom bought Pedro more apples than sold Juan pears
Lit. ‘To whom did Pedro buy more apples to than John sold pears to?’

If we now move to phrasal SCs in Spanish, below I show that an identical contrast in the impossibility of asymmetric extraction versus the availability of symmetric movement applies in these cases (see also Sáez 1999: 1147–1148).

(52)
a.
*¿[De qué filósofo]i ha leído Marina más ensayos de Frege
of what philosopher has read Marina more essays of Frege
que novelas ti ?
than novels
‘Of what philosopher has Marina read more essays of Frege than novels?’
b.
¿[De qué filósofo]i ha leído Marina más ensayos ti que novelas ti ?
of what philosopher has read Marina more essays than novels
‘Of what philosopher has Marina read more essays ti than novels ti?’
(53)
a.
*¿[De quién]i estaba Dani más avergonzado ti que orgulloso de Jorge hoy?
of whom was Dani more ashamed than proud of Jorge today
‘Whoi was Dani more ashamed of ti than proud of Jorge today?’
b.
¿[De quién]i estaba Dani más avergonzado ti que orgulloso ti hoy?
of whom was Dani more ashamed que proud today
‘Whoi was Dani more ashamed of ti than proud of ti today?’

The above data patterns show a clear correspondence between the behavior of undisputed coordinates and Spanish clausal and phrasal SCs with respect to extraction constraints. Both constructions ban asymmetric extractions while permitting ATB movement, just as in the English data described previously.

Moving to Basque comparatives, I exemplify that an identical restriction on asymmetric extraction applies to phrasal SCs with BNs in the standard with the minimal pair in (54). Extraction from the standard results in ungrammaticality, whereas ATB movement from both the standard and the comparative base leads to a grammatical expression:

(54)
a.
*[Zeri buruzko]i ti liburu baino gatazkari buruzko film gehiago
what about book than conflict about film many.er.abs
egin dituzte aurten?
do have this.year
Lit. ‘[About what topic]i have they made more films about the conflict than books ti this year?
b.
[Zeri buruzko]i ti liburu baino ti film gehiago egin dituzte aurten?
what about book than film many.er.abs do have this.year
‘About what topic have they made more films ti than books ti this year?

Importantly, the CSC can also account for another previously unaccounted and distinctive property of Basque phrasal SCs that was presented in Section 4.2. These particular comparative structures do not allow movement of the standard cluster ([XP baino] ‘[than XP]’), unlike other types of comparatives (recall the comparative example in [42] with a reduced clausal standard). Crucially, if we take that the phrasal SCs under examination involve an underlying coordinate structure, the impossibility of dislocating the standard cluster follows as a restriction of the CSC. In addition to limiting extraction out of a conjunct to symmetric, ATB movement, the CSC rule describes the ban on movement of whole conjuncts. Therefore, under the comparative coordination analysis of phrasal SCs defended in this article, the ungrammaticality of the Basque data in (38)–(41) can be explained as the result of a CSC violation.

4.3 Parallelism condition and shared constituents

One distinctive feature that is generally associated with coordinate structures is its parallelism or identity requirement over the conjuncts (cf. Hornstein and Nunes 2002; Munn 1993, and Munn 2000; Williams 1978; inter alia). As stated in Chomsky (1957) or Williams’ (1978) Law of Coordination of Likes, each conjunct must be formally similar to all other conjuncts. Nevertheless, there is substantial discrepancy regarding how to exactly formalize this requirement; as a syntactic restriction (Chomsky 1957), a semantic condition (Munn 1993, 2000) or a legibility condition at the C/I interface (Hornstein and Nunes 2002), among other possibilities (see discussion in Sag et al. 1985; Schachter 1977; or Zamparelli 2011).

Concerning comparative structures, Pinkham (1982) and Napoli (1983) point out that standard markers flank parallel strings in SCs like (55a)–(55c), just as coordinating conjunctions do in Examples (56a)–(56c). On this basis, Napoli (1983) defends the coordinating nature of the English standard marker than in comparatives like (55) and proposes that these SCs involve an underlying coordinate structure, without offering a further formalization of the proposal.

(55)
a.
a more tasty than elegant dinner.
Pinkham (1982)
b.
Mary is more clever than smart.
Napoli (1983)
c.
Mary sings more sweetly than beautifully.
Napoli (1983)
(56)
a.
a tasty and elegant dinner.
b.
Mary is clever and smart.
c.
Mary sings both sweetly and beautifully.

Similarly, Sáez (1999) argues that the compared terms in phrasal SCs with nominal and adjectival bases in Spanish also stand in a coordinate relation mediated by the standard marker que ‘than’ (57) or como ‘as’ (58) in inequality and equality comparatives, respectively. Both elements combine parallel strings in these SCs.

(57)
El año pasado, más chicas que chicos leyeron más novelas que
the year part more girls than boys read more novels than
revistas en más bibliotecas que librerías.
magazines in more libraries than bookshops
‘Last year, more girls than boys read more novels than magazines in more libraries than bookshops.’
(adapted from Sáez 1999: 1149 [112b])
(58)
a.
Teo es tan nervioso como inteligente.
Teo is as nervous as intelligent
‘Teo is as nervous as intelligent.’
b.
Teo compró tantos libros como cuadernos.
Teo bought so.many books as notebooks
‘Teo bought as many books as notebooks.’
(Sáez 1999: 1149 [113a]–[113b])

Sáez (1999) notes a further property that supports his proposal on the coordinate status of Spanish phrasal SCs. This author observes that nominal SCs like (59) pattern with coordinate structures like (60) in admitting the presence of a shared P(repositional) P(hrase) complement. In both examples, the PP de Mao ‘of Mao’ is simultaneously modifying the complement-taking nominals partidarios ‘supporters’ and oponentes ‘opponents’.

(59)
Conozco más partidarios que detractores de Mao.
know more supporters than detractors of Mao
‘I know more supporters than detractors of Mao.’
(Sáez 1999: 1148 [108])[14]
(60)
Conozco partidarios y detractores de Mao.
know supporters and detractors of Mao
‘I know supporters and detractors of Mao.’
(Sáez 1999: 1148 [106])

In contrast, the presence of shared PP complements in non-coordinate structures leads to a decay in acceptability, as exemplified in (61):

(61)
*Conozco partidarios considerados como detractores de Mao.
know supporters considered as detractors of Mao
‘I know supporters considered detractors of Mao.’
(Sáez 1999: 1148 [107])

Based on Sáez’s observations, below I show that the coordinate-like presence of shared constituents extends to PP complements of adjectives in phrasal SCs and adjectival coordinate structures such as (62a)–(62b) and to PP modifiers in nominal SCs and nominal coordination such as (63a)–(63b), both in Spanish and in English (see translations).

(62)
a.
Ana se sintió más avergonzada que orgullosa de su hermano.
Ana cl felt more ashamed than proud of her brother
‘Ana felt more ashamed than proud of her brother.’
b.
Ana se sintió a la vez avergonzada y orgullosa de su hermano.
Ana cl felt at the time ashamed and proud of her brother
‘Ana felt ashamed and proud of her brother at the same time.’
(63)
a.
Más mujeres que hombres de Bilbao vinieron a la reunión.
more women than men from Bilbao came to the meeting
‘More women than men from Bilbao attended the meeting.’
b.
Mujeres y hombres de Bilbao vinieron a la reunión.
women and men from Bilbao came to the meeting
‘Women and men from Bilbao attended the meeting.’

Importantly, as expected under a comparative coordination analysis, the Basque data I present in (64)–(65) confirms that phrasal SCs systematically behave like phrasal coordinates do in allowing a single PP to modify both compared terms in this language as well. In both the SC and coordinate examples in (64)–(65), a single instance of the PP Maoren ‘of Mao’ is able to modify two nominals, aurkari ‘opponent’ and jarraitzaile ‘supporter’, at the same time.

(64)
a.
[[PP Mao-ren ] aurkari baino jarraitzaile gehiago] zeuden gela horretan.
Mao-gen opponent than supporter many.er.abs were room that.in
‘There were more supporters than opponents of Mao in that room.’
b.
[[PP Mao-ren ] aurkari eta jarraitzaile asko] zeuden gela horretan.
Mao-gen opponent and supporter many.abs were room that.in
‘There were many supporters and opponents of Mao in that room.’
(65)
a.
[[PP Mao-ren ] aurkari baino jarraitzaile gehiago-ri] bidali zieten
Mao-gen opponent than supporter many.er-dat sent aux
gutun-a.
letter-det.sg.abs
‘(They) sent the letter to more supporters than opponents of Mao.’
b.
[[PP Mao-ren aurkari eta jarraitzaile asko- ri ] bidali
Mao-gen opponent and supporter many-dat sent
zieten gutun-a.
aux letter-det.sg.abs
‘(They) sent the letter to more supporters than opponents of Mao.’

The oddness that arises in Example (66), in which the PP complement of the noun is embedded within a relative clause, does not emerge in SCs such as (64a) and (65a), nor in phrasal coordinate structures. The possibility of shared constituents in these latter comparatives and coordinate structures thus contrasts with their unavailability in embedded contexts. The data from English, Spanish and also Basque displayed in this section corroborate the observation that the behavior of the SCs under study in this article consistently patterns with that of coordinate structures, and, crucially, with that of phrasal coordinates.

(66)
?? Jarraitzaile asko, [RC Mao-ren aurkari batzuk ezagutzen zituztenak],
 supporter many.abs Mao-gen opponent some know did.en.det
zeuden gela horretan.
 were room that.in
??There were many supporters, who knew some opponents of Mao, in that room.’

Just like in Spanish, Basque allows coordinate-like PP modifiers in nominal SCs with a phrasal standard and nominal coordinate structures, as I illustrate in (67a)–(63b).[15]

(67)
a.
Bilbo-ko emakume baino gizon gehiago-k lortu zuten.
Bilbao-of woman than man many.er-erg achieve had
‘More women than men from Bilbao achieved that’.
b.
Bilbo-ko emakume eta gizon asko-k lortu zuten.
Bilbao-of woman and man many-erg achieve had
‘Many women and men from Bilbao achieved that’.

4.4 Interim summary

In Section 4 I have shown that the phrasal SCs under discussion pattern just like phrasal coordinate structures do in many important respects. Taking into consideration previous observations on the systematic similarities between coordinates and SCs in English and Spanish, I have broadened the empirical domain of study to Basque SCs and offered novel supporting evidence for a comparative coordination analysis of the SCs under examination. Concretely, phrasal SCs in the three languages considered in this article are subject to the same movement constraints (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) and parallelism requirement (Section 4.3) that coordinate structures need to obey. Most importantly, phrasal SCs do not resemble just any type of coordinate structure. Rather, these comparatives behave like phrasal coordinate structures in permitting a single shared constituent to modify both compared elements simultaneously (Section 4.3).

Based on the observations from Basque, Spanish and English surface-phrasal subcomparatives, Table 1 below summarizes the proposed answers and the crucial observations regarding the main theoretical questions presented in Section 1.

Table 1:

Interim summary of the theoretical questions and relevant observations regarding Basque, Spanish and English surface-phrasal subcomparatives.

Theoretical questions Previous proposals Present proposal Relevant observations
1. Size of the standard
  1. Directly phrasal

  2. Reduced clause

  1. Directly phrasal

  1. Availability of BNs in the standard of Basque surface-phrasal SCs (Section 3.1)

  2. Results of the clausal expansion test (Section 3.2)

  3. Need to posit an ad hoc ellipsis operation to defend a reductionist analysis (Section 3.3)

2. Obligatory presence of a gap
  1. Wh-movement

  2. Construction-specific deletion operation

3. Linkage type between compared elements
  1. Coordination

  2. Dependency

  1. Coordination

  1. Same movement constraints as coordinates (Sections 4.1 and 4.2)

  2. Parallelism requirement (Section 4.3)

In the light of the findings presented in Sections 3 and 4, there is substantial evidence to conclude that (i) the surface-phrasal SCs under examination involve an underlying phrasal standard of comparison that is not derived from a clausal source, and that (ii) the two compared elements stand in a coordinate relation mediated by the standard marker in this particular type of comparative.[16] What is more, a comparative coordination analysis of the Basque SCs under discussion can account for a peculiar and previously unacknowledged property of these comparatives that would otherwise remain unexplained. Unlike in other types of comparatives, the standard cluster in Basque phrasal SCs must stay frozen in its base-position (Section 4.1). An advantage of the comparative coordination analysis of phrasal SCs developed in this article is that it can explain this distinctive feature as the result of the Coordinate Structure Constraint, which holds for any construction with an underlying coordinate structure.[17]

5 Syntactic and semantic analysis of phrasal subcomparatives

Most syntactic and semantic analyses of SCs have focused on those comparatives that involve a clausal standard or have assumed a reductionist analysis of surface-phrasal SCs. However, in line with the findings presented in Sections 3 and 4, previous proposals need to be revised so as to accommodate the fact that some SCs involve a directly phrasal standard and a coordinate syntactic structure. In this section, I will defend a comparative coordination analysis of the SCs of interest, combined with a direct analysis of the standard of comparison. Crucially, one of the advantages of the present proposal will be that Comparative Subdeletion (the obligatory omission of a measure-phrase modifier from the standard of comparison of SCs) does not need to be explained as the result of an ad hoc deletion rule, nor as wh-movement within a clausal constituent.

In what follows, I present a coordinate-like architecture for phrasal SCs with nominal and adjectival bases (Section 5.1) and a full semantic composition (Section 5.2.) that allows a transparent mapping between the surface syntax and semantic interpretation of these constructions.

5.1 Architecture of phrasal SCs

Regarding the general architecture of comparative structures, I follow the functional analysis of comparative markers, in line with the proposal by Abney (1987; see also Corver 1990, 1993; Kennedy 1999, 2002; Larson 1988 for English; Brucart 2003 for Spanish; inter alia). According to this approach, comparative markers (English -er or Spanish más) behave as syntactic heads (Deg) within the functional structure of gradable adjectives in comparatives with an adjectival base, as represented in Figure 2, or within the functional structure of nominals, as represented in Figure 3. Similarly, for a head-final language like Basque, Goenaga (2008, 2012) and Vela-Plo (2018b, 2018c) also defend that the comparative marker -ago ‘-er’ is a functional element heading its own projection. As represented in the examples in Figures 2 and 3, in this language the comparative marker takes its complement (either an adjective or a quantity word) to the left in a mirror image of its English counterpart.

Figure 2: 
Tree diagrams for English wider and Basque zabalago ‘wider’.
Figure 2:

Tree diagrams for English wider and Basque zabalago ‘wider’.

Figure 3: 
Tree diagrams for English more women and Basque emakume gehiago ‘more women’.
Figure 3:

Tree diagrams for English more women and Basque emakume gehiago ‘more women’.

In nominal comparatives such as those in Figure 3, more is assumed to decompose into the comparative degree head -er plus a quantity word (Bresnan 1973; based on Selkirk 1970) which I represent as the head of Num(ber) in the above examples. In a similar vein, Goenaga (2012) and Vela-Plo (2018c) take Basque comparative markers gehiago ‘more’ and gutxiago ‘less’ not to be atomic expressions. Rather, gehiago is formed by attaching the comparative morpheme -ago ‘-er’ to the morpheme gehi, which is a bound quantitative lexeme equivalent to asko ‘much, many’ (Goenaga 2012). Gutxiago, in turn, is formed by attaching -ago to the quantifier gutxi ‘little, few’. Similarly, I take that the Spanish comparative marker más ‘more’ also decomposes into a degree marker and a quantity word (cf. Brucart 2003; and Vela-Plo 2018c). Following the insights in Etxeberria (2005; see also Borer 2005; Etxeberria and Etxepare 2011), a quantity word that I render as Num or many provides the degree argument associated with the compared nominals in comparatives where cardinalities of certain stuff are contrasted, as in the examples in Figure 3. Num projects a Num(ber) P(hrase) that serves as the complement of the degree head.

Proponents of the functional analysis of the DegP such as Kennedy (1999, 2002; see also Abney 1987; Corver 1993) argue that the standard cluster [than XP] behaves as a selected adjunct. The syntactic analysis of phrasal SCs that I propose maintains an adjunction analysis for the standard cluster while also accounting for the coordination-like properties of these comparatives. In particular, I extend Munn’s (1993, 2000 adjunct analysis of coordination to cases of comparative coordination such as phrasal SCs. According to this author, syntactic coordination is an instance of adjunction of a Conjunction Phrase (&P) to the initial conjunct of a set of conjuncts.[18] In the tree diagram in Figure 4 I sketch Munn’s (1993, 2000 architectural proposal for an example of adjectival coordination like wide and long.

Figure 4: 
Tree diagram for wide and long.
Figure 4:

Tree diagram for wide and long.

With these assumptions in mind, I propose that the phrasal SCs under examination in this article involve coordination of two DegPs, which correspond to the two compared terms, mediated by the standard marker.[19] I offer a representation of English and Basque phrasal SCs with an adjectival base (68) in the tree diagrams in Figure 5 (the Spanish counterpart to (68) would feature the internal syntax of the English version).

Figure 5: 
Tree diagrams for English wider than long and Basque luze baino zabalago ‘wider than long’.
Figure 5:

Tree diagrams for English wider than long and Basque luze baino zabalago ‘wider than long’.

(68)
a. The road is wider than long. b. Bide-a luze baino zabal-ago -a
road-det.sg.abs long than wide-er-sg
da.
is.
‘The road is wider than long.’

Given the coordination-like properties of these comparatives, I treat the standard marker (English than, Basque baino or Spanish que) in these constructions as a coordinating conjunction that projects a &P that is adjoined to the first conjunct of the coordination (the comparative base, DegP1). In the Basque example in Figure 5, the coordinator baino combines with its complement DegP2 and projects a Conjunction Phrase (&P) that adjoins to the first conjunct (DegP1). The silent degree head in the standard (DegP2) corresponds to the obligatory gap characteristic of subcomparative constructions, and its presence is motivated by the semantic composition of these structures in the following subsection.

5.2 Semantic derivation of phrasal SCs

Regarding the semantic denotation of gradable adjectives, I assume the common degree-theoretic analysis proposed by Cresswell (1976; Bhatt and Pancheva 2004; Heim 1985, and Heim 2000; von Stechow 1984; among many others) in which a gradable predicate like long is represented as a relation between individuals and degrees:

(69)
tall<d,<e,t=λd d λx e .TALL(x)≥d

In order to derive the semantic composition of phrasal SCs, I rely on the A-not-A or Existential Theory of inequality comparison (cf. Gajewski 2008; Klein 1980; Larson 1988; Matushansky 2011; McConnell-Ginet 1973; Schwarzschild 2008; Seuren 1973).[20] According to this approach to inequality comparatives, the denotation of a common comparative like (70a) could be formalized as in (70b).

(70)
a.
Marina is taller than Laura.
(cf. Seuren 1969, 1973)
b.
d [[TALL(Marina) ≥ d] ∧ ¬ [TALL(Laura) ≥ d]]
There exists a degree d such that Marina is tall to at least that degree d and it is not the case that Laura is tall to at least that degree d.

The A-not-A analysis of inequality comparatives involves existential quantification over degrees associated to the compared terms, which stand in a coordinate relation. The degree difference associated to the contrasted elements is introduced by means of a negative operator in the standard of comparison. In the locus classicus for the A-not-A analysis (Seuren 1973) the meaning of the comparative marker (-er in English) contributes both existential quantification over degrees and negation, while the standard marker makes no semantic contribution. However, I would like to propose a more transparent matching between the above-described syntactic analysis of phrasal SCs involving coordination of two phrasal terms and its semantic composition.[21] For that purpose, I adhere to the recent view on the semantics of comparison that defends that both the comparative marker as well as the standard marker contribute to the meaning of the comparative expression (also Alrenga et al. 2012; Bylinina and Lander 2013; Schwarzschild 2010, among others).

To be more precise, I take that a coordinating standard marker is not semantically vacuous. Conveniently, the behavior of the standard marker would be identical to the coordinating conjunction and in that it restricts coordination to two alike categories (recall the identity condition discussed in Section 4.3; see Munn 1993). Accordingly, the denotation of the standard marker I illustrate in (72) follows the standard denotation of and, the meet operator ⊓ discussed in Partee and Rooth (1983; also Coppock and Champollion 2018; Winter 2001, cf. [71]). I will elaborate on the particular denotations of the standard marker in phrasal SCs with adjectival and nominal bases in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, respectively. Crucially, though, than & incorporates a negation operator to the first argument it combines with, that is, the standard of comparison. Thereby, the present proposal abides to the general intuition behind the A-not-A analysis of comparison by introducing negation in the standard marker.[22] Given the typological prominence in the use of adversative coordinators as standard markers in inequality comparatives (for example, the Basque standard marker baino ‘than’ has a second function as an adversative coordinator; see Vela-Plo 2018b) the present proposal seems to fit the empirical data better than those proposals that consider the standard marker void of meaning.[23]

(71)
and&<τ,<τ,τ = λX<σ,t>λY<σ,t>λZσ.Y(Z)∧X(Z) if τ = < σ1, σ2>

(for non-clausal coordination; τ being a type ending in t)

(72)
than&<τ,<τ,τ = λX<σ,t>λY<σ,t>λZσ.Y(Z)∧¬X(Z) if τ = < σ1, σ2>
(for phrasal SCs; τ being a type ending in t)[24]

Regarding the comparative marker, traditional A-not-A accounts assume that -er introduces existential quantification over a set of degrees. At LF, this element quantifier-raises from the first compared term and adjoins higher up in the structure, concretely, in a position from which the quantifier can bind the degree variable left in its base position (cf. Quantifier Raising analysis by May 1977). However, insofar as phrasal SCs involve a coordinate structure, asymmetric movement of the degree head from the first compared element would incur into a violation of the CSC in the phrasal SCs under examination (recall that the CSC was shown to be operative in these constructions in Section 4.2). Therefore, an alternative to the classic quantificational account is in order.

Corver (1993) discusses one such potential variant. This author convincingly argues in favor of a comparative coordination analysis of English clausal SCs such as (73).

(73)
Mary bought more cookies than Pete had sold candies.
(74)
more xi ([MaryboughtIPxicookies]than[PetehadsoldIP[xicandies]])
(Corver 1993: 779)[25]

According to Corver (1993), the comparative marker more behaves as a quantifier and thus covertly raises out of the NP in the antecedent clause (Mary bought more cookies), as represented in the schematic LF in (74). But, importantly, the silent degree element within the standard involves an empty category that is locally bound in an ATB manner by the comparative operator more from its raised position. As represented in (74), by proposing symmetric quantifier raising of the comparative marker from both compared terms instead of asymmetric extraction from just one of the conjuncts, Corver (1993) avoids incurring in a violation of the CSC.[26]

In what follows I elaborate on a step-by-step syntactic and semantic derivation of SCs with nominal and adjectival bases whose standard is non-clausal. To this effect, I combine the present version of the A-not-A analysis of inequality comparatives in which both the comparative and standard markers contribute to the meaning of the comparative expression with Corver’s (1993) proposal on the ATB/symmetric raising of the comparative marker.

5.2.1 Phrasal SCs with an adjectival base

Applying the A-not-A analysis of inequality comparison to a phrasal SC with an adjectival base such as (75a) would leave us with the denotation in (75b).

(75)
a.
The road is wider than long.[27]
b.
d.WIDEx.ROAD(x))≥d∧ ¬LONGx.ROAD(x))≥d
There exists a degree d such that the road is wide to at least that degree d and it is not long to at least that degree d.

In order to compositionally derive the above denotation, I adopt the semantic description of the comparative marker by which -er (or más and -ago in Spanish and Basque, respectively) introduces existential quantification over degrees as shown in (76). Regarding the standard marker, since these constructions compare two gradable adjectives, than & needs to combine two terms of the predicative <e,t> type. In this manner, the denotation of coordinating than in phrasal SCs with an adjectival base will be the one offered in (77).

(76)
er&d,t>,t>=λD<d,t>.d [D(d)]
(77)
than&phrasaladj.e,t>,<<e,t>,<e,t>=λX<e,t>λY<e,t>λze.Y(z)¬X(z)

Taking into consideration the above entries for the coordinating comparative and standard markers in adjectival constructions, my analysis of phrasal SCs with an adjectival base such as (78) is represented in the tree diagram in Figure 6.

Figure 6: 
Tree diagram for The road is wider than long.
Figure 6:

Tree diagram for The road is wider than long.

(78)
The road is wider than long.

In the diagram in Figure 6 I present the step-by-step semantic derivation of the phrasal SC The road is wider than long (the complete derivation is offered in Figure 8 in the Appendix). My proposal extends some insights on the composition of clausal SCs in English by Corver (1993) to the phrasal SCs under examination. Comparative coordination in these SCs involves ATB movement of a quantifier over degrees (the comparative marker) from both compared terms. In this manner, the existential quantifier denoted by -er binds two degree variables, each associated with one of the phrasal terms of the comparison. This proposal allows us to derive the denotation presented in (75b) without the need to allude to a clausal standard of comparison.

4.2.1 Phrasal SCs with a nominal base

Following the A-not-A analysis of inequality comparison, phrasal SCs with an nominal base such as (79a) would have a denotation in the lines of (79b).

(79)
a.
More women than men came.
b.
d[y [ WOMEN(y)CAME(y)|y|d ]¬x [MEN(x)CAME(x)|x|d ]]

There exists a degree d and there exist some women y that came such that the cardinality of the women reaches at least degree d and there do not exist some men x such that they came and whose cardinality reaches at least degree d.

The relevant question now is how to derive the above denotation compositionally from a SC with a phrasal standard of comparison. In the first place, I take that the degree argument associated with each compared element in nominal comparatives is introduced by many (head of NumP). Concretely, I follow a parameterized or gradable determiner analysis of this quantity word, following Romero’s (1998) analysis of how many questions; Romero’s (2015) proposal on cardinality many; and Hackl (2000, 2001 for his analysis on comparative more (see also Rett 2018 for discussion on the parameterized determiner approach and other alternative analyses of many). I treat many as a hybrid between a gradable predicate – because it incorporates a degree argument (recall the denotation of the gradable adjective tall in [69]) – and a quantifier – since it also introduces existential quantification over individuals. Specifically, I adopt the parameterized determiner (PD) denotation in (80) for this quantity word.

(80)
⟦many⟧pde,t>,d,e,t>,t=λP<e,t>λddλQ<e,t>.x[P(x)Q(x)|x|d] [28]

Considering my entry for the head of the NumP (many) and following the same logic as in phrasal SCs with an adjectival base, my analysis of phrasal SCs with a nominal base such as (81) is represented in the tree diagram in Figure 7.

Figure 7: 
Tree diagram for More women than men came.
Figure 7:

Tree diagram for More women than men came.

(81)
More women than men came.

In each compared term/conjunct, many combines with a nominal element (either women or men), thus saturating its first argument. Then, many saturates its degree argument with the variable left after quantifier raising of the existential quantifier over degrees that the comparative marker contributes. The coordinating standard marker merges with the DegPs, which are of a quantificational <<e,t>,t> type. Afterward, the coordinate complex combines with the verbal predicate. At this point, the denotation of the structure could be paraphrased as “there exist some women y that came whose cardinality reaches at least degree d and there do not exist some men x who came whose cardinality reaches at least degree d”. Finally, the existential quantifier over degrees denoted by -er combines by means of functional application with the set of degrees formed by the lambda abstraction resulting from quantifier raising of the comparative marker. By doing so, the quantifier introduced by -er existentially binds the degree variables associated with each compared term.

Adopting a coordinate analysis of phrasal SCs and a quantificational analysis of the comparative marker with ATB raising from each conjunct, the present analysis can derive the semantic denotation of the comparative in (79b) without the need to assume an ad hoc clausal standard of comparison (the complete derivation is shown in Figure 9 in the Appendix), in contrast with previous reductionist analyses of phrasal-looking SCs.

Although I follow a parameterized determiner approach to the quantity word many in my analysis of nominal SCs, Rett (2018) notes some difficulties that this approach faces and thoroughly discusses some alternative analyses, which are not without problems either. One common alternative to the parameterized determiner view on many is treating the quantity word just as a common gradable predicate (Bresnan 1973; Cresswell 1976; Grosu and Landman 1998; Hoeksema 1983; Partee 1989). Following the adjectival view on many, this quantity word would have the denotation in (82):[29]

(82)
⟦many⟧adj<d,<e,t=λdλx.|x|d

Given these options, how is the parameterized determiner approach better than the gradable predicate approach for the analysis of nominal comparatives? Both views assume the presence of a degree argument in the denotation of many. Nevertheless, each proposal leads to a different prediction regarding the interaction between the coordinating standard marker and the individuals modified by the quantity word due to the presence or lack of existential quantification in the denotation contributed by the quantity word. In phrasal SCs with a nominal base such as the one presented above in (81), the coordinating standard marker was defined as being of quantificational type (recall the tree diagram in Figure 7).

(83)
⟦than&phrasalnome,t>,t>,e,t>,t>,e,t>,t=λQλRλP.R(P)¬Q(P)

This quantificational description allows the individual variables in each conjunct to be existentially quantified before merging with the coordinating conjunction. In contrast, as discussed by Partee and Rooth (1983), when the meet operation (⊓) introduced by a coordinating conjunction applies to two NPs that are not existentially quantified (that is, which are of type <e,t> instead of the quantificational <<e,t>,t> type I defend), the coordination yields the intersection of the two NPs. An example of this would be the phrasal coordinate my colleague and friend, which refers to an individual that has the property of being both a colleague and a friend of someone. However, in phrasal SCs such as More women than men came, NP coordination would give as a result the set of individuals that have both the properties of being women and being men. Although NP coordination might apply in other situations (as in the colleague-and-friend case), the interpretation of phrasal SCs with a nominal base such as the ones described in this article do not involve such an intersection of properties. Therefore, existential quantification needs to apply prior to the merge of each compared nominal with the coordinating conjunction. In the light of this observation, the parameterized determiner approach to many appears to be better suited for the analysis of phrasal SCs with a nominal base, given that the gradable predicate approach would need to resort to an ad hoc existential quantifier within each DegP before they combine with the coordinating standard marker.

6 Extensions: Comparative Subdeletion

The final long-standing questions that this article is set to address is that of how to analyze the obligatory presence of a gap in the standard of SCs. Not only clausal SCs disallow the presence of a measure phrase in the standard (recall Examples [3]–[4]), the same restriction applies to phrasal SCs as well, as I evidence in the examples in (84)–(85):

(84)
More women than {*80/*numerous} men attended the event.
(85)
This wider than {*20 cm} tall box is of no use.

There are two major types of analyses of Comparative Subdeletion, namely, an analysis in terms of a construction-specific deletion rule (Bresnan 1972, 1973, 1975), and an analysis in terms of wh-movement within a clausal standard (Chomsky 1977).[30] Importantly, applying the wh-movement account of Comparative Subdeletion to the SCs under discussion in this article would be infeasible given the phrasal status of their standards (recall Section 3). In what follows I will motivate an alternative construction-independent deletion analysis of Comparative Subdeletion that is directly connected to the comparative coordination analysis of SCs defended in this article.

As discussed in Wilder (1994; see also noted by Godard 1989; and Höhle 1991), clausal coordinate structures such as (86a) whose shared subject is a quantified NP are not interpreted as if the second conjunct had a pronominal subject. Godard (1989) illustrates this asymmetry with the minimal pair in (86a)–(86b):

(86)
a.
Few congressmen admire Kennedy and _ are very junior.
b.
Few congressmen admire Kennedy and they are very junior.

In (86a) the deleted subject receives a bound variable interpretation. This means that the second conjunct, including its subject, is interpreted as if it were in the scope of the quantifier in the subject position of the first conjunct. A representation of the bound variable reading is provided in (87):

(87)
not many x: x = congressman [ admire K (x) ˄ very junior (x) ]
(Wilder 1994: 317 [134])

In (86b), on the contrary, the overt pronominal subject cannot receive a bound variable interpretation. This sentence has an e-type reading by which the pronominal subject is interpreted as referring to the set introduced by the result of quantification over the first conjunct. This means that the subject of the second conjunct is not interpreted within the scope of the quantifier in the subject position of the first conjunct. Concretely, Example (86b) could be paraphrased as “few congressmen admire Kennedy, and they (the members of the set of congressmen that admire Kennedy) are very junior” (Wilder 1994). Wilder offers another analogous example with the quantifier every.

(88)
a.
Every student is hungry and _ wants to eat lunch.
b.
* Every student i is hungry and he i wants to eat lunch.
(89)
every x: x = student [ is-hungry (x) ∧ wants-to-eat-lunch (x) ]
(Wilder 1994: 318 [137])

As Wilder (1994) discusses, the bound variable interpretation represented in (89) is available in (88a) where a grammatically singular quantificational subject has been deleted. In contrast, neither a bound-variable nor an e-type reading is available in (88b) with a singular overt pronoun (he). In this second case, the pronoun cannot be interpreted as coindexed with the subject of the first conjunct. The coindexed interpretation is only possible with a plural pronoun (they), which results in an e-type reading, as exemplified in (90a)–(90b).

(90)
a.
Every student is hungry and they (all) want to eat lunch.
b.
Paraphrase: every student is hungry, and they (the set of hungry students just referred to) all want to eat lunch.

Based on these data, Wilder (1994) concludes that coordinate structures with shared subjects that involve quantified NPs are not interpreted as containing a silent pronoun. Rather, they get a bound variable interpretation, as if the conjuncts contained two variables bound by a single quantifier.[31] In sum, interpretative properties of reduced examples differ systematically from those of unreduced examples. Based on this set of data and the analysis defended in Section 5, the novel observation that I would like to highlight is the following:

(91)
Obligatory ellipsis in contexts of ATB variable binding: In coordinate structures and subcomparatives both, for a single quantifier in the first conjunct to bind two variables (one in each conjunct) ellipsis of the quantifier in the second conjunct is obligatory.

The generalization in (91) is based on the observations that (i) ellipsis is obligatory in the above coordinate structures with a quantifier binding two individual variables and, in the same manner, (ii) ellipsis is obligatory in comparatives with a quantifier (the comparative operator) binding two degree variables (recall the LF derivation of SCs in Section 5.2). Instead of treating these two cases of ellipsis as independent deletion operations, under the present comparative coordination analysis of SCs we can subsume obligatory subdeletion in subcomparative constructions into a case of obligatory ellipsis in contexts of ATB variable binding in coordinate structures. Therefore, this proposal has the desirable outcome of dispensing with the ad hoc obligatory rule of Comparative Subdeletion and deriving its effects from an obligatory deletion operation independently attested in coordinate structures.

7 Conclusion

This article has focused on an understudied type of comparative, namely, subcomparatives with phrasal-looking standards of comparison in three typologically different languages, and has shed some light on three long-debated questions regarding the internal structure and semantic composition of these constructions (cf. Bhatt and Takahashi 2011).

First, the syntactic tests presented in Section 3 have offered a clear answer to the question concerning the standard’s size and category. The availability of BNs in the standard of Basque surface-phrasal SCs, the results of the clausal expansion test and the need to posit an ad hoc ellipsis operation to defend a reductionist analysis evidence that the standard does not derive from a clausal source in these Basque, English and Spanish SCs. These observations have thus confirmed the phrasal status of the standard of these comparatives (contra reductionist analyses and traditional descriptions of these comparatives).

Second, regarding the question on the linkage type between the compared elements (either a dependence relation or a coordination relation), I have shown that phrasal SCs pattern just like phrasal coordinate structures do in several decisive points (Section 4). Concretely, phrasal SCs in the three languages examined in this article are subject to the same movement constraints and parallelism requirement that coordinate structures need to obey. Most importantly, these comparatives behave like phrasal coordinate structures in permitting a single shared constituent to modify both compared elements simultaneously. Based on these observations, I have taken the largely identical behavior of phrasal coordinates and phrasal SCs to evidence that the architecture of these comparatives involves an underlying phrasal coordinate structure. Drawing on work on coordination by Munn (1993), on some insights on clausal subcomparatives by Corver (1993), and offering a novel version of Seuren’s (1973) A-not-A analysis of inequality comparison, I have offered a fully compositional syntactic and semantic analysis of phrasal SCs with a nominal and adjectival base (Section 5).

Crucially, one of the advantages of the present proposal concerns the third long-debated question on the literature on SCs, namely, the obligatory omission of a measure modifier from the standard of comparison of these comparatives. This process known as Comparative Subdeletion cannot be explained as the result of wh-movement within a clause, as proposed by Chomsky (1977), given the non-clausal status of the standard in these SCs. Alternatively, I have offered supporting evidence for an ATB binding analysis of Comparative Subdeletion (Section 6). Specifically, I have proposed that the obligatory subdeletion manifested in subcomparative constructions can be subsumed into a case of obligatory ellipsis in contexts of ATB variable binding in coordinate structures. Hence, the comparative coordination analysis of SCs defended in this article has the desirable outcome of dispensing with the ad hoc rule of Comparative Subdeletion and deriving its effects from an obligatory deletion operation independently attested in coordinate structures.

Finally, while previous works debating the architecture and semantic derivation of these comparatives mainly focused on head-initial languages such as English, Spanish or German, the novel observations on Basque phrasal SCs give evidence of the potential for crosslinguistic application of the present analysis.


Corresponding author: Laura Vela-Plo, Micaela Portilla Research Center, Office 3.7, University of the Basque Country, HiTT, Justo Vélez de Elorriaga 1, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz., Spain, E-mail:

Funding source: Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MiCIU) / Spanish Research Agency (AEI) and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER, UE)

Award Identifier / Grant number: VASTRUD (PGC2018-096870-B-I00)

Funding source: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

Award Identifier / Grant number: UFI11/14

Funding source: Eusko Jaurlaritza

Award Identifier / Grant number: HiTT / Basque Research Group of Theoretical Linguistics (IT769-13 & IT1537-22)

Funding source: Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de España

Award Identifier / Grant number: VALAL (FFI2014- 53675-P)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Elena Castroviejo for their insightful comments and support. For discussion of different aspects of this article, I would like to thank the faculty and students at the University of Konstanz (especially Maribel Romero and Doris Penka), the members of HiTT at the U. of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Rajesh Bhatt, Caterina Donati and Roumyana Pancheva. I would also like to express my gratitude to the audiences at different venues for discussion of acceptability judgements, their comments and suggestions: at the SigGram Excellence Network meetings (FFI20L6-81750-REDTJ), RALFe 2018 in Paris, FLV, 50 urte 2019 in Iruñea and, especially, the SemLin linguistic seminars at UPV/EHU in Vitoria-Gasteiz. Any remaining errors are my own.

  1. Research funding: This publication has been partially funded by the VASTRUD project (PGC2018-096870-B-I00, MiCIU, EI and FEDER, EU), the FUNLAT project: PID2021-122233OB-I00, and the HiTT / Basque Research Group of Theoretical Linguistics (IT769-13 & IT1537-22), Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de España VALAL (FFI2014- 53675-P).

Appendix

(i)
Phrasal SC with an adjectival base:
The road is wider than long.

Figure 8: 
Full LF derivation for The road is wider than long.
Figure 8:

Full LF derivation for The road is wider than long.

(ii)
Phrasal SC with a nominal base:
More women than men came.

Figure 9: 
Full LF derivation for More women than men came.
Figure 9:

Full LF derivation for More women than men came.

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Artiagoitia, Xabier. 1997. DP predicates in Basque. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 161–198.Search in Google Scholar

Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2002. The functional structure of the Basque noun phrase. In Xabier Artiagoitia, Joseba Lakarra & Patxi Goenaga (eds.), Erramu boneta: Festshrift for Rudolf P. G. de Rijk, Supplements of ASJU, 73–90. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.Search in Google Scholar

Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Complementation. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (ed.), A grammar of Basque, 634–710. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Artiagoitia, Xabier & Arantzazu Elordieta. 2016. On the semantic function and selection of Basque finite complementizers. In Boye Kasper & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages, 379–411. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110416619-013Search in Google Scholar

Alrenga, Peter, Christopher Kennedy & Jason Merchant. 2012. A new standard of comparison. Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30. 32–42.Search in Google Scholar

Alrenga, Peter & Christopher Kennedy. 2014. No more shall we part: Quantifiers in English comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 22. 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-013-9099-4.Search in Google Scholar

Amurrio, Mila, Ane Larrinaga & Txoli Mateos. 2006. Participación sociopolítica de las mujeres en el ámbito institucional municipal de Bilbao – Informe Cualitativo. 218. (accessed 15 December 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Barros, Matthew, Patrick D. Elliot & Gary Thoms. 2015. More variation in island repair: The clausal/non-clausal distinction. In Helena Aparicio, Gallagher Flinn, Kathryn Franich, Joanna Pietraszko & Tamara Vardomskaya (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 49). Available at: https://patrl.keybase.pub/papers/cls49proceedings.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Beck, Sigrid. 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 3. 1–72. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.1.Search in Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh & Shoichi Takahashi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(3). 581–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1.Search in Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1). 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793338.Search in Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 275–343.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1(1). 25–74.Search in Google Scholar

Brucart, José María. 2003. Adición, sustracción y comparación: Un análisis composicional de las construcciones aditivo-sustractivas del español. In Fernando Sánchez-Miret (ed.), Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, vol. 1, 11–60.10.1515/9783110946277-004Search in Google Scholar

Bylinina, Lisa & Yuri Lander. 2013. ‘Than’=‘More’+ Exhaustivity: Evidence from Circassian. In Maria Aloni, Michael Franke & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 75–82. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

Camino, Iñaki. 2017. Ekialdeko euskararen iragana [The past of Eastern Basque]. In Irantzu Epelde & Koldo Zuazo (eds.), Euskal dialektologia: Lehena eta oraina [Basque dialectology: past and present]. Bilbao: ASJU.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425–504.10.1007/978-94-015-6859-3_4Search in Google Scholar

Citko, Barbara. 2012. A parallel merge solution to the Merchant/Johnson paradox. In Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds.), Ways of structure building, 44–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644933.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Coppock, Elizabeth & Lucas Champollion. 2018. Formal semantics boot camp. Unpublished manuscript http://eecoppock.info/semantics-boot-camp.pdf (accessed 20 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Tilburg dissertation.10.1515/9783110849998-004Search in Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 1993. A note on subcomparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 773–781.Search in Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 2006. Comparative deletion and subdeletion. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 582–637. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch15Search in Google Scholar

Cresswell, Max J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Barbara Hall Partee (ed.), Montague grammar, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-545850-4.50015-7Search in Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Donati, Caterina. 2000. A note on negation in comparison. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 10. 55–68.Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2007. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(1). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9.Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110808513Search in Google Scholar

Etxeberria, Urtzi. 2005. Quantification and domain restriction in Basque. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Etxeberria, Urtzi. 2014. Basque nominals: From a system with BNs to a system without. In Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Weak referentiality. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.219.14etxSearch in Google Scholar

Etxeberria, Urtzi & Ricardo Etxepare. 2011. Measures and counting in Basque. In Ricardo Gómez López, Joaquín Gorrochategui Churruca, Joseba Andoni Lakarra Andrinua & Céline Mounole Hiriart-Urruty (eds.), Koldo Mitxelena Katedraren II. Biltzarraren Aktak [Proceedings of the II. Meeting of the Koldo Mitxelena Chair], 353–388. Vitoria-Gasteiz: ASJU.Search in Google Scholar

Etxeberria, Urtzi & Ricardo Etxepare. 2012. When quantifiers do not agree: Three systems. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 11(1). 61–82. https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.92.Search in Google Scholar

Euskaltzaindia. 1999. Euskal Gramatika. Lehen Urratsak–V [Basque grammar. First steps-V]. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Search in Google Scholar

Euskaltzaindia. 2017. Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia. http://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/ (accessed 20 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Euskara Institutua, UPV/EHU. 2019. “Konparazio perpausak” [Comparative sentences]. Sareko Euskal gramatika (SEG) [Online Basque Grammar]. www.ehu.eus/seg (accessed 20 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola & Heli Paulasto. 2008. English and Celtic in contact. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203895009Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Danny. 2003. On logical form. In Hendrick Randall (ed.), Minimalist syntax, 82–123. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758342.ch2Search in Google Scholar

Gajewski, Jon. 2008. More on quantifiers in comparative clauses. In Tova Friedman & Satoshi Ito (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory, vol. 18, 340–357.Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia & Melita Stavrou. 2009. On metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Claire Halpert, Jeremy Hartman & David Hill (eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT (MWPL 57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral Program in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Godard, Danièle. 1989. Empty categories as subjects of tensed Ss in English or French? Linguistic Inquiry 20. 497–506.Search in Google Scholar

Goenaga, Patxi. 1985. Complementación y nominalización en Euskara. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 19(2). 495–570.Search in Google Scholar

Goenaga, Patxi. 2008. Euskal neurri sintagmen azterketa baterako: zenbat x, zenbat x-ago, zenbat x gehiago [For an analysis of Basque measure phrases: how many x, much x-er, many more x]. In Jean Haritschelhar-i omenaldia [Hommage to Jean Haritschelhar] (Iker 21), 211–240. Euskaltzaindia: Bilbao.Search in Google Scholar

Goenaga, Patxi. 2012. An overview of Basque measure phrases. In Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Noun phrases and nominalization in Basque, 111–148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.187.06goeSearch in Google Scholar

Grosu, Alexander & Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6. 125–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008268401837.10.1023/A:1008268401837Search in Google Scholar

Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge: MA Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hackl, Martin. 2001. Comparative quantifiers and plural predication. In Karine Megerdoomian & Anne LeoraBar-el (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 234–247. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1988. Incorporation, parallelism, and focus. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language 17), 303–320. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.20haiSearch in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Austin, TX: University of Texas manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10. 40–64. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.2722.Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 2006. Little. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 16, 35–58. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.10.3765/salt.v16i0.2941Search in Google Scholar

Hendriks, Petra. 1991. The coordination-like structure of comparatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 8(1). 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.8.07hen.Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Negative polarity and the comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1(3). 403–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00142472.Search in Google Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N. 1991. On reconstruction and coordination. In Hubert Haider & Klaus Netter (eds.), Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar, 139–197. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3446-0_5Search in Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert & Jairo Nunes. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax 5(1). 26–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00046.Search in Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon de Ortiz Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895285Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Phoebe Kan. 1977. Wh-fronting and related processes. Storrs, CN: University of Connecticut dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 2005. The syntax of correlative adverbs. Lingua 115. 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.009.Search in Google Scholar

Joly, André. 1967. Negation and the comparative particle in English. Cahiers de Psychomécanique du Langage, vol. 9. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher. 2002. Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(3). 553–621. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015889823361.10.1023/A:1015889823361Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00351812.Search in Google Scholar

Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik & Colin Phillips (eds.), Papers on case and agreement I (MITWPL 18), 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral Program in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Laker, Stephen. 2008. The English negative comparative particle 1. Transactions of the Philological Society 106(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968x.2007.00191.x.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1988. Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00635755.Search in Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 1999. Comparatives and DP-structure. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(4). 683–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9137-1.Search in Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives (Studies in Generative Grammar 72). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197402Search in Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 2018. Comparative deletion. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Tanja Temmerman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.27Search in Google Scholar

Matos, Gabriela & Ana Brito. 2002. On the syntax of canonical comparatives in European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1(1). 41–81. https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.48.Search in Google Scholar

Matos, Gabriela & Ana Brito. 2008. Comparative clauses and cross linguistic variation: A syntactic approach. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7. 307–329.Search in Google Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2011. No more, no less: Existential comparatives revisited. Utrecht: University of Utrecht manuscript. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/repo/semanticsArchive/article/000907 (accessed 20 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Mendia, Jon Ander. 2019. One more comparative. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(2). 581–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09454-x.Search in Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1973. Comparative constructions in English: A syntactic and semantic analysis. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Michelena, Luis. 1964. Sobre el pasado de la lengua vasca. Auñamendi: Donostia.Search in Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita. 1974. Is there an underlying negative element in comparative clauses? Linguistics 12(122). 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.122.39.Search in Google Scholar

Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19(1). 39–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5.Search in Google Scholar

Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Munn, Alan. 2000. Three types of coordination asymmetries. In Kerstin Schwabe & Ning Zhang (eds.), Ellipsis in conjunction, 1–22. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110952155-002Search in Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14(4). 675–694.Search in Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo & Marina Nespor. 1977. Superficially illogical “non”. Negatives in comparatives. In Michio P. Hagiwara (ed.), Studies in Romance Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fifth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 5. Arden: Shakespeare.Search in Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo & Marina Nespor. 1986. Comparative structures in Italian. Language. 622–653. https://doi.org/10.2307/415481.Search in Google Scholar

Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1999. Force phrases, focus phrases and left heads in Basque. In Jon Franco & Alazne Landa (eds.), Grammatical analysis of Romance and Basque, 179–194. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.187.11urbSearch in Google Scholar

Osborne, Timothy. 2009. Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(2). 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9068-2.Search in Google Scholar

Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In James Lavine, Steven. Franks, Hana Filip & Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: The Princeton meeting 2005, 236–257. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Pancheva, Roumyana. 2009. More students attended FASL than CONSOLE. In Wayles Browne, Adam Cooper, Alison Fisher, Esra Kesici & Nikola Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, vol. 18, 382–399. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. & Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 361–383. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852820.361Search in Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara. 1989. Many quantifiers. In Joyce Powers & Kenneth de Jong (eds.), ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 383–402. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.10.1002/9780470751305.ch12Search in Google Scholar

Pinkham, Jessie. 1982. The formation of comparative clauses in French and English. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Rett, Jessica. 2018. The semantics of many, much, few, and little. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(1). e12269.Search in Google Scholar

de Rijk, Rudolf P. 1969. Is Basque an SOV language? Fontes linguae vasconum: Studia et Documenta 1(3). 319–352.Search in Google Scholar

de Rijk, Rudolf P. 2008. Standard Basque. A progressive grammar 1. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7444.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Romero, Maribel. 2015. The conservativity of many. In Thomas Brochhagen, Floris Roelofsen & Nadine Theiler (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium, 20–29. Amsterdam: ILLC.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Rotaetxe, Karmele. 2006. A mi-chemin entre la coordination et la subordination: l’enclitique basque -(e) ta. In Isabelle Bril & Georges Rebuschi (eds.), Coordination et subordination: typologie et modélisation, vol. 28. Paris: Ophrys.10.1163/19589514-028-01-900000020Search in Google Scholar

Sáez, Luis. 1992. Comparison and coordination. Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax 27. 387–416.Search in Google Scholar

Sáez, Luis. 1999. Los cuantificadores: las construcciones comparativas y superlativas. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Colección Nebrija y Bello), 1129–1188. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Search in Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow & Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 117–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00133839.Search in Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coordination. Language 53. 86–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/413057.Search in Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger. 2008. The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(2). 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2007.00049.x.Search in Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger. 2010. Comparative markers and standard markers. In Michael Y. Erlewine & Yasutada Sudo (eds.), Proceedings of the MIT Workshop on Comparatives, (MITWPL 69), 87–105. Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral Program in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Lisa. 1970. On the determiner systems of noun phrases and adjective phrases. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology unpublished mimeograph.Search in Google Scholar

Seuren, Pieter Albertus Maria. 1969. Operators and nucleus. A contribution to the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Seuren, Pieter Albertus Maria. 1973. The comparative. In Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwe (eds.), Generative grammar in Europe, 528–564. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2503-4_22Search in Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1). 1–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1.Search in Google Scholar

Valmala, Vidal. 2013. On right node raising in Catalan and Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 12. 219–251. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.64.Search in Google Scholar

Vela-Plo, Laura. 2018a. Standards of comparison and the case of Spanish “que – de alternation”. In Kate Bellamy, Anastasiia Ionova & Saad George (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 229–249. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Vela-Plo, Laura. 2018b. Smaller than small comparatives: The case of Basque. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 7(1). 45–69. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.1.4398.Search in Google Scholar

Vela-Plo, Laura. 2018c. A little more on comparison: variation and common cognitive and linguistic properties. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca «Julio de Urquijo» 52(1/2). 817–851. https://doi.org/10.1387/asju.20232.Search in Google Scholar

Vela-Plo, Laura. 2020. Drawing comparisons: A syntactic and semantic approach to Basque, Spanish and English comparative structures. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wilder, Chris. 1994. Coordination, ATB and ellipsis. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 37. 291–331.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31–43.Search in Google Scholar

Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3034.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Zamparelli, Roberto. 2011. Coordination. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Portner Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1713–1741. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-01-02
Accepted: 2022-02-19
Published Online: 2023-01-02
Published in Print: 2023-01-27

© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2022-0001/html
Scroll to top button