David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Semantics 5 (1):1-50 (1986)
This paper attempts to clarify the way in which we interpret English comparatives. It shows that recognition of a comparative depends primarily on the recognition of the comparative operator, cl. The cl has two constituents (1) a comparative marker which, because there are less than a dozen of them, makes cl readily recognizable; and (2) a scale marker. I argue that comparisons are made on a particular scale, and that scales have a supra end and a sub end; the scale marker in cl identifies which end. Thus the combination of scale marker and comparative marker determines the proper interpretation of the comparative operator, and hence the comparative relation. This interpretation is affected by the ‘committedness’ (Cruse 1976) and perhaps ‘pull’ (Rusiecki 1985) of the scale marker. A comparison identifies the relative locations of the comparands X and Y on the scale named in the cl. X, the primum comparationis, is identified through the scope of cl. Y, the secundum comparationis, is recognized through the fact that it is normally a semantic-syntactic parallel to X in a clause introduced by the c2: c2 is normally than or as. The paper ends with detailed discussion of the means for translating English comparative constructions into an interpretative metalanguage
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Junko Shimoyama (2012). Reassessing Crosslinguistic Variation in Clausal Comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 20 (1):83-113.
Fabio Del Prete (2008). A Non-Uniform Semantic Analysis of the Italian Temporal Connectives Prima and Dopo. Natural Language Semantics 16 (2):157-203.
John Ryder (1999). Interpreting America: Russian and Soviet Studies of the History of American Thought. Vanderbilt University Press.
P. T. Geach (1983). Comparatives. Philosophia 13 (3-4):235-246.
C. J. F. Williams (1984). Comparatives. Analysis 44 (1):15 - 16.
Roger Schwarzschild & Karina Wilkinson (2002). Quantifiers in Comparatives: A Semantics of Degree Based on Intervals. [REVIEW] Natural Language Semantics 10 (1):1-41.
Anastasia Giannakidou, The Subjective Mode of Comparison: Metalinguistic Comparatives in Greek and Korean.
Peter Milne (1993). Counterparts and Comparatives. Analysis 53 (2):82 - 92.
C. J. F. Williams (1984). [Comparatives and Degrees]: Comment. Analysis 44 (1):20 -.
J. Strachan (1902). On Some Greek Comparatives. The Classical Review 16 (08):397-398.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads2 ( #385,995 of 1,413,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,160 of 1,413,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?