Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

Adjectives and
Comparison
in English
A Semantic Study
Jan Rusiecki
LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY
General editors
R. H. Robins, University of London
Martin Harris, University of Salford
TITLE NO
2 General Linguistics
An Introductory Survey
Third Edition
R. H. ROBINS
6 A short History of Linguistics
Second Edition
R. H. ROBINS
12 Phonetics in Linguistics
A Book of Readings
EDITED BYW. E. JONES AND
J. LAVER
13 Structural Aspects of Language
Change
JAMES M. ANDERSON
14 Philosophy and the Nature of
Language
DAVID E. COOPER
15 Semantico-Syntax
FRANS LIEFRINK
18 The English Verb
F. R. PALMER
19 Principles of Firthian Linguistics
T. F. MITCHELL
20 Problems in French Syntax
Transformational-Generative
Studies
NICOLAS RUWET
TRANSLATED BY SHEILA M.
ROBINS
21 Text and Context
- Explorations in Semantics
and Pragmatics of Discourse
TEUN A. VAN DIJK
22 The Evolution of French Syntax
A Comparative Approach
MARTIN HARRIS
23 Modality and the English Modals
F. R. PALMER
24 Grimm's Grandchildren
Current Topics in German
Linguistics
THOMAS HERBST,
DAVID HEATH.
HANS-MARTIN DEDERDING
25 Explanation in Linguistics
The Logical Problem of Language
Acquisition
EDITED BY NORBERT
HORNSTEIN AND DAVID
LIGHTFOOT
26 Introduction to Text Linguistics
ROBERT-.ALAIN DE
BEAUGRANDE AND
WOLFGANG ULRICH DRESSLER
27 Spoken Discourse
A Model for Analysis
WILLIS EDMONDSON
28 Psycholinguistics
Language, Mind, and World
DANNY D. STEINBERG
29 Dialectology
W. N. FRANCIS
30 Principles of Pragmatics
G. N. LEECH
31 Adjectives and Comparison in
English
A Semantic Study
JAN RUSIECKI
Adjectives and
Comparison
in English
A semantic study
Jan Rusiecki
LONGMAN
LONDON AND NEW YORK
LONGMAN GROUP LIMITED
Longman House, Burnt Mill, Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE, England
Associated companies throughout the world
Published in the United States of America
by Longman Inc., New York
Longman Group Limited 1985
All rights reserved; no part of this publicationmay be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the Publishers.
First published 1985
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Rusiecki, Jan
Adjectives and comparison in English. -
(Longman Linguistics Library)
1. English language - Adjectives 2. English
language - Semantics 3. English language -
Comparison
I. Title
422 PEI241
ISBN D-SfiS-ETia"l-l
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Rusiecki, Jan.
Adjectives and comparison in English.
(Longman linguistics library; title no. 31)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. English language - Adjectives. 2. English language
Comparison. 3. English language - Semantics. I. Title.
II. Series.
PE1241.R87 1984 425 84-3918
ISBN 0-582-29129-1 (pbk.)
Set in 10/11 pt Linotron 202 Times
Printed in Singapore by
Selector Printing Co (Pte) Ltd
Contents
Typographical conventions xi
Preface xiii
1 Gradableand non-gradableadjectives: preliminary
description i
1.1 The adjective as a grammatical category i
1.2 Gradability 3
1.3 Typesof scales 5
1.4 Relativity 8
1.5 Themarked/umnarked opposition 13
1.6 Numerical andnon-numerical adjectives 15
2 Comparatives and positives 23
2.1 Formrelativity andscale relativity 23
2.2 Problems ofderivation ofcomparatives 25
2.3 Problems of interpretation of thepositive-degree
"form 2*7
2.4 Set-theoretical interpretation ofrelative adjectives .33
3 Typologyof sentences witii gradable adjectives in
predicativefunction 42
3.1 Introductory remarks 42
3.2 Non-comparative sentences 42
3.3 Comparative sentences 43
3.3.1 General description 43
3.3.2 Comparative sentences oflinear difference 44
3.3.2.1 '>ierthan'sentences 44
VI CONTENTS
3.3.2.2 'Less^ than'sentences 45
3.3.2.3 '-4est'sentences 46
3.3.3 Comparative sentences of proportionality
('as .4 as'sentences) 47
3.4 Pseudo-comparative sentences 48
3.5 Subclassification of sentence types 49
4 Elicitation tests 58
4.1 General information 58
4.2 Description of test items 59
4.3 The results and their interpretation 65
5 Non-comparative sentences witli gradable
adjectives in predicative function 68
5.1 Type A sentences: positive statements 68
5.1.1 Open-scale, primary numerical antonymic
pjiirs 68
5.1.2 Open-scale, secondary numerical antonjrmic
pairs 75
5.1.3 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs 75
5.1.4 Asymmetric antonymic pairs and
quasi-antonymic pairs 77
5.2 Type A sentences: negative statements 77
5.3 Type B sentences: positive statements 78
5.3.1 Open-scale antonymic pairs 78
5.3.2 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs 81
5.3.3 Asymmetric antonymic pairs 82
5.3.4 Quasi-antonymic pairs 83
5.3.5 Unary-scale adjectives 83
5.4 Type B sentences; negative statements 84
5.5 Non-comparative forms of gradable adjectives used
in attributive function 86
6 Comparative sentences of linear difference: 'Aer
than' sentences 88
6.1 Introduction 88
6.1.1 'Aef and 'more A' comparatives: corpus
evidence 88
6.1.2 'Aer than' sentences: general description 89
6.2 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymic
- pairs: positive statements referring to one dimension 92
6.2.1 The difference between the values of the Md
not stated numerically (type Csentences) 92
stated numerically (type D sentences) 103
CONTENTS VU
pairs: positive statements referring to two
dimensions 106
6.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions
(types E and F) 108
6.3.3 Sentences based on two-argument propositions
(Types G and H) 110
pairs: negative statements no
not stated numerically (type Csentences) 110
6.4.2 The difference between the v{ilues of the Md
stated numerically (type D sentences) 112
6.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale
antonymic pairs 113
6.6 Sentences withasymmetric-scale adjectival pairs 114
6.7 Sentenceswithquasi-antonymic adjectivalpairs and
with unary-scale adjectives 118
6.8 Comparative-degree forms of adjectives used in
attributive function 124
6.9 Pseudo-comparative'>ier than'sentences 126
7 Comparative sentences of linear difference: 'less A
than' sentences and superlative-degree sentences
('4est' sentences) 129
7;I 'Less ^ than'sentences 129
7.1.1 'Less A' phrases and 'less A than' sentences:
general discussion 129
7.1.2 'Less A than' sentences with the various types
of adjectives 131
7.2 '/4est'sentences 135
7.2.1 Introduction 135
7.2.2 The inflected superlative-degreeforms: corpus
evidence 135
7.2.3 The periphrastic sueprlative-degree forms:
corpus evidence 136
7.2.4 Semantic interpretation of sentences with
superlative-degree forms used in the relative
sense 137
7.2.5 Semantic interpretation of sentences with
superlative-degree forms used in the absolute
sense ('most A' superlatives) 140
7.3 Pseudo-comparative 'less^ than' sentences 141
Vm CONTENTS
8 Comparative sentences of proportionality ('as A as'
sentences) 143
8.1 Introduction 143
8.1.1 'As A as' sentences: general description 143
8.1.2 Corpus evidence 144
pairs: positive statements referring to one dimension
(type R and type S sentences) 145
8.2.1 Introductory remarks 145
8.2.2 Type R and type S sentences with the
unmarked members of antonymic pairs 146
8.2.2.1 The value of the ratio between the
values of the measure function
interpreted as equalling
'approximately n' 146
8.2.2.2 The value of the ratio between the
values of the measure function
interpreted as 'equal or greater than n'
(or 'equal or less than n') 153
8.2.3 Type S sentences with the marked members of
antonymic pairs 155
dimensions 157
8.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions
(types T and U) 158
8.3.2.1 Sentences with the unmarked
members of antonymic pairs 158
8.3.2.2 Sentences with the marked members
of antonymic pairs 160
8.3.3 Sentences based on two-argument propositions
(types V and W) i6i
pairs: negative statements 162
8.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale
antonymic pairs 168
8.5.1 Positive statements 168
8.5.2 Negative statements 170
8.6 Sentences with members of asymmetric-scale
adjectival pairs 171
8.7 Sentences with quasi-antonymic adjectival pairs and
with unary-scale adjectives 174
CONTENTS IX
8.7.1 Positive statements 174
8.7.2 Negative statements 176
8.8 Pseudo-comparative'as Aas'sentences 178
9 Overview i8i
9.1 Factors inthesemantic analysis ofsentences with
gradable adjectives i8i
9.2 Coda 190
References I93
Index 197
Typographical conventions
The typographical conventions employed in this study are very
similar to those introduced by John Lyons; cf Lyons (1977) and
(1981).
Single quotation marks are usedfor lexemes, phrases, and sent
ences; ie for expressions with both form and meaning.
Double quotation marks are used for meanings and proposi
tions. They also enclose quotations from other authors.
Italics are used for forms (as distinct from form plus meaning
expressions), for certain mathematical and logical symbols, for
foreign (mostly Latin) words and phrases, and for emphasis.
Bold type is used for technical terms, when first introduced.
In quotations from other authors, the original typographical
conventions have usually been preserved.
Preface
This study is an attempt at presenting a unified approach to the
semantics of gradable adjectives in English, in all their forms: the
positive degree, the comparative degree, and the superlative de
gree; and in all their uses: both as predicates of sentences and as
attributes in noun phrases. Although English is the principal area
of study, occasional references are made to other languages as
well. A theoretical interpretation of the semantics of gradable
adjectives, done in set-theoretical terms, is checked against two
sources of information on the use of those adjectives by native
speakers of English: the University College London Survey of En
glish Usage corpus, and the results of elicitation tests carried out in
London in the years 1978and 1979. A new typology of gradable
adjectives is proposed and a detailed description is given of the
semantics of sentences with the different types of adjectives, in the
positive-, comparative-, and superlative-degree forms. Semantic
relationships between adjectival constructions traditionally consi
dered synonymous are investigated, and some comments are
offered on the hmitations on the use of formal logic in Unguistic
description.
My thanks are due to all those colleagues by whose advice, gui
dance, and criticismI benefited in writing this book. I am particu
larly deeply indebted to two of them. One is Randolph Quirk, who
read and criticised the first draft of the book, and helped with the
planning and execution of the elicitation tests. The other one is
Geoffrey Leech, whose detailed critical comments on an earlier
version of the first five chapters considerably helped me in rewrit
ing the text. For remarks on earUer drafts I am also very grateful to
Gabriele Stein and Wolf-Dietrich Bald. The book in its present
XIV PREFACE
form owes a great deal to William H. Cook and Thomas Wachtel,
who gave generously of their time and read the penultimate ver
sion of the manuscript, making numerous valuable suggestions for
improvement. The final version benefited by the remarks of the
editors: R. H. Robins and Martin Harris. Special thanks are due
to Kathleen Wales for her kind help with part of the elicitation
tests. FinaUy I wish to state my indebtedness to Olgierd Adrian
Wojtasiewicz, who got me interested in formal linguistics and
helped clarify some of the concepts embodied in the book.
Naturally, I alone am responsible for any errors, omissions, and
other shortcomings of the text.
The research for this study would not have been possible with
out the generosity of the Longman Group, thanks to whom I was
able to spend an academic year at the Survey of English Usage, as
a Longman scholar.
Warsaw J. R.
May igSs
Chapter 1
Gradable and non-gradable adjectives:
preliminary description
1.1 The adjective as a grammatical category
The adjective as a grammatical category (a part of speech) is
relatively easy to defee in an iniSectional language, such as Latin
or Polish, where it is characterized morphologically by paradig
matic sets of endings. Even in such languages, however, some
adjectival paradigms are identical with nominal paradigms (c/
Latin 'servus bonus'), thus making it necessary to add other
definitional criteria to the strictly morphological ones. In a
language like English the adjective isa fu^y category, which can
only be defined by a set of complementary criteria, morphological
and syntactic, some of which apply to all adjectives, and some to
certain adjective classes only. A good example of such a defi
nition of the adjective can be found in Quirk et al. (1972:231): .
Four features are generally considered to be characteristic of
adjectives:
1. They can freely occur in attributive position, ie they can premod-
ify a noun, eg: happy in the happy children.
2. They can freely occur in predicative position, ie they can function
as subject complement, eg: old in The man seemed old, or as
object complement, eg: ugly in He thought the painting ugly.
3. They can be premodifiedby the intensifier very, eg; The children
are very happy.
4. They can take comparative and superlative forms, whether inflec-
tionally, eg: The children are happier now. They are the happiest
people I know, or by addition of the premodifiers more and most
(periphrastic comparison), eg: These students are more intelli
gent. They are the most beautiful paintings I have ever seen.
However not all words that are traditionally regarded as adjectives
possess all of these four features. Moreover, some of the features apply
2 GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
to words that are generally considered to belong to other classes.
The last sentence in this quotation refers to the fact that in
English, and in many other languages, adjectives share certain
properties with adverbs and certain other properties with nouns.
As observed above, in inflectional languages such as Latin or
Polish the adjective is morphologically akin to the noun. In
English there are forms - such as 'criminal' - which can function
both as adjectives and as nouns (c/ Quirk et al. 1972:240).
However, adjectives differ from nouns, both in Latin and Polish,
and in English, in that they cannot be used to express arguments
in propositions.^
S)'ntactically, most English adjectives can function both as
subject and object complements, ie predicatively, and as modi
fiersin noun phrases, ie attributively. Apart from this central class
of adjectives - to be called henceforth central adjectives - there
are two subclasses. First, there is a group of words, traditionally
included in the adjective class, which can only function in attri
butive position. They are all non-inherent (in the sense of Quirk
etal. 1972:259): some of them are semantically close to adverbials
{eg 'former' as in 'my former friend', 'mere' as in 'mere repeti
tion'), others resemble determiners {eg 'certain', as in 'a certain
person'). Secondly, there are adjectives which are restricted to
predicative position. Most of them can take complementation, eg
'glad (that, to, about, of)'; some of them, indeed, must do so, eg
'aware (that, of)', 'tantamount (to)'.^
Semantically, the adjective seems to stand between the noun
and the verb. This applies particularly to adjectives in predicate
function. Occasionally, one and the same sense can be expressed,
within the same language, by a verb or an adjective. Thus the
F.nglish sentence 'John is ill' can be translated into Latin or into
Polish in two different ways:
[la] Latin: NV loannes aegrotat.
NvA loannes aegrotus est.
[lb] Polish: NV Jan choruje.
NvA Jan jest chory.
Alternatively, one and the same sense is expressed in one
language by a verb and in another by an adjective, functioning
as predicate; eg:
[2] Latin: NV loannes dormit.
Polish: NV Jan ^pi.
English: NvA John is asleep.
GRADABIUTY 3
Similar semantically equivalent constructions can also be
found for adjectives and nouns:
[3] NvA John is Jewish.
NvN John is a Jew.^
1.2 Gradability
Gradability is fundaraentaUy a semanticfeature, and it cuts across
the syntactic subcategorization of adjectives."* An adjective is
gradabie if it can be substituted for A in the following expressions:
[4] Act (or: more A) than
as A as
less A than
the êst (or: most A) of
very A^
The majority of attributive-only adjectives are non-gradable;
eg 'mere', 'former'. A handful of them are gradabie, eg 'old' in
'an old friend', 'big' in 'a big eater'; these are, in fact, central
adjectives used non-inherently. Among the predicative-only
adjectives the majority are gradabie, eg 'afraid (that, of, about)',
'fond (of)'; but some are not, eg 'subject (to)', 'tantamount (toy.
Among central adjectives some are gradabie (eg 'long', 'pretty')
and some are not (eg 'dead', 'octagonal').' The interrelation
between the syntactic subcategorization of adjectives and grada
bility is illustrated in Fig. i.i.
Gradability implies the existence of a scale in the semantic
structure of the adjective - a scale which grades the relevant
dimension. Thus, for example, the adjectives 'old' and 'yoimg' are
terms on the scale of "age", the adjectives 'well' and 'ill' are terms
on the scale of "(good) health" ("well-being") - and so on.
The concept of scale seems to be one of the most primitive
concepts in language. It finds expression in the category of
number of nouns and adjectives: singular, dual, and plural. It is
also reflected in the category of tense of the verb - which is based
on the concept of time-scale.
Gradability is not a characteristic feature of adjectives only. It
is also characteristic of many adverbial forms; for example, time
adjuncts - cf 'earlier' in:
[5] John finished the job earlier than Peter (did)
or such amplifiers of verbs as 'much' and 'more' ^ eg:
[6] John likes Mary as much as he likes Jane.
John likes Mary more than Peter does.
17
2^
noURE I.I
GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
Predicative
adjectives
Attributive
adjectives
Gradable
adjectives
Dead
Octagonal
Subject (to)
Tantamount (to)
Fond (of)
Afraid
(that, of,
about)
The concepts of gradability and scale are not alien to nominal
constructions either, but gfadability of nominals used as comp
lements with intensive verbs (in the sense of Quirk et al. 1972:2.5)
is only of marginal significance; consider, for example:
[7] She is more a wife than a mother.'
Gradability is a common feature of nominals in construction with
extejasive verbs, eg\
[8] John earns more money than Michael (does).
This study, however, will deal with adjectives; and construc
tions with other parts of speech will be referred to only occasion
ally, to throw additional light on observations about adjectival
constructions.
TYPES OF SCALES 5
1.3 Types of scales
A scale may be defined by just one adjective or by a pair of
adjectives. Scales defined by one adjective will be referred to as
unary and adjectives defining them will be called imary-scale
adjectives. Examples: adjectives of colour ('red', 'green', etc.)
and such adjectives as 'extravagant', 'cruel', 'beautiful'.^"
Scales deêd by pairs of adjectives will be termed binary. To
define a scale, two adjectives must at least be gradable and come
from the same lexical field, ie from a set of lexemes each of which
is in some respect semantically related to, but at the same time
incompatible with, any other lexeme in the set. Two adjectives
are incompatible^^ if they satisfy the following entailment formula
[9] NPi is y4 NPi is not A'
where NP is a noun phrase, A and A' are adjectives, signals
the relation of logical entailment,!^ and , is a marker signalling
the identity of (the referent of) the noun phrase on either side
of the entailment symbol.
Sentences constructedaccording to formula [9] are to be inter
preted as exponents of underlying propositions. Thus the formula
is to be understood as follows: "The proposition underlying a
sentence formed by replacing NP with a noun phrase and A with
an adjective in the sentence formula 'TVP is A'' entails the prop
osition underlying a sentence formed by replacing NP with the
same noun phrase as before and A' with another adjective in the
sentence formula 'iVP is not A"". All the entailment formulae
in this study are to be understood in the same way, ie as referring
to the underlying propositions.
Examplesof lexical fields maybe found in the sets of adjectives
of shape and colour. Thus:
[loa] NPi is round ^ NPi is not square/triangular/
hexagonaVbctagonal, etc.
[lob] NPi is red ^ NPi is not greer/blue/yellow/purple, etc.
However, [9] will not holdtrue if for A' wesubstitute an adjective
from a different lexical field; for example:
[11] NPi is round NPi is not blue.
NPi is round ^ NPi is not warm.
NPi is round ^ NPi is not wooden.
In these formulae the symbol '#' is to be read 'does not entail'.
Membership of the same lexical field is not a sufficient
6 GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECnVES
condition for any two gradable adjectives to define a scale.
Adjectives of colour are gradable and constitute a lexical field,
yet pairs of them do not define binary scales; each adjective
defines a scale by itself - a unary one.
For a pair of incompatible gradable adjectives A and A' to
define a binary scale they must fulfil one more condition: they
must be at least semi-reciprocal. By 'at least' is meant here that
they may fail short of complete reciprocity. Two gradable adjec
tives are reciprocal if they satisfy the following pair of entailment
formulae (t/Lyons 1968:464):
12a] NPi is Aer than NPj ^ NPj is ^'er than NPi
12b] NPj is A'ex than NPi NPi is Aer than NPj
where NPf and NPj are noun phrases, A and A' are gradable
adjectives from the same lexical field, and Atx stands for the
comparative-degree form of an adjective (either inflectional '/ler'
or periphrastic 'more A'). Example:
[13] Mary is older than Jane Jane is younger than Mary.
Jane is younger than Mary Mary is older than Jane.
We shall define as semi-reciprocal those pairs of gradable adjec
tives which satisfyone of the formulae in [12]. The pair 'econom
ical' : 'uneconomical' can be quoted as an example. Thus, 'Car
X is more economical than Car Y' does not entail 'Car Y is more
uneconomical than Car X', ie formula [12a] is not applicable,
since both cars may be economical, both uneconomical, or one
may be economical and the other uneconomical:
[14] NP: is more economical than NPj ^ NPj is more uneco
nomical than NPi.
On the other hand, formula [12b] is applicable here:
[15] NPkis (even) more uneconomical than NPi => NPi is more
economical than NPk.^
We are now in a postition to characterize binary scales more
fully. To define a binary scale, a pair of adjectives must be:
(a) incompatible,
(b) gradable,
(c) at least semi-reciprocal.
Pairsof adjectives defining binary scales will be symbolized thus:
A:A
Binary scales are of two kinds. Those which are defined by
reciprocal pairs of adjectives will be termed antonymic (c/Lyons
TYPES OF SCALES 7
1968:464; 1977:273), and the term 'antonymic' will also be used
with reference to the adjectives defining such scales. Scales
defined by pairs which Me only semi-reciprocal will be referred
to as quasi-antonymic, and the term will dso be used to refer to
the adjectives defining such scales. An example of a quasi-anto-
nymic scale is that defined by the pair 'economical' :
'uneconomical'. Other exjunples: 'intelligent' ; 'unintelligent',
'experienced' : 'inexperienced', 'efficient' : 'inefficient', 'honest':
'dishonest'. As can be seen from these examples, in
quasi-antonymic pairs of adjectives one element of the pair
contains a negative prefix.
Antonymic scales are either syirmietric or asymmetric. The
asymmetric scales are open at one end but bounded at the other.
Of the adjectives defining them, one signifies absence of a feature
denoted by the other one and signals the end of the scale: the
zero-end. Examples; 'dry' : 'wet/damp/humid', 'clean' : 'dirty',
'smooth' : 'rough' ('dry' = "zero-wet", 'clean' = "zero-dii^",
'smooth' = "zero-rough"). Other examples: 'well' : 'ill/sick',
'sober' : 'drunk', 'firesh' : 'stal^ranci(âddled', 'straight' : 'curved'.
In the other direction the scale is open, since on asymmetric
scales there are no terms signalling that a feature is present to a
degree which cannot be excelled: something like "maximally wet",
"maximally dirty", "maximally rough", etc.
Symmetric scales are the same at both ends: either open or
bounded. The bounded symmetric scale stretches from 1 to zero:
from complete presence to total absence of a feature. The typical
example is the scale defined by the adjectival pair 'full' : 'empty';
the feature referred to by these adjectives is "fullness", ie the frac
tion of a container which is filled. The adjective 'full' signals that
the value of that fraction is i; with the adjective 'empty' the value
of the fraction is zero.
The open S3rmmetric scale is the most typical of all the binary
scales, in that it is the kind of scale which is defined by the most
frequently used antonymic pairs of adjectives - such as
'tall' : 'short', 'old' : 'young', 'heavy' : 'light', 'good' : 'bad'.
Open scales are open at either end: there are no terms on them
which signal the beginning or the end of the scale.
A characteristic property of binary-scale adjectives is the fact
that if an adjective from this class is semantically relevant to one
element of a set of extraUnguistic entities, then the underlying
dimension - and the scale for it - is relevant to every element of
the set. To put it differently: if one of the adjectives defining a
binary scale can be predicated of an element of a class of things,
then either this adjective or the other adjective from this pair or
another term from the same scale can be predicated of any other
element of that class. Thus, binary-scale adjectives express prop
erties characterizing all the elements of the relevant sets: all
people have some height, all concrete objects have some weight,
all cars can be described in terms of economy, etc.^ On the other
hand, unary-scale adjectives are different in this respect; an
adjective such as 'red' can be predicated of a particular flower but
neither it nor the scale it represents applies to all flowers. Simi
larly, an adjective such as 'beautiful', or 'cruel (to)' can be predi
cated of some humans, but neither it nor the scale it represents
necessarily applies to all humans.
Let us now return briefly to unary scales. Some of them may
at first sight seem binary. Consider, for example, the scale
defined by the adjective '(in)flammable'." Things may be 'more
(in)flammable' or 'less (in)flammable' - down to the point of
zero-(in)flammability, when they become 'non-(in)flammable'.
Yet the adjectives '(in)flammable' and 'non-(in)flammable' do not
define a binary scale, even though they are incompatible: the
adjective 'non-(in)flammable' is not gradable and consequently
the pair cannot be even semi-reciprocal. The scale is unary, only
bounded at the lower end, with the term *non-(in)flammable'
signalling zero-value. In the other direction the scale is open. Let
us caU such scales unary asymmetric. On the other hand, scales
defined by such adjectives as 'red' or 'beautiful' are open in both
directions; they have no lexically marked beginning or end. Let
us call them unary symmetric.
Types of scales and classes of adjectives defining them are
presented graphically in Fig. 1.2.
1.4 Relativity
Most gradable adjectives are characterized by relativity. This
means that when the comparative-degree form of an adjective is
used in a sentence referring to two extralinguistic entities, it states
the location of those entities on the scale relative to each other,
anywhere on the scale. The comparative-degree form need not
therefore refer to the same set of values on the scale as the
positive-degree form; for example 'John is older than Peter' does
not entail 'John is old'. This relativity of many gradable adjectives
can be expressed thus: an adjective A is relative^ if it satisfies the
following pair of negative entailment formulae:
[16] NPi is Aqt than NP, ^ NPi is A
NPi is Act than NPj ^ NPi is not A
S
C
A
L
E
S
(
a
n
d
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
-
d
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
)
U
N
A
R
Y
-
(
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
-
s
i
n
g
l
e
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
)
A
S
Y
M
M
E
T
R
I
C
-
(
b
o
u
n
d
e
d
a
t
o
n
e
e
n
d
;
w
i
t
h
n
o
n
-
g
r
a
d
a
b
l
e
z
e
r
o
-
t
e
r
m
)
(
i
n
)
f
l
a
m
m
a
b
l
e
[
n
o
n
'
{
i
n
)
f
l
a
m
m
a
h
l
e
]
S
Y
M
M
E
T
R
I
C
-
(
o
p
e
n
a
t
b
o
t
h
e
n
d
s
)
r
e
d
r
-
Q
U
A
S
I
-
A
N
T
O
N
Y
M
I
C
(
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
s
e
m
i
-
r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
p
a
i
r
s
o
f
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
)
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
:
u
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
B
I
N
A
R
Y
(
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
-
p
a
i
r
s
o
f
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
-
i
n
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
s
e
m
i
-
r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
)
A
N
T
O
N
Y
M
I
C
(
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
f
u
l
l
y
r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
p
a
i
r
s
o
f
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
)
A
S
Y
M
M
E
T
R
I
C
(
o
p
e
n
a
t
o
n
e
e
n
d
,
b
o
u
n
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
)
d
r
y
:
w
e
t
S
Y
M
M
E
T
R
I
C
-
(
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
a
t
b
o
t
h
e
n
d
s
)
H
G
U
R
E
1
.
2
T
y
p
e
s
o
f
s
c
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
a
d
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
d
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
r
B
O
U
N
D
E
D
(
b
o
u
n
d
e
d
a
t
b
o
t
h
e
n
d
s
)
f
u
l
l
:
e
m
p
t
y
O
P
E
N
(
o
p
e
n
a
t
-
b
o
t
h
e
n
d
s
)
,
o
l
d
:
y
o
u
n
g
v
o
where Aer is the comparative form of an adjective (either inflec
tional 'Aer' or periphrastic 'more A'). Thus, for example:
[17] John is older than Peter John is old.
John is older than Peter ^ John is not old.
In actual fact formulae [16] admit the possibility of NPf being A,
not A, or neither A nor not ^4 - so that all of the following
sentences are acceptable:
[18] John is older than Peter, he is eighty.
John is older than Peter, he is forty-five.
John is older than Peter, he is six.
Those gradable adjectives which are not relative will be called
absolute. An absolute adjective A will satisfy the following entail-
ment formula:
[19] NPi is Act than NPj ^ NPi is A.
As we shall see later {cf 6.i), unambiguously absolute adjectives
are not easy to find. For most speakers of English the adjective
wet' is absolute; let it serve as a tentative example:
[20] My towel is wetter than yours ^ My towel is wet.
Consequently, for the majority of native speakers the following
sentence is unacceptable:
[21] *My towel is wetter than yours but neither of our towels
is wet.
Note that our formulae defining relative and absolute adjectives
refer to NPi, that is primum comparationis, to the right of the
entailment symbol and use only the Aer type comparative
sentence to the left of the entaihnent symbol. Yet there are
several different tjrpes of the relation of comparison and each of
them involves two terms: primum comparationis and secundum
comparationis. The basic types can be represented symbolically
as follows:
22a] XRyier y
-22b X RiessX y
22c] XRêst X
22d JcRas^y
In [22c] the secundum comparationis is the set X of which x is an
element.
Let 2 with an appropriate subscript symbolize the sentence
types which represent the propositions reflecting the relations
RELATIVm'
II
[22]. 'NP' will symbolize the noun phrases which represent the
arguments of the propositions.
23a
23b
23c'
23d
2er = NPi is Aer than NPj
Siess = NPi is less A than NP,
2est = NPi is the y4est in NP*
2as = NPi is as A as NPj
where 'NP*' represents the set of which the referent of NPi is a
member. Each of these sentence types may be a term in three
different types of entailment formuiaei': '2 NPi isA', '2 ^ NPi
is not A', and '2 NPi is >1 a 2 NPi is not A\ Analogical
formulae can be written for the second term of comparison; but
only where it is an element of a set (that element being repre
sented by NPj), and not a whole set - which excludes 2est- Such
formulae will have 'NPj is A' or WPy is not A' to the right of the
entaUment (or non-entailment) symbol. For each type of 2,
except 2est, there are thus three theoretically possiblevariants of
entaUment formulae and two arguments in the propositions; the
number of mathematically possible permutations is then 3^ =9.
Let us illustrate this by drawing a matrix for Aei type compara
tives (Table i.i). When 2 entaUs 'NPi is A\ we shdl symbolize
this with a plus; when 2 entails 'NPi is not A\ we shall symbolize
TABLE I.I A matrix for y4er type comparatives
Eer^
NPj is A NPj is not A NPj is A
and Eer P
NPj is
not A
Eer ^ NPi is A
(i) (t)
Fully absolute
(ii) (!)
Semi-absolute
(iii)(+/_)
Weakly
absolute
Ee, => NPi is
not A
(iv)(;)
(Not possible)
(V) C)
Negatively
absolute
(vi)(+/J
(Not possible)
Eer t> NP, is A
and
Eer ^ NPi is
not A
(vii)C^(~)
(Not possible)
(viii) C^/")
Semi-relative
()(xjz)
Fully relative
this with a minus; and when 2 does not entail either of these two
propositions, we shall symbolize this with a plus/minus sign,
suggesting that since neither of the two alternatives is entailed,
either of them is possible. The same refers to the entailment
formulae with NPj as (the exponent of) the argument in the prop
ositions to the right of the entaihnent (or non-entailment) symbol.
The plus or minus signs for the propositions with the primum
comparationis {NPi) will be put above those for the secundum
comparationis (NPj).
Of the nine permutations of the 'er' type relation of comparison
three are not possible in language. The comparative degree form
of an adjective cannot be used to express a feature which is
present in (the referent of) NPj but is, or may be, absent from
(the referent of) NPi. Thiseliminates variants (iv), (vi), and (vii).
Of the remaining sixvariantsthe most characteristic one is (ix):
it represents relativity in its most complete form. We can describe
this variant by saying that adjectives which fit its formulae are
completely value-neutral: A in the sentence formula WP, is Aer
than NP/ may refer to any value on the scale. Let us call such
adjectives fully relative. Typical representatives of this category
are members of open-scale antonymic pairs. For examples see
[i8] above and [24] below:
[24] Peter is younger than John, he is seventy-five.
Peter is younger than John, he is forty.
Peter is younger than John, he is five.
Variant (viii) is typically represented by members of bounded-
scale antonymic pairs, such as 'full' : 'empty' (c/6.5). Let us call
adjectives which fit box (viii) semi-relative.
Variants (i), (ii), and (iii) represent three varieties of that
relation characterizing gradable adjectives which we defined by
formula [19] and called absolute. Adjectives which fit box (i) will
be called fully absolute, those which fit box (ii), semi-absolute,
and those which fit box (iii), weakly absolute. All these three
classes will be discussed in Chapter 6, in particular in 6.6 and 6.7.
The remaining box in the matrix, box (v), is characterized by
(-,-) enteiilment relations. This, as we sh^l see, is a rare occur
rence; it will be discussed in 6.6. When an adjective is used this
way, we shall call it negatively absolute, thus extending the
concept 'absolute', which has so far been defined by formula [19].
Adjectives which fit formula [19] will henceforth be called posi
tively absolute (with the three subcategories: fully absolute, semi-
absolute, and weakly absolute), but whenever this can be done
without creating ambiguity, the adverb 'positively' will be
dropped and the adjectives called simply 'absolute'.
THE marked/unmarked OPPOSmON 13
1.5 The marked/unmarked opposition
In all open-scale antonymic pairs (and in some other binary-scale
pairs) one of the adjectives in the pair is the unmarked term,
the other being marked. The unmarked term is characterized
by the fact that it has two functions: it can either signal a value -
usually a high value - on the scale for the underlying dimension
definedby the antonymic pair; or it can be value-neutral, in which
case it represents the underlying dimension as a whole. Note that
here value-neutrality characterizes the adjective in its positive-
degree form. Consider the following dialogue:
[25] 'How old is John?'
'He's old: he's eighty-five.'
In the question the adjective 'old' is used in its value-neutral
sense: it only represents the dimension "age". In the answer it
signals a high value on the dimension-scale of "age". Note that
since 'old' in the question is value-neutral, the answer might also
be very different:
[26] 'How old is John?'
'He's very young: he's only twelve.'
The unmarked member of a binary-scale adjectival pair (in its
value-neutral function) can be identified in two ways:
(a) It represents the underlying dimension as a wholein ques
tions about the value on the dimension-scale assigned to an
extralinguistic entity; the question formula is:
[27] How A is NP?
For an example see [25] and[26].
(b) In open-scale antonymic pairs it represents the underlying
dimension as a whole in statements of the value on the dimension-
scale assignedto an entity - if that value is expressible in numeri
cal terms (cf 1.6). Statements of this kind have the following
form:
[28] NP is n units A
where A is the unmarked member of an antonymic pair, from the
set {old, tall, high, long, deep, wide, thick, . . .}, and 'n units'
is a phrase such as 'five years', 'six feet', etc. Example:
[29] Johnny is five years old.
Markedness is clearly related to relativity, but the relation is
unidirectional; to function as the unmarked member of an anto
nymic pair an adjective must b^ relative, but not all relative
adjectives in antonymic pairs are unmarked - 'old' is relative and
unmarked, 'young' is relative but marked.
It seems that in order to signal a high value on the dimension-
scale the unmarked member of an antonymic pair must be used
without any modifying morphemes, apart from intensifiers or
negators. Thus, when the expression 'n units old', or the forms
'older' and 'oldest' are predictated of some entity x, the resulting
sentencesdo not entail 'jc is old'. The same is true of interrogative
sentences with the expression 'How old?'. These expressions and
forms are value-neutral.ô To convey the meaning 'old' we have
to use the form 'old' on its own or, at most, preceded by such
intensifiers as 'very/rather/so', or by negators - such as 'not',
'hardly'.
The same seems to be true of adverbs of measure, ie those
which have a dimension-scale in their semantic structure. Thus,
for example, in the following dialogue the adverb 'high' is value-
neutral, both in the question (where it is preceded by 'How') and
in the answer (where it is modified by the comparative-degree
morpheme); while its antonym, 'low', is not value-neutral.
[30] 'How high are we flying?'
'Very low: only a little higher than the tree-tops.'
Analogues of this phenomenon can be found in the semantics
of nouns expressing units of measurement - such as 'hour', 'day',
'year', 'mile'. When these nouns are modified, they are value-
neutral; thus we can say both:
[31] This will take many hour^day^years.
It is many miles from here.
and:
[32] This will take only a few hour^day^years.
It is only a couple of miles from here.
However, when unmodified (and used in the plural form),
these nouns usually signal a high value on the relevant dimension-
scale:
.{33] This will take hours/day^years {ie a long time).
It is miles from here {ie a long way from here).
Some names of dimensions can be used in a similar way:
[34] This is going to take time {ie a long time).
Names of dimensions behave in a similar fashion when they are
NUMERICAL AND NON-NUMERICAL ADJECTIVES 15
used as bases for derived adjectives:
[35] lengthy: "of considerable length"
aged: "of great age"
sizeable "of considerable size"
weighty: "of great weight"
pricey: "of high price"
An analogue can also be found in the semantics of verbs from
the same semantic area:
[36] This car wiU last (ie last long).
This will cost you! (ie cost a lot).
1.6 Numerical and non-numerical adjectives
Scales may be either graded numericaUy or ungraded. An
example of the former kind can be the scde of age, graded in
years (months, weeks, days, etc.) and represented by the anto-
nymic pair 'old' : 'young'. An example of the latter kind can be
the - normally - ungraded scale represented by the antonymic
pair 'fat' : 'slim'. Let us call those adjectives which represent
numerically graded scales, numerical adjectives, and those which
represent other scales, non-numerical adjectives.
Numerical adjectives can be identified by the fact that they can
be substituted for A in the following sentence formula:
[37] ^Pi is n units êr than NPj
where 'Aqt' is the comparative degree form of either member of
an antonymic pair, and 'n units' is a numerical expression like
'six feet', 'three years', 'ten pounds', etc. For example:
[38] Mark is sbc inches taller than Peter.
Most - but not all - numerical adjectives can also be used in
sentences constructed according to formula [28], ie: 'NP is n units
A' (where A is the unmarked member of the antonymic pair). We
shall repeat here the example numbered [29]:
[29] Johnny is five years old.
The boundary between numericzd and non-^numerical adjectives
is vague and easily crossed. Class-membership of adjectives in
respect of these two subclasses varies from speaker to speaker
and is a function of the degree of technological advancement on
the societal plane and of the degree of education on the personal
l6 GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
plane. There is a hard core of antonymic pairs of adjectives which
are numerical for virtually all native speakers of English. These
pairs - all of them open-scale - are listed below, with the name
of the underlying dimension and the relevant units of measure
ment added in parentheses against each antonymic pair.
[39] tall: short (height: inche^feeVcentimetreVmetres^
long : short (length: inche^feeVyards/miles/metres/
kilometres)
high : low(height: inche^fee^centimetres/metres)
wide : narrow (width: as above)
deep : shallow (depth: inches/fee^fathoms/metres)
thick : thin (thickness: inche^feel/milUmetres/metres)
old : young (age: day^week^months/years)
late : early (relative time: second^minutesj/hour^
day^weeks/month^years)
long : shorvbrief (duration: as above)
heavy : light (weight: pounds/stone/Mam^/kilograms)
fast: slow (speed: miles per hourîetres per seconc(/'
kilometres per hour/knots)
dear/expensive : cheap (price: pound^pence)
To these should be added two interlocking antonymic paus of
adjectives of temperature:
[40] otW . (temperature: degrees F/degrees C)^^
The numerical adjectives listedaboverefer to objectively meas
urable physical parameters of things (some linguists call them
parametric adjectives; cf Boguslawski 1975). We shall call them
primary numerical adjectives. Many people (their number is
growing with thespread of education) would add totheir list such
antonymic pairs as the following:
[41] loud : soft (loudness: decibels)
noisy : quiet (noise: decibels)
light: dark (light: lumens)
bright: dim (brightness: luxes)
Numerical adjectives seem to typify the class of antonymic
adjectives as a whole; perhaps even the class of gradable adjec
tives as a whole. Progress in science and development in tech
nology pressmore and moregradable adjectives into their service
by specifying precisely the underlying scales and thus turning the
adjectives into numerical ones; the antonymic pair 'hard' : 'soft'
can be quoted as an example. This process is paralleled by
NUMERICAL AND NON-NUMERICAL ADJECTIVES I7
another one. The more people tend to perceive reality in quan
titative terms, the more they feel inclined to invent numerical
scales for those physical properties which are not normally meas
urable on linear scales, and even for some non-physical, abstract
properties, which are only susceptible to subjective measurement.
Let us consider the antonymic set iarge'/'big' : 'small'. A ques
tion such as 'How long is your car?' can be answered by saying
'It is fourteen feet long'; but the question 'How big is your car?'
caimot be answered by a sentence of the shape 'It is n units big',
and the reason is not that formula [28] would give an unaccept
able sentence here, only that the underlying concept is "size", and
this refers to three dimensions. The question 'How big is your
car?' might be answered: 'It's fourteen feet long, five feet wide,
and four feet six inches high'; but then we would be dealing with
three different assessments of three different linear dimensions
expressed by three different adjectives. If the query refers to
something small, for example a dog, then the answer to the ques
tion 'How big is your dog?' might be 'Oh, it's this big' - accom
panied by a gesture. There is no universally applicable linear scale
of size. It is interesting and significant, however, that in certain
cases people feel the need for a linear scale on which to represent
two-dimensioned or three-dimensional size, and they create
special scales, such as the linear scales for the sizes of sheets of
paper (two-dimensional objects) or for the sizes of shoes and
clothes (three-dimensional objects). Such scales are not calibrated
in any of the standard physical units of measurement, but in
conventional units created ad hoc. To return to our test formula
for numerical adjectives, [37], we say, for example:
[42] Jeme's bras are two sizes larger than Mary's
with 'size' used as a quasi-unit of measurement. Some of these
ad hoc scales may seem non-numerical - such as the four-term
.scale for sizes of clothes: 'small', 'medium', 'large', 'extra large'.
Conceptually, however, they are closely related to munerical
scales.
Let us turn now to non-physical, abstract properties; for
example, that expressed by the antonymic pair 'good' : 'bad' (in
the sense of proficiency or skilfulness, and not in the sense of
moral virtue). Here we are right out of the sphere of physical
parameters of things; yet the degree of "goodness" or "perfection"
is often measured- and sometimes witha great degree of delicacy
- on specially constructed numerical scales, such as the scales
used in judging the performance of competitors in diving, figure-
skating, gymnastics, etc.; or the scales used in assessing perform
ance in tests and examinations. Antonymic pairs of the
l8 GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
'large' : 'smaU' kind and those of the 'good' : 'bad' kind are
similar, in that in both cases the units of measurement are terms
such as 'point', 'grade', 'mark', 'size', etc. - that is, units which
are non-specificfor the dimension-scales they grade. This reflects
the fact that the scales are more artificial than the 'natural' scales
underlying primary numerical adjectives. Adjectives expressing
these relatively more artificial scales will be called here secondary
numerical adjectives.
Numerical adjectives (of all subclasses) vary in their syntactic
and semantic behaviour in sentences constructed according to
formulae [27] and [28] - which will be repeated here for the sake
of convenience.
.27.
28
How A is NP?
NP is n units A.
In the first seven pairs of primary numerical adjectives listed
in [39] the first member of each pair is unmarked, both in type
[27] questions and in type [28] statements. In the pair
'late' : 'early' both terms are marked, in questions as well as in
statements. The adjective 'long' referring to duration is unmarked
in type [27] questions, but is for many speakers unacceptable in
type [28] statements. Thus in the question 'How long was your
holiday?' the adjective is unmarked and value-neutral; but for
some speakers it is not substitutable forAinformula [28]: ''It was
three weeks long.' In the remaining pairs from the list [39] both
members seem equally marked in tjê [27] questions and both
are equally unacceptable in type [28] statements.
In the pairs of adjectives of temperature listed in [40] all terms
are marked in type [27] questions. In type [28] statements only
'hot' seems admissible, and only when it refers to very high
temperatures; it is then marked, and this constitutes an inter
esting departure from the principle of value-neutrality of the
adjective in type [28] sentences.
The adjectives from the additional list [41] are all marked in
type [27] questions (some of them would hardly be used in such
questions). Their use in type [28] statements seems governed by
register rules: a sentence such as 'This noise isa hundred decibels
loud.' may be acceptable to an acoustics specialist.
Notes
I. Locutions such as 'The poor are always with us' are considered here
to be transforms of sentences with noun phrases (here 'poor people')
as subjects. The same is true of the Polish equivalents of suchlocu-
NOTES 19
dons; eg 'Biedni sa zawsze w^r6d nas.' In locutions such as True
is not the word for it' the adjective (here 'true') is used as a citation
form: *The word "true"'.
2. According to what is now the standard view in generative grammars,
adjectives in predicative position are interpreted as predicates, and
NPs with attributive adjectives (as noun modifiers) are derived from
them transformationally. Followers of Montague tend to adopt the
converse view and interpret adjectives in predicate position as
displaced noun modifiers {cf eg Parsons 1972). Predicative-only and
attributive-only adjectives are an embarrassment for either of these
schools of thought. There is, of course, a third possibility: attributive
and predicative constructions may be examined separately, with a
view to establishing semantic differences between the two. That is
what was attempted by Bolinger, as early as 1967 (cf Bolinger
1967a).
3. Since the noun is a very versatile and multi-functional part of
speech, it is possible to find similar synonymic pairs for nouns and
verbs; eg in Polish:
NV Jan studiuje (*Jan studies').
NvN Jan jest studentem ('Jan is a student').
4. In actual fact, central and predicative-only adjectives are character
istically gradable, and many non-gradable adjectives from these
subclasses, such as, for example, 'male', 'female', 'alive', have grad
able equivalents: 'masculine', 'feminine', 'lively'. Many non-
gradable adjectives can be used in some comparative constructions
figuratively; cf 'more dead than alive' (see also note 7 below).
5. Probably the most elegant characterization of the class of English
adjectives which can form the comparative and superlative degree
inflectionally is that proposed by Cygan (1975). Cygan first quotes
Kuryiowicz (1964:15): "The comparative in er is regular with adjec
tives stressed on the final syllable (e.g. severer), hence also with
monosyllabic forms {stronger), but the periphrastic comparative in
all other cases." This formulation subsumes under one stress-based
rule two classes of adjectives traditionally listed separately.
Certain deviations from this rule (likelier, etc.), Kurytowicz
suggests, do not obliterate the clarity of the pattern. Cygan argues
that in disyllabic gradable adjectives with stress on the first syllable,
such as likely, narrow, tender, simple, and so on, all the unstressed
vowel endings, as also the syllabic /, are representatives of the
resonant (sonorant) class. He goes on to say: "The primary function
of a resonant - any resonant - is consonantal (non-syllabic); a
resonant assumes a vocalic (syllabic) function only secondarily, in
non-vocalic entourage." Thus, he argues, in the comparative-degree
form the final resonants resume their consonantal function, and we
get such alternations as: ow[u]~[w], er[9]'^[T], etc. In
conclusion he formulates the rule "that it is the stress on the last
vowel of the underlying phonological representation of an English
adjective that is decisive for the possibility of its being compared
inflectionally".
6. Bolinger (i967b:4) points to one more characteristic of adjectives
that can take comparison: "They admit phonological lengthening,
itself a way of expressing a hi^ degree of something: It's deepl
/di:p/; He's studiousl /stu:dy9^; It's a long/lo:g/ way; but not It's
proportionate */pT^po:T^dn^t/, It's biological */bay9la:jtkl/."
7. Formulaic figurative locutions such as 'John is more dead than alive'
do not invalidate the statement of the non-gradability of the adjec
tive 'dead', since the adjective cannot be used freely in typical
comparative sentences; consider, for example, such sentences as:
*John is more dead than Peter.
*John is more dead now than he was an hour ago.
8. Cf Bolinger (i967b:4): "All indications are that comparability is a
semantic feature coextensive with "having different degrees" or
"susceptible of being laid out on a scale",''
9. Kamp (1975:147/) argues convincingly why such sentences as 'This
is more table than that' sound awkward.
10. Such pairs of adjectives as 'beautiful' : 'ugly', 'cruel' : 'kind' do not
define binary scales. For a discussion of this see note 14 below..
11. For a discussion of incompatibility see Leech (1974:100), Palmer
(1976:73), Lyons (1977:242, 288), and Lyons (1981:95).
12. In Leech (1974:85-6), entailment is listed as one of eight types of
basic statement. He begins by giving what he calls 'partial defi
nitions'; for entailment the partial definition is as follows: "A"entails
Y: If X is true, Yis true; also if Yis false, X is false." He goes on to
say, "we must add to the definitions of basic statement the proviso
that the truth conditions hold 'by virtue of conceptual meaning
alone'''.
Kempson (1977:39) defines entailment as follows: "The relation
of entaihnent is said to hold between two sentences. Si and S2, if
when Si is true S2 must be true: in other words S2 is a necessary
condition for the truth of Si."
Lyons (1977:165) in his definition of entailment uses the propo-
sition-forming operator of logical possibility 'poss'. He writes,
"Entailment can be defined in terms of poss and material implication
as follows
(P => ^) = -poss(p & -^).
That is to say, if p entails q, then it is not logicallypossible for both
p to be true and not-^ to be true and conversely."
13. The significance of the qualifier 'even'wiU be discussed in 6.2.1 and
6.7.
14. We can now see why such pairs of adjectives as 'beautiful' : 'ugly',
'cniel' : 'kind' do not define binary scales: they are neither recipro
cal nor even semi-reciprocal. Thus, for example, 'Mary is uglier
than Jane' does not entail 'Jane is more beautiful than Maiy', nor
does 'Sheila is more beautiful than Carol' entail 'Carol is uglier than
Sheila'. The adjectives 'beautiful' and 'ugly' are each at least weakly
absolute; for some speakers they are fully absolute {cf section
NOTES 21
1.4). 'Mary is uglier than Jane' entails 'Jane is better looking than
M^', but the transition from 'ugliness' to 'beauty' involves tran
sition to an entirely separate scale. Similarly, 'Graham is kinder than
Clive' does not entail 'Clive is crueller than Graham'; and probably
for most speakers 'Dwight is crueller than Rodney' does not entail
'Rodney is kinder than Dwight'.
15. Open scales are open at both ends. This statement may strike some
readers as paradoxical; let us therefore analyse it now. To begin
with, to say that the scale is open does not mean to say that it is
unlimited. Let us discuss the top end first, taking the s<ê of age
as an example. Human age has a limit, so has geological age (since
Earth will not last indefinitely); there are also limits to the scales of
length, breadth, depth, etc. of everything on Earth - and even in
the Universe, provided we believe it to be finite. What matters,
however, is two facts. First, the top ends of those scales are ill-
defined; second - and this is more important - there are no adjec
tives (or nouns, for that matter) which signify "top of the scale
of age/height/length, etc.". By contrast, members of bounded-scale
antonymic pairs do name the ends of the scale - both ends: the pair
'full' : 'empty' is an obvious example.
The bottom end of the scale for a dimension is, from the math
ematical (and physical) point of view, zero. In bounded-scale pairs
zero has its linguistic exponent: an adjective such as 'empty'. But
the scales defined by such pairs as 'old' : 'young', 'tall' : 'short' - ie
by open-scale pairs - do not begin at zero. The obvious reason for
this is that for someone to be called 'young' his or her age must be
more than zero; and for a person to be called 'short' he or she must
have been bom - whichmeans that hiêr dimensions will definitely
be different from zero. The same applies, in varying degrees, to
other open-scale antonymic pairs; and what is essential is the fact
that the lower term never refers to zero on the dimension-scale. The
scale may approach zero asymptotically, but never reaches it. In
some cases, as in the pair 'tall' : 'short', it begins in some - ill-
defined - area well above zero.
16. By 'all jcs' (where jcis a living being or an inanimate object) we mean
-"all 0:5 in standard state''\ c/Wojtasiewicz (1978:108, no). This
excludes, for example, dead animals, people who have undergone
lobotomy, or cars on a scrap heap.
17. On the advice of Benjamin Lee Whorf the term 'inflammable' was
replaced in the United States by the form 'flammable', since the
preflx 'in-' was mistakenly interpreted by many as a negative
morpheme - which led to accidents.
18. The term 'relative adjective' should not be confused with the term
'relational adjectives' used by Sussex (1974) to denote non-gradable,
typically denominal adjectives such as 'wooden'.
19. From the combinatorial point of view more permutations are possible,
but they are not relevant semantically.
20. It is interesting that the value-neutral character of the adjective in
the expression 'as A as' depends on the adjective used: for example
'old' is value-neutral but 'taU' is not. lliis will be discussed in
8.2.2.1.
21. Prator (1963) argues convincingly that the scale of temperature looks
like this;
lOt
/at
cool
c?
warm)
In progressing up or down the scale we skip one term; for example
(the examples are mine, not Prator's):
It was hot yesterday, but today it is cooler and the night may be
cold.
The night was cold, but now that the sun has risen it's getting
warmer and we'll probably have a hot day.
The foUowing locutions, however, are not acceptable:
*It's cold, but it's getting cooler.
*It's hot, but it's getting warmer.
*It's cold, but it's getting hotter.
*It's hot, but it's getting colder.
Prator goes on to discuss the adjectives of temperature in Chinese,
where there is also a four-term scale but the system functions
differently:
UySngkwai j
( nwanhwo^
Vi
^16ng
Chapter 2
Comparatives and positives
2.1 Form relativity and scale relativity
In Chapter 1 we defined relativity by means of formulae [i6]; for
the sake of convenience we shall repeat them here as formulae
[I]:
[i] NPi is êr than NPj NPi is A.
NPi is Aer than NPj ^ NPi is not A.
This seems an adequate definition, since it applies to all relative
adjectives, including both the unmarked and the marked
members of antonymic pairs. Let us now refine the concept of
relativity by drawing a distinction between the relativity of an
adjective as a lexeme and the relativity of forms of an adjective.
The minimum requirement for an adjective to be termed
relative is that it should fit formulae [i]. These show what is
implied when a relative adjective A is used in the comparative-
degree form; and what is implied is, in fact, value-neutrality of
the adjective. We know, however, that relative adjectives, thus
defined, are value-neutral also in the superiative-degree forms
and - what is more - that some adjectives, notably the unmarked
members of antonymic pairs, can be value-neutral also in the
positive-degree form. Let us redefine relativity and say that a
relative adjective as a lexeme is defined by its (value-neutral) use
in the comparative-degree form in formulae [ij; some adjectives,
however, can be relative also in other forms, notably in the
positive-degree form, and this occurs whenever they are used in
constructions in which they are value-neutral. Thus we shall say,
for example, that marked members of antonymic pairs are rela
tive in the comparative-degree form (and eo ipso relative as
24 COMPARATIVES AND POSITIVES
lexemes) but absolute in the positive-degree form (eg 'young');
while unmarked members of antonymic pairs can be relative also
in the positive-degree form (eg 'three years old'). Some of them
are relative in the positive-degree form only in questions of the
'How A is type and statements of the 'NP is n units A' type;
others are relative also in statements of the 'iVP,- is as A as NP/
type - and so on.
Relativity of comparative-degree and positive-degree forms of
adjectives will be referred to as form relativity. The term is
needed in view of the existence of another kind of semantic
relativity, which we shall now discuss.
Let us consider the following sentence:
[2] John is tall.
The exponent of the predicate in this sentence is an unmodified
adjective in the positive-degree form, the unmarked member of
an antonymic pair. Out of context it will be interpreted as signi
fying a high value on the scale of height for human males.
Suppose, however, that John is a child. Sentence [2] will then
express a true proposition even if John's height is only 4 feet,
provided most other boys of his age are shorter, 'jc is tall' is a
relative statement, and the relativity may be due to various
factors: x may be tall for his or her age, or tall by the standards
of the community he or she lives in (but not necessarily by the
standards of other communities). What is more: 'a tall girl' is not
necessarily 'a tall person' and certainly differs m height from, say,
'a taU tree'. In each of these phrases the form 'tall' signals a high
value on the scale of height, but in each case the scale is different.
The interpretation of the adjective 'tall' (in particular, the numeri
cal value on the dimension-scale which it signals) depends on the
reference set of the argument. What counts as 'tall' on the scale
of height of infant-school boys will count as 'short' on the scale
of height of adult European males, and may fall somewhere in
between the values for 'tall' and 'short' on the scale of height of
adult pygmies. Comparatives in 'iVP,- is Aer than NP/ sentences
signed vdues for (the referent of) NPi on the dimension-scale ito
relation to the secundum comparationis, which is (the referent of)
NPj. Positives in 'NP is A" sentences signal a high, or low, value
for (the referent of) NP on the dimension-scale, and the
secundum comparationis is the reference set, which determines
the scope of the scale. This may be made explicit, as in:
[3] John is tall for a pygmy
or may be implicit in the context or in the total speech situation.
PROBLEMS OF DERIVATION OF COMPARATIVES 25
In any case the meaning of the adjective in sentences of the type:
'NP is yl' is affected by scale relativity.
This kind of relativity characterizes the positive-degree form
of all those adjectives which display form relativity in the
comparative-degree form. Thus, for example, it applies both to
the unmarked and the marked members of open-scale antonymic
pairs: 'a young pope' is clearly "young for a pope" and quite
certainly not a youngster. Also, scale relativity is not limited to
numerical adjectives only: 'clean hands' may be very clean by
everyday standards and yet fail to qualify as "clean" for purposes
of surgery.
We are now in a position to examine critically the traditional
view of the function of the adjective, according to which the
adjective "ascribes a property" to the referent of the noun with
which it is in construction (as an attribute or as the predicate).
It is clear that this formulation of the function of the adjective
applies only to those gradable adjectives which are semantically
absolute at least in the positive-degree form - and to non-gradable
adjectives. Thus an adjective such as 'red' (absolute in the positive-
degree form) can be said to ascribe the property of redness
to the referent of the noun with which it is in construction: 'a red
pansy' is 'a red flower' and 'a red flower' is 'a red object' - in any
reference set. On the other hand, an adjective such as iarge'
cannot be said to ascribe the property of considerable size to
the referent of the noun it is in construction with, since its inter
pretation is affected either by form relativity or by scale relativity.
In particular, 'a large pansy' is not 'a large flower', and definitely
not 'a large object'.
2.2 Problems of derivation of comparatives
If both positives and comparatives can be relative, in one sense
or another, the question arises: Which comes first, the positive
or the comparative? One solution is to derive comparatives from
positives. This is justifiable when the adjective is semantically
absolute. It is argued that if z is wetter than y, then at least z is
wet and the form 'wetter' signifies a higher degree (or greater
intensity) of the property referred to by the form 'wet'. Relative
adjectives, however, are different in this respect. A form such as
'taller' does not signify a higher degree of being "tall".^ The truth
value of a sentence such as
[4] John is older than Peter
does not depend on John being old - or on Peter being old (c/
26 COMPARATIVES AND POSmVES
6.2.1). In fact, both of them may be old, both may be young, or
one of them may be old and .the other one young. Furthermore,
in discussions of this problem it is often overlooked that one or
both may be middle-aged: neither old nor young.
In spite of all this, virtually all the existing derivations of
comparatives proposed within the framework of transformational
generative grammar, as well as some logico-semantic derivations,
use strings with a relative adjective in the positive degree as
inputs to transformations leading to a sentence with that adjective
in the comparative degree. These derivations might be saved if
the unmarked member of the antonymic pair appeared with an
index signalling its form-relative character, for example as 'oldr',
in contradistinction to 'old' without an index: the dictionary form,
meaning "of considerable age". Indexing of this kind might
justify deriving [4] from something like:
[5] John is (more than Peter is oldr) oldr.^
The marked antonym, however, is only form-relative in the
comparative-degree form. Itspositive-degree form is semantically
absolute, and we cannot derive a sentence such as
[6] Peter is younger than John
from
[7] Peter is (more than John is young) young
since John may not be young.^ A possible solution is to introduce
an abstract dimension-referring morpheme (representing "age" in
our example; perhaps something like 'old/) and two relation-
naming morphemes 'less' and 'more' - and wait with lexical inser
tion until later in the derivational process, when 'less' and "age"
(or 'oldr') are replaced with 'younger', and 'more' and "age" (or
'oldr') with 'older'.^
Indexing the unmarked member of the antonymic pairs is also
needed if we believe that there is a negative element underlying
the secundum comparationis. Deriving 'John is older than Peter'
from something like:
[8] John is old to a degree to which Peter is nqt old
clearly requires indexing 'old' as 'oldr'. The whole argument,
however, breaks down for two reasons. Firstly, [8] is uninfor-
mative: what is still needed is a statement of the relation between
Peter and John in respect of age: "more" or "less". Negation is
incidental: obviously if John's age is different from Peter's (in
whichever direction we proceed on the scale of age), it is not the
PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE POSITIVE-DEGREE FORM 27
same. Secondly, we cannot derive 'Peter is younger than John'
from:
[9] Peter is young to a degree to which John is not young
since 'young' is the marked antonym, and [9] entails - unmoti-
vatedly - that Peter is young (and perhaps that John is not).
The view that there is a negative element in the deep structure
of comparative constructions is, according to some scholars,
supported by the fact that comparatives go together with non-
assertive rather than with assertive forms (in the sense of "asser
tive" and "non-assertive" introduced by Quirk et al. (1972:54)):
for example with 'any' rather than with 'some' - cf [10] below.
This argument, however, fails on two counts. Firstly, non-
assertive forms are not characteristic of negative sentences only:
they alsooccur in questions. Although it is true that the presence of
negation triggers the use of non-assertive forms, it is not true that
the use of a non-assertive form signals the presence of negation
in sentence structure - surface or deep. Secondly, non-assertive
forms are not just contextually conditioned variants of assertiye
ones: they have meanings of their own - both in comparative and
in negative sentences. In a sentence like:
[10] John is taller than any of his friends
the form 'any' is not a contextual variant of 'some'. The meaning
of [10] can be represented thus:
[11] (Vx) [x is a friend of John's ^ John is taller than x].
The meaning of the sentence:
[12] John is taller than some of his friends
is different; it could be represented as follows:
[13] (3a:) [x is a friend of John's a John is taller than ac].
'Some' and 'any' are independent also in negative sentences:
'I don't know some of John's friends' is different in meaning from
'I don't know any of John's friends'.
2.3 Problems of interpretation of the positive-degree
form
Interpretation of the meaning of the positive-degree form is
simple in the case of absolute adjectives: we can use the
traditional formula and say that the adjective ascribes a property
to the noun it is in construction with. We have seen, however, that
this interpretation does not .apply in the case of relative adjec
tives. A number of linguists have suggested that the form of the
positive degree of relative adjectives signifies a greater than
average, or greater than norm (or smaller than average/norm)
value on the dimension-scale relevant to the adjectivein question.
Thus a sentence such as [2]
[2] Johnis tall
is interpreted as meaning "John is taller than an averageman" or
"John's hei^t is greater than the average height for human
males". Similarly, a sentence such as;
[14] Peter is short
is taken to mean "Peter is shorter than an average man" or "Peter's
height is less than the average height for human males". As we
can see, the inteipretation of the meaning of the positive degree
of the adjective is done here in terms of the comparative-degree
form. This interpretation can be found in many sources. Leibniz
derived positives from comparatives as early as 300 years ago (c/
Wierzbicka 1972:71). Among the more recent accounts are
Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), Gnutzman (1974), Ehrich
(1975), and TopoliAska (1975). Lyons talks of "some generally
accepted norm" (1977:274), but he sees the norm as "variable
across different languages (or cultiu-es) and across different
groups within the same society": what we have called scale-
relative (c/2.1).
The first comment on the average/norm-based interpretationof
positives that springs to mind is that it applies only to numerical
adjectives. Let us consider some non-numerical ones, such as
'pretty', 'experienced', 'good' (in the sense "decent, moral, trust
worthy"). Is the phrase 'a pretty girl' to be understood as
meaning "a girl of more than average good looks" and the phrase
'a plain girl' as meaning "a girl of less than average good looks"?
It would be hard to establish the average mathematically, since
there is no numerical scale of "good looks". An alternative
solution is to interpret 'pretty' as meaning "exceeding the norm of
good looks for the population as a whole". But establishing the
"norm" is no easier a task than calculating the average where no
numerical values are available. Moreover, what do we do in a
community in which the majority of girls are pretty?
Bartsch and Vennemann (1972) point out that the positive
degree does not signal just any difference from the average, but
a considerable difference. Yet "an experienced driver" is not
necessarily one who considerably exceeds the norm; and an inter-
PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE POSITIVE-DEGREE FORM 29
pretation of the phrase 'a good man' as meaning "one who con
siderably exceeds the moral decency norm for the community"
would be evidence of a pretty sour view of human nature.
Thus we can see that interpreting the positive-degree form of
non-numerical adjectives in terms of departure from an average
or norm runs into problems, both because when we deal with non-
numerical scales, "average" is an elusive concept, and because
"considerable departure from the norm" does not seem to be a
necessary condition for the positive-degree form to be correctly
used by the speaker and interpreted by the listener.
However, Unguists dealing with the problem of the meaning of
the positive degree of relative adjectives usually confine their
attention to numerical adjectives. This is a convenient course to
take, since numerical adjectives are more amenable to interpret
ation in terms of the average or norm. This interpretation has
been criticized most incisively by Lakoff (1972) and Bogusfawski
(1975). Bogustawski argues that:
(a) For certain reference sets calculating the average may be
impossible.
(b) The positive degree does not signal just any difference from
the average, but a considerable difference from the average:
thus the positive degree reappears in the definition.
(c) To use the positive-degree form of the adjective correctly the
speaker does not have to know the value of the average.
(d) In any case, the concept of average is irrelevant, since in our
decision to use the positive degree we seem to be guided by
other considerations.
In connection with the latter point it might be remarked that
Wierzbicka (1972) suggests that the concept of "median" is more
relevant than that of "average", that is "arthmetical mean".
Boguslawski's argumentation can be developed by showing that
the concept of "average value" on the scale for a dimension is
at best fu^, often empty (and, consequently, useless), and at
worst nonsensical. Let us reconsider the sentence 'John is taU'.
To begin with, the adjective 'tall' is scale-relative, and inter
preting 'tall' as meaning "of more than average height" makes
it doubly relative, since "average height" is not an absolute
concept: it can only be established for a given reference set. A
statement such as 'John is tall' is short for:
[15] John is tall for an N
where N is the name of the reference set. It follows from this that
any statement of the type 'x is A' is incomplete since the listener
30
COMPARATIVES AND POSITIVES
has to supply the reference set. If John is a pygmy, then 'John
istall' may beinterpreted as"tall for a pygmy", "tallfor a human
male", or perhaps, given the right context, "tall for a member of
the set of persons in this room". "Tall", "old", "strong", etc. are
relative concepts; but so are the averages proposed as allegedly
more primitive terms in the semantic representation of those
concepts.
Let us now consider some other relative adjectives. The
statement
[16] That mountain is high
will be interpreteddifferently in Snowdonia (inNorthWales) and
in the Himalayas. Here, however, the concept "reference set"
turns out to be very difficult to define. There is no such thing as
"the average height of a mountain in Snowdonia"; to compute
it we would have to define first the fuzzy notion "mountain",
which in itself implies a departure from an "average" elevation
(whatever that may mean). Similarly, the meaning of the adjec
tive 'long' in the sentence
[17] My journey will be long
is not based on an average. What is the "average" length of a
journey? Average for the speaker, or for the listener, or for an
average(?) humanbeing? Average in terms of the means of trans
portation (presumably known to the listener), or average "in
general"? To take another example: does the sentence
[18] The Pacific Ocean is wide
really imply the existence of an average value for the width of
oceans? Or is the Pacific Ocean wide in the sense of its width
being more than the average width of a stretch of water- what
ever that may be?
The concept of average seems to lose all sense when we reach
the absolute limits of a scale. Let us consider such sentences as:
[19] The universe is big.
[20] The quark is small.
Here the adjectives 'big' and 'smaU' refer to the absolute top and
the absolute bottom of the scale for size of things in general. It
would require a considerable degree of dogmatism to maintain
that the semantic interpretation of [19] is parallel to that of [2],
le is something like: "The size of the universe is greater than the
average size of things in general." The concept of "an average
size (or norm) of a thing in general" strikes one as absurd; and
L.
PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE POSmVE-DEGREE FORM 31
SO would the contention that in uttering sentences like [19] and
[20] speakers have that concept in their minds, or that listeners
use it to interpret such sentences semantically.
The concepts of "average" and "norm" are intended to be
objective. However, human beings in their use of language are
guided both by objective factors and by variable factors of a social
and psychological nature. The use of numerical adjectives is no
exception here. Thus, for example, assessment of the size of
automobiles varies from society to society. A sentence like:
[21] This is a small car
will be accepted as perfectly normal in the United States if uttered
about a Renauh 18 - a car which in Europe would never be
described as 'small'. Age of speakers is another factor influ
encing the use of numerical adjectives. A small child may say:
[22] Our teacher is quite old; she must be thirty
while the child's mother might equally well say of the same
person:
[23] Our son's teacher is quite young; she can't be more than
thirty.
In view of all these critical remarks one might ask why so many
researchers have chosen to interpret semantically the positive
degree of numerical adjectives in terms of the concept of average;
Bartsch and Vennemann built their formalized system of semantic
interpretation of adjectives squarely on that concept. The answer
seems to lie in the widespread tendency to describe the semantics
of natural language strictly in terms of formal logic and to make
the descriptions as neatly mathematical as possible. "Average"
is a convenient mathematical concept; hence the temptation to
use it, even in the face of the evidence of its inadequacy to the
task which it is required to perform.
An alternative way of interpreting the meaning of the positive
degree of numerical adjectives is to recognize the fact that every
scale has an interval somewhere in the middle which represents
those values that are considered neutral for that scale. One
member of an antonymic pair of adjectives {eg 'tall') can then be
characterized as meaning "more than of neutral value" (here:
"more than of neutral height") and its antonym can be described
as meaning "less than of neutral value" (here: "less than of
neutral height"). This sounds very much Uke the traditional
approach in terms of relationsto an average or norm. The crucial
difference, however, hes in the fact that no underlying concepts
of a mathematical character, such as "mean" or "median", are
posited, and the fuzzy nature of the meanings of relative adjec
tives is accounted for by building the ill-definedconcept "neutral"
into the description.
Yet this approach does not seem entirely satisfactory, either,
because it is open to at least part of the criticism of the concept
of "average". It is not possible to state an "average value" for
the length of a journey or the width of oceans; but the same
applies to the concept "neutral value" - even if we make it very
fuzzy indeed.'
The first thing that strikes a student of numerical adjectives is
the fact that the concepts "tall", "wide", "old", "low", "short",
etc. are ill-defined: they are fuzzy concepts. The assessment of
the value on the dimension-scale ascribed to a given adjective
varies from reference set to reference set, from speaker to
speaker, from one moment to the next, and, what is more, is
hardly ever done in the either/or terms characteristic of math
ematics and classical formal logic; on the contrary, it is usually
approximate and unstable. Any attempt todescribe the semantics
or numerical adjectives which uses only well-defined concepts is
therefore doomed to go wrong. The same can be said a fortiori
about any attempt at a semantic description of a natural language
as a whole - since fuzzy concepts are by no means confined to
the set of numerical adjectives.
For Lakoff (1972:1) ". . . natural language concepts have vague
boundaries and fuz:^ edges and . . . consequently, natural
language sentences will very ofteh be neither true, nor false, nor
nonsensical, but rather true to a certain extent and false to a
certain extent, true in certain respects and false in other
respects". He suggests using "fuzzy set" theory, as developed by
Zadeh. 'John is tall' will then be represented as |tall (j) |: "John
is a member of the fuzzy set |tall|", "John is taU to a degree",
with the degree of John's membersWp in the set ranging over
values in the real interval [0,1].
This seems an attractive proposal; but on closer inspection it
reveals serious shortcomings. Height would presumably have to
be discussed in terms of two separate fuzzy sets |tall| and
Ishort I, which wouldobliterate the underlying unitybetweenthe
two concepts. Lack of the underlying concept "height" would
make the interpretation of sentences with comparatives
dependent on an arbitrary choice of degree-of-membership values
for the set |tall| or for the set | short | as a basis for
comparison.
Vagueness, undoubtedly, has to be taken into account in any
SET-THEOREnCAL INTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE ADJECTIVES 33
description of relative adjectives; but we should aim at a maxi
mally integrative account - one which would bring together all
the different uses of those adjectives, both in the positive-, the
comparative- and the superlative-degree form.'
2.4 Set-theoretical interpretation of relative adjectives
Let us now consider a proposal for an integrative approach to the
semantic interpretation of the positive- and comparative-degree
forms of relative adjectives - both numerical and non-numerical.
It seems that the meaning of relative adjectives can be expressed
most adequately in terms of operations on sets. Let us begin with
numerical adjectives. Propositions underlying sentences with
numerical adjectives, such as
[24] Johnny is four feet tall
will be regarded as instances of many-one mapping from the set
of which the referent of the argument is a member to the set of
real numbers. The mapping from one set to the other is thus a
function. This function is characterized by two important
properties.
Firstly, in the case of all numerical adjectives except the
bounded-scale ones ('full' : 'empty', etc.) the numbers are always
numbers ofsomething: namely numbers of units of measure, such
as feet, years, kilograms, etc., appropriate to a dimension, such
as height, age, weight, etc. Tlie numbers are thus denominate
numbers.
Secondly, in most cases the function makes use only of a subset
of the set of real numbers. This subset is treated as the scale for
the given dimension. The choice of this subset, ie the range of the
function, depends on the nature of the set which is the domain
of the function. This means, for example, that the scale of height
for humans is different from the scale of height for trees, and the
scale of age for trees is different from that for mountain ranges -
and so on.
The function thus defined will be referred to as the measure
function^*' and symbolized Mp, with Dstanding for "dimension".
The dimension may be specified as "height", "age", "weight",
etc., in which case the measure function will be symbolized Mh,
Ma, Mw, etc. respectively. The scale for the given dimension may
also be specified, in which cases we shall be talking of the
"measure functionof height of trees" Mh^^, or the "measure func
tion of age of humans" and so on. Thus, for example.
34 COMPARAHVES AND POSITIVES
in the proposition underlying [2] the scale is not specified, while
in [3] it is.
Let us now illustrate this argiunent with a few examples. The
proposition underlying sentence [24] can be represented as
follows;
[25] Johnny is four feet tedl.
Mh (Johnny) = 4 feet."
To paraphrase: "The value of the measure function of height for
Johnny is four feet." The proposition underlying sentence [4],
'John is older than Peter', can be represented as follows:
[26] John is older than Peter.
Ma (John) > Ma (Peter).
To paraphrase; "The value of the measure function of age for
John is more than the value of this function for Peter." Similarly,
sentence [6], 'Peter is younger than John', will be interpreted as
follows:
[27] Peter is younger than John.
Ma (Peter) < Ma (John).
All those formulae reflect the form relativity of the adjectives they
refer to.
As can be seen from this argumentation, it is suggested that we
should adopt the relations "equals", "is more", and "is less" as
primitive semantic concepts. In this respect the interpretation of
the semantics of gradable adjectives proposed here does not
depart from the mainstream of tradition.
Let us now pass to sentences in which the exponent of the pred
icate is an unmodified relative adjective in the positive-degree
form: that is, to sentences of the 'iVP is type. I would like to
suggest that the meaning of the adjective in sentences of this kind
can be expressed as a value of the measure function, without
recourse to the concept of average or norm. This can be done if
we make use of the concepts "many" and "few", redefined in set-
theoretical terms. A sentence formula such as WP is twenty years
old' can be obviously be paraphrased as 'iVP's age is twenty
years'; the suggestion is that a sentence formula such as is
old' can obviously be paraphrased as 'iVP's age is twenty
is many years' - with 'many' functioning as a quasi-numeral. The
concept "many" seems intuitively simpler (more primitive) than
the complex concept "significantly more than the average for" -
and, incidentally, no more fuzzy than the latter.
'Many' and its antonym 'few' are called by Bartsch and
SET-THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE ADJECTIVES 35
Vennemann (1972) "the most primitive relative adjectives". One
cannot but agree emphatically with this statement. They are not
just primitive adjectives, but also primitive semantic concepts.
The concept "many" can be interpreted in two ways. It can be
an element of a modified set of natural numbers: {one, two,
three, four, five, six,. . . many}. This substitute set is part of the
"interlanguage" of the small child who is learning to count and
is not yet mature enough to be able to manipulate the set of
natural numbers as a whole.
The concept "many", however, is also frequently used by
adults who are perfectly capable of manipulating not only the set
of natural numbers, but also the set of real positive numbers.
When the child says 'many' (or a colloquial equivalent, such as
'a lot') because he cannot count any higher than six, seven, or ten
(as the case may be), the adult says 'many' in those cases in which
counting would be difficult, time-consuming, inconvenient, or
simply irrelevant. If there are six cars in the car park, the situ
ation can be described as:
[28] There are six cars in the car park.
If, however, the number of cars is, say, 23, then in 99 cases out
of a 100 the relevant sentence is:
[29] There are many cars in the car park
(or, with the colloquial variant of 'many', 'There are a lot of cars
in the car park'). ITiere is simply no need for the speaker to count
them all. In this case 'many' is a kind of quasi-numeral. More
precisely: in the set of positive real numbers ordered on the prin
ciple of increasingvalue from zero to infinity it is a fuzzy subset
beginning at a certain (ill-defined) distance from zero and
including an unspecified number of the elements of the basic set.
To use 'many' is to say that the value of the measure function for
the argument in question is an element of that fuzzy subset.
Fbr the semantic interpretation of sentences with the positive-
degree form of numerical adjectives "many" and "few" seem
very useful concepts. They are psychologically simple, and at the
same time appropriately fuzzy. On the scale for a given dimension
'many' can be represented as an interval whose value at the lower
end is vague, and which stretches upwards towards the end of the
scale (which in itself may be ill-defined). Its antonym, 'few',
represents an interval stretching from the beginning of the scale
upwards; the upper end is ill-defined, but is a long distance from
the end of the scale.
Let MANY and few symbolize the fuzzy sets described above.
The meanings of sentences with the positive-degree form of
numerical adjectives can then be represented as in the following
examples.
Let us consider the adjective 'tall' first, and begin with
sentences in which the reference set - and, consequently, the
scale - is specified. Sentence [3] can be interpreted as follows:
[30] John is tall for a pygmy.
[John pygmies] a [Mh^ (John) e many feet andinches].
To paraphrase: John is a member of the set of pygmies and the
value for John of the measure function on the scale of height for
pygmies is a number which is an element of the fuzzy set many
(which is an interval in the upper portion of that scale).
Interpretation of sentences in which the reference set is not
specified is more complex. Let us consider sentence [2]:'John is
tall.' Relative adjectives in 'iVP is A" sentences are always scale-
relative, irrespective of whether the reference set is specified or
not. If it is not specified, the speaker assumes that the listener will
correctly identify it (guided by the NP). This is a pragmatic
assumption (Gricean in spirit); its correctness is essential for
communication to take place. All this can be written down as
follows:
[31] John is tall.
Mhj (John) e many feet and inches.
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will
identify correctly the set S of which the referent of the
argument is a member.
To paraphrase: The value of the measure function for John on
the scale of height for members of set 5 is a number which is an
element of the fuzzy set many, and the speaker assumes that the
hearer will know what is set S which the speaker has in mind in
uttering this sentence.
It has to be emphasized that for correct interpretation of 'NP
is A' sentences the concept of reference set (which specifies the
scale) is indispensable - whether we adopt the interpretation
presented here or one based on the concept of the average (or
neutral) value of the measure function. Interpretation cannot
change the fact that in the 'iVF is A" construction relative adjec
tives are scale-relative.
liie interpretation presented in [31] applies also, with the
change from many to few, to the antonym of 'tall':
[32] Peter is short.
SET-THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE ADJECTIVES 37
Mhj (Peter) e few feet and inches.
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearerwill
According to the interpretation presented here^^^ such
sentences as 'John is six feet tall' and 'John is tall' are instances
of the same basic structure, namely 'NP is n units A^' (with Ar
symbolizing the unmarked adjective in its form-relative use). In
'NP is A' sentences the value of n is a member of set many; this
allows for the exponent of the phrase 'n units' to be deleted.
Deletion of this phrase deprives the adjective of its form-relative
character and endows it with scale relativity, which is accom
panied by the necessity of adopting the pragmatic assumption as
to the reference set. 'NP is A' sentences can also be derived from
'NP is n units At, only here the value of n is a member of set few.
Deletion of the exponent of the phrase 'n units' is here accom
panied both by the adoption of the pragmatic assumption and by
the substitution of the marked member of the antonymic pair for
the unmarked one.
The interpretation of the meaning of members of antonymic
pairs of adjectives interms of themeasure function and thefupy
numerals many and few can be extended to cover non-numerical
adjectives: such as, for example, the antonymic pairs 'fat' : 'slim',
'difficult' : 'easy', 'expensive' : 'cheap', etc. All antonymic pairs
are terms on scales for dimensions, only in the case of non-
numerical adjectives the scales are blank: the units of measure
ment are not stated, there are no figures making it possible to
read off the values of the Md. This does not render the scales
useless, since we know that when the imaginary mercury rises
high on the thermometer-like scale, it signals many "degrees" of
difficulty, obesity, expensiveness, etc.; and whenit falls, it signals
few "degrees" of whichever of those properties is applicable.
The scales are blank, but they are not ungraded; and we have
already remarked (c/1.6) on the ease with which speakers of the
language invent numerical scales and change non-numerical
adjectives into numerical ones. The pair 'fat' : 'slim' is potentially
numerical, since circumference can be measured in inches or
centimetres and that can be treated as an index of relative
obesity. Difficulty can be graded numerically; in fact, difficulty
of climbing routes is graded in conventional numerical units by
rock climbers. There are no generally applicable units of "expens
iveness" (not to be confused with those of price), but some such
units could be invented should the need arise.
In view of these remarks the meaning of a sentence such as
'Clive is fat' could be represented as follows ('O' stands for
"obesity"):
[33] Chve is fat.
Mp^ (Clive) e many "degrees".
Pragmatic assimiption: the speaker assumes the hearer will
identify correctly the set S of which Clive is a member.
Similarly, a sentence such as 'This competition is easy' can be
represented semantically as follows ('D' stands for "difficulty"):
[34] This competition is easy.
Md^ (this competition) e few "degrees".
Pragmatic assumption: similar to the above.
Let us try and generalize:
[35] Sentence structure: NP is A.
Semantic interpretation; Md^ (s) e many units/"degrees".
Pragmatic assumption: thespeaker assumes thehearer will
identify correctly the set S of which s is a member.
To paraphrase: The value of the measure function for the
argument s (which represents a member of set S) on that scale
for the dunension D which is appropriate to members of set S is
a number which is an element of the fuzzy set many (which is an
interval in the upper portion of that scale), and the speaker
assumes that the hearer knows what is set S which the speaker
has in mind in uttering this sentence.
Similarly, for A we have:
[36] Sentence structure: NP is A.
Semantic interpretation: Md^ () e few unit^"degrees".
Pragmatic assumption: as above.
This approach to the semantic interpretation of relative adjec
tives brings sentences with these adjectives inpredicative function
into line with other constructions which can be shown to have the
fuzzy numeral many or fewintheir underlying semantic structure:
namely constructions with noun phrases functioning as comp
lements. In noun phrases many is realized as the determiner-
adjectives or pronouns 'many', 'much', and phrases like 'a lot';
FEW is reaUzed as the determiner-adjectives or pronouns 'few' or
'little', and phrases like 'a bit'. The choice of the exponent
depends on the categoryof the noun: whether it is of the "count"
or "non-count" type. The forms 'many' and 'much'^^ are the
NOTES 39
unmarked members of the antonymic pairs. In questions (and in
'as A as' positive statements with some adjectives) they do not
signal a high degree on the scale; they signal that the underlying
proposition is based on the measure function.
The parallelism between sentences with adjectives on the one
hand, and other constructions based semantically on the measure
function on the other, can be illustrated as follows:
[37] John is thirty years old.
John has two girl-friends.
John earns six thousand pounds a year.
[38] Kevin is many years old.
Kevin has many girl-friends.
Kevin earns a lot [ie many pounds a year].
The same applies to sentences with the comparative-degree form
of adjectives:
[39] John is older [ie more years old] than Michael.
John has more girl-friends than Michael.
John earns more [pounds a year] than Michael.
Notes
1. The relational nature of adjectives such as 'tall' was discussed by
Sapir as early as 1944.
2. Among the scholars who take note of the dual function of the
unmarked member of the antonymic pair are Fillmore (1965),
Wunderlich (1970), Wierzbicka (1972), Ehrich (1975), Bogusl'awski
(1975), Clark (1976), and Lyons (1977). A comprehensive survey
and a critique of the approaches to the derivation of comparatives
are given by Bartsch and Vennemann (i972:Ch. 2). It is, however,
worth adding that new attempts to derive comparativesfrom strings
with positives in deep structure in which form-relativity of positives
is not taken account of keep appearing; see for example Bresnan
(1973), Berman (1974), and Pinkham (1982).
3. It is interesting that most linguists working on the comparison of
adjectives in the transformational-generative tradition ignore
comparative constructions with the marked member of antonymic
pairs. Pinkham(1982) can be quoted as a characteristic example: in
the space of more than 160 pages devoted to a close stuc^ of the
structure of comparative clauses in English and French, 'Aer than'
comparatives are not even mentioned (nor are 'less A than' compara
tives, either).
The same can largely be said of linguists working within the
framework of truth-conditional semantics. Thus, for example, Klein
in his two papers on adjectival comparatives (Klein 1980,1982) deals
exclusively with comparative structures involving the unmarked
members of antonymic pairs or unary-scale adjectives, although he
adds brief remarks on 'less A than' comparatives (which will be
discussed critically below: see Ch. 9). 'Aer than' comparatives are
not mentioned.
4. This solution would still leave unsolved the problem of differen
tiating between the 'Aer than' and the 'less A than' forms.
5. It mi^t be argued that 'John is taller than any of his friends' entails
'None of John's friends are taller than he is'. However, 'John is
taller than some of his friends' entails both the negative statement
'Some of John's friends aren't taller than he is' and the positive
statement 'Some of John's friends are taller than he is'. Arranging
elements of a set on a scale results in the possibility of forming
negative statements of the kind discussed here - and not the other
way round.
6. It is interesting that when analysing French comparatives - in which
the negative-like element 'ne' isovert - Pinkham dispenses with the
problem in a footnote, reading "Use of ne (which is not anegative)
is obligatory except in comparisons ofequality" (Pinkham 1982:29).
In her tree diagrams the 'ne' either appears as an unlabelled
constituent (1982:6) oris ignored altogether (1982:7).
7. Another very strong argument against interpreting the positive
degree interms of the comparative degree comes from contrastive
studies. Klein (1980: note 2) mentions Ultan (1972). who ina survey
of 123 languages found that the comparative was either unmarked
or else marked in relation to the positive, but never vice versa.
8. Lakoff symbolizes fuzzy sets by two perpendicular lines: |tall|.
9. That vagueness is a feature qf natural languages which has to be
taken into account in linguistic descriptions is emphasized by many
researchers. Kamp (i975) considers the positive degree to be
primary and writes (p 128): "In order to give my view on the
primacy of positive over comparative an adequate foundation I will
develop a semantical framework in which the idea of a predicate
being true ofanentity toa certain degree can be made coherent and
precise. This specific problem is closely related to such general
features of natural languages as vagueness and contextual disambi
guation; [. . .]." Klein (1982:116) writes: "At the beginning of this
paper, I claimed that logical calculi typically lacked certain features
of natural language which arefundamental to theunderstanding of
comparatives. The features that I had in mind were vaguenem and
CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE, particularly as they affect the interpretation of
adjectives."
10. Theconcept of the measure function was introduced byWunderlich
(1970) and was then used by Bartsch and Vennemann (1972). It is
here redefined in set-theoretical terms.
11. This is only one of the possible interpretations. The meanings of
non-comparative sentences with gradable adjectives in predicative
function will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
NOTES 41
12. In his discussion of the meaningof the positivedegree of adjectives
denoting measurable qualities Boguslawski (1975:8) puts forward
the suggestion that such positives should be characterized in terms
of the concept of "conspicuousness" or "attracting attention". He
writes "A is tall = A's size (possibly: whichis conspicuous) is greater
than his possible size which would not attract attention. The converse
relation is expressed by replacing > with < ("smaller", "less")."
It seems to me that the interpretation in terms of the numerals
MANY and FEW is not incongruous with Bogustawski's interpretation
in terms of "attracting attention": many units, or few units, on the
relevant scale are precisely the features which attract attention.
13. The differentiation between 'many' and 'much' is a surface phenom
enon; there are languages in which it does not exist. In French
'beaucoup (de)' is used both with count and with non-count nouns.
In Polish there are two equivalents of 'many/much', namely 'duzo'
and 'wiele' (stylistically differentiated), but either of them can be
used both with count and with non-count nouns.
Chapter 3
Typology of sentences with gradable
adjectives in predicative function
3.1 Introductory remarks
The overall shape of sentences with gradable adjectives in predi
cative function is WPV, AP\ where V, isa Unk verb and APisan
adjective phrase: either simple (with or without premodification
and/or postmodification) or with another sentence embedded in
it. There are three basic classes of sentences of this kind: non-
comparative, comparative, and pseudo-comparative sentences.
We shall now examine briefly each of these classes and their
subclasses, in turn, using the link verb 'be' (in the form 'is') and
symmetric open-scale adjectival pairs mour examples (c/Fig. 3.1,
P 50-1).'
3.2 Non-comparative sentences
The class of non-comparative sentences is characterized by the
adjective appearing in the positive-degree form and by the
absence of either the 'Aqx than*, the 'lessA than', the 'as A as',
or the 'Aest' construction. There are two subclasses; let us call
them type A and type B sentences. .....
Type A. In sentences of this type numencal adjectives only are
used and the numerical value of the measure function for the
argument in the underlying proposition is overtly stated mthe
sentence. The sentence formula is
[1] NP is n units A
where A is the unmarked member of the antonymic pair.
Example:
[2] John is six feet tall.
COMPARATIVE SENTENCES 43
Type B. Both numerical and non-numerical adjectives can be
used in sentences of this type. The value of the measure function
is not stated overtly in the sentence. The sentence formula is
[3] NP is A.
Example:
[4] John is tall.
3.3 Comparative sentences
3.3.1 General description
The second class of sentences with gradable adjectives in predi
cative function, namely that of comparative sentences, consists of
two subclasses: comparative sentences of linear difference and
comparative sentences of proportionality (for a discussion of
terminology see 6.i and 8.1). Tlie former subclasscomprises 'Aer
than', 'less A than', and 'Aest' sentences, and the latter subclass,
'as A as' sentences. Among '/ler than', 'less A than', and 'as A
as' sentences two groups can be distinguished: sentences referring
to one dimension and those referring to two dimensions. The
former are all based on two-argument propositions: otherwise
there would not be anjrthing to compare. The latter can be
subdivided into sentences based on one-argument propositions
and those based on two-argument propositions, 'ylest' sentences
all refer to one dimension.
It is possible, and quite common, for the embedded compar
ative clause (the 'than'-clause) to be deleted. This happens when
ever the secundum comparationis can be easily identified from the
context, linguistic or situational, and therefore need not be
stated. Consider the following dialogue:
[5] X: Peter is quite tall already.
Y: Yes, but John is taller.
In our survey of sentence types we shall, however, use full
(undeleted) sentences as examples.^ In formulae for sentences
based on two arguments the NPs functioning as exponents of the
arguments will be indexed with the letters b and c (symbolizing
the arguments). These two letters have been chosen because the
letter a (in its upper-case shape) symbolizes the adjective (func
tioning as predicate) and might be confusing as a symbol for an
argument.
44 TYPOLOGY OF SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
3.3.2 Comparative sentences of linear difference
3-3.2. j 'Aer than' sentences
Type C. ''Aer than' sentences referring to one dimension (based
on two-argument propositions); the difference between the values
of the measure fonction for the two arguments is not stated
numerically. The sentence formula is:
[6] NPb is êr than NPc (is).
Example:
[7] John is taller than Cedric (is).
Type D. 'Aqxthan' sentences referring to one dimension (based
on two-argument propositions); the difference between the values
of the measiu-e function for the two arguments, Md(6) Md(c),
is stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[8] NPb is n units Aet than NPc (is).
Example:
[9] John is an inch taller than Cedric (is).
Type E. 'Aexthan' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on one-argument propositions, in which the difference
between the values of the measiure function for the two dimen
sions is signalled but not stated numerically. The sentence
formula is:
[10] NPb is Ai&t than NPbpron
is A2
where 'NPb pron represents pronominaUzation of the NP.
Example:
[11] This swimming pool is wider than it is long.
Type F. 'Aex than' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on one-argument propositions, in which the difference
between the values of the measure function for the two dimen
sions, Mdi(6) - Md2(^'), is stated numerically. The sentence
formula is:
[12] NPb is n units îer than NPb pron is A2.
Example:
[13] This swimming pool is ten yards longer than it is wide.
Type G. 'Aei than' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on two-argument propositions; the difference between the
values of the measure function for the two dimensions and the
two arguments, Mdi(6) - Md2(c), is not stated nimierically. The
sentence formula is:
[14] NPb is Ajct than NPc is A2.
Example:
[15] This swimming pool is longer than that one is wide.
Type H. 'Aex than' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on two-argument propositions; the difference between the
values of the measure function for the two dimensions and the
two arguments is stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[16] NPb is n units A/er than NPc is A2.
Example:
[17] This swimming pool is a yard longer than that one is wide.
3.3.2.2 'Less A than' sentences
Type J. 'Less A than' sentences referring to one dimension
(based on two-argument propositions); the difference between
the values of the measure function for the two arguments, Md(c)
- Md(6), is not stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[18] NPb is less A than NPc.
Exzunple:
[19] Polly is less tall than Joan (is).
Type K. 'Less A than' sentences referring to one dimension
(based on two-argument propositions); the difference between
the values of the measure fanction for the two arguments is stated
[20] NPb is n units less A than NPc.
Example:
[21] Peter is a foot less tall than John (is).
Type L. 'Less A than' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on one-argument propositions, in which the difference be
tween the values of the measure function for the two dimensions,
Md2(^) - Mdi(6), is not stated numerically. The sentence formula
is:
[22] NPb is less Ai than NPbpmn is .<42.
Example:
[23] This swimming pool is less wide than it is long.
Type M. 'Less A than' sentences referring to two dimensions
and based on one-argument propositions, with the difference
between the values of the measure function for the two dimen
sions stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[24] NPb is n units less Ai than NPbpron is A2.
Example:
[25] This swimming pool is a yard less wide than it is long.
Type N. 'Less A than' sentences referring to two dimensions
and based on two-argument propositions; the difference between
the values of the measure function for the two dimensions and
the two arguments, Md2(c) - MDi(i>), is not stated numerically.
The sentence formula is:
[26] NPb is less Ai than NPc is A2.
Example:
[27] This swimming pool is less wide than that one is long.
Type P. 'Less A than' sentences referring to two dimensions
and based on two-argument propositions; the difference between
the values of the measure function for the two dimensions and
the two arguments is stated numerically. The sentence formula
is:
[28] NPb is n units less Ai than NPc is A2.
Example:
[29] This swimming pool is a yard less wide than that one is
long.
^ *AcSt' SCTltCTlCCS
Type Q. 'ylest' sentences (ie superiative-degree sentences) are
aU variants of one basic type:
[30] NPb is the [nth] Aest in B*
where B* is the set of which the referent of the argument of the
proposition is a member (ie the domain set of the measure func
tion) and 'ylest' symbolizes the superiative-degree form of the
adjective, inflectional (eg 'tallest') or periphrastic (eg 'most
economical').
Examples:
[31] John is the tallest in his class.
Kevin is the second tallest in his class.
A subtype of type Q is constituted by sentences with the super-
lative-degree form of the marked member of an antonymic pair:
[32] NPf, is the y4est in B*.
Examples:
[33] Alec is the youngest in his class.
This hypothesis is the least probable of all.
3.3.3 Comparative sentences of proportionality ('as A as'
sentences)
Type R. 'As A as' sentences referring to one dimension (based
on two-argument propositions), with the ratio between the values
of the measure function for the two arguments, Md(6) Md(c),
stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[34] NPb is n times as A as NPc (is).
When 0 < n < 1, the word 'times' is not used. When n = 2, the
word 'twice' is used instead instead of 'two times'. Example:
[35] Peter is twice as tall as his son (is).
Type S. 'As A as' sentences referring to one dimension (based
on two-argument propositions), in which the ratio between the
values of the measure function for the two argiunents is not stated
[36] NPb is as A as NPc (is).
Example:
[37] John is as tall as Michael (is).
Type T. 'As A as' sentences referring to two dimensions (based
on one-argument propositions), with the ratio between the values
of the measure function for the two dimensions, Mdi(6)
MD2Ci>), stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[38] NPb is n times as ^1 as NPbpron is A2.
Example:
[39] This swimming pool is half as wide as it is long.
Type U. 'As A as' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on one-argument propositions; the ratio between the values
of the measure function for the two dimensions, Mdi(6)
MD2(ft), is not stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[40] NPb is as Ai as NPbpron is ^2-
Example:
[41] This swimming pool is as wide as it is long.
Type V. 'As A as' sentences referring to two dimensions and
based on two-argument propositions; the ratio between the values
of the measure Unction for the two arguments, MdiC^j) Md2(c),
is stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[42] NPb is n times as Ai as NPc is Az-
Example:
[43] This table is twice as wide as that one is long.
Type W. 'As A as' sentences referring to two dimensions and
basedon two-argument propositions; the ratiobetween the values
ofthemeasure function for the two dimensions and the ô argu
ments is not stated numerically. The sentence formula is:
[44] NPb is as >1/ as NPc is A2.
Example:
[45] This table is as wide as that one is long.
3.4 Pseudo-comparative sentences
Sentences of this kind contain the phrases 'Aer than', iess A
than', and 'as A as', which are characteristic of comparative
sentences. They are, however, based on one-argument proposi
tions referring to a single dimension; there is thus no secundum
comparationis and, consequently, no comparison contrary to the
impression produced by the phrases 'Act than', 'less A than',
and 'as A as'. Only numerical adjectives are used in pseudo-
comparative sentences. There are three subclasses, which we
shall call typeX, type Y, and type Z sentences.
Type X. 'Aer than' sentences. The sentence formula is:
[46] NPis Aer than n units [^4].
Example:
[47] Henry is taller than six feet [tall].
Type Y. 'Less A than' sentences. The sentence formula is:
[48] NP is less A than n units [A].
Example:
[49] Peter is less tall than six feet [tall].
Type Z. 'As A as' sentences. The sentence formula is:
SUBCLASSinCATION OF SENTENCE TYPES 49
[50] NP is as A as n units [>l].
Example:
[51] Andrewis as tall as sixfeet [tall].
3.5 Subclassification of sentence types
The typology presented in sections 3.2-3.4 (and in Fig. 3.1,
p 50-1) accounts for all the basic structural types of sentences with
gradable adjectives in predicative function - but with two reser
vations. First, the sentences used as examples are all positive
affirmative: negation has not been taken into account. Secondly,
no consideration has been given to the fact that the noun phrases
in subject function may be either singular referring expressions
or other types of expressions: notably, general or generic. Since
it is the predicates rather than the arguments in the underlying
propositions that are the objects of our interest, negation is essen
tial and its effects will have to be investigated. As far as subject
NPs are concerned, we shall confine our attention mainly to
sentences with singular definite referring expressions as exponents
of arguments in the underlying propositions, ie proper names,
singular definite noun phrases, and personal pronouns. However,
certain other kinds of referring expressions, notably those of
general and generic reference, will also be discussed briefly in the
chapters dealing with the different classes of sentences.
In the subclassification of sentence types presented in Tables
3.1-3.9 we shall take into account all the factors considered in
the classification presented above in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, ie
whether the sentence refers to one or two dimensions; whether
it is based on one or on two-argument propositions; whether the
value of the measure function (or the difference, or the ratio,
between the values of the measure function) is stated in the
sentence. We shall supplement that with two more factors:
whether the predicate is the marked or the unmarked member
of the antonymic pair; and whether the sentence is a positive or
a negative statement.
Notes
1. The subclasses of sentences are symbolized with capital letters of the
alphabet. The letters 'I' and 'O' are not used, to avoid confusion
with the numerals 'one' and 'zero'.
2. Thus an example of type C sentence (</3.3.2.1 below) is 'John is
taller than Cedric (is)'. On the possibility of deleting the verb in the
comparative clause, see 6.1.2.
50
TYPOLOGY OF SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
Sentences
with gradable adjectives
in predicative function
I
Non-comparative Comparative
Md(^) value
stated
numerically
(A)
Md(^) value
not stated
numerically
(B)
Comparative sentences
of linear difference
*êr than'
sentences
I
Referring to
one dimension
(all based on
two-argument
propositions)
Referring to
two dimensions
less A than'
sentences
I
Referring to
one dimension
(all based on
two-argument
propositions)
I
The difference
Md(c)-Md(^)
stated
numerically
(K) r-
Aest'
sentences
(Q)
Referring to
two dimensions
The difference The difference
MD(f) - Md(c) MoCft) - Md(c)
The difference
Mr,(c)-MD(b)
not stated
numerically
(J)
Based on
one-argument Based on
propositions two-argumeo
j propositions
not stated
numerically
(C)
r
stated
numerically
(D)
Based on
one-argument
propositions
I
The difference
Mr>i(&)-MD2(i.)
not stated
numerically
(E)
"1/
The difference
Moi(b) - Mo2(1>)
stated
numerically
(F)
Based on
two-argument
propositions
The difference
Md2W-Moi(^)
not stated
numerically
(L)
nouRE 3.1
I
The difference
Mdi(>)-Mo2(c)
not stated
numerically
(G)
1
The difference
Mdi(^) - Md2(c)
stated
numerically
(H)
The difference
MD2W-MDi(i^)
stated
numerically
(M)
The difference
Md2(c) - Mdi{6)''
not stated
numerically
(N)
Pseudo-comparative
*i4er than'
sentences
(X)
Comparative sentences
of proportionality
I
'less A than'
sentences
00
as'
sentences
(Z)
r
Referring to
one dimension
(all based on
two-argument
propositions)
Referring to
two dimensions
The ratio
Md(^) - Md(c;
stated
numerically
(R)
The ratio
Md(^) - Mo(c)
not stated
numerically
(S)
Based on
one-argument
propositions
I
The ratio
MdiW - Md2W
stated
numerically
(T)
The ratio
MdiW - Md2(6)
not stated
numerically
(U)
Based on
two-argument
propositions _
5X
The difference
stated
numeiicidly
(p)
The ratio ITie ratio
MdiW Md2(c) MDl(ft) Mij2(c)
stated not stated
numerically numerically
(V) (W)
TABLE 3.1 Non-comparative sentences with gradable adjectives in
predicative function (all based on one-argument propositions and
referring to one dimension only)
ifhiiii
|.2 8 2 I 6 6
u Sti -ytse
isc I? Ill
flj'SS -a }>S)
S'sa sass-s
A. + + -H A1 John is 6 feet tall.
+ + - A2 (The Mini is 20 years young.)
+ + A3 Peter isn't 6 feet tall.
+ A4
B. - + + B1 John is tall.
_ + - B2 Chris is short.
_ - + B3 Peter isn't tall.
_ B4 Kevin isn't short.
TABLE 3.2 Comparative sentences with gradable adjectives in
predicative function: '.4er than' sentences referring toone dimension
c
Pi -s
sfl 21 iU
lii P III
PC Co 2 ^ -S
il-g 8-1
ail nail
c. - + + C1 John is taller than Cedric.
- + - C2 Cedric is shorter than John.
- _ + C3 John isn't taller than Martin.
_ _ _ C4 Cedric isn't shorter than Chris.
D. + + + D1 John is an inch taller than Cedric.
+ + _ D2 Cedric is an inch shorter than John.
+ -4-03Peter isn't an inch taller than Cedric.
+ _ _ d4 Cedric isn't an inch shorter than Peter.
i
TABLES 53
predicative function: 'A&t than' sentences referring to two dimensions
c
i i .<2 -a
S = g ts S O
s
a>
s S6-|
I iil s|111
I Ssi !-|l
c si"
8 ssg-o 8.5 =
Is fl^Z
O H-Sto Hci.h5o
E. 1 - + + El This swimming pool is wider than it is
long.
1 - + E2 That swinmiing pool is shorter than it is
wide.
1 - + E3 That swinmiing pool isn't wider than it is
long.
1 - - - E4 This swinmiing pool isn't shorter than it is
wide.
F. 1 + + + F1 This swimmingpool is 10 yards longer
than it is wide.
1 + + - F2 That swindling pool is a yard shorter
than it is wide.
1 + - + F3 That swinmiing pool isn't 10 yards longer
than it is wide.
1 .4- - - F4 This swinMningpool isn't a yard shorter
than it is wide.
G. 2 - + + G1 This swimming pool is longer than that
one is wide.
2 - + - G2 This swimming pool is shorter than that
one is wide.
2 - - + G3 This swimming pool isn't longer than that
one is wide.
2 - - - G4 This swimming pool isn't shorter than
that one is wide.
H. 2 + + + HI This swimming pool is a yard longer than
that one is wide.
2 + + - H2 This swimming pool is a yard shorter
than that one is wide.
2 + + H3 This swimming pool isn't a yard longer
2 + - - H4 This swimming pool isn't a yard shorter
54
TYPOLOGY OF SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
predicative function: 'less A than' sentences referring to one dimension
s
Q
I
J. -
I
cu
cd
.52
|i
^ e
oj <D
+
+
> "
S
-s W
S-s
II?
2-^ ^
o<
2 12
+ J1 Polly is less tall than Joan.
J2 Linda is less short than Pat.
+ J3 Katie isn't less tall than Janet.
J4 'Susan isn't less short than JUl.
K, + + + K1 Peter is an inch less tall than John.
+ + K2 James is an inch less short than Dick.
+ + K3 Kevin isn't an inch less tall than John.
+ - - K4 'Dick isn't an inch less short than Kevin.
predicative function: 'less A than' sentences referring to two
dimensions
L. 1 + + LI This swimming pool is less wide than it is
long.
1 - + - L2---
1 + L3 That swimming pool isn't less wide than it
- is long.
1 - - - L4 - - -
TABLES 55
M. 1 + + + Ml This swimming pool is a yard less wide than it is
long.
1 + + M2
1 + - + M3 That swimming pool isn't a yard less wide than it
is long.
1 + - - M4
N. 2 + + N1 This swimming pool is less wide than that one is
long.
2- + - N2
2 - - + N3 That swimming pool isn't less wide than that one
is long.
2 N4
P. 2 + + + PI This swimming pool is a yard less wide than that
one is long.
2 + + - P2
2 + + P3 This swimming pool isn't a yard less wide than that
one is long.
2+ P4
TABLE 3.6 Superlative-degree sentences withgradable adjectives in
predicative function ('j4est' sentences)
1
^ II .
S S a,
St "3"2-a
si all
< 6 o<(8 a
ai
Q. + + Q1 John is the
+ - Q2 Dick is the
second
second
+ Q3 Peter isn't the [second] tallest in his class.
- Q4 Cedric isn't the [second] shortest in his class.
tallest in his class,
shortest in his class.
56 TYPOLOGY OFSENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES-
predicative function: 'as A as' sentences referring to one dimension
I
4> "
Ss L.
S at
.52 1 -isJS
1^5 t3B
^Sg c
0<w3
ôe cu
2-a
2 s -g " -o g
^^1
R. + + + R1 Peter is twice as tall as his son.
+ + R2
+ - + R3 Cedric isn't twice as tall as his son.
+ - - R4
S. + + SI John is as tall as Martin.
- + - 52 Cedric is as short as Peter.
+ S3 John isn't as tall as Christopher.
- S4 Cedric isn't as short as Rodney.
predicative function: 'as A as' sentences referring to two dimensions
%-B - s "i
feSoS-'Slio
O Mg SB-a
" 111 si 111
B
a -COB B s- -
s 2ss-g a
25 2'55 2
0 ^ S- ^s'Z
T. 1 + + + T1 This swimming pool is half as wide as it
is long.
1 + + - T2
1 + + T3 That swimming pool isn't half as wide as
it is long.
1 + - - T4
U. 1 + + U1 This swimming pool is as wide as it is
long.
1 - + - U2 That swimming pool is as short as it is
narrow.
g 1
TABLES 57
1 + U3 This swimming pool isn't as wide as it is
long.
1 - - - U4 ^That swimming pool isn't asshortasit is
narrow.
V. 2 + + + VI This table is twice as wide as that one is
long.
2 + + - V2---
2 + - + V3 This table isn't twice as wide as that one
is long.
2+ - -V4
W. 2 - + + W1 This table is as wide as that one is long.
2 - + - W2 'This swimming pool is as short as that
one is narrow.
2 - + W3 This table isn't as wide as that one is
long.
2- - -W4
TABLE 3.9 Pseudo-comparative sentences with gradable adjectives in
predicative function
^ B
^21? . I =3 u
SCfd 51 ItH
aI Î I ^ 1"S .a
s g J 3 s I
S 8 ^ S
X. er + + XI Norman is taller than 6 feet,
er + - X2 Dick is shorter than 5 feet (tall),
er - + X3 John isn't taller than 6 feet,
er - - X4 Cedric isn't shorter than 5 feet (tall).
Y. less + + Y1 Peter is less tall than 6 feet.
less + - Y2
less - + Y3 John isn't less tall than 6 feet.
less - - Y4
Z. as + + Z1 Adam is as tall as 6 feet,
as + - Z2 Tim is as short as 5 feet (tall),
as - + Z3 Peter isn't as tall as 6 feet,
as - - Z4 Kevin isn't as short as 5 feet (tall).
Chapter 4
Elicitation tests
4.1 General information
Semantic features of gradable adjectives were investigated exper
imentallyby means of elicitation tests. The idea of elicitation tests
derives principally from the work done by Greenbaum, Quirk,
and Svartvik; see Quirk and Svartvik (1966) and Greenbaum and
Quirk (1970) for the philosophy underlying eUcitation testing and
for details of experimental design and interpretation of the
results. However, while virtually all experimental work using elici
tation tests has so far dealt with grammatical problems, the test
items for the present day study were designed so as to elicit
information pertaining to the semantic interpretation of
sentences. This was considered to be accessible both through
performance tests (mostly of completion type) andthrough judge
ment tests (of evaluation type); these terms are taken from the
classification of elicitation tests proposed by Greenbaum and
Quirk (1970:3). But most test items designed for this study differ
considerably from those used in elicitation experiments so far and
the completion type items do not fit Greenbaum and Quirk's
subcategorization. They will be described below (in 4.2).
The tests were carried out between November 1978 and
October 1979. Six separate test batteries were administered
(numbered I-V, and VII). The number of items in each ranged
from 23 to 32, with the exception of Test Battery III, which
consisted of 6 items only. Each battery contained both items
written for the present study and items designed to investigate
certain grammatical phenomena. The latter were also the (sole)
subject of study in Test Battery VI. The results of the grammati
cal investigations were published as Quirk (1981), Quirk and
Rusiecki (1982), and Wales (1980).
DESCRIPTION OF TEST ITEMS 59
Since the tests dealt with a fairly broad spectrum of linguistic
problems - both graimnatical and semantic - it was possible to
scramble the items, so that the subjects' attention was constantly
shifted from one area of language study to another. As a conse
quence the unwanted habituation factor was effectively offeet: the
subjects did not even realize what the tests were expected to
show - a fact which contributed to the reliability of the investi
gation. This was further aided by the fact that the subjects were
presented with one test itemat a time (one item per pageof test
booklet) and worked to a fairly tight schedule, pretested before
hand, with no possibility of going back to earlier items.^
The subjects were all native speakers of English, almost all
British; but there were several from the United States and the
Commonwealth. They were mostly undergraduate students at
University College London and, in one test, undergraduates at
Royal Holloway CoUege. Several staff members from the Univer
sity College English Department and the Surveyof English Usage
also took part in some of the tests. The numbers of subjects in
the tests ranged from 43 to 108. The restriction of subjects to
people with university-level education was deliberate and reflects
interest in the variety of the language usually described as
'present-day educated standard English'. The virtual restriction
to young people reflects the easy availability of such subjects as
well as the difficulty of finding comparable groups of older
people. Practical considerations ruled out strict statistical
sampling procedures; there does, however, seem to be eve^
reason to assume that the results correctly reflect the linguistic
intuitions of native speakers of the variety of English investigated
here.
4.2 Description of test items
The items in test batteries were presented to the subjects in
written form, each item, together with the instructions, stencilled
on a separate page of the test booklet. On the front page of the
booklet was the request that the subject statehiêr sexandage,
and saywhere h^she had spent the first 15 years of hiêr life.
No other information was required: anonymity of the subjects
was preserved. The front page ended with the instruction 'Do not
turn over this page until you are asked to'. From the start of the
test the subject worked to a tight time schedule, being aUowed
15 or 25 seconds per item, depending on its length and the
complexity of the task. These time intervals were established as
a result of pretesting, done withsmall groups of informants (who
60 ELIdTATlONTESTS
did not take peut in the actual tests later). Administering the
whole of a test batterytookno morethanseveral minutes (usually
before or after a lecture), so that fatigue and boredom were
effectively avoided. Participation in the tests was voluntary: each
time the subjects were free not to accept a test booklet or to leave
it unfiUed, and each time several persons did so.
In nine items either the tonicity or the tone of the test sentence
differed from unmarked usage, as special emphasis was put on
one of the words in the sentence. This was signalled by printing
the relevant word in block capitals; in addition, these sentences
were read aloud by the experimenter during the administration
of the test.
The total number of test items relating to the present study in
all the batteries was 80. The items were of four categories.
I. Category i items come under performance tests of comple
tion type, according to Quirk and Greenbaum's classification, but
they do not fit any of their subcategories (ie forced-choice selec
tion, word placement, and composition). They investigate 'Aer
than', 'less A than', and 'as A as' sentences with numerical adjec
tives, and sentences with numerical adjectives in the positive-
degree form. The subjects were asked to complete sentences By
putting in estimates of height or age of persons. Two examples
of test items of this kind are presented (Nos Vi and V16).
T
Please fill in the dotted space with any figure(s) indicatingheight
that you consider appropriate. .
Sid isn't tall.
He may be about tall.
V 16
Please fill in the dotted spaces with any figures you consider
appropriate.
Martin's wife is older than Ken's wife.
Ken's wife is about years old.
Martin's wife is about years old.
A variant of items from this category was constituted by those
items (mentioned above) in which one of the words in the test
sentence was given special emphasis. The word was printed in
block capitals and the sentence was read aloud by the experi
menter, usually with high falling intonation accompanied by extra
DESCRIPTION OF TEST ITEMS
6l
Strong stress and a high booster.^ An example of a sentence of
this kind may be that used in item 19 inTest Battery II: 'John's
father is as tall as the doctor.'
2. The test items designed to study sentences with the adjec
tives from the bounded-scale antonymic pair 'full' : 'empty' were
as in test item II 25. This is clearly a performance test, but does
not come under any of the subcategories of such tests proposed
by Greenbaum and Quirk: it constitutes a subcategory ofitsown.
II
25
This bottle isfuller than that one.
Draw a line indicating the level in each bottle.
3. The tests designed to investigate non-numerical symmetric-
scale pairs of adjectives, as well as asymmetric and quasi-
antonymic pairs were ofthejudgement (evaluation) type butwere
different from Greenbaum and Quirk's evaluation tests. They
aimed directly at tapping the entaUment relations between 'Atr
than', 'less A than', and 'as A as' sentences {ie 2-type sentences:
cf 1.4) on the one hand, andsentences with the same adjectives
in the positive-degree form, on the other. Two test formats were
used. Test item II 2 is a page from the test booklet for Battery
II.
n
Myshirt-is drier thanmysocks.
Assuming that the abovesentence istrue, put a tickinthe
appropriateboxagainst eachof the following sentences:
True False Maybe
either
true or
false
My socks are dry.
My shirt is dry.
62
EUCITATION TESTS
In later tests the format was changed. Test itemVII 21 is an
item from Test Battery VII.
vn
Mytowelisas dryasyours.
This sentence impliesthat:
Your
towel
is dry.
isn't dry.
may be
dry or not.
My towel
21
(Respond by putting a
tick in the appropriate
box.)
is dry.
isn't dry.
may be dry
or not.
A variant of this kind of test item was used for investigating
unary-scale adjectives, such as 'red' (test item V 2).
V
Janet's car is redder than Gregory's car.
2
Gregory's car Janet's car
is red is red
may be
red or
not
may be red or not |
n
4. Test items of the fourth kind were typical evaluation-type
judgement tests. They were desig^ned to investigate the accepta
bility of certain constructions with gradable adjectives in the
positive-degree form. Test item IV 2 is a sample item.
IV
Mary's dress is red andso is her car.
Pleaseput a tickinone of the boxes, thusindicating whetheryou
consider this a perfectly natural English sentence.
Yes Dubious
No
_ .1
DESCRIPTION OF TEST ITEMS
63
A complete list of the 80 items relating to the present study is
given in Table 4-i-
TABLE 4.1 List of elicitation test items
Item Item
number category
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 4
8 4
9 4
10 4
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 4
17 4
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 1
Test sentence
Rob isn't 6 feet tall.
Andy isn't 5 feet tall.
Sid isn't tall.
Diane isn't old.
Michael isn't short.
Lina isn't young.
The river is wide, and so is the canal.
The river is wide, and so is the Pacific Ocean.
The hill by my house is high, and so are the
Himalayas.
John is old, and so are the Pyramids.
Mr Smith is as tall as Mr Brown.
John's father is as tall as the doctor.
Robert is as old as James.
Mary's brother is as short as the doctor.
Mary is as young as Kate.
'WaferUne' calculators are as thick as credit
cards.
'Waferline' calculators are only as thick as
credit cards.
The postman isn't as tall as the milkman.
Our teacher isn't as tall as the headmaster.
Mike isn't as old as Andy.
Cindy's husband isn't as old as Kate's husband.
Andrew isn't as short as Keith.
Mr Grey isn't as short as Mr Black.
Tom isn't as young as Kevin.
Peter's wife isn't as young as Jim's wife.
Ted is less tall than Kevin.
The postman is taller than the milkman.
Peter is even taller than Jim.
Mary is older than Jane.
Martin's wife is older than Ken's wife.
Sylvia's husband is shorter than her brother.
Mr Brown is even shorter than Mr Smith.
Monica is younger than Eve.
Linda's husband is younger than Pat's
husband.
John isn't taller than Peter. (Peter is 5 ft 10 in
tall.)
64 EUCITATION TESTS
Item Item Test sentence
number category
Barbara isn't older than Ruth.
Mike isn't shorter than Peter. (Peter is 5 ft
10 in taU.)
Graham isn't younger than Mark.
'Simplo' filing cabinets are as shallowas they
are narrow.
This table isn't half as wide as it is long.
The theatre is full, and so is this bottle.
This bottle is as full as that one.
This bottle isn't as full as that one.
This bottle is fuller than that one.
This bottle is emptier than that one.
The climate in T is as good as the climate in
S.
The climate in B isn't as good as the climate in
F.
The climate in D isn't as bad as the climate in
K.
The climate in A is better than the climate in
Z.
The climate in C is worse than the climate in
X.
My towel is as dry as yours.
My shirt is drier than my socks.
My tow^l is wetter than yours.
Eve's car is as economical as Mary's car.
Monica's car is more economical than Ted's
car.
Jonathan's car is more economical than Luke's
car.
John's car is more economical than peter's.
Wendy's car is even more economical than
Peter's car.
Amanda is as pretty as Clare.
Patricia is prettier than Julia.
Linda is prettier than kate.
Laura is more pretty than Pat.
Sid is as extravagant as Don.
David is more extravagant than Gary.
Mark is less extravagant than Paul.
Moira is as sensible as Sophy.
Margaret isn't as sensible as Jackie.
Tina is more sensible than Marion.
Hilda is more sensible than Clare.
Annabel is more sensible than janet.
36
1
37
1
38
1
39
4
40
3
41
4
42
2
43
2
44
2
45
2
46
3
47
3
48
3
49
3
50
3
51
3
52 3
53 3
54 3
55 3
56 3
57 3
58
3
59 3
60 3
61 3
62 3
63 3
64 3
65 3
66 3
67 3
68 3
69 3
70 3
THE RESULTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 65
Item Item Test sentence
number category
71 3 Dolly is less sensible than Monica.
72 3 John is as cruel as Peter.
73 3 James isn't as cruel as Derek.
74 3 Rob is more cruel than Mike.
75 3 Ted is less cruel than Andy.
76 3 Tom's arguments are as illogical as yours.
77 3 Sam is as dishonest as Dominic.
78 4 Mary's dress is red and so is her car.
79 3 Janet's car is redder than Gregory's car.
80 3 The Smiths' lawn isn't as green as the Joneses'
lawn.
4.3 The results and their interpretation
Almost all the subjects cooperated in the experiment and the
results obtained can, by internal evidence, be considered to
constitute reliable data. There were a very few cases of responses
which could not be processed together with the rest (which does
not mean to say that they were wholly unusable), and they fell
into four groups.
(a) There were a few subjects who tried either to be jocular
or absurd. Thus, for example, in test item 12 one subject put the
height of John's father and the doctor at 21 feet, and in test item
18 one respondent quoted 67 feet 7 inches for the milkman and
5 inches for the postman. There were very few responses of this
kind: in the 32 test items dealing with numerical adjectives
(category i items) there were 7 (out of the total of over 2,050
responses). They were ignored in statistical calculations, but were
not useless since in most cases they corroborated (in an exagger
ated-way) the evidence supplied by the rest of the data. Thus in
test item 12 the exaggerated response confirms the interpretation
of the test sentence as indicating great height for the referents of
both arguments (the mean average for the responses was 6 ft
I in), and in test item 18 the absurd response is in complete
agreement with aU the others, according to which the test
sentence entails that the postman is shorter than the milkman.
(b) In a few cases the subjects gave descriptive (non-numer
ical) responses to items in which numerical responses were
expected, or offered exaggerated numerical responses with a
commentary. Thus in test item 26 ('Ted is less tall than Kevin')
one subject described Kevin as 'quite tall' and Ted as 'not as tall'.
66 EUCTTATION TESTS
These responses had to be ignored in statistical calculations, but
were significant inpointing tothe way in which the iess tall than'
sentence was interpreted.
Altogether, among more than 2,050 responses to numerical
items there were only 7 falling into this category.
(c) In items belonging to category 3 {<^4.2 above) the sentence
with the second term of comparison was always given before that
with the first term of comparison. It seems that some fewsubjects
misread the instructions, mistook the second term of comparison
for the first and produced questionable responses: such that fit
into those boxes in the matrices for comparatives which represent
linguistically impossible combinations (rf 1.4, Table i.i). There
are only about 15 instances of such responses, out of the total of
about 2,100 responses to category 3 items. They had to be ignored
in the interpretation of the results.
(d) Finally, there was a small group of openly non-cooperative
responses. For example in responses to test items 51, 54, and 59
one subject wrote 'it implies nothing'. In some tests certain
subjects left a few pages of the test booklet unfilled except for a
witticism or an abusive comment. Responses of this kind were
very few in number; they were ignored.
Items from categories i and 2 yielded numerical results, which
can be interpreted statistically, in terms of dispersion, modal
value (mode of the distribution), and arithmetical mean, for each
of the arguments in the propositions. Items from category 3
yielded data which are inteipretable in the framework of matrices
for comparatives, such as the matrix represented in Table i.i.
Finally, test items from category 4 led to statistical statements
about acceptability.
The results of statistical calculations point only to certain
general semantic characteristics of comparative sentences, or to
certain tendencies in their semantic interpretation displayed by
native users of the language; thus ultimately they lead to quali
tative rather than quantitative statements as conclusions. The
modal value is in some cases more significant than the arithmeti
cal mean. Standard deviation has not been calculated since in all
cases it was the overall dispersion values that supplied the essen
tial information: for example, as evidence of the relative
character of an adjective.
. The results of the tests and their interpretation will be discussed
in detail in Chapters 5-8.
NOTES 67
Notes
1. Several subjects were subsequently asked for their conunents on the
test items. This, however, was not relevant to their performance
during the test and has not influenced the analysis of the results; the
comments were only used as background information.
2. In their outline of the system of describing intonation which was
adopted for the Survey of English Usage, Quirk et aL (1964:680-1)
write: "Minimally, the tone unit comprises a nuclear segment
containing the nuch-ear tone, [. . .] but may have: a) a pre-onset,
terminating at the onset, marked [...]; b) one or more pre-
NUCLEAR SEGMENTS, in addition to c) the nuclear segment. A segment
consists of at least one stressed syllable [. . .]. After the first
segment, which begins with the onset, a new segment begins where
a stressed syllable is uttered on a higher pitch than the preceding
syllable; this point iscalled a booster and ismarked )ên such
a syllable is uttered on a higher pitch than the first syllable of the
preceding segment, this point iscêd a high booster and ismarked
Either type of booster may also obtain at the beginning of a
nuclear tone."
Chapters
Non-comparative sentences with gradable
adjectives in predicative function
Non-comparative sentences are, in the nature of things, all based
on one-argument propositions^ and refer to one dimension only.
There are two basic types: type A sentences, in which the numeri
cal value of the measure function is stated in the sentence, and
type B sentences, in which the value of the Md is not stated; cf
Table 3. i, p 50-1. Naturally, formulating type A sentences is only
possible when the adjective is numerical.
5.1 Type A sentences: positive statements
5.1.1 Open-scale, primary numerical antonymic pairs
The simplest subtype of type A are those sentences in which the
exponent of the argument is a singular definite referring expres
sion, that is Ai sentences; for example:
[1] Andrew is six feet tall.
The essential element of the semantic interpretation of such
sentences is a statement of the value of the measure function,
such as, for example:
[2] Mneight (Andrew) = 6 feet.^
The adjective in Ai sentences is the unmarked member of the
antonymic pair and is thus form-relative {ie value-neutral): its
function is merely to refer to the dimension. Therefore it is
perfectly acceptable to say:
[3] Dick is four feet taU.
although, provided Dick is an adult human male, no one would
call him 'tall'. The dimension-referring function is a property of
TYPE Asentences: POSmVE STATEMENTS 69
the unmarked members of antonymic pairs; therefore only they
can normally be used with numerical statements of the vajue of
the Md- It is for this reason that A2 sentences, such as, for
example:
[4] Cedric is five feet short
are rejected by memy speakers as ungrammatical. If accepted,
they are treated as syntactic puns. A very good example of this
is the sentence which appeared in an advertisement in British
magazines:
[5] The Mini is twenty years young.
The syntax forces us to treat this as an Ai sentence and thus to
accept 'young' as the dimension indicator; therefore the primary
semantic interpretation we give to the sentence is "The Mini is
twenty years of age". Then we incorporate the irregularity and
arrive at the secondary interpretation: "The Mini (at twenty) is
(still) young.
The marginal character of A2 sentences is emphasized by the
fact that their negative counterparts (A4) seem to be entirely
outside the sphere of acceptability.
The dimension-referring function of the unmarked members of
antonymic pairs is also obvious in questions, such as:
[6] How tall is John?
How old is Mary?
It seems, however, that in questions the use of the marked
antonym is more acceptable than in A2 positive statements,
especially when supported by context. Consider the following
conversational exchange:
[7] X: This river is too shallow for navigation.
Y: Really? How shallow is it?
Here the marked antonym in the question is, as it were, reUeved
of its role of signalling a low value of the measure function. The
low value is stated in the preceding sentence and functions as
presupposition in the question which follows.
Let us now return to Ai sentences. Formula [2] is only one of
the possible interpretations of the meaning of [i]. Consider the
following sentences:
[8] Mark is six feet tall - if not six feet two.
Mark is six feet tall; in fact he is sue feet two.
[9] *Philip is six feet tall - if not five feet eleven.
^'Philip is six feet tall; in fact he is five feet eleven.
70 NON-COMPARATIVESENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
One is reminded of the observation made by Huddleston
(1971:264, note): . . in asserting or presupposing that John is,
say, 6 foot tall, one does not necessarily assert or presuppose that
he is exactly 6 foot - only that he is at least 6 foot. Notice similarly
that you can't join the Guards unless you're 6 foot tall does not
exclude those of 6 feet 6 inches."
It appears then that we should reformulate [2] as follows:
[10] Mneight (Andrew) ^ 6 feet.
Sentences such as [i] may also be interpreted strictly Uterally,
in terms of the '=' relation. Let us call the interpretation in terms
of the relation 'broad', and the interpretation in terms of the
'=' relation, 'narrow'.
The relation is also reduced to '=' if we add an adverb such
as 'exactly', which cancels the '>' element:
[11] Andrew is exactly six feet tall.
The '^' relation is widened to if we add to the sentence a
hedge: an expression such as 'approximately' or 'more or less',
which adds the '<' element. Instead of we shall write '' (to
be read 'equals approximately'). Example:
[12] Philip is
approximately
more or less
about
six feet tall.
Mneight (Philip) 6 feet.
The meaning of the term 'approximately' is probablybest inter
preted in terms of Wachtel's theory of approximations. Wachtel
(1980) proposes a theory "... in which the truth conditions of
approximations are defined in terms of the notion of round
numbers, with the latitude of permissible rounding specified
relative to the context of use, and varying from context to
context" (p 201). He argues that "In the natural sense there are
certain designated numbers that are considered to be inherently
round, such as 10, 100, 1,000, and so on. The technical sense of
round number, however, does not discriminate in this way. Any
member of N (ie the set of real numbers) is a potential round
number " (p 205, note 3). The "roundness" of a number
depends of the context. Thus, in a context in which loi was
considered to be an appropriate round number for loi, it would
be perfectly acceptable to say
[13] Tom is approximately five feet ten and a half inches tall
if Tom's height were, say, 5 feet loj inches.
TYPE A sentences: POSmVE STATEMENTS 7I
We can nowsuggest generalized formulae for the interpretation
of Ai sentences. Let us begin with sentences such as [i] above.
[14] Sentence structure: NP is n units A.
Semantic interpretation:
Broad: Md(^) ^ n units
Narrow: Md(s) = n units
where s is the argument (represented in the sentence by the noun
phrase - a definite referring expression), Md is the measure func
tion for the dimension D, ^ is the unmarked member of the
antonymic adjectival pair A: ^, n is the numerical value of the
measure function, and 'units' are the units of measurement
appropriate for the dimension D,^
Let us pass on to sentences with the adverb 'exactly':
[15] SS: NP is exactly n units A.
SI: Md(5) = n units.
'SS' stands for "sentence structure", 'SI' stands for "semantic
interpretation".'
Finally, the approximations:
[16] SS: NP is
approximately
more or less
about
SI: Md(j) n units
n units A.
where n is a round number (in Wachtel's sense).
Note that there is no need to include the reference set S (such
that 5 6 5) in the formula. However, the formula does not
account for the fact that a statement such as
[17] The man was ten feet tall
would invariably be interpreted as either referringto some fairy
tale giant, or as a vast exaggeration, and a statement such as
[18] The man was two feet tall
would be interpreted as referring to a midget. The native user of
the language (here, the hearer) forms an assumption as to what
is the set of which the argument is a member, ie the domain set
of the measure function. He also expects the vdue of the function
to be a member of the set of numbers which constitute its possible
values for the domain set; in other words, he expects that value
to fall within the range of the Md for this set. Thus, for example,
'Andrew' in [i] will probably be interpreted as a member of the
set of Humans and 'six feet' will be interpreted as a member of
72 NON-COMPARATIVE SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
the set of possible heights of humans. More than that: since in
the absence of context 'Andrew' will be assumed to be an adult
human male, the scale of height used in the interpretation of a
sentence such as [i] will be that of adult human males - and not
himian females or children. Note that the hearer may be ignorant
of the precise identity of the referent of the definite referring
expression used by the speaker; but if communication is to be
unimpeded, there must be no misunderstanding between speaker
and hearer as to the reference set and the scale.
In these considerations we are on the borderUne between
semantics and pragmatics, crossing and recrossing it, as we refer
to the speaker's and the hearer's knowledge of tfie world.
Yet it seems that knowledge of this kind should be included in
the semantic description of the language, if it is to be complete,
and that the speaker's and the hearer's assumptions and expec
tations should be reflected somehow in the semantic interpret
ation; but in such a fashion as not to exclude categorically such
extreme statements as [17] and [18], and allow for them to be
interpreted. This seems best achieved in the form of a pragmatic
assumption and an empirical normality condition, embodying
the speaker's (and, presumably, the hearer's) knowledge of the
world. An interpretation of [17] - with thetense element ignored-
might look like this;
[19] The man was ten feet tall.
Mneight (the man) 3s 10 feet.
Pragmatic assumption: thespeaker assumes thehearer will
Empirical normaUty condition: 10 feet e |Heights).
In this formula |Heights! symbolizes the fuzzy set of numbers
constituting the scale of height for set 5. Boththe upper andthe
lower limit of the scale are ill-defined; hence the fuzzy character
of the set. However, once we get well belowor well above these
limits, we can state with conviction that we are outside the set.
If the speaker's assumption turns out to be incorrect, his utter
ance, if taken by the hearer as a matter-of-fact statement, will be
misunderstood ("I didn't realize you had a fairy-tale giant in
mind"). If the empirical normality condition is not met, the utter
ance will be interpreted as deviant: possibly an exaggeration, or an
instance of poetic distortion of reality ("In real life people cannot
be ten feet tall!").
We can nowformulate a pragmaticassumptionand an empirical
TYPE A sentences: POSITIVE STATEMENTS 73
normality condition which should be added to each of the
generalized formulae [14], [15], and [16]:
[20] Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will
identify correctly the set S of which ^ is a member.
Empirical normality condition: n units e iD^j
where ID5I is the fuzzy set of numbers expressing the possible
values for set S on the scale for the dimension D.
Two adjectives, 'tall' and 'old' differ from the rest of the
numerical adjectives in that they allow for certain deletions to
apply to Ai sentences. In the case of the adjective 'tall' the
sentence formula 'NP is n units vl' can be shortened to 'NP is n
units'; eg 'John is six feet' - particularly in reply to the question
'How tall is John?' In the absence of context the deletion applies
only when the sentence refers to the height of human beings (and
perhaps apes). In the case of the adjective 'old' the deletion must
apply to both the two last elements in the sentence formula, the
adjective and the name of the unit of measurement, and is
performed solely when the unit of measurement is 'years'. The
result is the shortened formula 'NP is n', for example 'Mary is
eight'. The deletion applies only when the sentence refers to age
of human beings or animals. In the absence of context the
deleting rules apply solely to these two adjectives in the numerical
class, so there is no danger of misunderstanding: 'NP is n units'
refers to height (of human beings), 'NP is n' refers to age (of
humans beings or animals) counted in years.
The_ semantic formula "Md(^) ^ n units" can have other
sentential realizations aside from 'NP is n units A". The following
are examples of the different realizations of the formula:
i] Andrew is six feet tall.
21] Andrew measures six feet in height.
^2 Andrew's height is six feet.
23] Six feet is Andrew's height.
These four sentences differ stylistically but convey the same infor
mation, the essential elements of which are: the argument
('Andrew'), the dimension ('height', or 'tall'), and the value of
the measure function together with the unit of measurement ('six
feet'). The difference is mainly in Functional Sentence Perspec
tive: the theme-rheme relationship.
Let us now consider type A sentences in which the exponent
of the argument is not a singular referring expression: notably
those sentences which are based on propositions in which the
argument is a general or generic expression. A general referring
expression can be treated as an exponent of a variable under the
universal quantifier. A sentence like:
[24] My brothers are six feet tall
will therefore be interpreted semantically as follows:
[25] (Vx) [x MB=> MneightW ^ 6 feet]
where MB symbolizes the set of "my brothers" (referred to
distributively in the sentence).
Generic statements, on the other hand, are not, on the whole,
adequately interpreted in terms of formulae involving universal
quantification - except certain types, among them those which
express essential propositions {cf Lyons i977:7.2.vii); for
example:
[26] AB3 cylinder head gaskets are three millimetres thick.
Here we have a proposition saying that being 3 millimetres thick
is an essential attribute of a standard AB3 gasket. A faulty or
worn-out gasket may be thinner (or thicker), but [26] is a state
ment about gaskets in thek standard state {cf Wojtasiewicz
1978:108). A possible formula for the semantic interpretation is
as follows:
[27] AB3 cylinder head gaskets are three millimetres thick.
(Vjc) [x e StState AB3 CHG => M'nuckness(Jt) = 3 mm].
To generalize from this:
[28] SS: NPs are n units A
SI: (Vx) [x 6 StState S Md(jc) = n units]
where NP in sentence structure represents an element of set
StState S. This semantic interpretation refers both to sentences
such as [26] and to two other possible formulations of essential
generic propositions^:
29a] The AB3 cylinder head gasket is three millimetres thick.
29b] An AB3 cylinder head gasket is three millimetres thick.
Note that the semantic interpretation formulae in [27] and[28]
do not seem to require a pragmatic assumption or an empirical
normality condition of the kindformulated in [20], since theyare
essential generic propositions about whole sets (referred to
distributively); there is thus no question about what those sets
are, and the value of the measure function quoted can only be
correct or incorrect - and not likely or unlikely.
TYPE A sentences: POSITIVE STATEMENTS 75
Let us now consider a generic statement of a slightly different
kind:
[30] Adult giraffes are eighteen feet tall.
Giraffes - and animals in general - do not come off a production
line, in standard sizes. Sentence [30], and others of this kind,
expresses a proposition about typical giraffes - a statistical prop
osition. Some adult giraffes may be taller or smaller, but the
typical height is 18 feet; and an adverb such as 'tjrpically',
'usually', etc. need not necessarily appear in the sentence for it
to be interpreted as a statistical statement. Note that the average
user of the language does not have to know the exact figure
representing the height of a typical giraffe to be able to state
meaningfully about a particular animal:
[31] This giraffe is unusually tall.
Correct statements about deviations from typical size may be
based on intuitive assessments.
All i8-feet-taU adult giraffes constitute the set of typical adult
giraffes (which is, of coiurse, a subset of all giraffes: Typ AdG
a G). The suggested meaning formula for [31] is as follows:
[32] (Vx) [x e Typ AdG MHeightW = 18feet]
To generalize:
[33] SS: NPs are n units A
SI: (Vj:) [x e Typ S ^ Md(j:) = n units]
where NP in sentence structure represents an element of Typ 5.
Again this semantic interpretation covers both sentences such as
[30] and the two other possible formulations of generic proposi
tions about typical members of sets:
[34a] The adult ^raffe is eighteen feet tall.
[34b] An adult giraffe is eighteen feet tall.
5.1.2 Open-scale, secondary numerical antonymic pairs
Secondary numerical adjectives are not normally used in type A
sentences. Thus, for example, in order to indicate the degree of
perfection of a competitor's performance at figure-skating we wUl
not say *She was 5.9 points good' but rather 'She scored 5.9' or
'The score for her performance was 5.9 points', or something like
that.
5.1.3 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs
Type A sentences with bounded-scale adjectives (such as
76
NON-COMPARAUVE SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
'full' ; 'empty') are characterized by the fact that the value of the
measure function is not a denominate number. Bounded-scê
adjectives cannot be used in sentences ofthe type 'NP is n units
A'; they are used inconstructions unique to them, namely:
[35] NP 'v&n A
and
[36] NP is n A
where /i is a non-denominate number such that o < /t < i, and
NPstands for a noun phrase whose head noun refers either to a
container of some kind (eg a concrete noun such as 'bottle',
'glass', 'box', 'suitcase', an abstract noun such as 'set'), or to
something which in a secondary sense can be treated as a
container, eg 'bus', 'van', 'theatre' - or even 'street'. We shall call
the latter 'quasi-containers'. For n we can also substitute the
expression 'part(ly)', the generic substitute for fractions of unity.
As can be seen from [35] and [36], in antonymic pairs of
bounded-scale adjectives neither member is marked. Examples:
[37] This box is two-thirds full.
[38] That box is two-thirds empty.
In these sentences'empty' does not mean"empty", nor does 'full'
mean "full". The two adjectives meet half-way down (or up) the
scale:
[39] My glass is half fulV^mpty.
The difference here is sometimes described as one between an
optimist and a pessimist. .In actual fact this is a good description,
since 'full' signals a vector pointing from zero towards the upper
end of the scale (ie towards i), and 'empty' signals a vector
pointing from 1 towards the lower end of the scale (ie 0).
Compare:
[40]
The bottle is half full.
if not
or even
fuller.
*The bottle is half full.
if not
or even
emptier.
[41]
The bottle is half empty.
if not
or even
emptier.
*The bottle is half empty.
if not
or even
fuller.
TYPE A sentences: NEGATIVE STATEMENTS 77
This can be represented by the following formulae:
[42] SS: NP is n Ml.
SI: Mf(c) ^ n (where c e C and n is a number from the
interval o < n < i).
[43] SS: NP is n empty.
SI: Mp(c) ^ I - n (where c e C and n is a nmnber from
the interval o < n < i).
In these formulae Csymbolizes the class of 'containers' (including
'quasi-containers') and F stands for "fullness", ie "the degree to
which a container is filled".
The discussion of sentences with the adverb 'exactly' and with
hedges such as 'approximately', 'moreor less', 'about', presented
above in the context of sentences with open-scale antonyms,
applies here as well.
5.1.4 Asymmetric antonymic pairs and quasi-antonymic pairs
It seems that very few asymmetric antonyms and quasi-antonyms
can legitimately be usedin tjrpe A sentences. Among the former,
the pair 'smooth' : 'rough' qualifies for numerical treatment. The
scale would then begin at the bounded end; 'smooth' (ie "zero-
rough") and signify degrees of roughness:
[44] 'This metal file is three points rough.
The pair 'dry' : 'wet' seems a special case, since the degree of
wetness (or humidity) might be measured in percentage terms.
If so, the scale would then be symmetric, bounded, stretching
from iexo to lOO per cent, but unidirectional: '90 per cent humid'
does not seem to be equivalent to '10 per cent dry'.
A similar situation obtains in the case of the - normally - quasi-
antonymic pair 'efficient' : 'inefficient', since it is possible to
describe a machine as '70 per cent efficient'. Again, however, the
scale is unidirectional, since '70 per cent efficient' is not para-
phrasable as '30 per cent inefficient'.
5.2 Type A sentences: negative statements
Negative type A sentences, ie A3 sentences, were the subject of
two elicitation tests. In test item i informants were presented with
the sentence
[45] Rob isn't six feet tall
and asked to specify possible height of Rob. Out of 68 native
78 NON-COMPARAUVE SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
informants 62 put it below 6 feet (mostly at 5 ft 10 in or 5ft
II in). There was thus atendency to interpret negation as eqmv-
alent to "less than". One might try and interpret this by saying
that the result simply reflects the hearers' knowledge that it is not
very common for a man to exceed 6 feet in height. Yet the
informants' responses in test item 2, namely their reactions tothe
sentence
[46] Andy isn't five feet tall
were not very different. Out of 67 informants 44 estimated
Andy's height to be less than 5feet. Since there are very few men
shorter than 5feet, this result could not be ascribed toknowledge
of the world - unless 'Andy' was interpreted as the name of a
child. In actual fact, the test results confirm the interpretation of
Ai sentences presented in[i4]-[i6]. The negation ofthe relation
ie gives '<'. Hence if we treat [45] ^ the negation of
'Rob is six feet tall' in its broadinterpretation, it should be inter
preted as follows:
[47] Rob isn't six feet tall.
MHeight(Rob) < 6 feet.
To generalize:
[48] SS: NP is not n units A.
SI: Broad interpretation: Md(s) < units.
Some informants, however, must have interpreted [45] and [46]
as negations of Ai sentences in their narrow interpretation.
Negating '=' we get the disjunctive relation It is then
possible tointerpret 'iVP isnot n units A" either as meaning "NP
is less than n units A" or as meaning "NP is more than n units
A".
In view of the results of the elicitation tests dealing with
negative sentences it seems reasonable to assume that the
preferred interpretation of positive non-comparative sentences
such as [i] above is the one we called broad: ie the interpret
ation in terms of the '5=' relation. Its negation, the '<' relation,
is so t5rpical of the interpretation of negative non-comparative
sentences by native informants that construing it as just one of
the two possible negative counterparts of the '=' relation would
not appear convincing.
5.3 Type B sentences: positive statements
5>3>i Open-scale antonymic pairs
Type B sentences, such as 'John is tall', 'Peter is short', can be
TYPE B sentences: POSITIVE STATEMENTS 79
interpreted as a subcategory of type A sentences: njunely of those
type A sentences in which the value of the measure function is
a number which is an element of the fuzzy set many (or few). If
MANY is selected, the phrase 'memy units' is deleted from the
sentence formula. If few is selected, the deletion is accompanied
by the substitution of the marked antonym for the immarked one.
This was discussed in more detail in 2.4 (in particular on p 36-7).
The generaUzed formulae are as follows:
[49] SS: NP xs A.
SI: Md^(^) e MANY units.
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assximes the hearer
will identify correctly the set S of which ^ is a member.
[50] SS: iVP is A.
SI: Md^(5) 6 FEW units.
Generic statements can be interpreted along the same lines. A
sentence such as:
[51] American cars are big
is a statement about typical American cars. Its meaningcould be
represented by the following formula:
[52] (Vx) [x 6 Typ AmC ^ MsizcjW e many units].
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer
will identify correctly the set S of which Typ AmC is a
proper subset.
To generalize:
[53] SS: NPs are A.
SI: (Vac) [x e Typ S ^ Mdj(a:) 6 many units].
wiU identify correctly the set S of which Typ 5 is a
proper subset.
A similar formula can be written for sentences of the shape WFs
are the only difference is the substitution of few for many.
Note that we do not have to specify the unit of measurement
(which in the case of size may be a problem: cf 1.6), since the
phrase 'many/few units' will not appear insentence structure. For
the same reason we can interpret in a similar fashion sentences
with non-numerical adjectives; c/the discussion at the end of 2.4.
It is interesting that type B sentences with the unmarked
members of antonjonic pairs can be shown to be "looking up" the
scale in a similar fashion as type A sentences in their broad inter
pretation (expressed by the relation). The following pairs of
sentences can serve as illustration of this phenomenon;
[54a] Mark is six feet tall - if not six feet two.
*Philip is six feet tall - if not five feet eleven.
[54b] Mark is tall - if not very tall.
*John is tall - if not of medium height.
Similarly, type B sentences with the marked members of anto-
nymic pairs "look down" the scale:
[55] Tim is short,
*Tim is short.
if not
even
if not
even
very short,
of medium height.
It was stressed in 2.4 that for correct interpretation of 'NP isA'
and WP isA' sentences the concept of reference set (specifying the
scale) is indispensable, since the adjectives arescale-relative. This
was investigated infour test items (Nos 7~io)* The items were of
category 4 (c/4.2), ie they were of the evaluation type. The test
sentences and the results are presented in Table 5.1.
A comparison of items 7 and 8 shows the importance of
considering scale-relativity in the interpretation of WP is A'
sentences. In test item 7 the scales are similar, if not identical;
hence ahnost complete acceptance of the test sentence. 'Wide'
means "many units on the scale of width", and if the scale is the
same (or ahnost the same) in both sentences, the native user of
the language feels that the adjective appUes equally well in both
- because the value-interval expressed by "many" is in both cases
the same. In test item 8 the scales of width for rivers and oceans
TABLE 5.1
Item
No.
Test sentence
N Yes Dubious No
7 The river is wide, and so is the
canal.
43 35
81.4
6
14
2
4.6
8 The river is wide, and so is the
Pacific Ocean.
43 17
39.5
12
28
14
32.5
9 The hill by my house is high, and
so are the Himalayas.
45 9
20
20
44.4
16
35.6
10 John is old, and so are the
Pyramids.
45 13
29
17
38
15
33
Hgures in italics indicate percentages of the total numberof responses to an item.
TYPE B sentences: POSITIVE STATEMENTS 8l
are obviously different; hence less than 40 per cent of the
respondents considered the test sentence acceptable and one-
third of the responses were definitely negative.
Test items 9 and 10 confirm this. In each of them there is
considerable disparity in the scales for the arguments in the prop
ositions underlying the constituent sentences, and in each the
number of responses accepting the test sentences is small: from
20 to 29 per cent only - while outright rejections in each case
outnumber the acceptances.
All this constitutes evidence supporting the inclusion of the
pragmatic assumption about the reference set in the formulae for
the semantic interpretation of 'NP is >1' sentences.
5.3.2 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs
The interpretation of type B sentences as a subcategory of type
A can be extended to cover bounded-scale adjectives. Sentences
such as
[56] This bottle is full
or
[57] That box is empty
can be interpreted as extreme cases of [42] and [43], with the
interval for the values of the measure function widened to include
I. The revised formulae - valid both for type A and type B
sentences - would read as follows:
[58] SS: iVP is [] fuU.
SI: Mf(c) 3= n (where c e C and n is a number from the
interval 0 < n ^ i).
Semantic well-formedness condition: Mf(c) ^ i.
Deletion rule: if n = i, delete it from the sentence
structure formula.
[59] SS: NP is [n] empty.
SI: Mf(c) < I n (where c e C and n is number from
the interval o < n ^ i).
Semantic well-formedness condition: Mf(c) ^ 0.
Deletion rule: if n = i, delete it from the sentence
structure formula.
The semantic well-formedness conditions are needed to keep the
values of the measure function within the interval [0, i] when the
value of n = i; otherwise, under the and the relations the
value of the measure function could exceed i or drop below o.
It is interesting to note that if the value of the Mf(c) is
expressed in percentage terms, it is never deleted from the
sentence formula and we get:
[60] NP is 100per cent full.
NP is 100 per cent empty.
Since the fuzzy numerals many and few are not involvedin the
semantic interpretation of the positive-degree form of bounded-
scale adjectives, there is no need to append to the formulae a
pragmatic assumption relating to the reference set - such as the
one appended to [19], [20], [49], and [50]. Yet the reference set,
namely the size or type of "container" (or "quasi-container")
does play a part in semantic interpretation. This was demon
strated by test item41 - which, however, will be discussed later
(in 8.5.1).
5.3.3 Asymmetric antonymic pairs
Members of asymmetric antonymc pairs differ from members of
symmetric pairs in that in ordinary usage their positive-degree
forms are contradictories rather than contraries (c/ Lyons
1977:9.1) and partition their respective lexical fields between
themselves completely (ie are subject to the law of the excluded
middle). Compare [61] with [62]:
[61] John is old John is not young.
Mary is not young ^ Mary is old.
Peter is young Peter is not old.
Jane is not old ^ Jane is young.
[62] Mary's hands are dry/cleaVsmooth ^ Mary's hands are
not we^dirty/rough.
Mary's hands are riot weVdirty/rough => Mary's hands are
dry/clear/smooth.
Jane's hands are we^dirty/rough Jane's hands are not
dry/cleam/smooth
Jane's hands are not dry/clean/smooth ^ Jane's hands are
we^dirty/rough.
Thus the mftaning of the positive-degree forms of asymmetric
antonyms are not expressible in terms of the measure function.
They seem adequately defined by means of the following
formulae:
[63] NP is 4 = is not A
NP is A = NP is not A
assuming, of course, that the lexical field is defined beforehand.
L_.
TYPE B sentences: POSITIVE STATEMENTS 83
5>3'4 Quasi-antonymic pairs
The unmarked members of these pairs, eg 'economical', 'intelli
gent', 'efficient', are relative and they do not, together with their
marked counterparts, partition their lexical field completely
(there is always a neutral field between, say, 'economic^' and
'uneconomical'). In this respect they are unlike asymmetric pairs
(such as 'dry' : 'wet') and resemble open-scale antonymic pairs.
The positive-degree forms of the unmarked members of the pairs
are therefore interpretable in terms of the measure function. A
sentence such as
[64] My car is economical
may be interpreted as meaning "My car ranks high on the scale
of economy"; that is, as foUows:
[65] MEcon^ (my car) e many units.
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assimies the hearer will
identify correctly the set S of which 'my car' is a member.
The unit of measurement may be, for example, 'miles per gallon';
but it need not be defined, since the phrase 'many units' will not
appear in sentence structure. The adjective (and, consequently,
the interpretation of many) is scale-relative: the meaning of
'economical' is different in Europe and in the USA. Hence the
importance of the speaker's and the hearer's unanimity in ident
ifying the set S: whether it is, for example, "American cars" or
"cars in general".
The marked members of quasi-antonymic pairs are absolute;
they delimit unary-like subscales on the scales defined by them
and their unmarked counterparts. Since they refer to subscales
which constitute parts of more extensive scales, their positive-
degree forms are interpretable in terms of the measure function:
[66] Jim's car is uneconomical.
Mecodsj (Jim's car) e few units.
5.3.5 Unary-scale adjectives
As we shall see later (t/ 6.7), in 'Aer than' sentences certain
unary-scale adjectives are interpreted by some speakers as abso
lute and by others as relative. Interpretation of positive-degree
forms of these adjectives does not depend on the interpretation
of their comparative-degree forms; but two interpretations are
possible also in the case of non-comparative sentences. The
speaker may consider an adjective such as 'pretty' either to signal
"many degrees on the scale of good looks" or to ascribe the prop
erty of "good looks" to (the exponent of) the argument
(expressed by the NP); but these two interpretations could be
considered facets of one and the same meaning.
5.4 Type B sentences: negative statements
Let us now consider B-type negative sentences, such as
[67] Sid isn't tall.
Lina isn't young.
Native speakers' reactions to sentences of this kind were inves
tigated by means of informant tests (test items 3-6). Category i
items were used ((^4.2), that is, the informants were presented
with such sentences as [67] and asked to estimate Sid's height or
Lina's age. The results were as in Tables 5.2 and 5.3.
Two conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the
values of the measure function suggested by the phrase 'isn't old'
are quite different from those suggested by the phrase 'isn't
young': the same applies to the phrases 'isn't tall' and 'isn't short'.
In other words, negations of members of open-scale antonymic
TABLE 5.2
Item Test sentence
No.
N Height in feet and inches
Dispersion Mode Mean
3 Sid isn't tall. 45 4 ft 10 in-5 ft
10 inW
5 ft and 5 ft 3 in
5 ft 6 in
5 Michael isn't short. 45 5ft6in-6ft<'') 5 ft 10 in 5 ft 9| in
Plus one case each of 3 ft and 4 ft.
Plus one case each of 6 ft 1 in and 7 ft.
TABLE 5.3
Item Test sentence
No.
N Age in years
Disperson Mode Mean
4 Diane isn't old.
68 3-60 30 28.9
6 Lina isn't young. 67 16-100 50 46.2
TYPE Bsentences: NEGATIVE STATEMENTS 85
pairs do not meet lialf-way up - or down - the scale. Secondly,
negation seems to shift the estimated value of the measure func
tion in the direction opposite to that represented by the negated
adjective. Thus, for example, 'not old' seems to suggest either
"between youth and middle age" or even "very young", while
'not young' suggests "middle-aged" or even "quite old". It can
be said that negative B-type sentences look up or down the scale
in the direction opposite to that of positive sentences - cf [54b]
and [55].'
The basic propositions underlying B3 and B4 sentences (such
as thoseusedintest items3-6) maybe expressed bythe following
generalized formulae:
[68] SS: NP is not A.
SI: Mdj(s) i. MANY units.
will identify correctly the set S of which ^ is a member.
[69] SS: NP is not A.
SI: Md^(s) i FEW units.
Formulae expressing generic propositions can be written by
analogy to [53].
Experimental evidence on negative sentences with adjectives
other thanopen-scale onesislacking. Thebasic formulae [68] and
[69] seem to apply also to members of quasi-antonymic pairs, but
confirmation of this would have to come from more eUcitation
tests. The interpretation of negative sentences with members of
bounded-scale pairs of antonyms can be derived from formulae
[58] and [59]. Negating the '^' and '<' relations we get, respec
tively, '<' and '>'. Hence the following formulae:
[70] SS: NP is not full.
SI: Mf(c) < I (where c e C).
[71] SS: NP is not empty.
SI: Mf(c) > 0 (where c e C).
For a discussion of the class of containers (C) and the scale of
fullness, see 5.1.3 and 5.3.2.
Positive-degree forms of members of asymmetric antonymic
pairs are contradictories rather than contraries (c/5.3.3), and the
meaning of negative sentences with them is given in [63]. Nega
tion of unary-scale adjectives simply amounts to stating that the
property expressed by the adjective is not ascribed to (the
referent of) the argument.
86 NON-COMPARATIVE SENTENCES WTIH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
5.5 Non-comparative forms of gradable adjectives used in
attributive function
The semantic interpretation of non-comparative forms of grad
able adjectives in predicative function presented above can be
applied also to non-comparative forms of adjectives functioning
as modifiers in noun phrases, ie in attributive function. In fact,
semantic interpretation of attributive adjectives may even be
easier than interpretation of predicative adjectives, since the
reference set - and, consequently, the scale - is usually specified
by the head noun. Phrases with attributive adjectives can then be
inte^reted along the lines of[49] and [50] - but without the prag
matic assumption attached to those formulae, since the reference
set is specified by the head noun. For example;
[72] NP: A long journey
SI: An element j of set J such that MLegth^(/) e many
units
where J is the set of all (possible) journeys. In other words, 'a
long journey' is "a journey which is long as journeys go". Simi
larly, 'a tall woman' is "tall for a woman", 'a cheap meal' is
"cheap as meals go", and so on. This is true not only of symme
tric, open-scale antonymicpairs, but of all relative adjectives: 'an
economical airliner' is 'economical' even though in one trans
atlantic flight it may use up enough fuel to run a small car for a
year: it is "economical for an airliner".
But even here we have to take account of scale-relativity. The
scale of length of journeys, for example, is different for a
professional writer of travel books, and for a five-year old child.
The scale is not always, moreover, made immediately clear by the
head noun itself: sometimes a wider context has to be resorted
to in the interpretation. Thus, when we encounter the sentence
'A long time has passed', we cannot be sure what scale the noun
'time' refers to. But interpretation becomes easy if context is
supplied: 'A long time has passed: he must be an old man now.'
Clearly, 'time' is to be interpreted here in terms of the life-span
of human beings.
More problems arise when we try to interpret noun phrases
with attributive-only adjectives: such, for example, as 'old' or
'big' used non-inherently (cf Quirk et al. 1972:259), in phrases
such as 'an old friend', *a big eater'. The scale for the interpret
ation of the adjective 'old' in 'an old friend' is that of "duration
of friendship"; similarly, 'big' in 'a big eater' refers to "amount
of food eaten at every meal". There is nothing in the structure
NOTES 87
of the noun phrase or in the semantics of the noun to tell us how
the adjective is to be interpreted here. One might argue that only
basic "generic" nouns specify reference sets - and scales -
directly: 'an old man' is "old for a man", but 'an old friend' is
not necessarily "old for a maiVwoman" (it may be a dog), and
does not even have to be biologically old. Yet, although 'a tall
nurse' is not "tall for a nurse", she is tall: namely "tall for a
woman". It seems that it is only usage, which may be supported
by context, that helps to establish the reference set in phrases
with attributive-only adjectives and, consequently, to interpret
them semantically.
Notes
1. The argument may be a singular definite referring expression or a
variable under a quantifier; see the discussion in section 5.1.1.
2. This is only one of the possible interpretations. The problem will be
discussed in more detail on p. 70.
3. I owe this interpretation to Randolph Quirk.
4. Locutions such as 'Our friendship is 5,000 miles old' are instances
of the figurative use of the measure function. To be interpreted they
must be supplied with context; this sentence, for example, may refer
to the friendship between two people who met on board of an ocean
liner. The distance covered is a Unction of time; hence the possi
bility of measuring time on a scale of distance.
5. For the differences between the three possible formulations of
sentences expressing generic propositions see Sm61ska and Rusiecki
(1980).
6. A Typ S is, of course, always a fuzzy set: a subset of 5. A StState S
may be considered a variant of Typ S; namely a Typ S with the
fuzziness removed.
7. Geoffrey Leech (personal conmiunication) has the following
comment: "Grice's Cooperative Princple explains why there is lack
of symmetry between 'Diane isn't old' and 'Diane isn't young',
logically, the former refers to the whole of the age-scale apart from
the 'old' part. But pragmatically, it also excludes the 'young' part,
on the grounds that the Maximof Quantity would cause the speaker
to prefer the straightforward and more informative sentence 'Diane
is young' if it could be truthfully asserted." (The reference, of
course, is to Grice 1975.)
Chapter 6
Comparative sentences of linear difference:
'-Aerthan' sentences
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 'Aer' and 'more A' comparatives: corpus evidence
Our class of 'Aer than' sentences comprises both those sentences
in which the comparative form of the adjective is inflectional, ie
is an 'Aer' form in the literal sense of the term (eg 'higher',
'easier'), and those sentences in which it is periphrastic (eg 'more
complicated'). Functionally they are mostly the same; the differ
ence is due to the fact that only a limited number of English
adjectives have inflectional comparative forms.' Our statement of
the functional identity of 'Aer' and 'more A' comparatives is qual
ified, since some adjectives which have inflectional comparative
forms can also be used in periphrastic forms; cf 'prettier' versus
'more pretty'. Whether there is any semantic difference between
the two, and if so then what it is, deserves investigation by means
of elicitation tests; but so far this has not been attempted.^ It is
significant, however, that in a sample of i8 texts from the Survey
of English Usage file, lo spoken, 8 written (amounting to 90,000
words) there were 47 instances of 'more A' forms of 43 adjectives,
but no instances among them of 'more A' forms of adjectives
which can take the -(e)r morpheme.^ Whatever the semantic
contrast between the 'Aer' and the 'more A' form (where both
are possible), it would appear not to be used frequently.
'Aer' comparatives are the most frequent of all the comparative
forms in English. In a sample of 13 texts from the Survey of
English Usage file, 8 spoken, 5 written (amounting to 65,000
words) there were loi occurrences of 'Aer' forms (used predic-
atively or attributively), ie on an average almost 8 per text. In
another sample of 13 Survey texts, 8 spoken, 5 written, there
INTRODUCTION 89
were 42 occurrences of 'more A' phrases (also both attributive
and predicative), ie 3.3 per text." Taken together, 'Aer' and 'more
A' comparatives occurred on an average more than 11 times per
text. They were 2^ times as frequent as 'êst' and 22 times as
frequent as 'less A' forms. Of course, in a different sample abso
lute frequency figures would probably be different, but there
seems little doubt about the relative dominance of 'Aer' forms
over other adjectival comparatives - particularly if we count 'Aer'
and 'more A' forms together.
In the sampleof 13 texts investigated, 14adjectives occurredin
the 'Aer' form two or more times. They were all members of
symmetric, open-scale antonymic pairs. They are here listed in
decreasing order of frequency, with the number of occurrences
given in parentheses: better (17), later (9), higher (8), earlier (7),
easier (6), older (6), worse (6), lower (5), younger (5), further
(4), smaller (3), bigger (2), longer (2), stronger (2). Eighteen
adjectives occurred in the 'y4er' form once only; they were, in
alphabetical order: broader, cheaper, clearer, closer, elder, fewer,
greater, happier, healthier, larger, nearer, 'offier',^ prettier,
rarer, shyer, thinner, tougher, wider. Two-thirds of them were
members of open-class antonymic pairs. Again it has to be
stressed that in a different textual sample both the types and the
type/token ratio would in all probability be different, but the
predominance of open-class antonyms, and among them of
numerical adjectives, is too marked to be accidental.
In the 13 Survey texts investigated inflectional '.<4er' compara
tives were slightly more frequent in attributive than in predicative
function: the ratio is 55 to 46 instances. On the other hand,
periphrastic 'more A' forms were used predicatively much more
often than attributively: the ratio is 28 instances of predicative use
to 14 of attributive use. This may be due to the fact that peri
phrastic forms, being complex, are less handy to use attributively;
this is, however, just a guess.
6.1.2 'Aer than' sentences: general description
Sentences of this kind are exponents of propositions stating that
there is a difference between the values of the measure function
for a dimension for two arguments, or between the values of the
measure function for two dimensions of the same argument, or
for two dimensions of two arguments. The difference is linear,
and not one expressed as a ratio between the two values (as is
the case with 'as A as' sentences - cf 8.1). It can be stated
numerically (if the adjective is numerical) or unstated. The expo
nents of the arguments may be singular referring expressions or
90 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF UNEAR DIFFERENCE
Other kinds of expressions, the predicate may be the marked or
the unmarked member of the antonymic pair, and the sentences
may be positive statements or negative statements. Examples can
be found in Tables 3.2-3.5, pp 52-5.
As stated in 3.5, we shall confine our attention chiefly to
sentences with singular definite referring expressions as exponents
of the arguments in the underlying propositions; the sample
sentences in Tables 3.2-3.5 all belong to this category. However,
we shall consider briefly also sentences with general and generic
expressions.
By "two arguments" we shall mean both those arguments
which have different referents, eg:
[1] James is stronger than Mark.
and those arguments which represent the "same" referent at
different times, eg:
[2] James is stronger now than he was ten years ago.
We are here up against the philosophical problem of the defi
nition of "sameness": you can't enter the same river twice. This is
a real problem; yet in our analysis it will be disregarded, since
speakers of English (and, it seems, speakers of natural languages
generally) do not seem bothered by it - either when it is a
problem of sameness across real time, as in [2], or when it
concerns hypothetical time or a hypothetical world. Consider the
following sentences (the first is an instance of the *as A as'
construction):
[3] John is as tall as he will ever be.
John is taller than I thought he was.
The two arguments may also represent two different referents
at two different periods of real or hypothetical time; for example:
[4] James is stronger than Mark was at his age.
Mary is as old as my sister would be now, were she alive.
Let us go back to sentence [i]. It is an alternative version of
[5]:
[5] James is stronger than Mark is.
In actual fact, [i] is usually represented as a shorter version of
[5]. It might seem therefore that we could simply add a form of
the^verb 'be' to the noun phrases at the end of the model
sentences in Table 3.2. Yet informal tests with native speakers
INTRODUCTION 91
show that the fuller version of comparative sentences, the one
with a form of 'be' after the secundum comparationis, is not
always acceptable. This seems particularly the case when one
noun phrase is a singular definite referring expression and the
other is a generic expression in the plural, and the sentence is
negative (cf [6a] below). It is alsothe casein many sentences with
the marked member of the antonymic pair; c/Da and D4 in Table
3.2, and [6b] below:
[6a] Cobras aren't thicker than my arm ('is).
[6b] Earthworms are thinner than my little finger (%).
This, of course, is a syntactic problem, closely related to the
problem of derivation of comparative sentences. Some scholars,
eg Hankamer (1973). suggest that 'than' can be either a comp
lementizer or a preposition{cf also Klein 1980:33). According to
this view, when 'than' functions as preposition there is no need
to postulate deletion or ellipsis in the derivation of sentences such
as 'Jude is taller than Mona' (sentences such as 'He is older than
me' exemplify this even better). This viewfinds support in gram
mars of languages other than English. In Latin, for example, the
comparative form of an adjective can be in construction either
with the prepositional phrase 'quam' + NP in the nominative or
accusative, or with an NP in the ablative: 'dulcior quam mel' or
'melle dulcior' - "sweeter than honey". However, if the
secundum comparationis is expressed by a relative pronoun, then
the ablative is the only form permissible: 'Patriam, qua nihil
potest esse carius, mihi reddidisti' ('qua' - "than which"). In
Polish there are also two possibilities. First, comparative forms
can be followed by 'niz', which is best treated as a complemen
tizer; eg 'Jest teraz silniejszy niz (byi) dawniej' - "(He) is now
stronger than (he was) before." Tê other possibility is for the
comparative adjective to be in construction with the prepositional
phrase 'od(e)' + NP in the genitive: 'On jest starszy ode mnie'
- "He is older than me." In Russian it is possible to follow
comparatives with phrases beginning with 'Cem' (the equivalent of
the Polish 'niz'), but if the secundum comparationis is a nominal,
then by far the most common form of expressing it is the genitive,
without a preposition: 'On starSe menya' - "He is older than me."
('menya' - "than me"). It is particularly Latin and Russian, with
their purely inflectional ways of presenting the secundum compar
ationis, that lend support to those who interpret 'than' in 'than
NF phrases as a preposition."'
The second term of comparison may, of course, be left unex-
92 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
pressed, being identifiable from tlie context. Consider the
following dialogue:
[7] X: Johnny is taller than Pete.
Y: Yeah, but he's older.
Whatever interpretation of the syntactic structure of compara
tive cons^ctions we adopt, it will not have a decisive influence
upon their semantic interpretation. In the following discussion we
shall use as examples comparative sentences with the second term
expressed, but in the shorter form, such as in [i] - whenever this
does not lead to ambiguity or present problems of acceptability.
We shall begin our discussion with sentences referring to one
dimension. They are all based on two-argument propositions; two
arguments are needed since otherwise there would not be
anything to compare.
6.2.1 Thedifference between the values oftheMqnot stated
numericaUy (type C sentences)
Members of open-scale antonymic pairs are characteristically
relative. Their relativity was investigated in two elicitation tests.
Category i items were used (c/ 4.2), that is, the subjects were
TABLE 6.1
Item
No.
Test sentence
N
Age in years
Mary 4-97 10 20.2
29 Mary is older than
54
Jane.
Jane 3-96 10 17.9
30 Martin's wife is older
than Ken's wife.
45
M's wife
K's wife
22-64()
ig-eow
30
20^)
37.2
33
Plus one case of 83 years.
Actually, there is no clear value of the mode of the distribution. Sevenrespondents
quoted 20 years as Ken's wife's age, 6 respondents quoted 30 years, 5 respondents
quoted 25 years, and the same number, 35 years.
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS 93
presented with sentences such as 'Mary is older than Jane' and
asked to complete the sentences 'Jane is about. . . years old' and
'Mary is about . . . years old'. The results were as in Table 6.1.
The results of test item 29 present an interpretation problem,
since the low values of the mode of the distribution and the mean
might be taken to indicate that for all but a few respondents
'older than' entails 'not old', for both argimients. This would
force us to include 'old' in box (v) in the matrix for êr type
comparatives (c/ Table i.i, p 11) and decide that 'old' was a
non-relative adjective. Yet these rather low estimates of age
could be attributed to the sociolinguistic fact that first names were
used in the test sentence, and perhaps also to the fact that the
majority of subjects were young undergraduates. Thus the results
might simply reflect a peculiar case of scale-relativity. The test
was therefore repeated, with the sentence reading 'Martin's wife
is older than Ken's wife' (test item 30), which eliminated the
bottom end of the scale of age. The subjects were largely the
same as previously.
The results of this test are significant in two respects. First, the
age estimates range along almost the whole scale (except its
bottom end). Secondly, this is true both of the first argument and
of the second argument of the proposition, and the difference
between the age estimates for (the referents of) the first and the
TABLE 6.2
Item
No.
Test sentence
N Age in years
Monica 3-52<") 9 17.8
Monica is younger
33
than 54
Eve.
Eve
4-600)
10 20.1
34
Linda's husband is
younger
than Pat's
husband.
45
L's husband
P's husband
16-45W
19-50W
SOW 30.4
40 35
<=' Plus one case each of 80 and 82 years.
Plus one case each of 83 and 90 years.
W Plus one case each of 60 and 68 years.
(i) There are, actually, two peaks of the distribution: 30years (9 responses) and 25 years
(8 responses).
() Plus one case each of 65 and 75 years.
second argument is always small; that is, the respondents did not
feel that the sentence WP,- is older than NP/ entailed, for
example, that (the referent of) NPi was "old" but (the referent
of) NPj was "not old". The widedispersion of the results and the
concurrence of the estimates for either argument allowus to place
the responses in box (ix) of the matrixfor 'Aef type comparatives
(t^Table i.i) - whichmeans that 'old' is a fullyrelative adjective.
The same procedure was used to investigatethe relativityof the
adjective 'young' (test items 33 and 34). The results (given in
Table 6.2) demonstrate full relativity of the adjective.
An anôgical procedure was applied to the antonymic pair
'tall': 'short' (test items 27 and 31). The results (given in Table
6.3) showfull relativity of both terms in the antonymic pair.
Full relativity of both members of the pair 'old' : 'young' can
be illustrated by the following set of entailment formulae:
[8] John is older than Peter #> John is old.
John is older than Peter ^ John is not old.
John is older than Peter Peter is old.
John is older than Peter Peter is not old.
TABLE 6.3
Item Test sentence N Height in feet and
No. inches
The postman 5 ft 6 in- 6ft 5ft
The postman is 6 ft(> 11 in
27 taller 42
than the milkman. The milkman 5 ft-5 ft 5 ft 5 ft
Hint'") 8inW5Jin
S's husband 5 ft-5 ft 5ft 5ft
Sylvia's husband is 10 inW 8 in 5i in
31 shorter than her 44 S's brother 5 ft 2 in- 5ft
brother. 6 ft 2 in<) Si in
<a) Plus one case of 7 ft.
t*') Plus one case of 3 fl.
There are three peaks of the distribution: 5 ft 8 in (7 responses), 5 ft 10 in (6
responses), and 5 ft 9 in (5 responses).
Plus one case each of 2 ft 4 in, 5 ft 11 in and 6 ft.
<) Plus one case of 3 ft.
There are three peaks of the distribution (8 responses each): 5 ft 6 in, 5 ft 8 in, and 5 ft
10 in. Seven respondents quoted 6 ft.
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAKS 95
[9] Peter is younger than John ^ Peter is young.
Peter is younger than John Peter is not young.
Peter is younger than John John is young.
Peter is younger than John John is not young.
These entailment formulae can be supplemented by formulae
characterizing relations between sentences with the comparative-
degree form of one member of the antonymic pair and sentences
with the positive-degree form of the other member of the pair.
They are as follows:
[id] John is older than Peter John is young.
John is older than Peter p John is not young.
John is older than Peter Peter is young.
John is older than Peter p Peter is not young.
[11] Peter is younger than John Peter is old.
Peter is younger than John Peter is not old.
Peter is younger than John John is old.
Peter is younger than John ^ John is not old.
Entailment formulae such as [8]-[ii] can also be written for the
pair 'tail' ; 'short', and there is reason to believe that elicitation
tests using sentences with members of other open-scale pairs of
antonyms would produce results whichwould allowus to classify
also those adjectives as fully relative. Consider the following
sentences:
[12] My car is wider/narrower than yours.
This swimming pool is deeper/shallower than that one.
Volume One is thicker/thinner than Volume Two.
Each of these sentences could be expanded by adding 'but it isn't
A/A' (for example, 'My car is wider than yours, but it isn't
wide'), or even by adding 'but neither of the two is A/A' (for
example, 'This skirt is shorter than that one, but neither of the
two skirts is short') - thus suggesting value-neutrality of these
adjectives in the comparative-degree form.
So far we have been discussing numerical adjectives, and we
might now write formulae for the semantic interpretation of
sentences with adjectives of this type. The basic formulae must
reflect the fact that the chief items of information conveyed by
an 'Aer than' comparative sentence With a fully relative adjective
are as follows: (i) name of the dimension, (ii) statement of a
difference between the values of the measure fimction for the two
arguments, (iii) indication which value is greater:
[13a] SS: NPb is Aei than NPc
SI: Md(&) > Md(c)
[13b] SS: NPc is Act than NPb
SI: Md(c) < Md(6)
where 'SS' stands for "sentence structure" and 'SI' for
'^semantic interpretation"; b and c are members of the domain
sets (B and C) of the measure function (potentially one and the
same set), represented in the sentence by NPb and NP/; A stands
for the unmarked member and A for the marked member of the
antonymic pair; and Md stands for (the value of) the measure
function for the dimension D defined by the antonymic pair
A : A.
Information conveyed by [13a] and [13b] can be expressed in
the sentence in different ways, as long as the three elements (i),
(ii), and (iii) mentioned above are all present. Thus instead of
'John is taller than Cedric' we can say, for example, 'John
surpasses Cedric in height'. In some languages it is the unit of
measurement and not the name of the dimension" that is
mentioned overtly. Thus, for example, the English sentence
'Mary is older than Jane' can be translated into Polish either
verbatim: 'Maria jest starsza od Janiny', or by saying 'Maria ma
wicej lat od Janiny' ("Mary has more years than Jane").
[13a] and [13b] are in a sense too strong, since they accom
modate, among others, such sentences as:
[14] My bicycle is longer than my car.
The sentence is an obvious exaggeration, since the maximum
value on the scale of length for bicycles is less than the minimum
value on the scale of length of cars; in other words, the scales of
length for bicycles and for cars do not even overlap. For an 'NPi,
is .<4er then NPc sentence to be acceptable literally we should
supplement [13a] with a pragmatic assumption and an empirical
normality condition:
[15] Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer will
identify correctly the sets B and C of which b and c are
members.
Empirical normality condition:
(3x)(3y) [xeB/\y&Ch MD(ai:) > MdCv)]
ie there exists at least one element of set B {eg bicycles) for which
the value of the measure function for the dimension D is greater
than the value of that function for the same dimension for at least
one element of set C {eg cars).
Having said all this, let us take a closer look at the elicitation
test results. Two observations should be made. The first one has
already been mentioned: namely that the differences between the
values of the measure function for the two arguments, quoted by
the subjects, are on the whole small (Table 6.4).
Thus it appears that when asked to quote values of the measure
function for two arguments, native informants tend to place them
fairly close together on the scale. This is only a statistical tend
ency; it is of course possible to say 'Mary is older than Jane' when
Mary is 70 and Jane 30 years old. Yet the results seem significant:
they can be taken to reflect the pragmatic tendency to use the
'Aer than' construction (with numerical adjectives) when the
difference in the values of the measure function for the two
arguments is indeed rather small. If Mary is 70 and Jane 30, the
situation seems more adequately described by the sentence:
[16] Mary is much older than Jane.
Here the difference between the values of the measure function
is quite considerable.'
In order to express this formally, we shall introduce the concept
of differential scale, ie the scale of differences between the values
(for two arguments) of the measure function for a dimension. A
value on the differential scale may be expressed exactly, by
stating the number of units by which the values of the measure
TABLE 6.4
Item Test sentence Mean average values ofMj^
No.
Lower Higher Difference
term term
29 Mary is older than Jane. 17.9 20.2 2.3
30 Martin's wife is older than
Ken's wife.
33.0 37.2 4.2
33 Monica is younger than Eve. 17.8 20.1 2.3
34 Linda's husband is younger than
Pat's husband.
30.4 35.0 4.6
27 The postman is taller than the
milkman.
5 ft 5Hn 5ft
11 in
5^ in
31 Sylvia's husband is shorter than
her brother.
5 ft in 5 ft 8i in 21 in
function for the two arguments differ; or it may be expressed
approximately, by stating that the value of the differences is an
element of the fu^ set many, or an element of the fuz2y set few.
Let us call these sets MANYoiff and FEWoiff. The membership of
these two fuzzy sets on the differential scale is different from the
membership of the sets many and few on scales of values of the
measure function: for example, the numbers constituting the set
MANYoiff are smaller than the numbers which make up the corre
sponding set MANY on the measure function scale. Forty years of
difference in age - as in [16] - counts as many on the differential
scale {ie is a member of the fuzzy set MANYoiff), but 40 years on
the scale of human age will not be considered an element of the
fuzzy set many on that scale.
We can now interpret [16] and other sentences with the phrase
'much êr than' in the following way:
[17] SS: NPb is much Aex than NPc.
SI: [Md(6) > Md(c)] a [MdC^) - Md(c) e MANYoiff
units].
The formula should probably be supplemented with a pragmatic
assumption and an empirical normdity condition along the lines
of [15]. Sentences with the phrase 'muchA&x than' can be inter
preted in a similar fashion.
So much about sentences with the phrases 'much Aqt than' and
'much Aqt than'. To go back to the general discussion of 'Aer
than' sentences and the elicitation tests: we can now supplement
[13a] and [13b] with the statement: 'Statistical tendency: Md(6)
- Md(c) e FEWoiff units.'
The second observation arising out of the results of the elici
tation tests is this: although members of the antonymic pairs
investigated are reciprocal (c/ [12] in Chapter i), the sets of
values on the dimension-scale which speakers associate with the
comparative-degree forms of those adjectives are different for
each member of the pair: 'younger than' is not a mirror reflection
of 'older than', nor is 'shorter than' a mirror reflection of 'taller
than'. We shall call this the pull effect: 'older than' and 'taller
than' pull towards 'old' and 'tall', while 'younger than' and
'shorter than' pull towards 'young' and 'short' respectively. This
is attested both by the mean average values of the measure func
tion and by the dispersion of the values of the Md, for each
adjective.
It seems reasonable to assume that the 'i4er than' and 'Aer
than' constructions do not differ from other pairs of constructions
in the language as far as the choice between the two is concerned:
the choice must be largely dictated by decisions on the distribu
tion of information in the sentence, ie whether one or the other
noun phrase is selected as topic and placed in thematic position,
the remaining one being part of the comment (or "rheme", in
Prague school terminology). However, the pull effect
commented on above seems to indicate that the speaker's choice
between the 'Aei than' and Âer than' constructions may be influ
enced by the absolute value of the measure function associated
with each argument. This does not invaUdate the assumption of
full relativity of the adjectives discussed; it is only another factor,
pragmatic in character, influencing the speaker's communicative
strategy.
A speaker who wants to deprive an adjective of its relative
character and signal that it is not to be interpreted in its value-
neutral function, uses the adjunct 'even'. The effect of using
'even' in sentences with the forms 'taller' and 'shorter' was inves
tigated in two elicitation tests (Nos 28 and 32); their results are
given in Table 6.5.
Thus, almost without exception, '6 is even taller than c' entails
both '6 is tall' and 'c is tall', and 'd is even shorter than e' entails
both'd is short' and 'e is short': the adjectives become semanti-
callyabsolute. The adjunct 'even' seems to have this absolutizing
effect on all relative adjectives (c/ 6.7). This can be represented
as follows:
[18] SS: NPb is evenAer [or: Aer even] than NPc-
SI: Md(6) > Md(c) a Md(c) e many units.
TABLE 6.5
Item
No.
Test sentence N Height infeet and inches
28
Peter is even 43 Peter 5ft llin- 6ft2in 6ft3|in
taller than Jim. 7ft 1 in
Jim 5ft7in- 6ft 6ft|in
7ft(a)
32 Mr Brown is
even shorter
than Mr Smith.
106
MrB.
MrS.
3ft 9 in-
5 ft 11 in^")
4 ft-
6ft2in
5ft
5ft()
Sftiin
S ft4in
(a) Plus one case of 5 ft.
Plus one case of 3 ft.
() There is a secondary peak at 5 ft 6 in.
T
A
B
L
E
6
.
6
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
N
o
.
4
9
T
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
A
i
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
5
t
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
Z
.
5
0
T
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
C
i
s
w
o
r
s
e
t
h
a
n
5
4
t
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
X
.
1
5
++
/
-
t
2
7
3
9
4
1
3
7
1
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
7
2
1
3
4
4
6
1
8
4
2
1
1
4
3
2
6
7
8
1
7
1
2
7
2
6
1
3
1
2
5
0
4
8
2
2
7
8
2
4
4
5
0
1
5
4
8
1
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
s
i
g
n
i
f
y
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
8
8
SI
*
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS lOI
[19] SS: NPc is even Act [or: Aer even] thanNPb.
SI: Md(c) < Md(6) a Md(6) e few units.
presumably with the addition of [15].
It was suggested in Chapter 2 that the interpretation of the
meaning of sentences with members of antonymic pairs of numer
ical adjectives in terms of the measure function can be extended
to cover non-numerical adjectives (cf p 37). If we accept this
point of view, then [13a] and [13b] will apply also to 'Aqx than'
sentences with such pairs as, for example, 'good' : 'bad'
(assuming that the pair has not been made numerical - cf 1.6).
This antonymic pair was the subject of two test items (Nos 49 and
50). They were of category 3 (see 4.2): the results are given in
Table 6.6.
As far as the adjective 'good' is concerned, as many as 39 out
of 55 informants stated that both the climate in A and the climate
in Z may be either good or not good (ie the response was
+/"> +/") thus testifying that for them the adjective is fully
relative (forprimumcomparationis the number of +/ responses
was even higher: 46). The remaining responses placed the values
of the measure function for the two arguments in various areas
of the scale. The responses support the thesis of the relativity of
the adjective: in test items dealing with numerical adjectives the
responses were also scattered widely on the scale. It is significant
that only one respondent treated 'good' as a fully absolute adjec
tive. Interestingly enough, for 11 subjects the climate in Z
{secundumcomparationi^ is not good: for 7out ofthem the adjec
tive is semi-relative. In this respect 'good' seems to differ from
typical relative adjectives from the numerical class: 'taller',
'older', 'longer', 'thicker', etc. never entail 'not tall', 'not old',
etc.
The pair 'good' : 'bad' differs from numerical pairs in yet
another respect: the adjective 'bad' does not behave Uke its
antonym 'good'. For 26 subjects the 'êr than' sentence with
'bad' entails that the climate in C is bad (the responses were:
+, +; +, and +, +/) and8 of them treated 'bad' as a fully
absolute adjective (+, +), while only 2 respondents considered
the 'worse than' sentence to signal that the secundum compara
tionis is "not bad".
These observations lead to the conclusion that an adjectival
pair may be reciprocal, symmetric, open-scale (cf [12] in 1.3)
without its members being unambiguously relative and without
them being mirror analogues of each other. This is tantamount
to saying that among open-scale antonymic pairs there are
subclasses. Outside the class of numerical adjectives perfectly
balanced pairs of semantically isomorphic antonyms areprobably
difficult to find - if they exist at all.
So far we have been discussing sentences with singular definite
referring expressions as exponents of the arguments in the under
lying propositions. We can now consider briefly sentences with
general and generic expressions. Sentences with general expres
sions can be treated as exponents of propositions with variables
under the universal quantifier; for example:
[20] My brothers are taller than my sisters.
(Vj:)(V3') [x MB Aye MS MHdghtW > MneightCy)]-
TABLE 6.7
*0
fj--I II
11 1:1 . 1 SE
Stn ^*^0
^ ^ o 0^0 13<D5
II III 11 Ip
mis ai? Ill
John is taller than Cedric.
Cedric is shorter than John.
My car is longer than a Cadillac.
This car is shorter than a Mini.
Pythons are thicker than my arm.
Earthworms are thinner than my
fingers.
Cortinas are longer than Escorts.
Escorts are shorter than Cortinas.
John isn't taller than Martin.
Cedric isn't shorter than Andrew.
Your car isn't longer than a Mini.
That car isn't shorter than a
Cadillac.
Cobras aren't thicker than my arm.
Vipers aren't thinner than my
fingers.
' C3c Swedes aren't taller than Americans.
C4c Americans aren't shorter than
Swedes.
+ + +
+ C1 .
+ + +
- C2
+ +
_
+
Cla
+ +
_
C2a
+
+ + Clb
+ - +
-
C2b
+
_
+
Clc
+
_
C2c
+ + +
C3
_
+ +

C4
+

+ C3a
+ - - C4a
+ + C3b
_ _
+
- C4b
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS IO3
It is generic statements, however, that are more interesting.
Table 3.2 (p 52) (type C sentences) could be expanded as shown
in Table 6.7. Three kinds of sentences have been added to Table
3.2. In sentences marked with lower-case 'a' the first NP is a
singular referring expression and the second is a generic expres
sion, in sentences marked with lower-case 'b' it is the other way
round, and in those marked with lower-case 'c' both NPs are
generic expressions. The generic expressions are either of the
essential type, ie they refer to standard-state sets, or they refer
to subsets or typical elements of sets {cf 5.1.1 and note 5 to
Ch. 5). Let us consider sentence Cic. It might be interpreted as
follows:
[21] Cortinas are longer than Escorts.
(Y*)(yy) [x e StState C a _y e StState E ^
MLength('*) ^ MLengthO')]-
The sentence 'Escorts are shorter than Cortinas' can be inter
preted along the same lines, and so can sentences with NPs
representing subsets of typical elements of sets - such as, for
example, 'Whales are bigger than elephants'.
Sentences in which only one NP is a generic expression do not
present additional interpretation problems.
6.2.2 The difference between the values of the Mq stated
numerically (type D sentences)
Examples of D-type sentences are given in [22] below.
[22] John is an inch taller than Cedric.
Cedric is an inch shorter than John.
Tjfpe D sentences convey all the information carried by type C
sentences, plus a statement of the numerical value of the iffer-
ence between the values of the measure function for the two
arguments. The latter item of information is independent from
the rest. This can best be observed by studying sentences from
the following sets (compare, in particular, [22] with [23b]):
[23a] John is taller than Cedric.
John surpasses Cedric in height.
Cedric is shorter than John.
[23b] John is taller than Cedric by an inch.
John surpasses Cedric in height by an inch.
Cedric is shorter than John by an inch.
The same is true of Polish:
[24a] Maria jest starsza od Janiny ("Mary is older than Jane").
Maria ma wicej lat od Janiny ("Mary has more years
than Jane").
Janina jest mtodsza od Marii ("Jane is younger than
Mary").
Janina ma mniej lat odMarii ("Jane has fewer years than
M&ry").
[24b] Maria jest starsza od Janiny o pi6 lat ("Mary is older
than Jane by five years").
Maria ma o pic lat wicej od Janiny ("Mary has five
more years than Jane").
Janina jest mtodsza od Marii opic lat ("Jane is younger
than Mary by five years").
Janina mao pid lat mniej odMarii ("Jane has five years
less than Mary").
Sentences [24b] are parallel to [24c]:
[24c] Maria jest pic lat starsza od Janiny ('Mary is five years
older than Jane").
Janina jest pig(5 lat mtodsza odMarii ("Jane isfive years
younger than Mary").
The generalized formulae for type D positive statements are
variants of [17]:
[25] SS: NPb is n units Aex than NPc.
SI: Broad: [Mo(b) > Md(c)] a [Md(6) - Md(c) 5= n
units].
Narrow: [Md(&) > Md(c)] a [Md(^') - Md(c) = n
units].
[26] SS: NPc is n units Aer than NPb-
SI: Broad: [Md(c) < Md(6)] a [Md(6) - Md(c) ^ n
units].
Narrow: [Md(c) < Md(^')] a [MD(fc) - Md(c) = n
units.]
TheSis of [25] and[26] refer just aswell to sentences from [23b].
These formulae for type D positive statements are analogues
of the formulae for the broad and narrow interpretation of Ai
sentences, presented above in 5.1.1.
D-type sentences can also contain hedges. The sentence struc
ture formula and the semantic interpretation are then as follows:
[27] SS-.NPbis
approximately
more or less
about
n units Act than NP.
C
SI: [Md(6) > Md(c)] a [Md(6) - Md(c)] n units
where n is a round number (in Wachtel's sense). The formulae
for sentences with the marked members of antonymic pairs ('n
units Aer than') can be written accordingly.
Let us note that [25]-[27] do not place any conditions on the
difference in the value of the measure function for the two argu
ments. Therefore they allow for such sentences as:
[28] The man was ten feet taller than the woman.
John is thirty years younger than his dog.
Yet [28] would be considered strange, or even deviant by most
speakers (unless somehow justified by context). To solve this
problem we can append to [25] and [26] a pragmatic assumption
and two empirical normality conditions: one parallel to [15], the
other characteristic of type D sentences. For [25] they can be
formulated as follows:
[29] Pragmatic assumption: the speakerassumes the hearer will
identify correctly the sets B and C of which b and c are
members.
Empirical normality conditions:
(i) (3a;)(3>') [jc6Ba>'Ca MD(jr) > MD(y)].
(ii) [Md(c) + n units] e |Db|.
Condition (ii) specifies that the value of the measure function for
dimension D for the smaller term, increased by n units, should
be an element of the fuzzy set of possible values of the measure
function for dimension D for the pther term. The fuzzy character
of theset | Db| reflects thefact that the maximum (and minimum)
values for a dimension of anything measurable are usually ill-
defined. In cases where they are well-defined, we can revise the
formula, changing |Db| to D^. This does not invalidate the
formula as it stands, since non-fuzzy sets can be considered
special cases of fuzzy ones.
Type D sentences in which the NPs are general or generic
expressions can be interpreted by analogy to similar sentences of
type C. Thus, for example, a sentence like
jQg COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
[30] Cortinas are fourteen inches longer than Escorts can be
interpreted in the same way as [21], with the addition of abracket
containing a statement of the difference, such as in [25].
63 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymic
dimensions
6.3.1 General description , ,
Sentences referring to two dimensions may be based on one-
argument or two-argument propositions (c/ Fig. 3.1, p50-1).
Examples:
[311 This swimming pool is wider than it is long.
That swimming pool is ten yards longer than it is wide.
[32] This swimming pool is longer than that one is wide.
This swimming pool is a yard longer than that one is wide.
More examples can be found in Table 3-3 (p 53)*
For a sentence referring to two dimensions to be understood
literally the dimensions must, orcourse, be comparable. It seems
that a general condition can be postulated for all sentences based
on propositions referring to two dimensions, both one-argument
and two-argument ones: namely that both dimensions must be
measurable in the same units. Thus we can compare length and
width, depth and width, etc. This is a necessary but not a suffi
cient condition, because insome cases comparing two dimensions
does not make senseeventhoughthey are both measurable in the
same units.
This condition hmits the scope of comparative sentences refer
ring to two dimensions to sentences with numerical adjectives (c/
1.6). This category isrepresented virtually only among open-scale
antonymic pairs of adjectives. Bounded-scale antonyms {eg
'full' : 'empty') are not numerical andso outside the scope of our
discussion. Individual numerical adjectives may be found among
asymmetric-scale and quasi-antonymic adjectives (c/5.1.4), but
it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find in those classes
pairs of adjectives (let alone pairs of antonymic pairs) referring
to compatible, co-comparable dimensions. This leaves us with
open-scale numerical adjectives, among which it is possible to
find a number of pairs which refer to two dimensions measured
both in the same units: almost exclusively, it seems, spatial
dimensions.
All this appUes to thosecomparative sentences which are meant
to be understood literally, in terms of concrete values of the
measure function. Looser, non-literal, and figurative uses are
different; here the dimensions need not be measured in the same
units or even have numerical scales, and both antonymicand non-
antonymic adjectives can be used. Consider the following
sentences (all of them based on one-argument propositions):
[33] I am more thirsty than I am hungry.
Diana is more pretty than (she is) intelligent.
Andrew is more hard-working than (he is) gifted.
This car is more comfortable than (it is) economical.
Such sentences with non-numerical adjectives have two proper
ties. First, it seems that when a sentence of this kind is based on
a one-argument proposition, the embedded comparative clause
cannot be reduced to the predicative adjective if the comparative
form of the adjective in the main clause is inflectional and not
periphrastic. Thus, the sentences in [34a] appear not to be well
formed, while those in [34b] seem acceptable:
[34a] n am thirstier than hungry.
'Diana is prettier than intelligent.
[34b] I am thirstier than I am himgry.
Diana is prettier than she is intelligent.
Secondly, the first adjective (the one in the comparative-degree
form) signals that the value on the dimension-scale which it
symbolizes is at least not low, while the secondadjective signals
a fairly low value on its dimension-scale. In other words, the
sentences in [33] suggest: "I am (quite) thirsty but not very
hungry", "Diana is (quite) pretty but not very intelligent",
"Andrew is (quite) hard-working but not very gifted", "This car
is (quite) comfortable but not very economical".
Let us now consider sentences in which both adjectives indi
cating the dimensions are numerical. Sentences based on one-
argument propositions (types E andF) are illustrated by [31], and
sentences based on two-argument propositions (type G and H),
by [32]. They are all characterized by the following properties.
First, both adjectives indicatingthe dimensions are value-neutral.
Secondly, the adjective in the 'than'-clause has to be the
unmarked member of the antonymic pair. It would be ungram-
matical to say
[35] *This swimming pool is wider than it is short.
The function of the adjective in the 'than'-clause is merely to
name the dimension; the value of the measure function for this
dimension remains unstated and serves as secundum compara-
I08 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF UNEAR DIFFERENCE
tionis. Thirdly, the adjective in the main clause (occurring in the
comparative degree) may be either the unmarked or the marked
member of the antonymic pair. Its function is twofold. First, it
names the dimension, the value of the measure function for which
serves as the first term of comparison. Secondly, it indicates
which value is greater: the one for the first term of comparison
(in which case the unmarked antonym is used) or the one for the
second term of comparison (which is signalled by the marked
antonym).
6.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions (types E
and F)
In type E sentences the difference between the values of the
measure function is not stated numerically. Examples;
[36] This swimming pool is wider than it is long.
That swimming pool is shorter than it is wide.
The generalized formulae for E-type sentences are as follows:
[37] SS: NPb is AiQT than NPh pron is A2.
SI: MDi(fe) > Md2(6).
[38] SS: NPb is Ai&x than NPbpron is A2.
SI: Mdi(6) < MD2(i').
In type F sentences the difference in the values of the measure
function is stated numerically. Examples:
[39] This swimming pool is ten yards longer than it is wide.
That swimming pool is a yard shorter than it is wide.
The generalized formulae for type F sentences are the same as
[37] and [38], plus a numerical statement of the difference
between the two values of the measure function:
[40] SS: NPb is n units Aiqx than NPbpron is A2.
SI: Broad: [Mdi(6) > Mozib)] a [MDi(b) - Mîb)
^ n units].
Narrow; [Mdi(6) > Md2(6)] a [Mdi(6) - MD2(fc)
= n units].
[41] SS: NPb is n units Ai&x than NPb pron is A2.
SI: Broad: [Mdi(6) < Md2(6)] a [Md2(6) - Uui(b)
> n units].
Narrow: [Mdi(&) < Md2(6)] a [Md2(&) - Mdi(6)
= n units].
Formulae for sentences with hedges can be written by analogy to
[27]-
SENTENCES WHH MEMBERS OFOPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS IO9
There is a general condition on empirical normality of E-type
and F-type sentences, namely that for the given class of referents
of the argument the dimensions compared can in fact differ in the
way indicated in the sentence: for example, that the width of a
swimming pool can be more than its length. This, in turn, presup
poses that length and width are not relative concepts, ie that they
can be estabUshed without reference to the relation between the
values of the measure function for each of the dimensions. In the
case of swimming pools this is possible: length of a pool is meas
ured along the tracks marked out for swimmers participating in
contests: from the deep end to the shallow one. Tables and desks
constitute a more difficult case; but if a table is of an expandable
or folding kind, its "length" can be established on independent
grounds, and when folded it can measure more across than along.
Assuming that the concepts of dimensions (such as "width" and
"length") can be established on independent grounds, the general
condition on empirical normality for [37] as well as for [40] is as
follows:
[42] (3x) [x e 5 A MdiW > Md2W]
where B is the domain set of the measure function. The same
formula applies to [38] and [41], only with the inequality sign
pointing in the opposite direction.
Type F sentences, such as [39], require yet another condition,
similar to [29(ii)], as a safeguard against such grammatical but
empirically deviant sentences as
[43] This swimming pool is two hundred and fifty yards longer
than it is wide.
For [40] this condition, which supplements [42], is as follows;
[44] [Md2(6) + n units] e | Dib| .
Type E and type F sentences in which the NP is a general or
generic expression can be interpreted by analogy to type C and
D sentences of these kinds. Here are two examples:
[45a] Ampio filing cabinets are deeper than they are wide.
[45b] Amplo filing cabinets are an inch deeper than they are
wide.
[45a] might be interpreted as follows:
[46] [Vjf) [x e StState AFC MoepthC^:) > Mwidth(*)]
where 'StState AFC stands for 'Standard State Amplo Filing
cabinets'. [45b] might be interpreted in the same way, with the
no COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
addition of a bracket containing a statement of the difference
between the values of the measure function for each dimension.
6.3.3 Sentences based on two-argnment propositions (types G
and H)
Examples of sentences of these types were given in [32]. More
examples can be found in Table 3.3 (p 53).
Everything that was said about type E and type F sentences
applies also to sentences of types G and H. The semantic inter
pretation formulae [37]. [38], [40], and [41] can easily be adapted
to fit E-type and F-type sentences: all that is needed is substitu
tion of c for the argument of Md2 (and, accordingly, NPc for NPb
pron). Empirical normality formulae for sentences of these types
are rather complex. For E-type sentences they can be writtenby
combining elements of [15] and [42]; for F-type sentences, a
modified version of [44] would have to be added.
pairs: negative statements
6.4.1 The differencebetweenthe valuesof the Md not stated
numerically (type C sentences)
TABLE 6.8
Item Testsentence John'slMike's No. of
No. height responses
35 John isn't taller than Peter 5 ft 10 in 31
(Peter is 5 ft 10in tall). '<5 ft 10in'<) 2
5ft9iin 7
5 ft 9 in 19
<5 ft 9 in 9
N = 6S
37 Mike isn't shorter than Peter 5 ft 10 in 28
(Peter is 5 ft 10 in tall). '>5 ft 10 in'W 2
5 ft lOJ in 5
5 ft 11 in 15
5 ft m in 1
6ft 13
>6ft 3
The responses read: *Less than 5 ft 10 in tall.'
The responses read: *More than 5 ft 10 in tall.*
JV = 67
SENTENCES WTTH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS 111
Negative 'êr than' sentences were investigatedin four elicitation
tests (test items 35-38). Their results are presented in Tables 6.8
and 6.9.
For all the respondents a negative Âer than' sentence entails
either that the value of the Md for both arguments is the same
or that the value of the Md for the first argument is less than its
value for the second argument. There is a more or less equal
distribution of the two kinds of responses. This can be formulked
as foUows:
TABLE 6.9
Item
No.
Test sentence N
Age in years
36
Barbara isn't older
than Ruth. 54
Barbara
Ruth
1-41W
1-41W
10 18.9
10 19.6
38
Graham isn't younger
than Mark. 54
Graham
Mark
3-32W
3-32W
12('') 15.5
10 14.8
36
Barbara isn't older
than Ruth.
Barbara's
age
No. of
responses
Graham isn't younger
38 than Mark.
The same as Ruth
6 months younger
A year younger
\\ years younger
2, 3, or 4 years younger
Graham's
age
The same as Mark
6 months older
A year older
2 years older
3 or 5 years older
(0) Plus one case each of 81, 88, and 97 years.
C") Pius one case each of 81, 88, and 100 years.
(4 Plus one case each of 55 and 90 years.
There is a secondary peak at 10 years.
() Plus one case each of 50 and 89 years.
30
1
16
1
6
Ar = 54
No. of
responses
29
1
16
6
2
N = 54
112 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF UNEAR DIFFERENCE
[47] SS: NPb is not Aer than NPc.
SI: Md(6) Md(c).
Similarly for 'êr thjin' sentences the formulae are:
[48] SS: NPc is not Aer thanNPb-
SI: Md(c) ^ Md(6).
Closer scrutiny of the test results leads to two observations,
which parallel those made in 6.2.1. The first one is that in the
majority of the responses the difference between the values of the
measure function for the two arguments is small: in test items 35
and 37 it is usually no more than an inch, in items 36 and 38 it
is mostly one year. We might therefore supplement [47] and [48]
with the statement: 'statistical tendency: [Md(6) Md(c)] e
FEWoiff units' (cfp 98).
The other observation relates to the "pull effect" commented
on p 98: both in positive and in negative 'Aer than' state
ments 'older than' pulls towards 'old' and 'younger than' pulls
towards 'young'. Presumably this can be generalized; 'Aer tiian'
pulls towards Â' and 'Aer than' towards 'A\
6.4.2 The difference between the values of the Md stated
numerically (type D sentences)
First let us repeat the formulae for D-type positive statements:
[25] SS: NPb is n units Act than NPc.
SI: Broad: [Md(6) > Md(c)] a [MdC^j) - Md(c) > n
units].
Narrow: [Md(6) > Md(c)] a [Md(6) - Md(c) = n
units].
[26] SS: NPc'is n units Aei th&nNPb-
SI: Broad: [Md(c) < Md(&)] a [Md(6) - Md(c) ^ n
units].
Narrow: [Mp(c) < MoCfc)] a [Md(6) Md(c) = n
units].
A negative statement of type D, ie a D3 or D4 sentence, may
mean one of three things:
(i) Negation may refer to the first bracket only, implying a
reversal of the inequality sign. Consider the following dialogue:
[49] X: John is an inch taller than Cedric.
Y: No, he is an inch shorter.
(ii) Negation may refer to the second bracket only, on the
narrow interpretation, implying that the figure expressing the
SENTENCES WHH BOUNDED-SCALE ANTONYMICPAIRS II3
difference between the values of the measure function is incor
rect. Example:
[50] X: Jane is five years younger than Mary.
Y: No, she is eight years younger.
(iii) Negation may refer to both brackets. Consider the
following examples:
[51] X: This route is ten miles longer than the one I suggested.
Y: Nonsense, it's five miles shorter.
[52] X: This bed is an inch wider than that one.
Y: You are wrong: it's exactly the same width.
The clues to the correct interpretation of the negative sentence
are usually supplied by the prosodic features.
It is interesting to note that in 'much Aer than' sentences, such
as [16], negation seems to apply usually to the second bracket of
[17] and results in replacing 'MANYoia' with 'FEWoiff'.
6.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale antonymic
pairs
'y4er than' sentences with members of the antonymic pair
'full' : 'empty' were the subject of test items 44 and 45. They were
category 2 items (c/4.2). The results are presented in Table 6.10.
Two main conclusions can be drawn from the results of the tests.
The most significant one is that a 'fuller than' sentence entails that
neither container is empty and one of them may be completely
full. On the other hand, an 'emptier than' sentence entails that
one of the containers is not full and may be completely empty,
while the other one is not empty and may be completely fuU.
TABLE6.10
Item
No.
Test sentence N Fraction ofbottlefilled
Dispersion Mean
44 This bottle is 53 This bottle 0.2-1.0 0.76
fuller than That bottle 0.1-0.9 0.42
that one.
45 This bottle is
emptier than
that one.
52 This bottle
That bottle
00
b
11
0
0.22
0.55
T
A
B
L
E
6
.
1
1
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
+
+
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
-
-
+
/
-
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
N
o
.
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
5
2
M
y
s
h
i
r
t
i
s
d
r
i
e
r
5
4
1
6
6
6
1
0
2
4
1
^
'
'
1
3
6
3
4
1
2
2
3
0
g
t
h
L
m
y
s
o
c
k
s
.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
4
4
2
2
5
1
1
6
4
2
4
2
5
7
^
'
M
i
n
u
s
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
s
i
g
n
i
f
y
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
Ow
SENTENCES WTTH ASYMMETRIC-SCALE ADJECTIVAL PAIRS II5
Thus it appears that the 'fuller than' and 'emptier than' construc
tions are not exact converses.
Secondly, the pull effect which we commented on before in our
discussion of sentences with members of open-scale antonymic
pairs (c/6.2.i and 6.4.1) can be observed here as well: the mean
average values of the Mp for 'this bottle' and for 'that bottle' are
lower in 'emptier than' sentences than they are in 'fuller than'
sentences. It is interesting that the difference between the mean
average values is in both types of sentences the same, namely
0.33. However, in individual responses the differences between
the values of the Mp for 'this bottle' and for 'that bottle' varied
quite considerably.
Ignoring the pull effect, we can represent the structure and
meaning of '.<4er than' sentences with the adjectives 'full' and
'empty' as follows:
[53] SS: NPb is fuller than NPc
SI: [Mp(6) > Mf(c)] a [0 < Mp(b) ^ i] a [0 < Mf(c)
<i]
where b e C a c e C.
[54] SS: NPc is emptier than NP/,
SI: [Mp(c) < Mf(6)] A [0 Mf(c) < i] a [0 < Mp{b)
^x]
Negative statements with bounded-scale antonyms have not been
investigated in elicitation tests. It seems that their structure and
meaning can be represented by the following formulae:
[55] SS: NPb is not fuller than NPc
SI: Mf(6) Mf(c)
where b e C a c e C,
[56] SS: NPc is not emptier than NPb
SI: Mp(c) 5: Mp(6)
6.6 Sentences with asymmetric-scale adjectival pairs
Asymmetric-scale adjectival pairs were represented in elicitation
tests by the pair 'dry' : 'wet' (test items 52 and 53). The results
are presented in Table 6.11.
The first, obvious, conclusion is that 'dry' and 'wet' differ from
each other in their semantic characteristics. Of the respondents,
44 per cent considered 'dry' to be fully relative and 19 per cent,
semi-relative - so that altogether for about two-thirds of the
Il6 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
respondents 'dry' is a relative adjective (ie it belongs in boxes
(ix) and (viii) in Table i.i, p ii). At the same time more than
40 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that the test
sentence implies that (the referent of) the second term of
comparison is not dry. Among them there were six who gave the
) response: "not dry" for both terms. The response
is a characteristic feature of this adjective (and probably of the
unmarked terms of all asymmetric pairs). It occurs again in test
item 51 ('as dry as') - cf Table 8.11, p 172 - but is only very
sporadically found in tests dealing with other adjectives. About
a quarter of the respondents considered (the referent of) the first
term of comparison to be dry, ie they treated the adjective as
absolute. This wide variety of responses can be summed up as
foUows. On the whole, 'dry' is treated as a relative adjective, but
there is a strong tendency to consider (the referent of) the second
term of comparison to be not dry, and a weaker tendency to
consider (the referent of) the first term to be dry.
On the other hand, 'wet' was almost unanimously considered
an absolute adjective: for almost nine-tenths of the respondents
the test sentence entails that (the referent of) the first term (ie
'my towel') is wet; that is, they considered 'wet' to be at least
weakly absolute. Nearly 60 per cent of the respondents decided
that the test sentence implied that 'your towel' was wet too; that
is, they considered the adjective fully absolute.
To recapitulate: 'NPb is drier than NPc may be interpreted as
meaning either that both b and c are diy, or that both b and c
are not dry, or that one of them is dry and the other one is not;
but there is strong presumption that the speaker wants the hearer
to interpret the sentence as meaning that c is not dry and a
weaker presumption that he wants himto regard b as dry. On the
other hand, 'NPa is wetter than NP/ will almost certainly be
interpreted as meaning that d is wet and that presumably e is wet
too.
To what extent the pair 'dry' : 'wet' typifies asymmetric-scale
antonyms could only be ascertained with the help of more elici-
tation tests, but the pair seems to be quite typical. Let us consider
such pairs as 'clean' : 'dirty' and 'well' ; 'ill'. A person who says
'This towel is cleaner than that one' probably implies that 'that
towel' is not clean, even though 'this towel' may not be clean
either. If 'Your shoes are dirtier than mine' then 'your shoes'
must be dirty and presumably 'my shoes' are not clean either. A
statement such as 'I feel better today than I did yesterday'
obviously implies that yesterday I was not well, while a statement
like 'John feels worse now than an hour ago' suggests that John
SENTENCES WTIH ASYMMETRIC-SCALE ADJECTIVAL PAIRS II7
is ill (and presumably was already ill an hour ago). Both
'clean' : 'dirty' and 'well' : 'ill' (and other asymmetric-scale anto-
nymic pairs) do seem to pattern with 'dry' : 'wet'.
When the unmarked member of an asymmetric-scale adjectival
pair used in an 'Aer than' sentence is treated as a fully relative
adjective, then the sentence is interpreted in the same way as
sentences with open-scale antonyms, that is along the lines of
[13a]. There is, however, a difference: 'dry', 'clean', 'well', etc.
signify absence of a feature (ie Md = o) - absence of
moisture/dir^disease, etc. Therefore 'Aei than' sentences with
them signal the '<' relation - less moisture/dirt/disease, etc. - and
not the '>' relation, as do sentences with open-scale antonymic
pairs. This can be represented, for example, as follows:
[57] SS: NPb is drier than NPc
SI: MM < Mh(c)
where 'Mh' stands for "(the value of) the measure function of
humidity".
When the unmarked member of an asymmetric-scale pair is
treated as semi-relative, ie the respondents' response is (+/-,
-), then as 'Aer than' sentence is interpreted in the following
way:
[58] SS: NPb is Aer than NPc
SI: [Md(6) < Md(c)] a [Md(c) o]
where 'D' represents dimensions characteristic of asymmetric
scales: such as those of "humidity", "dirt", "illness", etc. The
statement in the second pair of brackets, 'Md(c) ^ o', is cate
gorical, not relative. This is due to the fact that members of asym-
metric-scale antonymic pairs are contradictories, rather than
contraries; cf the discussion in 5.3.3.
Four more different interpretations of unmarked members of
asymmetric-scale pairs are possible. The adjective 'dry' was
considered by some subjects, respectively: negatively absolute
(-, ), wealdy absolute (+, +/-), or semi-absolute (+, -); and
one respondent even treated it as fally absolute (+, +) - strange
as this may seem. The statement of the relation between the
values of the measure function for the two arguments is in all
cases the same as in the first pair of brackets in [58], but the
content of the second pair of brackets is in each case different,
namely:
[59] for negatively absolute (-, -) adjectives, [Md(6) ^ 0 a
Md(c) 0],
Il8 COMPARATIVESENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
for weakly absolute (+, +/) adjectives, [Md(6) = o],
for semi-absolute (+, ) adjectives, [Md(6) = o a Md(c)
o],
for fully absolute (+, +) adjectives, [Md(6) = o a Md(c)
= o]."
Thus it could be said that the lexeme [drai], in the written form
'dry', is in actual fact a set of homonyms; and the same probably
applies to the unmarked members of other asymmetric-scale
pairs.
The several possible interpretations of the marked members of
asjmimetric-scale pairs, such as 'wet', 'dirty', 'ill', etc., can be
written in a similar fashion.
with unary-scale adjectives
Each member of a quasi-antonymic pair (such as
'economical' : 'uneconomical') delimits a separate scale, but the
scale defined by the marked (negative) term constitutes part of
the scale defined by the unmarked antonym. We shall deal with
marked terms (such as 'uneconomical') later and concentrate now
on unmarked ones.
Analysis of eUcitation test results shows that semantically
'economical' resembles closely such unary-scale adjectives as
'pretty' and 'sensible'. These three adjectives will therefore be
discussed together. They were investigated in lo tests (test items
55-58, 60-62 and 68-70), each adjective occurring in three types
of sentences, namely (i) with neutral stress and intonation
pattern, (ii) with extra strong stress, a high booster, and high
falling intonation on the second NP, (iii) with extra strong stress,
a high booster, and high faUing intonation on the adjective. The
tenth sentence contained the adjective 'economical' preceded by
the adjunct 'even'. The results of the tests are presented in Table
6.12.
The most obvious and interesting conclusion to be drawn from
the test results is that these adjectives cannot be unambiguously
classified either as absolute or as relative, since the respondents
were divided in their interpretation of them. In type (i) sentences,
investigated in test items 55, 60, and 68, approximately half the
respondents treated the adjectives as relative; namely, fully
relative {+/-, +/). The other half treated them as absolute,
mostly weakly absolute (+, +/); very few respondents treated
them as fully absolute (-I-, +). They are thus different semanti
cally from members of symmetric-scalepairs, both open-scale and
T
A
B
L
E
6
.
1
2
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
N
o
.
+
+
+
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
+
-
+
!
-
-
-
+
1
-
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
5
5
M
o
n
i
c
a
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
m
o
r
e
4
0
-
-
4
1
3
1
6
1
2
0
1
(
a
)
1
9
2
1
5
3
6
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
t
h
a
n
T
e
d
'
s
c
a
r
.
7
3
9
2
4
9
2
4
8
5
2
7
2
5
5
6
0
P
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
i
s
p
r
e
t
t
i
e
r
t
h
a
n
6
5
5
2
2
6
1
1
3
0
3
3
1
3
1
5
4
5
6
J
u
l
i
a
.
8
3
4
0
2
2
4
6
5
i
2
4
5
8
6
5
6
6
8
T
i
n
a
i
s
m
o
r
e
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
t
h
a
n
6
8
-
-
6
9
2
8
2
8
4
2
6
1
(
b
)
3
8
_
3
1
2
1
2
5
4
M
a
r
i
o
n
.
3
1
1
4
1
6
3
8
1
5
5
4
5
5
7
5
7
9
5
7
J
o
h
n
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
m
o
r
e
5
5
5
3
1
0
1
3
2
4
_
_
1
8
3
7
5
1
6
3
4
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
t
h
a
n
p
e
i
e
r
'
s
.
9
5
1
8
2
4
5
3
6
7
9
2
9
6
2
6
1
L
i
n
d
a
i
s
p
r
e
t
t
i
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
5
2
4
1
4
1
7
1
8
2
0
_
3
5
2
2
1
3
2
K
A
T
E
.
4
7
2
5
3
1
3
3
5
6
6
4
4
5
5
5
5
7
0
A
n
n
a
b
e
l
i
s
m
o
r
e
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
5
5
4
2
1
3
1
1
9
1
6
1
9
1
3
5
4
2
2
2
9
t
h
a
n
J
A
N
E
T
.
7
4
2
4
2
3
4
2
9
3
4
2
6
5
7
4
(
?
5
5
5
6
J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
m
o
r
e
5
4
2
6
1
8
9
1
9
_
2
6
2
8
2
1
5
3
7
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
A
L
t
h
a
n
L
u
k
e
'
s
c
a
r
.
4
1
1
3
3
1
7
J
5
5
2
4
2
5
6
9
6
2
L
a
u
r
a
i
s
m
o
r
e
p
r
h
r
i
Y
5
3
-
-
5
4
6
3
2
3
1
2
0
1
(
c
)
3
2
_
2
1
6
4
4
4
t
h
a
n
P
a
t
.
1
1
5
4
3
2
3
8
2
6
0
4
0
7
7
7
5
7
6
9
H
i
l
d
a
i
s
m
o
r
e
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
5
5
2
7
2
5
6
1
5
3
4
2
1
2
1
3
4
0
t
h
a
n
C
l
a
r
e
.
4
1
3
4
5
i
i
2
7
6
2
3
8
4
2
4
7
5
5
8
W
e
n
d
y
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
e
v
e
n
m
o
r
e
4
0
-
-
4
1
3
6
1
2
1
1
(
d
)
3
9
1
3
7
1
3
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
t
h
a
n
P
e
t
e
'
s
c
a
r
.
8
8
2
5
2
2
9
5
2
9
0
2
7
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
a
r
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
a
n
i
t
e
m
.
(
)
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
'
m
i
n
u
s
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
*
p
l
u
s
/
m
i
n
u
s
*
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
y
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
'
p
l
u
s
/
m
i
n
u
s
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
'
p
l
u
s
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
n
I1
co
V
O
bounded-scale, which are unambiguously relative, and from such
unmarked members of asymmetric-scale pairs as 'dry' or 'clean',
which are treated by the majority of speakers as relative.
In type (ii) sentences the second NP (the exponent of the
second term of comparison) was given extra strong stress with a
high booster and high falling intonation by the person in charge
of the test who read these sentences ioud. These prosodic
features were also signalled in the test booklets by printing the
relevant words in block capitals. These sentences were the subject
of test items 57, 61, and 70. The prosodic changes affected the
interpretaion of the sentences by some of the respondents: fewer
of them interpreted the adjective as absolute, and more as rela
tive. The most characteristic change was in the treatment of the
secundum comparationis: up to 40 per cent of the subjects
considered that the test sentence entailed 'NPc is not A' ('NPc
represents here the secundum comparationis). Thus 'Annabel is
more sensible than janet' was taken by many to imply that Janet
was certainly not sensible. Interestingly enough, although the
overall percentage of subjects who treated the adjective as abso
lute ('-I-' for primum comparationis) was in sentences of this type
much lower than in type (i), the percentage of those who consid
ered the adjective to be fully absolute (+, -f-) was in the majority
of cases higher than before. A possible explanation of this is that
these respondents treated type (ii) sentences as equivalent to
sentences with the adjunct 'even': 'Annabel is more sensible than
JANET' meant for them "Annabel is more sensible even than
Janet" - in which case the adjective was of course treated as fully
absolute.
Sentences of type (iii), ie those with extra strong stress, a high
booster, and high falling intonation on the adjective, were inves
tigated in test items 56, 62, and 69. The effect of giving promi
nence to the adjective seems to have been the same in the case
of 'economical' and 'sensible': more subjects considered that the
test sentence entailed ''NPc is not A\ TTiis effect was similar to
that observed in type (ii) sentences, but it was not accompanied
by a drop in the percentage of subjects who treated the adjective
as absolute, which remained the same, or even went up.
However, the overall picture of type (iii) sentences is not
uniform, since the adjective 'pretty' gave different fesults: ones
that were not significantly different statistically from the results
obtained in the test item with neutral stress and intonation
pattern, ie in type (i) sentences. This may be due to the fact that
the form used was 'more pretty', parallel to 'more economical'
and 'more sensible', although the adjective 'pretty' has an
SENTENCES WITH QUASI-ANTONYMIC ADJECTIVAL PAIRS 121
inflected comparative form 'prettier'. We are here faced with the
problem briefly mentioned earlier (in 6.1.1), namely that of the
semantic relationship between the inflected and the periphrastic
comparatives of those adjectives which admit of both forms.
Maybe 'prettier' would have been found to pattern with 'more
economical' and 'more sensible' while in the case of 'more
pretty' some other factor or factors operated. The problem is as
yet unsolved and at this stage of investigation we have to leave
it at that.
Test item 58 investigated the effect of preceding the phrase
'more economical' with the adjunct 'even'. The results were even
more unequivocal than in test item 28 ('even taller' - cf Table
6.5): all but one of the subjects treated the adjective in the phrase
preceded by 'even' as absolute; all but four, as fully absolute.
The other three adjectives studied in the elicitation tests were
'extravagant', 'cruel', and 'red'; the last two often quoted as
typical absolute adjectives. The results of the investigation of 'yler
than' sentences with these adjectives (test items 64, 74, and 79)
are presented in Table 6.13.
'Cruel' comes closest to being typically absolute; more than 80
per.cent of the subjects saw it that way, but only 42 per cent
considered it to be fully absolute. Surprisingly, for a number of
respondents 'cruel' is a relative adjective, ie it defines a scale on
which you can place two persons and state that one is crueller
than the other, without considering either of them cruel - just as
you can state that someone is more sensible than someone else
without considering either of them truly sensible.
Colour adjectives are usually assumed to be absolute; and yet
fewer than two-thirds of the subjects treated 'red' as an absolute
adjective (only 40 per cent as fully absolute). When considered
as absolute, 'red' defines a scale of intensity, with 'redder'
meaning "more intensely red"; when considered as relative, it
defines a scale of something like "approximation to redness",
with 'redder' meaning "closer to red", "having a redder tinge in
its colour".
'Extravagant' seems to stand midway between adjectives such
as 'cruel' or 'red', which tend to be interpreted by many as fully
absolute, and others, such as 'economical', 'pretty', and
'sensible', which hardly any respondents considered fully abso
lute. 'Extravagant' was considered at least weakly absolute by
two-thirds of the subjects, but fully absolute only by a fifth of
them. For 80 per cent of the respondents 'Xis more extravagant
than y does not entail either that Y is extravagant or that it is
not extravagant: it may be either.
T
A
B
L
E
6
.
1
3
I
t
e
m
N
o
.
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
++
+
11
++
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
6
4
D
a
v
i
d
i
s
m
o
r
e
e
x
t
r
a
v
a
g
a
n
t
6
6
-
6
7
1
2
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
(
a
)
4
4
2
3
1
2
2
5
2
t
h
a
n
G
a
r
y
.
1
8
1
4
5
1
3
3
1
6
6
3
4
1
8
3
7
9
7
4
R
o
b
i
s
m
o
r
e
c
r
u
e
l
6
9
2
9
_
_
_
2
7
1
1
2
_
_
5
6
1
3
2
9
1
3
9
t
h
a
n
M
i
k
e
.
4
2
3
9
1
1
7
8
1
1
9
4
2
1
5
7
7
9
J
a
n
e
t
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
r
e
d
d
e
r
4
4
-
4
5
1
8
x
(
b
)
9
X
X
1
6
2
(
^
)
2
8
X
1
6
1
8
X
2
6
t
h
a
n
G
r
e
g
o
r
y
'
s
c
a
r
.
4
0
2
0
3
6
4
6
4
3
6
4
1
5
9
<
o
)
'
P
l
u
s
*
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
^
M
i
n
u
s
*
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
w
e
r
e
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
t
e
s
t
i
t
e
m
.
T
w
o
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
:
'
p
l
u
s
'
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
;
a
n
d
'
p
l
u
s
/
m
i
n
u
s
*
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
s
i
g
n
i
f
y
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
8O*
r
r
i
'
Z
SENTENCES WITH QUASI-ANTONYMIC ADJECTIVAL PAIRS 123
The test resuhs confirm the observation made before, namely
that exclusively absolute adjectives are hard to find - if theyexist
at all. An adjective which the speaker wants to be interpreted as
fully absolute defines a scale of intensity of whatever feature it
ascribes to (the referent of) the noun phrase with which it is in
construction. 'Act than' sentences with fully absolute adjectives
ire based on propositions interpretable in terms of the measure
function which maps arguments (ie members of the domain set)
on to the scale of intensity, ascribing to one of them a value which
is greater than that ascribed to the other; the units on the scale
remain unspecified. The same adjective may be used by another
speaker (or bythe same speaker on another occasion) as relative.
'Aer than' sentences with it will then be interpretable in the same
way as such sentences with typically relative adjectives; for
example, open-scale ones.
The basic formula for the semantic interpretaion of 'Act than'
sentences with the unmarked members of quasi-antonymic pairs
(such as 'economical') and of sentences of this kind with unary-
scale adjectives (such as 'pretty', 'extravagant', 'cruel', etc.) is
then the same as in the case of 'Aer than' sentences with other
adjectives: that is, the same as that stated in [13a]. We shall
repeat it here as [60]:
[60] SS: NPb is Aer than NPc.
SI: Uoib) > Md(c).
If the adjective is treated as fully relative, then this formula
suffices. If, however, it is given one of the other possible inter
pretations, then [60] must be supplemented by one of the
following statements:
[61] for weakly absolute (+, +/-) adjectives: Md(6) e many
units.
for fully absolute (+, +) adjectives: e manyunits a
A Md(c) 6 many units.
Again it seems that the adjectives from the classes discussed
here are best treated as sets of homonyms, rather than as single
lexemes.
Sentences with the marked terms of quasi-antonymic pairs - eg
'uneconomical' - have not been investigated by means of elici-
tation tests. It seems that all native speakers treat the"marked
members of quasi-antonymic pairs as absolute. For most speakers
they are fully absolute; this can be represented formally as
follows:
[62] SS: NPb is (even) more uneconomical than NPc.
SI: [MEcon(i) < MEoon(c)] A [MecodC^) 6 FEW UnitS A
A MEcon(c) e FEW units].
We noted before (cf 6.2.1, Table 6.5, and 6.7) that the adjunct
'even' has an absolutizing effect on the adjectives it modifies. It
seems that the converse is also true: if the speaker treats an
adjective as fully absolute, he will tend to modify it by the adjunct
'even'. Hence 'even' in parentheses in the above formula for the
sentence structure.
Some speakers, however, appear to treat the marked quasi-
antonyms as weakly absolute: for them 'x is more uneconomical
than >*' does not entail that y is uneconomical. This interpretation
can be represented as follows:
[63] SS: NPb is more uneconomical than NPc.
SI: [MEcon(f') < Mecoii(c)] A [MEcon(6) 6 FEW Units].
Whichever interpretation we adopt, the scale defined by the
marked member of a quasi-antonymic pair constitutes part of the
scale defined by the unmarked antonym. Thus the following holds
true:
[64] A Rolls-Royce is even more uneconomical than a Rover
A Rover is more economical than a Rolls-Royce.
6.8 Comparative-degree forms of adjectives used in
attributive function
The observations on the semantic interpretation of non-compara
tive forms of adjectives used in attributive function (c/ 5.5) are
largely valid also for the interpretation of comparative-degree
forms of attributive adjectives. In both cases the reference set
and - often - the scale are specified by the head noun. Thus (to
quote examples from the Survey corpus), 'the earlier Neolithic
civilization' is "earlier on the time-scde of human civilizations";
'one of the larger institutions' is "larger for an institution"; 'a
clearer idea' is "clearer as far as ideas aie concerned" - and so
on.
Attributive-only adjectives again present a problem: 'bigger' in
'a bigger liar' does not refer to the size of the person, only to the
size of hiêr lies. Again it is usage-cum-context that is decisive
in the semantic interpretation of phrases of this kind.
There is, however, one essential difference between attributive
comparatives and predicative comparatives. When a comparative
adjective is used attributively, the second term of comparison is
COMPARATIVE DEGREE FORMS OF ATTRIBUnVE ADJECTIVES 125
almost always left unstated and has to be supplied from the
context. Let us consider the following sentences from the Survey
corpus:
[65] there are a dozen smaller sites
no earlier Shang remains were found
[he] is now a much tougher gentleman
to get back to happier things
[this] may produce better results
The 'smaller sites' are, clearly, "smaller than the other sites
mentioned in the text"; 'happier things' are "happier than the
things we have been talking about"; 'a tougher gentleman' is
obviously to be interpreted as "tourer than he was before".
When the secundum comparationis is thus supplied, semantic
interpretation can be obtained by applying formulae [13].
It is not unusual, however, for the second term of comparison
not to be retrievable from the context. Consider the following
examples from the Survey corpus:
[66] on the advice of an older manon whom I then had a crush
in the later '60s
the younger generation [. . .] accept it
No other man and no other occasions of 'having a crush on some
body' need be mentioned in the text, either earlier or later, for
the phrase 'an older man' to be interpreted correctly. The same
is true of the phrases 'the later '60s' and 'the younger generation':
in such cases the second term of comparison is not retrievable
from the context.
It seems that all phrases of this kind are best interpreted as
having as the secundum comparationis the fuzzy set of values of
the measure function characterizing the other member of the
antonymic pair. Therelationship, however, is complex. Thus, for
example, 'an older man' means "a man who is olderthan anyone
whorii we might call 'young'"; at the same time, however, 'an
older man' is not "old", but he is in an age-group which is closer
to 'old people' than to 'young people'. The same explanation
applies to phrases such as 'a younger man'. As a result weobtain
the following scale (which, at first glance, looks paradoxical):
[67]
a very old man
an old man
an older man
a younger man
a young man
a very young man
126 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF UNEARDIFFERENCE
Finally, there are noun phrases with comparative-degree forms
of adjectives which are formulaic in character. 'Higher education'
can be quoted as an example. The second term of comparison
here is obviously "education at lower stages"; but it need not be
either stated in the text or even inferable from it, since the phrase
'higher education' functions practically as a single concept and
can be treated as an instance of lexicalization.
6.9 Pseudo-comparative 'Aer than' sentences
Pseudo-comparative sentences of all kinds were characterized in
3.4. Here we shall analyse only t3ê X sentences, ie those
containing the phrase 'Aer than' - which justifies discussing them
in this chapter.
Examples of type X sentences are as follows:
[68] Mark is taller than six feet (tall).
[69] John is shorter than six feet (tall).
The generalized sentence formulae can be written as follows:
[70] NPb is Aer than n units [.<4
[71] NPb is Aer than n units [.4
It is obvious that the basic element of the semantic interpre
tation of a type X sentence must be a formula stating that the
value of the measure function for the argument represented in the
sentence structure by the NP is greater, or less, than n:
[72] MD(fe) > n units
[73] Md(6) < n units
where b is the argument in the underlying proposition, repre
sented in the sentence by the NP.
Yet formulae [72] and [73] constitute also the semantic inter
pretation of such sentences as the following:
[74] Mark is more than six feet tall.
[75] John is less than six feet tall.
To generalize:
[76] NPb is more than n units A.
[77] NPb is less than n units A.
Here, [76] and [77] can be considered a subtype of type A
sentences, discussed in Chapter 5. The meaning of such sentences
is adequately and exhaustively represented by formulae [72] and
[73] - with the addition of the appropriate pragmatic assumption
PSEUDO-COMPARATIVE SENTENCES 127
and a semantic well-formedness condition (cf 5.1.1, p 72). Yet
sentences constructed according to sentence formulae [70] and
[71] are not synonymous with those constructed according to
formulae [76] and [77]; in other words, there seems to be a
difference in meaning between, say, 'Mark is taller than six feet'
and 'Mark is more than six feet tall'. Let us consider the following
examples:
[78] If you're older than sixty-five, you can travel free on the
Underground.
To join the Guards you must be taller than six feet.
[79] K you're younger than sixteen, you cannot get married
without special permission.
You can't become a member of the Shorties' Club unless
you're shorter than five feet.
It seems that the semantic interpretation of such sentences -
and, generally, of type X sentences - consists of two elements.
The first one is a statement of the value of the measure function:
[72] or [73], as the case may be. The second is a formula stating
that n in [72] and [73] constitutes a threshold value - a limit, to
use a mathematical term. What this value is, depends on extra-
linguistic considerations: on factors which are biological, legal,
economic, social, technical, etc. in their nature.
There is no eUcitation test evidence to support this interpre
tation of the meaning of pseudo-comparative 'Act than'
sentences. However, it seems plausible; and if we accept it, we
can write the foUowing formulae:
[80] SS: NPb is Aer than n units [-4].
SI: [n units _= lim] a [Md(6) > n units].
[81] SS: NPb is i4er than n units A.
SI: [n units = lim] a [Md(6) < n units].
The formulae for negative X-type sentences can be written
accordingly:
[82] SS< NPb is not Aei than n units A.
SI: [n units = lim] a [MdC^) ^ n units].
[83] SS: NPb is not A&t than n units A.
SI: [n units = lim] a [Md(6) > n units].
Notes
I. Andersen (1982:233) writes: "First of all, only a few languages
possess an inflected 'comparative' formof the adjective as in English
taller as opposed to the 'positive' form tall which is used in the
majority of languages in the world in such constructions. In other
words, comparison is expressed in most languages without a special
comparative form of the adjective." See also note 7 to Chapter 2.
2. The one exception is test item 62 (*more pretty'), which parallels
item 60 ('prettier'): (/Table 6.12. However, the parallelism is not
complete, since in item 62 an emphatic form was used: 'more
pretty'.
3. With the possible exception of 'able', which in some of its meanings
can be used in the inflected comparative form.
4. Here is the list (in alphabetical order) of the 39 adjectives which
occurred in the 42 'more A' phrases found in the Survey sample
investigated. When the number of occurrences was more than one,
it is given in parentheses after the adjective:
ab/e, adult, appropriate, bankrupt, careful, cheerful, complete,
complicated (2), concerned {with), creative, difficult (2), effective,
exacting, familiar, general, grown up, helpful, honest, hurt, inter
ested {in) (2), interesting, likely, literal, materialistic, mercernary,
painstaking, recalcitrant, relaxed, reserved, responsible, sensible,
serious, specific, stimulating, stupid, successful, sympathetic, trau
matic, useful.
5. The form was found in a written text: 'you're offier than me'
(meaning "better off').
6. It is interesting that if we accept this view, then the difference in the
level of formality between 'He is taller than F and 'He is taller tKan
me' would be interpreted as a difference in underlying structure.
(In this connection see also Quirk et al. (1972:770) and Harris
(1980).)
7. Pinkham (1982) devotes most of Part B of her monograph to the
argument in favour of the existence of base-generated prepositional
phrasals of the form -er Adj than NP, where than NP is a preposi
tional phrase (c/in particular Pinkham 1982:131).
8. For the explanation of the selection of the letters b and c for the
arguments see 3.3.1 above.
9. All this lends supportto Grice's Maxim of Quantity {cfGrice 1975)-
10. Cf Quirk et al, {i^2q(n, note b),
11. TTiis formula seems paradoxical; and yet, as was stated above, one
informant interpreted the sentence 'My shirt is drier than my socks'
as entailing that both 'my shirt' and 'my socks' were dry. This was
confirmed in informal ad hoc tests, using the sentence 'My shoes are
drier than yours'. Obviously for some speakers 'dry' is not the end
point of the scale, but a short sector at its end.
Chapter 7
Comparative sentences of linear difference:
Mess A than' sentences and
superlative-degree sentences ('Aest'
sentences)
7.1 'Less A than' sentences
7.1.1 'Less A' phrases and 'less A than' sentences: general
discussion
'Less A' phrases are much less frequent than the other types of
comparatives. In a sample of 130texts from the Survey of English
Usage file, both spoken and written (amounting to 650,000
words) 'less A' phrases, both in predicative and in attributive use,
occur only 75 times. If we deduct from this number 8 occurrences
of the set phrase 'more or less A\ we are left with 67 instances
of comparative sentences with the 'less A' phrase, ie approxi
mately one every two texts. This is an extremely small number
in comparison with the number of occurrences of 'Aei' and 'more
A' forms, which occur, respectively, 8 times and more than 3
times per Survey text (c/6.i.i). Taken together, 'Aer' and 'more
A' forms appear to be about 22 times more frequent in English
than 'less A' forms.^
In the Survey texts studied 'less A' forms appear more
frequently in predicative than in attributive function; the ratio is
53 instances of predicative use to 14 instances of attributive use.
Out of context 'less A than' sentences may sound less apt than
their near-synonyms, 'not as A as' sentences; when seen in
context, however, they are often more adequate to the occasion
(as exemplified by the first clause of this sentence and by the first
sentence of the first paragraph of this chapter). A comparison of
'less A than' and 'not as A as' sentences follows later (in 9.1); but
evidence of the Survey material suggests that whatever other
reasons a speaker may have for choosing the former rather than
the latter construction, there are three factors favouring the use
of 'less A' forms.
(i) First, the 'less A than' construction seems more adequate
when the verb-predicate is other than the verb 'be'. In the Survey
material amounting to half the available file on the 'as A as'
construction, all the 'not as A as' sentences (near-synonyms of
'less A than' sentences) had the verb 'be' as verb-predicate.
(ii) Secondly, the 'less A than' construction is convenient when
the speaker wants to use an intensifier. Here is a selection of
examples from the Survey file:
she seems to have been far less tired
I was much less efficient when I knew [. . .] when I was
supposed to be doing
the prospects of a home goal seemed even less likely
with the new men -1 mean being - you know a bit less savage
about the whole thing
(iii) Thirdly, the 'less A" phrase is the obvious, one to choose
when the speaker wants a parallel to an 'Aer' or 'more A' phrase.
Here are two examples from the Survey file:
if we can get people to think a little more clearly [. . .] the way
in which they will tackle difficultproblems will be more sensible
more reasonable less violent less inflammatory
I wonder whether Barbara [. . .] feels that this is becoming
easier to do or less easy
Among the 67 instances of the use of the 'less A" phrase, 59
adjectives were represented, of which 53 occurred only once.
Here is the complete list:
able, abstract, acrimonious, apt, attractive, automatic,
concerned, costly, cruel, detailed, diligent, direct, disgusting, easy,
effective, efficient, essential, exacting, exalted, excited, fashion
able, formidable, fortunate, forward-looking, frequent, fright
ened, general, good, healthy, illogical, important, impressive,
individual, inflammatory, innocent, likely, male, numerous, oblig
atory, obvious, old, poetical, prescriptive, pretentious, pros
perous, qualified, savage, severe, significant, solvated, tangible,
tired, troublesome, true, utilitarian, violent, well-off, worried,
worthy. Of these, 'significant', 'true', 'violent', and 'worthy'
occurred twice each, and 'general' and 'likely', three times each.
The list is interesting. It contains only three adjectives from
open-scale antonymic pairs: 'easy', 'good', 'old' - and only one
of them, ie 'old', is numerical. This may be due to the fact that
members of open-scale pairs are fully relative, so that instead of
the 'less A' form the speaker can alwaysuse the antonym. It looks
therefore as if the 'less A' form of a member of an open-scale
antonymic pair is used when the speaker wants to deprive the
'less a than' sentences 131
adjective, at least partly, of its relative character. This finds
confirmation in the results of elicitation tests.
7.1.2 'Less A than' sentences with the various types of
a<ljectives
Experimental evidence on 'less Athan' sentences isscanty. Open-
scale antonyms were represented in test item 26: 'Ted is less tall
than Kevin'; the results are given in Table 7.1.
Thus 'b is less tall than c' seems to entail that at least c is tall;
this looks like the converse of the formula for absolute adjectives
in 'i4er than' sentences; cf [19] in 1.4. This observation is
confirmed by twoout of the three instances of the use of the 'less
A' phrase with open-scale antonyms, found in the Survey file;
Mr Waldo [...] helped her [...] to replace an old car with
a slightly less old one
Today I felt less good than yesterday. My cold had left behind
it [. . .] a residue of catarrh.
The third instance illustrates parallel use of the 'less A' and 'Aer'
phrases. It is the sentence with the adjective 'easy' quoted above
under (iii).
We might now tryandoffer a tentative formula for 'less Athan'
sentences with open-scale antonyms:
[i] SS: NPb is less A than NP^.
SI: [Md(6) < Md(c)] a [Mdc(c) e many units].
The categories of adjectives which are best represented in the
'less A' file of the Survey are quasi-antonyms and unary-scale
adjectives. All except one of the quasi-antonyms are unmarked
TABLE 7.1
Item
m.
Test sentence
N
Height in feet and inches
26 Ted is less tall
than Kevin.
65W Ted
4 ft 10 in 5ft
-6 ft 4 inP") 10 in
5ft7iin
Kevin 5ft-6ft 6ft
7 inW
6ft
(a) Plus two non-numerical responses: 'Kevinquite tall, Ted not as tall' and Ted not tall'.
Plus one case each of 2 ft, 4 ft, and 6 ft 10 in.
Plus one case each of 4 ft, 7 ft, and 7 ft 2 in.
In all the responses Ted is shorter than Kevin.
T
A
B
L
E
7
.
2
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
-
-
+
/
-
+
-
O
t
h
e
r
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
+
-
+
/
-
+
+
/
-
g
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
^
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
N
o
.
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
5
6
5
M
a
r
k
i
s
l
e
s
s
e
x
t
r
a
v
a
g
a
n
t
7
0
1
5
2
3
7
1
6
1
5
2
5
3
5
4
1
6
^
t
h
a
n
P
a
u
l
.
2
1
3
5
3
2
3
2
1
3
7
5
7
7
2
5
g
7
1
D
o
U
y
i
s
l
e
s
s
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
6
7
-
6
8
3
8
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
<
'
'
>
3
1
9
4
5
3
2
3
6
I
t
h
a
n
M
o
n
i
c
a
.
4
1
2
1
6
3
1
3
5
2
5
2
8
6
7
4
7
5
5
|
7
5
T
e
d
i
s
l
e
s
s
c
r
u
e
l
t
h
a
n
6
9
-
7
0
2
1
1
_
_
3
3
1
4
H
"
)
2
1
"
1
4
7
5
5
1
5
2
A
n
d
y
.
3
0
2
4
7
2
0
2
3
0
2
6
8
7
9
2
7
<
)
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
+
/
-
t
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
^
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
a
r
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
g
%
'LESSA THAN' SENTENCES 133
(non-negative) members of the pairs; the only representative of
the 'less Athan' construction is the adjective 'illo^cal'. This prob
ably reflects the fact that from a logical point of view the negative
members of quasi-antonymic pairs are not very amenable to
grading. Morphologically the negative members of such pairs as
'efficient' ; 'inefficient', 'frequent' : 'infrequent', etc. are closely
related to the negative members of such pairs as
'possible' : 'impossible', 'flammable' : 'non-flammable'. The latter
pairs define unary asymmetric scales, in which the negative term
is not gradable (cf 1.3).
As we sawbefore (cf 6.7), when unmarked members of quasi-
antonymic pairs of unary-scde adjectives are used in 'êr than'
sentences, they can be interpreted in two ways: either as relative
or as absolute adjectives. The same seems to be true of the 'less
A than' construction. Experimental evidence available refers to
unary-scale adjectives only. Three adjectives have been the
subject of tests (item numbers 65, 71, and 75). The results are
presented in Table 7.2.
Since 'less A than' sentences are logical converses of 'yler than'
sentences, the second term of comparison here is the higher term
on the scale, and it is the responses relating to the second term
which are polarized into those which reflect the absolute inter
pretation of the adjective (-1- responses), and those which reflect
the relative interpretation (+/ responses). The patterns of
responses for the lower and the higher term on the scale vary
from adjective to adjective, but if we compare the results of tests
for 'less A than' sentences with the results of tests dealing with
'Aer than' sentences, we shall see that they are quite similar. For
each of the adjectives studied there was little difference between
the two types of sentencesin the distribution of responses for the
higher term, as between those which reflected the absolute and
those reflected the relative interpretation of the adjective; there
was also a broadly parallel distribution of responses relating to
the lower term. This is illustrated in Table 7.3.
There is an important conclusion to be drawn from this;
namely, that with many (perhaps all?) unary-scale adjectives the
'less A' form plays the role of the missing antonymic term. 'Less
A than' sentences with these adjectives are then genuine
converses of 'êr than' sentences: their semantic representation
is contained solely in the first pair of brackets of [i]: Md(6) <
Md(c). In thisrespect theydiffer from 'less Athan' sentences with
members of open-scale antonymic pairs.
Elicitation test evidence for quasi-antonj^s is lacking. There
were some 17of them in the Survey of English Usage file for 'less
134
TABLE 7.3
COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF LINEAR DIFFERENCE
Item Test sentences
No.
Primum Secundum
comparationis comparationis
+ - +1- + - +/-
65 Mark is less extravagant 21 3 75 77
than Paul.
64 David is more extravagant 66 34 18 3
than Gary.
71 Dolly is less sensible than 5 28 67 47
Monica.
68 Tina is more sensible than 55 45 3 18
Marion.
75 Ted is less cruel than 30 2 68 79
Andy.
74 Rob is more cruel than 81 19 42 1
Mike.
Thefigures are percentages of the total number of responses.
23
79
53
79
21
57
A' forms (out of the total number of 59 adjectives); thus they
constitute a sizeable group. Evidence from the Survey file
suggests that the 'lessA' forms of the unmarked terms of quasi-
antonjrmic pairs behave Uke iess A' forms of unary-scale adjec
tives; that is, the adjectives in them can be treated either as
relative or as absolute. Here are three examples, from three
different texts:
the new mag culture is in some important ways less healthy
than the often crude cultiu-e it is replacing
the narrative, being of second-rate importance, less worthy of
consideration [. . .] can be accepted as [. . .]
the few poems in which he described happiness are less effec
tive than the others
Evidence from the Survey file is, however, rather scanty here,
and in the absence of material from elicitation tests any state
ments on iess A than' sentences withquasi-antonymic adjectives
haye to be partly impressionistic. More research is needed in this
area.
More research is also needed on iess A than' sentences with
bounded-scale and asymmetric-scale antonjmiic pairs; it is worth
noting, however, that there were no tokens of these types of
adjectives in the iess A' file of the Survey.
'AESr SENTENCES 135
7.2 'Aest' sentences
7.2.1 Introduction
Under 'y4est' sentences we shall subsume all kinds of sentences
with the superlative-degree forms of adjectives: both those in
which the superlative-degree form is inflected, eg '(the) oldest',
'(the) youngest', and those in which it is periphrastic, eg '(the)
most interesting', '(the) least interesting'. These two superlative-
degree forms parallel the two forms of the comparative degree:
'older/younger' and 'morêss interesting'.
7.2.2 The inflected superlative-degree forms: corpus evidence
A sample of 13 texts from the Survey of English Usage file was
searched for occurrences of the inflected superlative-degree
forms; they were the same 13 texts (8 spoken, 5 written,
amounting to 65,000 words altogether) which were used in the
study of 'Aef comparatives (cf 6.1.1). Several interesting facts
emerged.
First, the inflected superiative-degree form appears to be quite
frequent in present-day English: in the texts investigated there
were 55 occurrences of the 'A&sV forms of 23 different adjectives,
ie on an average 4.3 occurences of 'êst' forms per text. More
over, they were fairly evenly distributed: they appeared in 10 out
of the 13 texts in the sample. Of the remaining three texts,
two were spoken and one written.
Secondly, the distribution of the classes of adjectives among the
'-<4est' forms in the sample resembles very strongly that of the
'y4er' forms (c/6.i.i). Eleven adjectives occurred in the 'êst'
form two or more times. They were all members of symmetric,
open-scale antonymic pairs. TTiey are listed below in decreasing
order of frequency, with the number of occurrences in paren
theses: best (16), greatest (5), earliest (4), oldest (4), biggest (2),
highest (2), largest (2), last (2), lowest (2), nearest (2), smallest
(2). Twelve adjectives occurred in the 'Aest' form once only:
brightest, gravest, longest, longest-lived, newest, nicest, severest,
slightest, truest, utmost, worst, youngest. Half of them were
members of open-scale antonymic pairs. Once again we have to
emphasize that in a different textual sample both the types and
the typ^token ratio would in all probability be different; but the
predominance of open-scale antonyms, and among them, of
numerical adjectives, is too marked to be accidental.
The third observation arising out of the study of the Survey
texts is perhaps the most interesting and significant of all. Nearly
all of the 55 'y4est' forms in the sample occurred in attributive
position. This is in striking contrast with the functional distribu
tion of '/ler' forms and 'less A' forms. A tentative explanation of
this fact will be given later, when we attempt a semantic inter
pretation of sentences withthe superlative-degree forms of adjec
tives (0/7.2.4)-
7.2.3 The periphrastic superlative-degree forms: corpus
evidence
The periphrastic superlative-degree forms comprise 'most A' and
'least A' superlatives. The study of 'most A' forms was based on
15 texts from the Survey of English Usage file (7 spoken, 8
written), amounting to 75,000 words altogether. Periphrastic
forms turned out to be less frequent than inflected ('y4est') ones:
in the 15 texts investigated, there were 39 occurrences of 'most
A' forms of 34 different adjectives, ie 2.6 occurrences per text.
They were fairly evenly distributed: they appeared in 14 out of
the 15 texts studied, but in some texts were more frequent than
in others.
'Least A' phrases were very infrequent: the whole available
Survey file for the word 'least' (in all its possible functions and
contexts) was examined and only eight occurrences of 'least A'
forms were found.
Taken together, the inflectional and the periphrastic superla
tive-degree forms occurred on an average about seven times per
Survey text studied.
Two classes of adjectiveswere more or lessequallyrepresented
among the 'most A' and 'least A' forms in the Survey samples
investigated: members (mostly unmarked) of quasi-antonymic
pairs, and unary-scale adjectives. Here are the lists; first, the
adjectives occurring in 'most A' phrases:
accurate, agonizing, anxious, beautiful, boring, common,
congenial, convenient, disgusting, distinguished, erotic, expressive,
extraordinary, fascinating, fundamental, grateful, heaviest,^
important, impressed, impressive, interesting, intractable, judicious,
lively, positive, recent, relevant, rewarding, scholarly, searching,
suitable, surprised, valuable, wonderful.
Now the adjectives occurring in 'least A^ phrases:
demanding, expected, interesting, likely, marked, responsible,
stable, wasteful.
It is not, of course, the individual adjectives which are inter
esting, but the adjective types which they represent. No truly
antonymic pairs are to be found (either symmetric or asym
metric); among the 'least A' phrases, unmarked members of
quasi-antonymic pairs predominate; among the 'most A' phrases.
'ylEST' SENTENCES 137
quasi-antonyms and unary-scale adjectives are more or less
equally represented.
Among the adjectives occurring in the 'most A' form there
were only two which take the *-(e)st' morpheme: 'common' and
'lively' (if we disregard the phrase 'most heaviest'^). Even if there
is clear semantic contrast between the 'Aest' and the 'most
form, it seems very infrequently utilized.
7.2.4 Semantic interpretation of sentences with superlative-
degree forms used in the relative sense
Superlative-degree forms of adjectives can be used in the relative
or in the absolute sense. Only periphrastic superlatives can be
freely used in the latter sense; 'most' is then equivalent in
meaning to 'extremely' or 'very, very'.^ We shall discuss this use
in 7.2.5 and concentrate now on superlative-degree forms in the
relative sense. Both inflectional and periphrastic superlatives can
be used in this way.
The superlative-degree form of an adjective used in the relative
sense places the (referent of the) argument of the proposition
underlying the '/lest' sentence on the scale for the dimension
indicated by the adjective. In this respect the superlative-degree
form does not differ from other adjectival forms used in compara
tive sentences. What differentiates it from them is the fact that
it places the (referent of the) argument on the dimension-scale
relative to all the other members of the domain set of the measiure
function. The domain set has to be indicated somehow: explicitly
or by implication. Explicit indication is usually done by means of
a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial or as post-
modifler in the adjectival phrase; for example:
2a
2b
Among the boys in his class Jimmy is the tallest.
The humming-bird is the smallest of all birds.
But the easiest and the most compact way of indicating the
domain set of the measure function and showing the relation
between the argument of the proposition underlying the '.4est'
sentence and that set is to use a noun phrase to indicate the set,
and the 'i4est' phrase functioning as premodifier to signal the
relation in question. Let us illustrate this with a few examples
from the Survey corpus.
3a] The oldest known Chinese painting is [. . .].
3b We have [. . .] got the biggest private client department
in London.
[3c] George Eliot (in her opinion the greatest English woman
novelist).
[3d] He is the very nicest type of Grammar School boy.
[3e] The most erotic sketch was onlesbianism.
To these examples we can add a paraphrase of [2a];
[4] Jimmy is the tallest boy in his class.
Aconverse paraphrase is also possible; compare [3b] with [5]:
[5] Of all the private client departments in London the one we
have got is the biggest.
A comparison of [2a] with [4], and of [5] with [3b] shows why
native users of English prefer to put the superlative-degree form
in attributive position: the resuh is a simpler sentence.
The superlative-degree form is usually interpreted as signalling
that the (referent ofthe) argument ofthe proposition underlying
the 'yiest' sentence possesses the feature indicated by the adjec
tive in a degree higher than any other member of the reference
set. This interpretation fits all the sentences in [2]-[5]. Taking
[4] as an example we might formaUze this asfollows:
[6] Jimmy is the tallest boy in his class.
(Vjc) [x 6 C a ye Ca oc # y^ MhO") > MhW]
where C denotes the set of all boys in Jimmy's class and Mh
stands for "the (value of the) measure function of height".
Yet this interpretation of 'y4est' sentences is too narrow.
Consider the following examples from the Survey file:
7a] [This] was one of the truest novels I'd ever read.
7b] [He] was one of her greatest friends.
Here the value of the measure function for the argument of the
proposition is not greater than the value of that function for any
other member of the domain set. What the proposition under
lying, for example, [7a] does is partition the domain set (le
"novds I'd. ever read") into two subsets, using the property of
"being true" as the criterion. Each of the novels in one of the
subsets is "truer" than any novel in the other. This can be
represented in the following way:
[8] This was one of the truest novels I'd ever read.
[NR D TNR] A (V*)(V>') [x e TNR Ay e (NR- TNR)
Mt(jc) > MtCv)] a [n TNR]
where NR denotes the set of "all the novels I'd ever read", TNR
denotes a subset of this set, NR TNR is the difference between
them, Mt stands for the (value of the) measure function of "being
'/lESr SENTENCES 139
true", and n denotes "this (novel)", ie the exponent of the subject
of the sentence. Thus "this novel" belongs to the set of novels,
each of which is truer than any other novel I'd read; and it is
important to note that although the set of those "other novels"
{ie NR TNR) may also be graded according to the degree of
"being true", this need not appear in the formula.
But this does not yet exhaust the description of sentences with
the superlative-degree forms of adjectives. There is a variety of
'y4est' sentences which - although it happens not to be attested
in the Survey texts investigated - deserves careful attention.
Consider the following sentences:
[9] LosAngeles is the second biggest city in the United States.
That mountain is the fifth highest in the world.
To generalize:
[10] b is the nth .i4est in B
where b e B. Here the partitioning of the domain set of the
measure function is accompanied by another operation. The set
- let us call it 5 - is divided into two subsets, T and S - T, such
that the value of the measure function for any member of T is
greater than the value of the measure function for any member
ofS - T; this is the same as [8] without the last pair of brackets.
At the same time, however, T is an n-tuple ordered according to
the decreasing values of the measure function, and the argument
of the proposition underlying the sentence is the last element in
the n-tuple.
This semantic interpretation of sentences with the superlative-
degree form of adjectives (used in the relative sense) covers also
such sentences as those exemplified in [2]-[6]. In sentences of this
kind subset T, ie the ordered /i-tuple, is a unit set; whenn in [10]
equals 1, the word 'first' does not appear in the sentence. In this
interpretation, sentences constructed according to the formula 'b
is the Aest in B' constitute only a special case of sentences
constructed according to formula [10].
Sentences wth the superlative-degree form of the marked
antonym, ie 'Aest' sentences, canbe interpretedin a similar way -
but with some reservations. A sentence such as
[11] Andrew is one of the youngest boys in his class
can be interpreted in terms of the division of the domain set S
into subsets T and S - T described above. Let S represent all the
boys in Andrew's class andlet Tbe a subset of this set. Then the
semantic interpretation of [11] can be represented as follows:
[12] [SdT\ A (Vx)(Vy) [;c6rAye(5-7)^ MAgeW
<MAge6')lA
A [Andrew e T]
A sentence such as
[13] Charles is the youngest boy in his class
can be interpreted in the same way, set T being here a unit set.
This interpretation can be represented in a simpler fashion by a
formula parallel to [6], only with the inequality sign reversed.
Sentence formula [10], however, cannot be unconditionally
used with marked members of antonymic pairs (ie with 'i4est'
forms): with many adjectives the phrase 'nth êst' is not accept
able when n > 2. Also many speakers will say 'next Aest', rather
than 'second Aest'. This may be a pragmatic, rather than a
semantic fact: we are generally more interested in the top rather
than in the bottom end of the scale. It must, however, be noted
in the description of the semantics of superlative-degree forms of
adjectives.
Finally, let us note that relative adjectives preserve scale-rela-
tivity in the superlative-degree form. Thus 'Jimmy is the tallest
boy in his class' does not entail 'Jimmy is tall for a boy'. A
sentence such as 'We have got the biggest private client depart
ment in AT does not entail 'Our private client department is big'.
We assume the private client department mentioned in [3] to be
big - but only because the reference set is private client depart
ments in London. A declared misogynist might not agree that [3c]
suggests that George Eliot was a great novelist; the superlative-
degree form as such does not entail a high value of the measure
function for the positive-degree form of the adjective on other
scales than the one indicated in the sentence.
7.2.5 Semantic interpretation of sentences with superlative-
degree forms used in the absolute sense ('most A'
superlatives)
It is a characteristic property of 'most A" superlative-degreeforms
that they can be used either in the relative or in the absolute
sense. Two criteria can be offered for identifying an absolute
superlative-degree form. One is the possibility of substituting
'extremely' for 'most' without affecting meaning. The other is
choice of determiner: in attributive function absolute superlative-
degree phrases are preceded by 'a(n)' or 'some'; in predicative
function they are characterized by zero determiner.^ Out of the
10 instances of predicative, zero-determiner 'most A' phrases in
the survey in in the Survey texts examined, 9 were absolute.
PSEUDO-COMPARATIVE 'LESS A THAN' SENTENCES I4I
Here are a few examples of sentences with absolute superlative-
degree forms. First, sentences with 'most A' phrases in attributive
function:
Miss (Name) has a most lively enthusiasm
then came a most extraordinary document
[. . .] as well as some most valuable general administrative
experience
Now, sentences with 'mosty4' superlatives in predicative function:
it would be most boring to stay in bed
I have been most impressed
the (Word) were most grateful for his help
7.3 Pseudo-comparative 'less A than' sentences
Pseudo-comparative 'less A than' sentences (type Y sentences)
with the unmarked members of antonymic pairs can be exempli
fied as follows:
[14] 'If you are less old than sixty-five, you can't retire on full
pension.
'Men who are less tall than six feet cannot join the
Guards.
The question marks reflect the fact that for some speakers the
phrase 'less A than n units' is of doubtful acceptability. If
accepted, sentences with this phrase can be interpreted along the
same lines as pseudo-comparative 'êr than' sentences, ie in
terms of a threshold value (c/ 6.8):
[15] SS: NPb is less A than n units [/I].
SI: [n units = lim] a [Md(6) < n units].
This semantic interpretation is identical with the inteipretation of
'NPb is >ier than n units [A]' sentences; cf [77] in 6.8. The
semantic difference between these two kinds of sentences is
unclear.
Sentences with the marked members of antonymic pairs seem
completely unacceptable (and even if they were to be accepted,
they would be semantically unclear: does 'jc is less short than n
feet' mean "shorter than n feet" or "taller than n feet"?).
Type Y sentences, Uke [14], are related to such sentences as
the following:
[16] Men who are less than sixfeet tall cannot join the Guards.
To put it in more general terms: type Y sentences, characterized
by the SS formula of [15], are related to sentences of the
following kind:
[17] NPb is less than n units A.
Sentence [17] constitutes a subcategory of type A sentences. The
meaning of such sentences is a straightforward statement that the
value of the measure function is less than n units:
[18] SI for [17]: Md(6) < n units.
These sentences were already discussed in 6.8. They differ from
type Ysentences in that they are fully acceptable, and that there
is no statement of the threshold value in the semantic
interpretation.
Notes
1. R. H. Robins (personal communication) points out that the fact that
'less A' expressions are much less frequent in English (and other
languages) than 'i4er than' expressions certainly correlates with the
fact that there are very few (if any at all?) languages with a morpho
logical means of expressing 'less A', corresponding to forms like the
English'hotter', the Latin 'gravior', etc. - that is, 'Aer than' forms.
2. This form appeared in the phrase 'most heaviest weapons': an inter
esting example of double superlative.
3. This is by no means a universal feature; in Latin, for example, the
inflected superlative can be used in the absolute sense.
4. This statement requires qualification. Quirk et al. (1972:287) write;
Most in
She is most beautiful
is not the superlative in BrE, though it can be in AmE. In BrE,
the sentence can only mean she is extremely beautiful and not
that she is more beautiful than all others. This absolute sense of
most is common in AmE too. Absolute most is restricted as to
the adjectives with which it occurs, perhaps premodifying only
those expressing subjective rather than objective attitudes:
She is most unhappy
*She is most tall
In BrE most is a superlative only when preceded by the definite
article:
She is the most beautiful (woman)
or when the basis of comparison is made explicit by a post-
modifying prepositional phrase, eg:
(that) most beautiful of women.
In both AmE and BrE there is a tendency to use absolute most
with a preceding definite article to express an even higher degree:
Isn't she the most beautiful woman? ('an extremely, extremely
beautiful woman').
Chapter 8
Comparative sentences of proportionality
('as A as' sentences)
8.1 Introduction
S.I.I 'As A as' sentences: general description
'As A as' constructions are often referred to in the literature as
'comparative constructionsof equality', while'-Aer than' construc
tions are called 'comparative constructions of inequaUty'.^ This
terminology is misleading, since there is a variant of the 'as A as'
construction which expresses precisely defined inequality.
Consider the following sentences:
[1] Michael is twice as tall as his son (is).
On the other hand, negation of an 'as A as' sentence may or may
not signal inequaUty, and negation of an 'Aer than' sentence does
not necessarily signal equality.
The characteristic features of 'as A as' sentences is that they are
statements of proportions: exponents of propositions expressing
the value of the ratio between the values of the measure Unction
for a dimension for two arguments, or between the values of the
measure function for two dimensions of the same argument, or
for two dimensions of two arguments. The value of that ratio may
be different from i: cf [i] and [2] above. It may also equd
(approximately) i, as in the most common variant of 'as A as'
sentences; for example:
[3] John is as tall as Martin (is).
[4] This swimming pool is as wide as it is long.
Seen in this light, the different variants of 'as A as' sentences -
exempUfied, on the one hand, by [i] and [2], and on the other.
144 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTONALITY
by [3] and [4] - reveal an underlying homogeneity. They are all
exponents ofpropositions expressing the ratio between the values
of the Md. When the ratio is different from i, it isovertly stated
in the sentence; when it equals i, its value (ie the word 'once')
does not appear inthe sentence. The term 'comparative sentences
of proportionality' is an attempt to capture this characteristic
feature of all variants of 'as A as' sentences.^
Another reason why the term 'comparative constnictions of
equality' is misleading is because the value of the ratio between
the two values of the measure function may be interpreted in a
different way: namely as a 'greater than or equal' relation, rather
than a simple relation of equaUty: '5=' rather than '='. Let us
consider the following sentences, quoted here after Mitchell
(forthcoming):
[5a] *Mary is as tall as her father. Infact, she is shorter than
him.
[5b] Mary isas tall as herfather. Infact, she is taller than him.
[5c] Mary is as tall as her father. Infact, they're identical in
height.
Mitchell argues that what the phrase 'in fact' does here is specify
the indeterminate meaning of the phrase 'as tall as': in [5b] we
proceed from '2=' to '>', in [5c] from to '='. This will be
discussed in more detail below, in 8.2.2.2.
8.1.2 Corpus evidence
Evidence from the Survey of- English Usage corpus shows that
'as A as' sentences are relatively rare, both in spoken and in
written English. Twenty-two texts from the Survey, 15 spoken
and 7 written (amounting to 110,000 words) were examined for
occurrences of 'as A as' sentences. Twenty-eight instances of this
kind of sentences were found; in them, 23 different adjectives
were represented. The mean average of occurrences was 1.3 per
text; only 'less A than' sentences are less frequent than this. In
contradistinction to 'Act than' and 'Aest' sentences, only 9 out
of the 23 adjectives in the sample came from the class of open-
scale antonyms, but they accounted for 13 occurrences of 'as A
as' forms. The remaining adjectives came from the class of quasi-
antonyms and unary-scale adjectives. Here is the complete list,
arranged alphabetically, with the number of occurrences given in
parentheses if it was more than i:
anxious, bad (2), bulky, busy, capable, cheap, close (2), cold,
conspicuous, different, direct, exhaustive, good (4), high, inter-
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALEANTONYMIC PAIRS I45
ested, near, nice, old, recent, revolutionary, slow, stimulating,
thin.
The 'as A as' construction can be used both predicatively and
attributively, but it differs from other comparative constructions
in that in attributive use it does not appear in a reduced form,
ie without the secundum comparationis overfly stated, and that
a special variant of the construction is required, namely 'as A a(n)
NP as'. Compare the following sentences: [6a] is taken from the
Survey of English Usage corpus and exemplifies attributive use
of the 'as A as' construction, while [6b] is its equivalent, with the
'as A as' construction in predicative use:
[6a] [it was] as revolutionary a vessel as ever launched by
[6b] That vessel was as revolutionary as [any] ever launched
by [. . .].
Attributive use appears very rare: [6a] is actually the only
instance recorded in the Survey sample investigated. Sentences
in which the ratio between the values of the measure function is
different from i, ie sentences such as [i] and [2], also seem rare:
in the Survey sample investigated no instances were found.
(type ii and type S sentences)
8.2.1 Introductory remarks
The proposition underlying a statement which refers to one
dimension must be a two-argument one. The discussion of poss
ible exponents of the arguments and of the meaning of the
concept 'two arguments' in 'Aer than' sentences, presented in
6.1.2, applies also to 'as A as' sentences; we shall not repeat it
here.
In [i] and [3] 'is' was added in parentheses after the 'as A as'
phrase. It seems, however, that the fuller version of 'as A as'
sentences, ie the one with a form of the link verb after the second
term of comparison, is not always acceptable. The discussion of
this problem presented in 6.1.2 in the context of 'Aer than'
sentences applies mutatis mutandis to 'as A as' sentences. In
particular, it appears that 'as . . . as' may be either a comple
mentizer or a preposition,3 especially when the secundum
comparationis is a personal pronoun, eg:
146 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALITY
[7] He is as tall as me
and in pseudo-comparative sentences:
[8] When you are as old as eighteen, you can vote.
8.2.2 Type R and type S sentences with the unmarked
members of antonymic pau-s
8.2.2.1 The value ofthe ratio between the values ofthe measure
function interpreted as equalling "approximatelyn"
Let us now discuss in detail type R and type S sentences (see
Table 3.7, p 56), beginning with sentences with the unmarked
members of antonymic pairs - such as [i] and [3]. In both types
the underlying proposition states the ratio between the values, for
the two arguments, of the measure function for the dimension
signalled by the adjective. In type R sentences, exempUfied by
[i], the ratio is different from i, while in type S sentences, exem
plified by [3], it equals approximately i. The basic formulae are
thus as follows:
[9] Michael is twice as tall as his son (is).
MHeight(Michael) h- MHei^t(M's son) 2.
[10] John is as tall as Martin (is).
MHeight(John) ^ MHeight(Martin) i.
This can be generalized as follows:
[11] SS: NPb is n times as >1 as NPc (is).
SI: Md(6) -5- Md(c) =? n.
In the basic formulae for the semantic interpretation the absolute
values of the measure function are not stated, since we are only
interested in their ratio. The value of the ratio is expressed in the
sentence by a cardinal numberal (an integer) and the word
'times', or by a fraction (such as 'half). Instead of the phrase 'two
times' the word 'twice' is used.^ If the ratio equals i, its numerical
expression (ie the word 'once') does not appear in the sentence.
The valueof the ratio is treated as approximate (as above, the
symbol'' is to be read 'equals approximately'). The reason for
this wiU be given below, in 8.2.2.2.
This is not, however, the whole story. So far we have tacitly
assumed that the sole function of the adjective in 'as A as'
sentences with unmarked members ofantonymic pairs is to name
thedimension; that is, we have assumed theadjective to bevalue-
neutral. This seems true of type R sentences, such [1]; ie when
the ratio between the values, for the two arguments, of the
measure function for the dimension specified by the adjective is
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS I47
different from i, then the unmarked member of the antonymc
pair does only specify the dimension and does not signal a high
value of the fonction, for either of the arguments. Thus [i] does
not entail either 'Michael is tall' or 'Michael's son is tall': one may
be 2 feet 6 inches tall and the other 5 feet tall. Similarly, 'This
pool is twice as deep as that one' does not entail that either pool
is deep. This appears intuitively correct - even though the
problem has not been investigated in elicitation tests.
In type S sentences, however, the situation is more compli
cated, sincethe function of the adjective varies, depending on the
class of adjective used. In this respect antonymic pairs of adjec
tives seem to fall into three classes. One of them is typically
represented by the pair 'old' ; 'young'. In this class the unmarked
antonyms remain value-neutral in type S sentences, ie they only
name the dimension. Thus, a sentence such as
[12] This tree is as old as my son
does not entail either 'This tree is old' or 'My son is old', since
'old' refers here only to "age" in general and there is no sugges
tion of considerable age.
TABLE 8.1
Item
No.
Test sentence N
Height in feet
and inches
11 Mr Smith is as
tall as Mr
Brown.
59 Mr Smith
Mr Brown
5 ft 5 in 6 ft
-6 ft 2 inC)
5 ft 5 in 6ft
-6 ft 2 inW
5ft
lljin
5ft
Hi in
12 John's father
is as tall as
the DOCTOR.
52 J's father
The doctor
5 ft 5 in-7 ftW 6 ft
5 ft 5 in-7 ftW 6 ft
6ft
1 in
6ft
1 in
Age in years
13 Robert is as
old as James.
54 Robert
James
2-30") 10
2-30') 10
13.6
13.6
(a) Plus one case each of 6 ft 11 in and 7 ft.
Oj) Plus one case eachof 6 ft 6 in and 7 ft.
Plus one case each of 5 ft 1 in and 9 ft.
W) Plus one case each of 60 years, 80 years, and *anyage\
148 COMPARATtVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALITY
The second class of antonymic pairs can be represented by the
pair 'tail' : 'short'. In this class the unmarked members of the
pairs do not remain completely value-neutral in type S sentences.
Apart from specifying the dimension they also seem to signal that
the value of the measure function for the two arguments is, at
least, not low.
Antonymic pairs of the third class pattern with the pair
'good' : 'bad'. Here the unmarked antonym is treated by some
speakers as relative, by others as absolute.
This description of the three classes of adjectives in 'as A as'
sentences is based on the results of elicitation tests: namely of test
items 13, II, and 46. The results of the first two (as well as of test
item 12) are presented in Table 8.1.
As we can see, the informants' assessments of the age of
Robert and James varied from 2 to 80 years, and the mean
average was interestingly low: 13.6 years - far from "old". Such
results are characteristic of fully relative, value-neutral adjectives.
On the other hand, the results of test item 11 seem to indicate
that the phrase 'as tall as' does not just mean "of the same
height", but that there is a strong tendency for native speakers
to interpret it as meaning, at least, "not short".
Let us try and express all this in formulae:
[13] SS: NPb is as as NPc-
SI: Md(6) - Md(c) I.
'Aoid' symbolizes an adjective which patterns with 'old' in
sentences of this kind, ie is.value-neutral.
[14] SS: NPb is as Atasi as NPc.
SI: [Md(^>) -5- Md(c) 1] a [MD(6)f< few units a Md(c)
i FEW units].
'/Itau' symbolizes an adjective which patterns with 'tall' in
sentences of this kind, ie is not value-neutral.
It is of interest that a high value of the measure function in
'as A as' sentence with two arguments can be signalled expressly
by emphatic stress on the second term of comparison. This was
investigated in test item 12 (c/Table 8.1). The word 'doctor' was
printed in the text booklet in block capitals and when the
sentence was read out to the subjects, the word was uttered on
a high fall with extra strong stress and a high booster. The mean
average for the height of both 'John's father' and 'the doctor' was
6 feet I inch, whichis an inch and a half more thgi) the averagein
test item 11 and definitely means "tall".
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
2
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
N
o
.
+
-
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
4
6
T
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
T
i
s
a
s
g
o
o
d
a
s
t
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
S
.
5
5
2
1
5
8
3
4
6
2
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
2
1
3
4
5
8
6
2
2
1
3
4
3
8
6
2
C
A
sn
Sentences with the phrase 'as good as' were investigated in test
item 46 (see Table 8.2). The majority of the respondents treated
'good' as a fully relative (value-neutral) adjective. For them
'good' patterns with 'old'. For the others, 'good' is an absolute
adjective, and then an 'as good as' sentence should be interpreted
as follows:
[15] SS: NPb is as good as NPc [absolute sense of 'good']
SI: [Mg(6) Mg(c) 1] a [Mg(6) e many units a
Mg(c) e many units]
where Mg stands for '(the value of) the measure function of
"goodness"'.
When low values of the measure function are compared but it
is not the speaker's intention to signal that they are low (which
he could do by using the marked antonym), then the 'as A as'
construction (with adjectives from any class) is often avoided and
a sentence with the noun naming the dimension is used instead.
For example, in talking about small children - say, three years
old - people will say
[i6a] Johimy and Pete are the same age
or
[i6b] Johimy is the same age as Pete
rather than
[i6c] Johnny is as old as Pete.
This seems to be the case both when the adjective is of the
type and when it comes from the ôid class.
It would be difficult at this stage to draw up a list of adjectives
which pattern with 'old', of those which pattern with 'tall', and
of those which behave like 'good'. At a guess, 'long' and 'high'
are like 'old', while 'deep' and 'heavy' resemble 'tall'. Exper
imental evidence is only available for the adjective 'thick'. It was
investigated in test items 16 and 17 (both of them of category 4:
cf4.2). The results are presented in Table 8.3.
For the majority of the respondents the adjective 'thick' in the
sentence '"Waferline" calculators are as thick as credit cards'
was not value-neutral; which means that 'thick' patterns with
'tall'. Test item17 brought even more interesting results: clearly,
for most speakers the adverb 'only' restores value-neutrality to
the adjective and makes it possible to use it in contexts in which
an obviously low value of &e measure function is referred to.
The sentences used in test items 16 and 17 illustrate the fact
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS I5I
TABLE 8.3
Item
No.
Test sentence N Yes Dubious No
16
'Waferline' calculators are 45 19 6 20
as thick as credit cards. 42.2 13.3 44.4
17 'Waferline' calculators are 45 34 1 4
only as thick as credit 75.6 15.5 8.9
cards.
Figures in italics indicate percentages of the total number of responses.
that the referents of the arguments in propositions imderlying 'as
A as' sentences do not have to come from the same, homo
geneous set. We had already seen this in [12]. Yet, for statements
of this kind to be understood literally, the scales, for the two
arguments, of the dimension specified by the adjective must at
least partially overlap. In [12] the scales of age for human beings
and for trees do overlap; therefore the sentence can be inter
preted literally. Recent advances in the miniaturization of elec
tronic components made the respondents to test item 17 assume
that the scales of thickness for credit cards and for calculators
overlap. Yet a statement such as
[17] He is as old as the hills
will be interpreted asfi^rative, since thescales of human age and
of geological age are disjunctive sets.'
Thus, formulae [13] and [14] have to be supplemented with a
pragmatic assiunption and an empirical normality condition,
similar to those stated in 6.2.1:
[i8a]Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the hearer
will identify correctly the sets B and C of which b and c
are members (it may be one and the same set).
[i8b]Empirical normality condition:
(3x)(33;) [x&BAy^CA Md(x) - MdO') = i].
An empirical normality condition should also be formulated for
type R sentences, ie for exponents of propositions in which the
value of the ratio between the values of the measure function is
not limited to i. In the case of those sentences we have to
consider the limitations on the value of the ratio which arise from
the speaker's and the hearer's knowledge of the world. Thus, for
example, for human height the maximum value of that ratio is less
than 5 (if we assume the minimum height to be just below 2 ft
and the maximum height to be about 9 ft). Very often, however,
the minimum and maximum values of the ratio are not easily stat
able, or at least their numerical values are not part of the native
speaker's linguistic intuition. Yet they exist, since native speakers
will classify as improbable or exaggerated those statements in
which the value of the ratio exceeds the maximum.
We can now generalize from all this and write formulae
covering the semantic interpretation of all varieties of type R and
type S sentences with unmarked members of open-class anto-
nymic pairs:
[19] SS: NPb is n times as A as NPc (is).
SI: Basic formula: Md(6) -5- Md(c) = n.
Pragmatic assumption: the speaker assumes the
hearer will identify correctly the sets B and C of
which b and c are members (it may be one and the
same set). Empirical normaUty condition:
(3;c)(3y) [xeBAyeCA Unix) ^ Md(>') = ]
Supplementary formulae:
If n = I, then:
(a) if the adjective is of the Atau class, supplement
the basic formula with the following:
Md(6) i FEW units A Md(c) t few units
(b) if the adjective is of the Agood class and the
speaker treats if as an absolute adjective,
supplement the basic formula with the
foUowing:
Md(6) e MANY units a Md(c) e many units
(c) if the adjective is of the Aou class, the basic
formula does not require supplementation.
Note: When low values of the measure function are
compared, the 'as A as' construction is often avoided
and a sentence with the noun naming the dimension
is used instead; [i6a]-[i6c].
All the remarks on the expression in the sentence of the value
of the ratio, which follow [11], apply here as well.
The sentence used in test item 16, namely '"WaferUne" calcu
lators are as thick as credit cards', exemplified type S sentences
based on propositions containing variables under a quantifier.
Semantic interpretation formulae for such sentences could be
written by analogy to the formulae for sentences of this kind
proposed in the final paragraphs of 5.1.1 and 6.2.1; for example:
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS I53
[20] Cortinas are as long as Granadas.
(V;c)(V3') [j: e StState C a y e StState G]=>
^ [^Length (*) ~ MiengthCy) l]-
We are dealing here with elements of Standard State sets and the
sets are named expressly; so it appears that a pragmatic assump
tion and an empirical normality condition are not needed. Such
sentences are usually matter-of-fact statements: it is unlikely
(though not impossible) for a speaker to use a generic statement
about elements of Standard State sets in a figurative or exagger
ated sense. However, a supplementary formula similar to those
of [19] may be needed. Formulae for sentences based on prop
ositions containing variables representing members of Typical
sets can be written analogically.
Type R sentences based on propositions containing a variable
under a quantifier can be dealt with in a similar fashion.
8.2.2.2 The value of the ratio between the values of the
measure function interpreted as "equal or greater than
n" {or "equal or less than n")
Let us return to the results of test items 11-13 (Table 8.1). It is
highly significant that in each case there were a number of
respondents who quoted values for the first term of comparison
which were either higher or lower than the values for the second
term. This seems in conflict with [5a]. Yet if we assume that the
informants interpreted "equality" as "approximate equaUty", the
conflict is resolved. Consider the following sentences, both of
which seem acceptable:
[21a] Mary is more or less as tall as her father; strictly
speaking, she is half an inch taller.
[21b] Mary is more or less as tall as her father; strictly
speaking, she is half an inch shorter.
It appears that the hedge 'more or less' (or 'approximately')
allows for an 'as A as' sentence to be interpreted as expressing
the complex relation "equal or greater than or less than"
- with the proviso that the deviation from exact equality is small.
Many respondents obviously interpreted the test sentences that
way, even though the notion of "approximate equality" was not
signalled overtly. This is the reason for the adoption, in 8.2.2.1,
of the '' symbol in the semantic interpretation formulae of 'as
A as' sentences. Strict equality, "=", is, of course, a special case
of approximate equality.
Let US nowreconsider [saHsc]. In the absence of a hedgesuch
as 'more or less' or 'approximately', either stated overtly or read
into the meaning of the sentence by the hearer, an 'as A as'
sentence will be interpreted either as signalling that the ratio
between the values of the measure function equals exactly n, or
as signalling the "equal or greater than" relation - as illustrated
by [5b] and [5c]. TWs is true both when the value of the ratio
between the two values of the measure function (ie the value of
n) is I, and when it is greater than i. Consider the following
sentences, in which n = 2:
[22a] *Michael is twice as tall as his son is, if not shorter.
*This route is twice as long as that one, if not shorter.
[22b] Michael is twice as tall as his son is, if not taller.
This route is twice as long as that one, if not longer.
Sentence [22a] is parallel to [5a] and [22b] to [5b]; thus Mitchell's
observation can presumably be extended to cover all sentences
in which the value of n is i or more than i - eg when it is
expressed by such phrases as 'twice as A\ 'half as A again', etc.
However, when the value of n is less than 1, the picture is
different. Consider the following sentences:
[23a] This route is half as long as that one, if not shorter.
This swimming pool is half as wide as it is long, if not
narrower.
[23b] *This route is half as long as that one, if not longer.
^This swimming pool is half as wide as it is long, if not
wider.
It seems that n = i constitutes a boundary. 'As A as' sentences
in which the value of n is not less than i represent propositions
facing the upper part of the scale, while sentences in which n <
I represent propositions which look down the scale. All this holds
true in the absence of an overt, or understood, hedge - such as
'more or less'.'
The basic formula in [19] should therefore be reformulated as
follows:
[24] SS: NPb is n times as A as NP^ (is).
SI: Basic formula, hedge interpretation: Md(&) Md(c)
n.
Basic formula, no-hedge interpretation:
if in the sentence structure formula n is equal to
or greater than i, then Md(&) Md(c) ^ n
J
if in the sentence structure formula n is less than i,
then Md(6) Md(c) ^ n.
8.2.3 Type S sentences with the marked members of antonymic
pairs
It has to be stated first that type S sentences differ in one
important respect from type R sentences. In type R sentences,
ie when the value of the ratio between the values of the measure
function for the two arguments is different from i, only the
unmarked members of the antonymic pairs can normally be used.
Thus a sentence such as 'Michael is twice as tall as his son' is fully
grammatical, but the sentence 'Michael's son is twice as short as
his father' would be considered deviant: perhaps a syntactic pun
of the same kind as 'The Mini is twenty years young' (c/ 5.1.1).
This is because the sole function of the adjective in R-type
sentences is to name the dimension, without suggesting a high -
or low - value of the measure function; and this can only be done
by the unmarked antonym (c/ the discussion at the beginning of
8.2.2). It appears that the maximum admissible number of items
of information overtly carried by an adjectival measure phrase is
two. Thus, the phrase 'twenty years old' names the scale and gives
the value of the measure function on this scale; the phrase 'twice
as tall as' names the scale and states the value of the ratio
between two values of the measure function; but a phrase such
as 'twenty years young' (as in 'The Mini is twenty years young')
carries three items of information; it names the scale, gives the
value of the measure function, and states that it is low. The result
is a kind of semantic overloading. On the other h^d, in S-type
sentences the situation is different. The value of the measxure
function is constant: namely, one. This makes it possible for the
adjective both to name the dimension and signal that the value
of the measure function is high, or low; the number of items of
information carried by it is still no more than two. Therefore we
can use the marked members of antonymic pairs and say, for
example:
[25] Mary's brother is as short as the doctor.
Mary is as young as Kate.
These two sentences were investigated in test items 14 and 15.
The results are presented in Table 8.4. It is clear from the results
of the tests that 'as A as' sentences entail a low value of the
measure function for both arguments of the underlying proposi
tion. This is reflected particularly well in the fact that the values
156
TABLE 8.4
Item Test sentence
No.
COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALITY
14 Mary's brother 45 M's brother 5 ft-5 ft 8 m() 5 ft 5 ft
is as short as
the doctor.
-2f in
5ft-5ft8in(b)5ft 5 ft
2i in
15 Mary is as
young as
Kate.
65
The doctor
Mary
Kate
Age in years
Dispersion
2-26(^)
2-25('^)
Mode Mean
10
10
10.4
10.1
Plus one case each of 2 ft 6 in, 4 ft 9 in, 4 ft 11 in, and 6 ft.
<*) Plus one case each of 2 ft 6 m, 4 ft 10 in, and 6 ft.
In test item 14 'Mary's brother' is the same height as 'The doctor', except for three
responses in which 'Mary's brother' is taller (by ^ in or 1 in) and one response in which
'Mary's brother' is shorter by 3 in.
In test item15'Mary' is the sameage as 'Kate', except for 3 responses in which 'Mary' is
a year younger, 1 response in which she is 2 years younger, 1 response in which she is 10
years younger, and 1 response in which she is a year older.
of the measure function are nearly all bunched at the lower end
of the scales. This can be represented as follows:
[26] SS: NPb is as A as NPc
SI: [Md(6) Md(c) c 1] a [Md(6) e few units a
Md(c) FEW units]
with the pragmatic assumption [i8a] and - presumably - the
empirical normality condition [i8b]. This is the hedge interpreta
tion, with the value of n assumed to be "more or less i". In the
no-hedge interpretation, 'as A as' sentences represent proposi
tions which look down the scale. Consider the following
sentences:
[27a] Mary's brother is as short as the doctor, if not shorter.
Mary is as young as Kate, if not younger.
[27b] *Mary's brother is as short as the doctor, if not taller.
*Maryis as young as Kate, if not older.
Therefore:
[28] SS: NPb is as A as NPc.
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALEANTONYNOC PAIRS 157
sr. No-hedge interpretation:
[Md(&) Md(c) < 1] a [Md(6) e few units a
Md(c) e FEW units].
dimensions
8.3.1 General description
Sentences referring to two dimensions may be based on one-
argument or two-argument propositions Fig. 3.1, p50-i).
Examples:
That swimming pool is as wide as it is long.
[30] This table is twice as wide as that one is long.
This bed is as wide as that one is long.
In 6.3.1 we arguedthat for a sentence referring to two dimen
sions to be understood literally the dimensions must be compar
able and measured in the same units. This, as we saw, limits the
scope of sentences referring to two dimensions to sentences with
numerical adjectives. In 6.3.1 we discussed 'j4er than' sentences,
but the conclusions reached there are valid also for 'as A as'
sentences - at least for those sentences which are meant to be
understood literally, in terms of concrete values of the measure
function. Looser, non-literal, and figurative uses are different:
here the dimensions need not be measured in the same units or
even have actual numerical scales (though, as was argued in 1.6,
an ad hoc numerical scale can always be created), and both
antonymic and non-antonymic adjectives can be used. Consider
the following sentences:
[31] Joe is as old as he is fat.
' I'm as thirsty as I'm hungry.
Joan is as inteUigent as Kate is pretty.
What characterizes the adjectives in locutions of this kind is that
usually they are not value-neutral: theytend to signal a high value
of the measure function for both arguments. Thus Joe is both fat
and old, I am both hungry and thirsty, Kate is pretty and Joan
is intelligent, etc.^ However, relative interpretation of adjectives
in locutions of this sort is not excluded; the problem is worth
investigating with the help of elicitation tests.
158 cxjmparauve sentences of proportionauty
8.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions (types T
and U)
8.3.2.1 Sentences with the unmarked members of antonymic
pairs
'As A as' sentences such as those exemplified in [29] are expo
nents of propositions expressing the value of the ratio between
the values of the measure function for two dimensions of the
argument (values stated in the same units). In type T sentences
the value of that ratio is different from i andin type U sentences
it is (a_pproximately) i. The basic formulae for the semantic inter
pretation of such sentences with the unmarked anton)ans are as
foUows - assuming the hedge ("more or less") interpretation by
the speaker (cf 8.2.2.2):
MwidthCthis sp) -i- MLegth(this sp)
[33] That swimming pool is as wide as it is long.
Mwidth(that sp) -j- MLength(that sp) == I.
This can be generalized as follows:
[34] SS: NPb is n times as Ai as NPbpron is A2
SI: Mdi(6) h- Md2(6) n.
of the ratio which follow [11] apply here as well. Subsequent
discussion of value-neutrality, or otherwise, of the unmarked
adjective in type R and type S sentences is also relevant to T-type
and U-type sentences. The leading adjective here is the first
one, and it can be presumed that the different classes of adjec
tives identified in 8.2.2 behave in a similar fashion here. In the
absence of elicitation test evidence, however, this remains just a
guess. If it is correct, then the basic formula from [34] will have
to besupplemented by additional formulae similar to[i9a]-[i9c].
The conclusions on the limits of literal acceptability of type R
and type S sentences, reached in 8.2,2, apply also here, to type
T and type U sentences. Thus, type U sentences such as [33]
require an empirical normality condition, which could be formu
lated as follows:
[35] Empirical normality condition for [33]:
(Bx) [xeSP AMw(x) ^ Mi^(x) i]
where SP represents the set of swunming pools, Mw stands for
'(the value of) the measure function of width' and Ml stands for
'(the value of) the measure function of length'.
Basic semantic interpretation formulae for type T sentences
such, for example, as [32] - also need qualification. A sentence
Uke
[36] Our swimming pool is twice as wide as it is long
would be considered empirically deviant. We assume here that
the concept "length of a swimming pool" is not relative: len^
is measured along the tracks marked out for swimmers partici
pating in contests - from the deep end to the shallow one. The
speaker and the hearer must agree on the interpretation of the
dimensions.
We can now supplement thebasic formula for tjê T and type
U sentences given in [34] with the. following additions:
[37] Pragmatic assumption for [34]: the speaker assumes the
hearer will ident^ correctly the dimensions Di and D2.
Empirical normality condition for [34]:
(3;c) [jc 6 5 A Mdi(jc) MoaC-*) = n
where B is the set of which 6 is a member.
The precise maximumvalue of n, beyond which the sentence
ceases to express 'normal' reality, is in most cases difficult to
establish. For motor cars, for example, the ratio between width
and length is definitely less than i. But howmuch less? A state
ment such as
[38] That car is as wide as it is long
will be interpreted as an exaggeration - presumably intended. It
would be difficult, however, to state the maximum acceptable
value of n here. TTie reason is that the ratio of a car's width to
its lengthis not a parameter that is ever discussed (except perhaps
in strictly technical Uterature); therefore it is not part of a native
speaker's knowledge of the world, nor is it clearly reflected in
his linguistic intuition.
Sentence [38] was quoted as an example of an exaggeration:
a statement which is not expected to be interpreted literaUy. Let
us consider another example:
"[39] Hrothgar is as broad as he is tall.
This is obviously a vast exaggeration, even more so than [38]: it
is impossible for the ratio between a person's breadth and his
height to equal i. There is more to it, however: the range of the
measure function of breadth of human beings and the range of
the measure function of their height constitute two separate
subsets of the set of real positive numbers. In other words, the
scales of breadth and of height of human beings do not overlap:
l60 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALnY
the measure of a person's breadth (across the waist or hips) can
never reach the figure which can represent a human being's
height-no matter howfat and short he or she is. The corollary isthat
the necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a U-type sentence
to be interpretable literally is that the scales for the two dimen
sions should at least partially overlap:
[40] Di^ n D23 #0
ie the intersection of the two (fuzzy) subsets Di^ and of the
set of real positive numbers, which represent the scales for the
two dimensions of elements of set B, is a non-null set.
Formulae for the no-hedge interpretation of type T and type
U sentences can be written by analogy to such formulae for R-
type and S-type sentences - c/ 8.2.2.2.
Formulae for sentences based on propositions containing a
variable under a quantifier can be written by analogy to the
formulae for such sentences proposed in the final paragraphs of
5.1.1 and 6.2.1. The following sentences are exponents of prop
ositions containing variables which are members of Standard
State sets:
[41a] DUPLO filing cabinets are twice as deep as they are
wide.
[41b] PLANO filing cabinets are as deep as they are wide.
The formula for [41b] would look as follows:
[42] (Vjc) [x e StState PFC ^ MDepth(Jc) Mwidth(jc) = i]
where PFC symbolizes the set of plano filing cabinets. The
remarks on a pragmatic assumption, an empirical normality
condition, and a supplementary formula, which follow [20] - at
the end of 8.2.2.1 - apply here as well. Formulae for sentences
based on propositions containing a variable representing a
member of a Typical set can be written by analogy to [42].
8.3.2.2 Sentences with the marked members of antonymic pairs
Type T sentences differ from type U sentences in the same way
as R-type sentences differ from S-type sentences: in type T
sentences, ie when the value of the ratio between the values of
the measure function for the two dimensions is different from i,
only the unmarked members of the antonymic pairs can be used,
if the sentence is to be interpreted hteraUy. The discussion of the
use of the unmarked and marked antonjrms, presented in 8.2.3,
is relevant here as well. Thus a sentence suchas 'This swimming
pool is twice as narrow as it is short' would be considered deviant,
but most native speakers would accept [43]:
SENTENCES WITH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS l6l
[43] This swimming pool is as narrow as it is short.
When the argument is a variable under a quantifier, we get such
sentences as, for example,
[44] siMPLO filing cabinets are as shallow as they are narrow.
Acceptability of this sentence was the subject of test item 39. It
was an item of category 4: the subjects were asked to evaluate
the acceptability of the sentence by putting a tick in one of the
three boxes marked 'Yes', 'Dubious', 'No'. There were 42
subjects; 30replied 'Yes', 7 were 'Dubious', and 5 said 'No'. Thus
over 70 per cent of theinformants accepted thesentence outri^t
and a further 16per cent, withsome reservations. Sentences with
singular referring expressions, such as [43], can be considered
acceptabl-- a fortiori.
For [43], the following semantic interpretation formula can be
proposed:
[45]
;Mwidth(this sp) ^ MLength (this sp) i] A
^Mwidth(this sp) e few units a MLength(this sp) e few
units].
Let us generalize from this and write formulae for any U-type
sentence with the marked members of antonymic pairs:
[46] SS; NPb is as Ai as NPi, pron is ^2'
sr. [MDi(fc) MD2(fe) i] A [Mdi(6) e few units a
Md2(&) e few units].
This assumes the hedge, or "more-or-less", interpretation of the
sentence. The no-hedge interpretation can be written by analogy
to [28].
Semantic interpretation formulae for sentences based on prop
ositions containing a variable under a quantifier - such as [44] -
can be written by analogto [20], [42], and [46].
One final remark is in order. It seems that aside from the
Uteral, numerical interpretation, U-type sentences with the
marked antonyms- such as [43] and [44] - admit of a looser inter
pretation, under which the 'as . . . as' phrase means only "both
. . . and". Under this interpretation, for example, [43] would
mean "this swimming pool is both narrow and short".
8.3.3 Sentences based on two-argument propositions (types V
and W)
To present examples of V-type and W-type sentences, we shall
repeat as [47] the sample sentences [30]:
[47a] This table is twice as wide as that one is long.
i62 comparative sentences of PROPORTIONALrry
[47b] This bed is as wide as that one is long.
The generalized formulae for the interpretation of both these
types of sentences are the following:
[48] SS: NPb is n times as Ax as NPc is A2.
SI: Mdi(6) -5- Md2(c) n
Pragmatic assumptions:
(a) The speaker assumes the hearer will identify
correctly the sets B and C of which b and c are
members (it may be the same set).
(b) The speaker assumes the hearer will identify
correctly the dimensions Di and D2.
Empirical normality condition:
(3j:)(33;)[ac eB Ay eC a MdiW - MoaO') = ]
where B and C are sets of which b and c are members.
of the ratio, which follow [11], apply here too. The same is true
- mutatis mutandis - of the discussion of value-neutraUty, or
otherwise, of the unmarked adjective, presented in 8.2.2. The
discussion of the maximum value of n, presented in 8.3.2.1, is also
relevant; and so are the remarks on sentences based on propo
sitions containing variables under quantifiers.
In all this the hedge ("more-or-less") interpretation of the
sentences is assumed. The formulae for the no-hedge interpret
ation can be written accordingly.
W-type sentences with the marked members of antonymic pairs
were considered to be of doubtful acceptability by some native
speakers, informally questioned. In the absence of formal elici-
tation test results, however, no more can be said about this at the
moment.
pairs: negative statements
The first thing that has to be said about negative 'as A as'
sentences is that they do not mean merely "it is not the case that
5", where S is a positive 'as A as' sentence. Negative 'as A as'
sentences with members of open-scale antonymic pairs were
investigated in a number of elicitation tests. Table 8.5 presents
the results of test items deaUngwith the adjectives 'tall' and 'old'
(in type S sentences).
It is a characteristic feature of the semantics of negative 'as A
as' sentences that they almost always entail that the value of the
TABLE 8.5
Item
No.
Test sentence
18
19
The postman
isn't as tall as
the milkman.
Our teacher
isn't as tall as
the
headmaster.
57 The postman 5 ft-6 ftW
The milkman 5 ft 6 in-
6 ft 4 in^^
5ft 5ft
10 in^")? in
6ft 5ft
6 ft 11 in
5ft 5ft
8 in(>5 in
6ft 6ft
li in
52 Our teacher
The head
4 ft 10 in-
eftlinCiJ
5 ft 10 in-
6 ft 3 in^'^
Age in years
20 Mike isn't as 65 Mike 4-40(8)
180
19.1
old as Andy. Andy 6-40 200) 22.1
21 Cindy's
husband isn't
as old as
107 C's husband 19-60W 25
and
30
32.0
Kate's K's husband 20-650) 30 38.7
husband. and
40
(a) Plus one case of 4 ft 6 in and one of 6 ft 2 in.
There is a secondary peak at S ft 6 in.
(c) Plus one case of 5 ft 4 in.
Plus five cases of exceptionally small height, ranging from 3 ft 2 in to 4 ft 6 in.
There is a secondary peak at 5 ft 9 in.
(0 Plus four cases of sniall height: from 4 ft 5 in to S ft 8 in, and five cases of great
height: from 6 ft 6 in to 9 ft 2 in.
Plus one case each of 50, 60, and 95 years.
(h) There is a secondary peak at 8 years.
Plus one case each of 60, 70, and 100 years.
(i) There is a secondary peak at 10 years.
W Plus one case each of 74, 75, jmd 97i years.
W Plus one case each of 80, 90, and 98 years.
In test item 18 'the postman' always shorter; in test item 19 *ourteacher* always shorter.
In test item 20 *Mike' always younger, except for two responses, in which he is older (by 5
or 10 years); in test item 21 *Cindy'shusband*is yoimger, except for four responses, in
which he is older (by 5, 8, 10, or 30 years).
In test item 18 one response was rejected as jocularly exaggerated: 67 ft 7 in for *the
milkman' and 5 in for *the postman*. These figures were not counted towards the mean;
they are, however, significant in showing'the postman' as shorter and emphasizing
considerable height of 'the milkman*. In test item 19 two responseswere rejected: 90 ft
and 1 ft; 27 ft and 27 ft. However, they are both significant in stressingconsiderableheight
of 'the headmaster'.
There was one more response to item 21: 'Cindy's husband' 16-50-90 years old, 'Kate's
husband' 18-55-100 years old. It was not counted towards the mean, but is characteristic
in showing complete relativity of the adjective.
164 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONAIITY
measure function for the first term of comparison is less than that
for the secundum comparationis\ that is, the ratio between the
values of the measure function for the first and the second term
of comparison is less than i. Exceptions are very rare and were
only registered in sentences with the adjective 'old': in test item
20 there were two (out of 65 responses), in test item 21, four (out
of 107 responses), but in test items 18 and 19 there were none. In
other words, 'John isn't as tall as Peter' entails that John is
shorter than Peter (and - usually- that Peter is tall - see below),
while 'John isn't as old as Peter' entails, for almost all speakers,
that John is younger than Peter. We can conclude from this that
almost all the respondents put the no-hedge interpretation on the
test sentences; that is, interpreted them as negations of sentences
in which the value of the ratio between the values of the measure
function is equal to or greater than i, ie ^ i. Under this inter
pretation, negation applies to both alternatives (3^), leaving only
one choice open, namely the relation "less than" (<).
We saw that for the test items dealing with positive 'as A as'
sentences there were always a good number of responses which
indicated the hedge interpretation of the sentences. On the other
hand, we now find that for items dealing with negative sentences
there are hardly any responses pointing to the hedge interpret
ation of the relevant positive sentences. This discrepancy is inter
esting. Hedges such as 'more or less' or 'approximately' change
the "=" relation into the relation, which we described as
meaning (with the proviso that the deviation - either way -
from exact equality is small). It appears that almost all speakers
adopt this meaning of the "=" relation; consequently, they are
forced to reject the hedge interpretation of negative sentences,
since negation, ie would leave no choice open and thus block
the interpretation of the sentences completely.^^
The test results show, moreover, that the difference in semantic
patterning between the adjectives 'old' and 'tall' which we noted
while examining positive 'as A as' sentences 8.2.2) can be
observed in negative sentences as well. 'Old' is completely value-
neutral, while 'taU'-phrases are by many speakers interpreted as
entailing a high value of the measure function for the second term
of comparison. This tendency becomes accentuated when the
adjective is pronounced with extra strong stress and on a high
falUng tone: the values of the measure Unction for the second
term of comparison are then higher, and those for the first term,
lower, than in the sentence with a neutral stress and intonation
pattern. This is well illustrated in test item 19 by the absurdly
exaggerated response of the informant who quoted 90 feet
SENTENCES WTTH MEMBERS OF OPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS
165
as the headmaster's height and i foot as the teacher's height.
Negative 'as A as' sentences, ie sentences with marked
members of antonymic pairs, were investigated in test items
22-25. Th adjectives used were 'young' and 'short', and the
sentences were of the S-type (cf Table 3.7, p.56). The results
are presented in Table 8.6. Without a single exception, negative
'as A as' sentences entail that the value of the measure function
for the primum comparationis is more than that for the secundwn
comparationis, ie their ratio equals more than i: there is also a
strong tendency to consider both values to be low. In other
TABLE 8.6
Item Test sentence N
No.
22
23
Andrew isn't
as short as
Keith.
Mr Grey isn't
as SHORT as Mr
Black.
54 Andrew
Keith
57 Mr G.
Mr B.
Height in feet and inches
4ft2Jin- 5ft 5ft
6 ft 1 in^^ 6 in 4 in
4ft2in-6ft(b)5ft 4ft
11 in
4ft 9 in-
6 ft 4 in^'^^
4 ft-6 ftW
5ft
8 in
and
6ft
5ft
5ft
7 in
5ft
3 in
Age in years
24 Tom isn't as 68 Tom 4-32() 10 19.1
young as Kevin
3-30(0
10 15.5
Kevin.
25 Peter's wife 106 P's wife 18-45<8) 30 32.6
isn't as young J's wife
17-35W
20 26.2
as Jim's wife. and
25
(a) Plus five cases ranging from 2 ft to 3 ft 6 in and one case each of 6 ft 4 in and 7 ft.
(*>) Plus five cases ranging from 1 ft to 3 ft.
Plus one case each of 3 ft 1 in, 3 ft 7 in, 4 ft 2 in, 7 ft 2 in.
(<1) Plus one case each of 3 ft, 3 ft 3 in, 6 ft 7 in.
() Plus one case each of 41, 50, 65, 70, 99, and jc + 2 years.
(0 Plus one case each of 40, 58, 60, 97, and x years.
Plus one case each of 50, 51, 53, 55, two cases of 60, and one case of 68 years.
0>) Plus one case each of 40, 47, 50, 52, and 80 years.
In test item 22 'Andrew* always taller; in test item 23 *Mr Grey' always taller. In test item
24 Tom' always older; in test item 25 Teter's wife' is older, except for 4 responses, in which
she is a year (2 cases), 2 years, or 12 years younger.
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
7
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
S
e
c
m
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
N
o
.
4
7
T
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
4
2
B
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
g
o
o
d
a
s
t
h
e
d
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
F
.
4
8
T
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
3
9
-
4
0
D
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
b
a
d
a
s
t
h
e
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
i
n
K
.
++
+
+
-
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
3
-
1
0
2
5
6
3
1
4
-
7
2
1
9
5
0
2
1
2
_
_
2
4
4
J
6
0
-
1
0
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
1
0
2
5
92
2
3
07
1
2
77
0
3
0
7
1
-
1
22
9
3
6
4
9
0
-
1
0
is
SENTENCES WTTH MEMBERS OFOPEN-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS 167
words, 'Mary isn't as young as Jane' entails that Mary is older
than Jane and, in most cases, that both Mary and Jane are young.
The mean averages are lower in test items 22 and 24 than in test
items 23 and 25 respectively. This was probably caused by the fact
that in test items 22 and 24 first names were used, and some
informants may have interpreted them as referring to children.
Let us write all this down in formulae.
[49] SS: NPb is not as Aoid as NPc
SI: Basic formula: Md(6) Md(c) = i
Predominant tendency: ^ Md(c) > i
[50] SS: NPb is not as Ataij as NPc
SI: [Md(6) ^ Md(c) > I a Md(c) e few units]
where Aou symbolizes an adjective which patterns semantically
with 'old', and A,aii an adjective which patterns with 'tall'.
[51] SS: NPb is not as A as NP^..
SI: Basic formula: MD(fe) Md(c) > i.
Predominant tendency: Md(6) e few units a Md(c)
e FEW units.
Negative 'as A as' sentences with the antonymic pair
'good' : 'bad' were studied in test items 47 and 48. The results are
presented in Table 8.7. In positive 'as A as' sentences the adjec
tive 'good' was treated by some speakers as relative^ by others
as absolute (cf Table 8.2). Negative 'as A as' sentences with the
members of the antonymic pair 'good' : 'bad' present a different
picture. There is a clearly marked tendency to interpret the
adjective as relative in relation to the primum comparationis, and
as absolute in relation to the secundum comparationis. This
applies to both antonyms. Thus 'The climate in B isn't as good
as the climate in F' was by almost three-quarters of the respond
ents interpreted as meaning that the climate in F is good, while
the climate in B may be good or not. Similarly, the sentence 'The
climate in D isn't as bad as the climate in K' was interpreted by
a large majority of subjects as meaning that the climate in K is
bad, while the climate in D may be bad or not.
Let us now look at the results of test item 40, which was an
attempt to investigate two aspects of negative sentences at the
same time: reference to two dimensions, and the value of n
different from i. The test sentence was 'This table isn't half as
wide as it is long'. The subjects were asked to choose one of the
following three assessments of the width of the table: it is more
than half its length, it is less than half its length, it may be more
or less than half its length. There were 42 informants. The results
168 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALTTY
TABLE 8.8
Item No. 40
Test sentence: This table isn't half as wide as
it is long.
Responses: The width of the table
is more than half its length: 3 7%
is less than half its length: 31 74%
may bemore or less than half 8 19%
its length:
iV = 42 100%
are presented inTable 8.8. The results confirm the predominant
tendency in the semantic interpretation of negative 'as A as'
sentences, formulated in [49] for negations of sentences in which
the ratio Md(6) ^ Md(c) equals approximately i. This tendency
can now be generalized as follows:
[52] Negative 'as Aas' sentences with the unmarked members
of open-scale antonymic pairs tend to be interpreted as
indicating that the ratiobetween the values of the measure
function for the two terms of comparison, Md(&)
Md(c), is less than n; this does not depend either on the
value of n, or on the nature of the comparanda.
Negative 'as A as' sentences, that is sentences with the marked
members of antonymic pairs are interpreted almost as given in
[52], except that the 'less' of [52] must be replaced by 'more'.
8.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale antonymic
pairs
8.5.1 Positive statements
Let us consider the sentence
[53] This bottle is as full as that one.
This sentence was used in test item 42. It was accompanied by
a picture of two empty bottles, and the instruction read 'Drawa
line indicating the level in each bottle'. The responses are
presented in Table 8.9. The responses varied from o.i of the
volume of the bottle to i.o, ie full bottle, and the level was always
the same in both bottles. As can be seen from this, the adjective
'full' in 'as A as' sentences is value-neutral: 'as full as' does not
entail "full". However, the mean average for all the responses
SENTENCES WITH BOUNDED-SCALE ANTONYMIC PAIRS 169
TABLE 8.9
Item Test sentence N
Fraction of bottlefilled
No.
Dispersion Mean
42 This bottle is as 43 Both bottles 0.1-1.0 0.66
full as that one.
was 0.66, which seems to show what we called before (c/6.2.1)
the pull effect of the adjective referring to the upper end of the
scale - even though this effect is only detectable statistically.
These observations can be presented formally as follows:
[54] SS: iVPt is as full as iVPc-
SI: Mf(6) -h Mf(c) = I.
Statistical tendency: MpCfe) > 0.5 a Mf(c) > 0.5.
In these formulae Mp stands for "(the value of) the measure func
tion of fullness". The values of the measure function are non-
denominate real numbers ranging from 0.0 to i.o.
Three questions arise: namely, whether b and c can be any
members of the class of containers; whether the formula applies
also to the class of quasi-containers (c/5.1.3); and whether we can
compare members of one of these classes with members of the
other. Let us consider the following sentences:
[55] My glass is as full as yours.
This can is as empty as that one.
[56] Our bus is as full as yours.
The theatre is as empty tonight as it was last night.
All these sentences are fully acceptable. In each of them the
referents of the arguments in the underlying proposition come
both from the class of containers, as in [55], or both from the class
of-quasi-containers, as in [56]. On the other hand, comparing a
member of the class of containers with a member of the class of
quasi-containers results in sentences which for the majority of
native speakers are not acceptable, or of doubtful acceptability.
In test item 41 the subjects were asked to assess the acceptability
of the sentence
[57] The theatre is full and so is this bottle.
Out of the 45 informants, only 9 (ie 20 per cent of the total)
accepted the sentence, 25 were dubious, and 11 rejected it.
It seems, moreover, that there is an additional condition on
lyO COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONAUTY
acceptability of 'as A as' sentences with members of bounded-
scale antonymic pairs, since the two comparanda may not be
comparable even though they are both members of the class of
containers, or both belong to the class of quasi-containers.
Consider the following sentence, the acceptabihty of which is
dubious:
[58] 'My glass is as full as that bottle.
Presumably, what is involved in the process of comparing
"fullness" is not just the fraction of eachcontainer which is filled,
but also the total capacity of each of the containers, considered
in absolute figures. Glasses are smaller than bottles and a fraction
of a glass amounts to lessliquid than the same fraction of a bottle.
Capacity of containers (considered in absolute figures) seems to
influence the acceptability of statements about "fullness"
expressed in fractions of the whole, ie in relative figures. This can
be interpreted as the bounded-scale andogue of scale-relativity,
defined for open-scale antonymic pairs in 2.1.
We can now add two conditions to [54]:
[59] Semantic well-formedness conditions for [54]:
(a) (5 C Cr A C C C7) V (B C QCT a C C QCT)
(b) b and c refer to containers of roughly the same
capacity
where B and C are sets of which b and c are members, CT
symbolizes the set of containers, and QCT the set of quasi-
containers.
Experimental evidence on 'as A as' sentences with the adjective
'empty' is lacking. It seems highly likely, however, that they
behave Uke sentences with the marked members of open-scale
antonymic pairs: they signal a low value of Mp presumably,
Mp < 0.5. In other words, what is only a statistical tendency
in 'as A as' sentences with the adjective 'full' - cf [54]- constitutes
part of the meaning of suchsentences with the adjective 'empty'.
8.5.2 Negative statements
Let us consider the following sentence:
[60] This bottle isn't as full as that one.
The sentence was used in test item 43. The format was the same
as in test item 42 (cf 8.5.1); the results are presented in Table
8.10. As can be seen, 'this bottle' was in all responses considered
less full than 'that bottle', but never completely empty. 'That
SENTENCES WITH ASVMMETRIC-SCALE ADJECTIVAL PAIRS I7I
TABLE 8.10
Item Test sentence
N Fraction of bottlefilled
No.
Dispersion Mean
43 This bottle isn't as 43 This bottle 0.1-0.9 0.49
full as that one. That bottle 0.2-1.0 0.73
'This bottle' always less full than 'that bottle'.
bottle', on the other hand, may be completely full. The dispersion
of the responses was wide: the adjective is value-neutral. This can
be written down as follows:
[61] SS: NPb is not as full as NPc.
SI: [Mf(&) ^ Mf(c) < i] a [o < Mf(6) < i a o <
Mf(c) ^ I].
Negative sentences with the adjective 'empty' were not studied
in elicitation tests; they seem to constitute a mirror reflection of
negative sentences with the adjective 'full'.
8.6 Sentences with members of asymmetric-scale
adjectival pairs
Elicitation test evidence on 'as A as' sentences with asymmetric-
scale pairs is confined to sentences with the adjective 'dry' (see
Table 8.11). A characteristic feature of this adjective (and prob
ably of the unmarked terms of all asymmetric-scale pairs) is that
a significant proportion of the respondents treated it as negatively
absolute, ie for them 'as dry as' entails "not dry" for both terms
of comparison. This was already noted in 6.6, with reference to
'Aer than' sentences (cf Table 6.n; p 115). Nearly two-thirds of
the.respondents considered 'dry' to be a ^y relative adjective,
and less than one-third treated it as a fully absolute one. The
responses are almost the same for both terms of comparison and
strongly reminiscent of the responses for the first (though not the
second) term given in test item 52 ('My shirt is drier than my
socks').
Extrapolating from the results of test item 53 ('wetter than')
we can say that the adjective 'wet' in 'as A as' sentences is prob
ably treated as absolute by most native speakers. Elicitation test
evidence in this respect is, however, lacldng.
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
1
1
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
h
m
s
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
g
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
g
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
g
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
g
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
5
1
M
y
t
o
w
e
l
i
s
1
0
5
2
8
1
1
1
8
1
2
6
3
l
(
'
>
3
0
9
6
6
3
0
1
1
6
5
z
a
s
d
r
y
a
s
2
7
1
1
I
7
-
1
2
6
0
1
2
9
8
6
3
2
9
1
0
6
1
|
y
o
u
r
s
.
g
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
O
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
+
/
-
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
1
i
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
1
2
W
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
t
i
i
s
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
^
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
'
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
g
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
N
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
N
o
.
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
5
4
E
v
e
'
s
c
a
r
i
s
1
0
5
-
a
s
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
1
0
6
a
s
M
a
r
y
'
s
c
a
r
.
3
02
8
1
I
1
1
1
7
26
8
1
(
a
)
1
3
02
8
2
2
7
3
3
2
2
2
7
26
5
6
6
M
o
i
r
a
i
s
a
s
6
8
-
6
9
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
a
s
S
o
p
h
y
2
53
6
2
3
1
1
3
9
5
7
1
(
b
)
i
2
84
0
4
16
0
2
63
8
1
1
4
1
5
9
A
m
a
n
d
a
i
s
a
s
1
0
4
-
p
r
e
t
t
y
a
s
1
0
6
C
l
a
r
e
.
5
04
7
2
2
1
1
4
-
^
4
1
1
4
64
3
2
(
<
=
)
2
5
25
0
1
i
5
1
5
55
2
3
5
4
84
5
7
2
J
o
h
n
i
s
a
s
7
0
c
r
u
e
l
a
s
P
e
t
e
r
.
4
56
4
1
1
-
I
1
2
33
3
4
5(
W
1
1
2
43
4
4
66
6
2
4
6
3
S
i
d
i
s
a
s
6
7
-
6
8
e
x
t
r
a
v
a
g
a
n
t
a
s
D
o
n
.
4
66
8
1
1
2
02
9
1
(
d
)
1
4
75
9
2
15
i
4
66
9
2
13
1
9
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
+
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
+
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
y
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
+
/
-
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
+
/
-
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
a
n
i
t
e
m
.
^
with unary-scale adjectives
8.7.1 Positive statements
Unmarked members of quasi-antonymic pairs were represented
in the elicitation tests by the adjective 'economical', and marked
members of such pairs, by the adjectives 'illogical' and
'dishonest'. The class of unary-scale adjectives was represented
by the adjectives 'pretty', 'sensible', 'extravagant', and 'cruel'.
In 6.7, 'economical', 'pretty', and 'sensible' were found to be
sufficiently simUar in their semantic behaviour in '.4er than'
sentences to be treated jointly; the same applied to 'cruel' and
the colour adjectives (represented by 'red'), while 'extravagant'
was found to stand midway between the two groups. The results
of elicitation tests dealing with 'as A as' sentences with these
adjectives (except for 'red') range them all on a cline, with respect
to degree of relativity, allowing for them to be discussed together:
c/Table 8.12. As was mentioned above, the adjectives form a
cline, with 'economical' considered as relative by 70 per cent of
the respondents - the highest figure - and 'extravagant' closing
the table, with only 31-32 per cent of (+/~) responses. The
responses for the firet and Ae second term of comparison are
roughly the same - as could be expected. There are, however, a
couple of peculiar responses, particularly the two (+,)
responsesin test item59 ('pretty'), which are difficult to interpret.
The percentages of subjects who treated these adjectives, when
used in 'as A as' sentences, as relative - ie selected the (+/)
response - are either approximately the same as the percentages
of (+/~) responses for the first term of comparison in the tests
dealing with Âet than' sentences, or stand half-way between the
TABLE 8.13
Adjective as A as Aer than
sentences sentences
Percentages of+/- responses for:
First Second First Second
term term term term
Economical 70 68 52 88
Sensible 60 61 45 79
Pretty 49 45 48 86
Cruel
34 34 19 57
Extravagant 31 31 34 79
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
1
4
P
r
i
m
w
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
+
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
N
N
o
.
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
+
-
-
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
_
+
/
-
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
-
+
/
-
7
6
T
o
m
'
s
a
r
g
u
-
4
3
-
4
4
3
5
6
1
(
a
)
3
5
1
7
3
7
1
6
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
a
s
8
0
-
-
-
2
1
1
2
8
1
2
1
6
8
4
2
1
4
i
l
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
a
s
y
o
u
r
s
.
7
1
S
a
m
i
s
a
s
4
3
-
4
4
3
8
5
1
(
a
)
3
8
5
3
9
5
d
i
s
h
o
n
e
s
t
a
s
8
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
i
2
8
8
-
1
2
8
9
-
7
2
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
.
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
y
*
m
i
n
u
s
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
wo%
u
J
percentages of (+/) responses for the first and the second term
of comparison in those tests. This is illustrated in Table 8.13.
Marked members of quasi-antonymic paurs were represented
in the elicitation tests by the adjectives 'Ulogical' and 'dishonest'.
The tests and their results are presented in Table 8.14. As can
be seen from the results of the tests, even the marked members
of quasi-antonymic pairs (which are typically negative adjectives)
can be treated as relative adjectives. Thus one may say 'My
arguments are as illogical as yours', meaning that they are not
illogical.
The general conclusion from the study of quasi-antonymic and
unary-scale adjectives is the same as that formulated in 6.7:
namely, that exclusively absolute adjectives are hard to find - if
they exist at all.
8.7.2 Negative statements
Only three quasi-anton)ans and unary-scale adjectives occurring
in negative statements were investigated in eUcitation tests:
'sensible', 'cruel', and 'green'. The results are presented in Table
8.15. The results of the test for the adjective 'sensible' resemble
very closely those for the adjective 'good' (c/ Table 8.7): there
is a strong tendency to interpret the adjective as relative in rela
tion to the first term of comparison, and as absolute in relation
to the second term. A similar tendency can be observed in the
case of the adjectives 'cruel' and 'green': here the shift towards
the absolute interpretation of the secundum comparationis is even
more strongly marked, while the shift towards the relative inter
pretation of the primum comparationis is less obvious - presum
ably because speakers do tend to perceive 'cruel' and the colour
adjectives as characteristically more absolute than 'sensible' (or
'good').
All these results show that the predominant tendency in the
semantic interpretation of negative 'as A as' sentences, formu
lated for open-scale antonymic pairs in [52], can also be observed
in sentences with quasi-antonymic pairs and in sentences with
unary-scale adjectives. In particular, when n in the sentence struc
ture formula equals i (which is by far the most frequent occur
rence), the ratio between the values of the measure function for
the two terms of comparison is less than i. In other words, '* isn't
as economica^pretty/sensible/cruel as y' entails 'y is more
economicaîpretty/sensible/cruel than x\ It seems that the same
tendency can be observed in negative 'as A as' sentences with
adjectives from other classes - so that [52] can presumably be
generalized to apply to all classes of gradable adjectives.
T
A
B
L
E
8
.
1
5
P
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
+
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
-
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
N
N
o
.
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
+
-
-
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
+
/
-
O
t
h
e
r
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
6
7
7
3
8
0
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
s
e
n
s
i
b
l
e
a
s
J
a
c
k
i
e
.
J
a
m
e
s
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
c
r
u
e
l
a
s
D
e
r
e
k
.
4
3
-
4
4
4
3
-
4
4
T
h
e
S
m
i
t
h
s
'
4
3
-
4
4
l
a
w
n
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
g
r
e
e
n
a
s
t
h
e
J
o
n
e
s
e
s
'
l
a
w
n
.
3
7
2
1
4
8
1
84
1
8
1
8
-
2
X
N
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
*
+
'
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
.
m
a
r
k
s
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
x
c
l
u
d
^
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
t
e
s
t
i
t
e
m
.
f
o
r
p
r
i
m
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
,
n
o
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
o
r
s
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
^
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
i
t
a
l
i
c
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
1
8
4
1
1
3
1
(
^
>
1
84
1
2
04
5
-
3
0
4
-
9
51
1
1
(
a
)
2
1
(
c
)
2
P
r
i
m
u
m
S
e
c
u
n
d
u
m
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
+
_
+
/
-
+
-
+
/
-
3
9
3
1
7
2
1
7
2
3
0
1
4
6
8
3
2
2
1
2
2
4
0
4
4
9
5
1
9
1
9
1
9
X
2
5
4
3
5
7
3
8
X
8
8
51
2
n
lyg COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALITY
8.8 Pseudo-comparative 'as A as' sentences
We shall now discuss briefly pseudo-comparative 'as A as'
sentences, ie type Z sentences (cf 3.4). They can be exemplified
as follows:
62a] If you are as old as eighteen, you can vote.
62b] Babies as young as three weeks old can imitate simple
bodily movements.^'*
Let us express it in more general terms. The sentence structure
formulae for type Z sentences are as follows:
63a] NPb is as 4 as n units [>1].
63b] NPb is as i4 as n units [-4].
Type Z sentences are closely related semantically to such
sentences as the following:
64a] If you are as much as eighteen years old, you can vote.
'64b] Babies as little as three weeks old can imitate simple
bodily movements.
These sentences actually comprise a subcategory of type A
sentences (cf Chapter 5). The structure of sentences from this
subcategory can be represented by the following formulae:
r65a] NPb is as much as n units A.
[65b] NPb is as little as n units A.
What semantic difference there is between [63a] and [65a], and
between [63b] and [65b] - if any - is not clear. Here we shall
assimie that their basic semantic interpretation is the same, and
that it involves the concept of a threshold value (lim). This can
be represented as follows:
[66] Semantic interpretation for [63a] and [65a]:
Broad:
Narrow:
n units = lim
n units = lim
'Md(&) ^ n units
^Md(6) = n units
[67] Semantic interpretation for [%b] and [65b]:
Broad: \n units = lim] a [Md(6) ^ n units] A [n e
FEW units].
Narrow: [n units = lim] a [Md(6) = n units] a [n e
FEW units].
In other words, pseudo-comparative 'as A as' sentences with the
marked members of antonymic pairs signal that the value of the
measure function for the exponent of the argument is low; while
the unmarked antonyms in such sentences are value-neutral. The
NOTES 179
same applies, respectively, to the words 'little' and 'much' in the
type A sentences defined in [65].
Notes
1. A fairly typical formulation is that of Jespersen (1933:224):
If we compare two persons or things in regard to some quality,
we find three possibilities:
1. Superiority: more dangerous (better) than.
2. Equality: as dangerous (as good) as.
3. Inferiority: less dangerous (less good) than.
Obviously i and 3 are closely connected as indicating inequality
This approach to comparatives can be found in most monographs
and papers on the subject, right up to the present day - cf for
example Rivara (1975), Van Buren (1976), and Post (1981). For a
different view of 'as A as' comparatives see Huddleston (1971:263) and
Mitchell (forthcoming).
2. The division of comparatives into those expressing proportionality
and those expressing linear difference ((^ 6.1.2) can, on logic^
grounds, be considered a universal feature. The exponents of these
two types of comparative relations, however, vary from language to
language. In Polish, for example, when the value of the ratio
between the two values of the measiure function is greater than i,
this may be expressed either by the equivalent of the English 'as A
as' construction or by the equivalent of the English 'êr than'
construction - the latter being by far the more frequently used. For
example: 'Ta trasa jest dwa razy dlu^za od tamtej' (literally: 'This
route is twice longer than that') - rather than 'Ta trasa jest dwa razy
tak dlUga jak tamta' (literally: 'This route is twice so long as that').
However, when the value of the ratio between the two values of the
measure function is smaller than i, then expressions with the
comparative-degree form of the marked member of the antonymic
pair are used; for example: 'Ta trasa jest dwa razy kr6tsza od tamtej'
(literally: 'This route is twice shorter than that'). 'As A as' tyi
expressions are not possible in this case.
3. Cf 6.1.2 above and note 6 to Chapter 6.
4. TTie value of the ratio between the two values of the measure func
tion can also be expressed by such phrases as, for example, 'half as
A again' (expressing a factor of 1.5).
5. The low average age may have resulted from the fact that first names
were used in test item 13; these may have been interpreted by many
(though not by all) informants as belonging to children or young
people.
6. On 'high booster' see note 2 to Chapter 4.
7. The locution 'That story is as old as the hills' can be interpreted
along the same lines.
l80 COMPARATIVE SENTENCES OF PROPORTIONALITY
8. Of course the relation "g" is mathematically meaningless, since it
holds between any two nmnbers - hence, any two values of the
measure function. What makes it meaningful here is the proviso that
the deviation from strict equality is small (with 'small' understood
in the spirit of Wachtel's theory of approximations: cf Wachtel
1980).
9. William Cook (personal communication) points out that *John is as
tall as his father within a couple of inches' entails 'John is shorter
than his father', because measure phrases beginning with 'within' are
semantically marked as indicating approximate values below the
value stated.
10. Locutions such as 'She's as happy as the day is long' are slightly
different semantically. Here the value of the measure function for
the first argument is high; but the second argument is not charac
terized in terms of the value of the Md on the scale, only in terms
of the scale itself: namely, as covering the whole scale: "She's very
happy all day long".
11. See also 6.3.2 above.
12. Some speakers use the phrase 'not so A as' side by side with 'not as
A as'. Quirk et al. (1972:774, note b) write: "In a negative sentence,
so ... as may be substituted (in more formal style) for 05 ... as:
"He's not so/as young as I thought"." Bolinger (1972:27) is of a
different opinion: "Contemporary usage has done away with not so
... as altogether in the function of straight comparison, preserving
it only in the form of a kind of blend with the use of so as an
absolute intensifier."
13. Those few respondents who interpreted negative sentences with 'old'
as meaning "older than" may have treated them as negations of
positive sentences interpreted in terms of the "=" relation. Negation
of "g" is meaningless, negation of gives then perhaps it
is the negation of "=" that is interpreted as meaning ">"? This,
however, is just a guess.
14. This sentence comes from a paper by Ruth Clark: "Adult theories,
child strategies, and their implications for the language teacher" (jp
297, note, in Allen, J. P. B. and Pit Corder S., (eds). Papers in
Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 1975).
Chapter 9
Overview
9.1 Factors in the semantic analysis of sentences with
gradable adjecthres
The analysis of sentences with gradable adjectives which was
presented in the foregoing chapters supports the conclusion that
any semantic generalizations on the subject of gradable adjectives
- including the generalizations referring to the prepositional
content of sentences with such adjectives - must be based on an
investigation of a larger number of factors than are usuallytaken
into consideration in studies of this subject. The principal factors
in the ansdysis of any sentence with a gradable adjective in
predicative function can be described as follows.
(a) We have to consider the type ofconstruction that the sentence
we are dealing with is a token of: 'x is A\ 'x is Aer than y',
'x is the êst in JC, etc.
(b) We have to establish the class and subclass of the adjective':
whether it is a unary-scale adjective or a member of an
antonymic pair; if the latter, then what kind of an antonymic
pair, etc.
(c) If the adjective is a member of an antonjrmic pair, we have
to state whether it is the unmarked or the marked antonym.
(d) We have to note whether the exponent of the argument (or
arguments) is a singular referring expression, or a general or
generic expression.
(e) In certain constructions we have to choose between the broad
and the rmrrow interpretation (or between the hedge and the
no-hedge interpretation).
(f) Moreover, in the case of certain comparative constructions
the formula for the semantic interpretation must include a
i82
OVERVIEW
Statement about the required, or preferred, range of values
of the measure function for one or both of the arguments,
expressed in terms of membership of the fuzzy sets many and
FEW. . u .
(g) Finally, in the case of many constructions toeir semantic
interpretation requires supplementation with pragmatic
assumptions and empirical normality conditions.
Let us verify this by reconsidering the semantic interpretations
of some comparative constructions containing adjectives
belonging to several different classes and subclasses. We shall
confine our attention to sentences with singular referring expres
sions and to sentences in which numerical values of the measure
function (orvalues ofthe results ofoperations onthe value ofthe
measure function) are not used thus ignoring factors (d) and
- partly - (e) from the list above. Moreover, we shall focus atten
tion only on the propositional content of the sentences, to the
exclusion of the pragmatic assumptions and the empirical
normality conditions - thus ignoring factor (g) from the list. All
the other factors, however, will be shown to be relevant - even
though we shall consider only a small number of sentence types;
namely those listed in[ia]-[ic], and [2b] below.
Some students of comparatives consider the three constructions
listed in [i] to be equivdent^:
la] Xis Aer than y
lb y is less A than x
ic] y is not as as x
The choice between such logical converses as, on the one hand
[la], and on the other [ib] and [ic] would seem to depend
primarily on decisions referring to the distribution of information
in the sentence: on whether it is ac or that the speaker selects
as the topic and places in thematic position. In the case of
sentence formulae [la] and [ib] this does seem to be the most
important consideration when >1 is a unary-scale adjective. It was
pointed out in 7.1.2 that in comparative sentences with una^-
scale adjectives the 'less A' form plays the role of the missing
antonymic term. This was suggested by the results of the elici-
tation tests and seems by and large to be the case; however the
pictureis not altogether clear, since there are fairly considerable
differences between the responses referring to the higher term of
comparison and those referring to the lower one, as well as
between the tests for the various adjectives. The results of the
relevant tests were presented in Table 7.3 (see p 134); the
T
A
B
L
E
9
.
1
I
t
e
m
N
o
.
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
D
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
t
e
r
m
H
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
c
h
e
s
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
M
e
a
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
t
e
r
m
2
6
i
s
l
e
s
s
t
a
l
l
t
h
a
n
X
.
(
4
f
t
)
5
f
t
-
6
f
t
7
i
n
(
7
f
t
2
i
n
)
(
2
f
t
)
4
f
t
1
0
i
n
-
6
f
t
4
i
n
(
6
f
t
l
O
i
n
)
6
f
t
5
f
t
7
i
i
n
2
7
X
i
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
f
t
6
i
n
-
6
f
t
(
7
f
t
)
(
3
f
t
)
5
f
t
-
5
f
t
l
l
i
n
S
f
t
l
l
i
i
n
5
f
t
5
i
i
n
3
1
y
i
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
x
.
(
3
f
t
)
5
f
t
2
i
n
-
6
f
t
(
6
f
t
2
i
n
)
(
2
f
t
4
i
n
)
5
f
t
-
5
f
t
l
0
i
n
(
6
f
t
)
S
f
t
S
i
i
n
5
f
t
5
i
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.
I
n
s
o
m
e
c
a
s
e
s
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
o
n
e
o
r
t
w
o
m
o
r
e
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
;
t
h
e
i
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
l
i
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
f
i
g
u
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
g
(
o
r
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
)
f
i
g
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
Ii
<
2
"
T
A
B
L
E
9
.
2
I
t
e
m
N
o
.
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
D
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
t
e
r
m
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
M
e
a
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
t
e
r
m
1
8
2
7
y
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
t
a
l
l
a
s
x
.
X
i
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
y
.
H
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
c
h
e
s
(
5
f
t
4
i
n
)
5
f
t
6
i
n
-
6
f
t
4
i
n
(
4
f
t
6
i
n
)
5
f
t
-
6
f
t
(
6
f
t
2
i
n
)
5
f
t
6
i
n
-
6
f
t
(
7
f
t
)
(
3
f
t
)
5
f
t
-
5
f
t
l
l
i
n
5
f
t
l
l
j
i
n
5
f
t
7
i
n
5
f
t
l
l
j
i
n
5
f
t
5
i
i
n
4
3
4
4
y
i
s
n
'
t
a
s
f
u
l
l
a
s
x
.
X
i
s
f
u
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
y
.
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r
f
i
l
l
e
d
0
.
2
-
1
.
0
0
.
1
-
0
.
9
0
.
2
-
1
.
0
0
.
1
-
0
.
9
0
.
7
3
0
.
4
9
0
.
7
6
0
.
4
2
H
g
u
r
e
s
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
I
n
s
o
m
e
c
a
s
e
s
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
o
n
e
o
r
t
w
o
m
o
r
e
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
;
t
h
e
i
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
l
i
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
f
i
g
u
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
g
(
o
r
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
)
f
i
g
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
.
I
?
ANALYSIS OF SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES 185
responses for the primum comparationis in 'more A than'
sentences should be compared here with those for the secundum
comparationis in 'less A than' sentences.
Yet in the case of open-scale pairs - where there is an anto-
nymic term - we get a different picture. For most respondents
y is less tall than x' entailed that x was tall, and the results of the
test for 'less tall than' were clearly different from the results of
the test for 'shorter than': c/Table 9.1. Thus the statement that
[la] and [ib] are equivalent is not informative enough, and poten
tially misleading. In terms of the logical relation between the
arguments the two constructions are indeed converses: in both
MH(^)>MHCy). Yet if the speaker wants to make y the topic, he
has a choice of using the 'less tall than' or the 'shorter than'
construction - and each of the two has a different semantic
potential.
Let us now compare [la] with [ic]. In the case of the adjectives
'tall' and 'full' - both of them members of antonymic pairs - the
two constructions do seem to be equivalent; consequently, in
choosing between them the speaker may be gviided primarily by
the requirements of the mformational structure of the sentence.
The results of the relevant tests are summed up in Table 9.2.
However, the results of the tests for the adjective 'old' - also
a member of an antonymic pair - give a different picture: see
Table 9.3. Here the pull effect (described in 6.2.1), namely the
pull towards "old", is more noticeable in 'y isn't as old as x'
sentences than in 'x is older than y' sentences. This can be
observed both in sentences referring to adults (test items 21 and
30) and in those sentences in which first names were used and
which seem to have been interpreted by many respondents as
referring to children (test items 20 and 29). Thus, when the
adjective in sentences constructed according to formulae [la] and
[ic] is 'old', the two constructions are not completely equivalent
semantically.
This non-equivalence is even more noticeable in the case of
sentences with the marked antonyms. Again the results of the
tests are quite consistent; c/ Table 9.4.
But the non-equivalence between the two constructions is really
dramatic in sentences with the antonymic pair 'good' : 'bad'; cf
Table 9.5. The lower-term figures for 'bad' should be compared
with the higher-term figures for 'good'. With both adjectives the
meaning difference between the 'not as A as' and the 'êr than'
construction is very clearly marked; but particularly so in the case
of the adjective 'good': 71 per cent of the respondents were of
the opinion that y isn't as good as jc' entails that x is good.
i86
TABLE 9.3
OVERVIEW
Item Test sentence
No.
Age in years
Dispersion Mean
Higher Lower Higher Lower
term term term term
20 Mike isn't as old
6-40 4-40
as Andy
(100) (95) 22.1
19.1
29 Mary is older than Jane.
4-26 3-24 " 20.2
17.9
(97) (96)
21 Cindy's husband isn't as
20-65 19-60
old as Kate's husband.
(98) (97.5) 38.7
32.0
30 Martin's wife is older
22-64 19-60
than Ken's wife.
(83) (80) 37.2
33.0
Figures in parentheses indicate isolated extremeresponses. In somecases there wereone or
twomoreisolated responses; theirvalues liebetween thefigure inparentheses andthepreced
ing figure without parentheses.
TABLE 9.4
Item Test sentence
No.
24 Tom isn't as young
as Kevin.
33 Monica is younger than
Eve.
25 Peter's wife isn't as
yoiuig as Jim's wife.
34 Linda's husband is
yotmger than Pat's
husband.
Age in years
Dispersion Mean
Higher Lower Higher Lower
term term term
term
4-32 3-30
(99)
(97) 19.1
15.5
4-60 3-52
(90) (82) 20.1 17.7
18-45 17-35
(68) (80)
32.6 26.2
19-50 16-45
(75) (68)
35.0 30.4
Figures in parentheses indicate isolated extreme responses. In somecases there wereone or
twomoreisolated responses; theirvalues liebetween the figure inparentheses andthepreced
ing figure without parentheses.
ANALYSIS OF SENTENCES WITH GRADABLE ADJECTIVES
187
TABLE 9.5
Test sentenceformula
Item Percentages of the total
No. number of responses
Higher term(x) Lower term(y)
+ _ +/- + _ +/-
y isn't as good as x.
47 77

29 7 22 71
Xis better than y.
49 13 3 84 2 26 78
X isn't as bad as y.
48 25 5 70 90
10
y is worse than x.
50 15 4 81 48 2 50
Let us now look at the behaviour of some unary-scale adjec
tives in the two constructions under discussion. The results of the
relevant tests are presented in Table 9*6. Again there is a differ
ence between the 'not as A as' and the '-Aer than' sentences. Both
in the case of 'sensible' and of 'cruel' more respondents con
sideredthe adjective to be absolutein 'not asA as' sentencesthan
in 'êr than' sentences: the 'plus' responses here are the equiv
alent of the pull effect characteristic of numerical open-scale
adjectives. Provided that 'red' and 'green' can legitimately be
considered as instances of a joint categoryof colour terms (which
can only tentatively be assumed here), the sentences with these
two adjectives support the sameconclusion. It can be generalized
by stating that with many adjectives '* is Aer than y' sentences
are not equivalent semantically to 'y is not as A as x" sentences,
TABLE 9.6
Test sentence formula
Item Percentages of the total
No. number of responses
Higher term(x) Lower term(y)
+ +/ + +/
y isn't as sensible as x.
67 68 - 32 7 21 72
Xis more sensible than y.
68 55 45 3 18 79
y isn't as cruel as x.
73 91 9 49

51
Xis more cruel than y.
74 81 - 19 42 1 57
y isn't as green as x.
80 88 X 12 43 X 57
X is redder than y.
79 64 X 36 41 X 59
NB In test items79and 80two responsesonlywere offered;'+' and
l88 OVERVIEW
since although the logical relation between the two arguments in
the underlying propositions is in both constructions the same, the
values of the measure function which the speakers tend to
associate with the arguments are in each of these constructions
different.
Let us pass on to such logical converses as 'x is taller than y'
and y is shorterthanx' (considered already inTable 9.1). To put
it in more general terms: let us discuss the comparative adjectival
constructions listed in [2] below.
[2a] Xis Act than y
[2b] y is Aer thanx
Again the choice between [2a] and [2b] would seem to depend
primarily on whether jc or y is selected as topic and put in
thematic position. And yet the two constructions are clearly
different semantically, due to the pull effect. Table 9.7 summar
izes the results of elicitation tests with such converses.
Thus it appears that when the choice of theme is open, and the
values of the measure function for the two arguments are not both
close to one of the extremes of the scale, then people tend to use
the 'êr than' construction when the value of the measure func
tion for at least one argument is not low; this is howthe pull effect
operates. The NP which is the exponent of that argument is then
put in thematic position. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
the 'êr than' construction. The existence of the pull effect does
not invalidate the relativity of the adjectives concerned. The situ
ation seems to be as follows: in choosing one or the other of the
constructions the speaker is guided primarily by the requirements
of the informational structure of the sentence. If for rhetorical of
textual reasons x must be put in thematic position, then the
phrase 'taller/older/fuller/etc. than' may be used even if the value
of the measure function for x is low; thus, the adjective retains
complete value-neutrality. If, however, the choice of theme is
open, the speaker is guided not only by the relation between the
values of the measure function for the two comparanda, but also
by the actual numerical values of that function for one or both
of the arguments - and puts in thematic position the exponent of
that argument for which the value of the measure, function is
relativelyhigh (in 'Aer' sentences), or low(in 'y4er' sentences).
-This view also finds support in the results of the tests exploring
'Aet than' and 'êr than' sentences with members of the non-
numerical open-scale pair 'good' : 'bad'; see Table 9.5 above.
The pull effect is here seen in the higher percentage of 'plus'
responses for the first term than for the second term of
T
A
B
L
E
9
.
7
I
t
e
m
T
e
s
t
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
N
o
.
D
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
t
e
r
m
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
M
e
a
n
H
i
g
h
e
r
L
o
w
e
r
t
e
r
m
t
e
r
m
H
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
i
n
c
h
e
s
5
f
t
5
M
n
n
X
i
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
y
.
5
f
t
6
i
n
-
6
f
t
(
7
f
t
)
(
3
f
t
)
5
f
t
-
5
f
t
l
l
i
n
5
f
t
l
U
i
n
3
1
y
i
s
s
h
o
r
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
X
.
(
3
f
t
)
5
f
t
2
i
n
-
6
f
t
(
6
f
t
2
i
n
)
(
2
f
t
4
i
n
)
5
f
t
-
5
f
t
l
0
i
n
(
6
f
t
)
5
f
t
8
i
i
n
5
f
t
5
J
i
n
A
g
e
i
n
y
e
a
r
s
3
3
.
0
3
0
X
i
s
o
l
d
e
r
t
h
a
n
y
.
2
2
-
6
4
(
8
3
)
1
9
-
6
0
(
8
0
)
3
7
.
2
3
4
y
i
s
y
o
u
n
g
e
r
t
h
a
n
X
.
1
9
-
5
0
(
7
5
)
1
6
-
4
5
(
6
8
)
3
5
.
0
3
0
.
4
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r
f
i
l
l
e
d
4
4
X
i
s
f
u
l
l
e
r
t
h
a
n
y
.
0
.
2
-
1
.
0
0
.
1
-
0
.
9
0
.
7
6
0
.
4
2
4
5
y
i
s
e
m
p
t
i
e
r
t
h
a
n
X
.
0
.
1
-
1
.
0
0
.
0
-
0
.
9
5
0
.
5
5
0
.
2
2
oC
A
I%
%
190 OVERVIEW
comparison - irrespective of which of them isthe higher one. This
tendency is particularly strong in 'Aer than' sentences with the
adjective 'bad'. This lack of symmetry makes the pair
'good' : 'bad' differ fromother open-scale antonymic pairs as far
as the 'êr' : 'Aer' opposition is concerned.
The picture is different again in the case of the asymmetric pair
'dry' : 'wet': c/Table 6.n (p 115). Only about one-third of the
respondents treated 'dry' as an absolute adjective; but the corre
sponding figure for 'wet' was very much higher: nearly 90 per
cent. It should also be notedthat therewere no 'minus' responses
(meaning "not wet") for theprimum comparationis and only one
(possibly resulting from a mistake?) such response for the
secundum comparationis. The results of the test justify calling
'wet' (with slight reservations) an absolute adjective. Indirectly
they jilso highUght the fact, stated already above, that truly
absolute adjectives are hard to find. Besides, the results of the
test again demonstrate the operation of the pull effect.
There are two important conclusions to be drawn from this.
Firstly the concept of scale is intimately bound up with the
concept of relativity. To put it differently: scales are by nature
relative; cases of non-relativity are exceptional; anddividing grad-
able adjectives rigidly into relative and absolute is a mistaken
procedure, which obscures the issue. There are reasons to believe
that this interdependence of relativity and scales of comparison
is a universalfeature. Secondly, even sentenceswithfully relative
adjectives display the pull effect; which shows that the value of
the measure ftinction for one or both of the arguments has to be
considered a significant factor in speakers' decisions as to which
of the possible comparative constructions to choose on any
particular occasion.
9.2 Coda
The results of the elicitation tests and the conclusions drawn from
them support the view that natural languages have Uttle use for
structural synonymy. There are at least three adjectival construc
tions which can be employed to reformulate a sentence like 'John
is taller than Peter' so as to achieve the converse topiccomment
relationship, ie make 'Peter' the topic and 'John' part of the
comment. In terms of basic logical relations, sentence formulae
[lb], [ic], and[2b] areindeed converses of [la]; but we have seen
that mere statement of a logical relation between two, or more,
sentences (or sentence formulae) is not informative enough. To
CODA 191
give a semantic interpretation of an 'Aer than' sentencewe have
to look for reasons why these - allegedly synonymous - construc
tions exist in the language, and look for differences in their
meaning - instead of stopping short at a statement of their
synonymity in terms of a logical relation between the arguments
in the underlying propositions. The meaning differences are not
confined to the topic-comment relationship; we have seen that
the value of the measure function for one or both of the argu
ments is a factor which is often significant, and in some cases
decisive, for the semantic interpretation of the proposition
expressed by the sentence.
This is hardly surprising; after all, examples of spurious syn
onymity can be found also among non-comparative adjectival
constructions (as well as among other, non-adjectival construc
tions in the language). Let us consider the following sentences;
[3] Andrew is six feet tall.
Andrew is as tall as six feet.
Andrew is as much as six feet tall.
In arithmetic terms all three sentences express the same prop
osition; namely, MH(Andrew) ^ 6 feet. Yet they are not synony
mous (c/8.8). Another example is afforded by constructionswith
double negation; for example:
[4] My car is economical
My car is not uneconomical.
It is not true that my car is not economical.
Again, in terms of basic logical relations (at least within the
framework of two-valued logic) these sentences express the same
proposition; and yet they can hardly be called synonymous.^
Formal logic was born of reflection on natural languages. It was
then developed into a coherent, self-contained system - or,
rather, a number of interlocking systems. These were, in turn,
applied to the analysis of natural languages, and natural
languages were found to be irregular, opaque, and untidy - in
other words, relatively unsystematic in comparison wiA the
systems of logic. In view of this, there are two courses of action
open to the student of language. He can either treat the language
of formal logic as superior to natural languages and try to force
the description of the latter into the mould of the former; or he
can recognize the primacy and sovereignty of natural languages,
and treat formal systems as tools in their description - valuable
192 OVERVIEW
tools, but no more than tools - with due respect to observation-
ally statable facts.
Notes
1. See, for example, Klein (1980:38; 1982:129).
2. C/Wojtasiewicz (1979).
References
ANDERSEN, P. K. (1982) *On universal 22', Journal of Linguistics 18, 231-
43.
BARTSCH, RENATE and VENNEMANN, THEO (1972) Semantic Structures,
Frankfurt/Main: Athenaum Verlag.
BERMAN, ARLENE (1974) Adjectives and Adjective Complement Construc
tions in English, Cambridge, Mass.: The Department of Linguistics,
Harvard University.
BOGUStAWSKi, ANDRZEJ (1975) 'Measures are measures; in defence of
the diversity of comparatives and positives', Linguistische Berichte
36(75). 1-9-
BOLINGER, DWiGHT (1967a) 'Adjectives in English: attribution and pre
dication', Lmgwa 18, 1-34.
BOLINGER, DWIGHT (1967b) 'Adjective comparison: a semantic scale'.
Journal of English Linguistics i, 2-10.
BOLINGER, DWIGHT (1972) Degree Words, The Hague: Mouton.
BRESNAN, JOAN (1973) 'Syntax of the comparative construction in Eng
lish', Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-345.
CLARK, HERBERT (1976) Semantics and Comprehension, The Hague:
Mouton.
CYGAN, JAN (1975) 'Synthetical comparatives in English', Bulletin de la
Soci^te Polonaise de Linguistique xxxm, 53-7.
EHRICH, VERONICA (1975) Tragmatische Restriktionen der Bedeutung
von Graduierbaren Adjektiven und Vergleichssatzen', in Beitrdge zur
Grammatik und Pragmatik, in Ehrich, Veronica and Finke, Peter (eds),
Kronberg/Ts: Skriptor Verlag.
FiLLMORE, CHARLES J. (1965) 'Entailment rules in a semantic theory'.
POLA Reports lo, 60-82. Columbus: Ohio State University.
GNUTZMAN, CLAUS (1974) 'Zur Graduierbarkeit von Adjektiven in Eng-
lischen', Linguistische Berichte 31/74, 1-12.
GREENBAUM, SIDNEY and QUIRK, RANDOLPH (1970) EUcitation Experi
ments in English, Linguistic Studies in Useand Attitude. London: Long
man.
194 REFERENCES
GRiCE, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and conversation', in Cole, P. and Morgan,
J. L. (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, New York:
Academic Press, pp 41-58.
HANKAMER, J. (1973) 'Why there are two than's in English', in
Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. C., and Weiser, A. (eds), Papers
from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Soci
ety, Chicago, Dl.: Chicago Linguistic Society.
HARRIS, MARTIN (1980) 'It's I, it's me: further reflections', StudiaAnglica
Posnanensia 12, 17-20.
HUDDLESTON, RODNEY D. (1971) The Sentence in Written English, Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
JESPERSEN, OTTO (1933) Essentials of English Grammar, London: Allen
and Unwin.
KAMP, J. A. w. (1975) 'Two theories of adjectives', Keenan, E. L. (ed.).
Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, pp 123-55.
KEMPSON, RUTH (1977) Semantic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press.
KLEIN, EWAN (1982) 'A semantics for positive and comparative adjec
tives', Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 1-45.
KLEIN, EWAN (1982) 'The interpretationof adjectival comparatives'. Jour
nal of Linguistics i8, 113-36.
KURYtowicz, JERZY (1964) The Inflectional Categories of Indo-
European, Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsverlag.
LAKOFF, GEORGE (1972) 'Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the
logic of fuzzy concepts', in Hockney, D., Harper, W., and Freed B.
(eds). Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic
Semantics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975.
LEECH, GEOFFREY (1974) Semantics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
LYONS, JOHN (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press.
LYONS, JOHN (1977) Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LYONS, JOHN (1981) Language, Meaning and Context, Fontana Paper
backs.
MITCHELL, KEITH (forthcoming) 'On comparisons in a national grammar',
in Richterich, Ren6 (ed.). Relations entre I'enseignement de la langue
matemelle etdes langues itrangires (Actes du coUoquede Berne 1981),
Berne: Universitat, Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft.
PALMER, F. R. (1976) Semantics: A NewOutline, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
PARSONS, T. (1972) 'Some problems concerning the logic of grammatical
modifiers', in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds), Semantics of Natu
ral Language, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp 127-41.
PINKHAM, JESSIE E. (1982) The Formation of Comparative Clauses in
French and English, Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Linguistics
Club.
POST, MiCHAL (1981) Comparatives of Identity in English: A Semantic
REFERENCES I95
Study (Anglica Wratislaviensia DC) Wrodaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwer-
sytetu Wrodawskiego.
PRATOR, CLIFFORD, H. (1963) 'Adjectives of temperature', English Lan
guage Teaching pp 158-163.
QUIRK, RANDOLPH (1981) 'A problem of modality', in Esser, Jurgen and
Hubler, Axel (eds), Forms and Functions, Tiibingen: Gmiter Narr Ver-
lag, pp 93-6.
QUIRK, RANDOLPH, DUCKWORTH, ANNE P., SVARTVIK, J., RUSIECKI,
j. P. L., COLIN, A. J. T. (1964) 'Studies in the correspondence of pro-
sodic to grammatical features in English', in Proceedings of the Ninth
International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962, The
Hague: Mouton, pp 679-91.
QUIRK, RANDOLPH, GREENBAUM, SIDNEY, LEECH, GEOFFREY, and
SVARTVIK, JAN (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, London:
Longman.
QUIRK, RANDOLPH and RUSIECKI, JAN (1982) 'Grammatical data by eU-
citation', in Anderson, John (ed.), Language Form and Linguistic
Variation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V., pp 379-94.
QUIRK, RANDOLPH and SVARTVIK, JAN (1966) Investigating Linguistic
Acceptability, The Hague: Mouton.
RIVARA, RENt (1975) 'How many comparatives are there?'. Linguistics
163, 35-51-
SAPIR, EDWARD (1944) 'On grading: a study in semantics', repr. in Sapir,
E., Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality, Mandel-
baum, D. G. (ed.), Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1949.
SMdLSKA, JANiNA and RUSIECKI, JAN (1980) 'The generic noun phrase in
English and Polish', Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics ii,
39-58.
SUSSEX, ROLAND (i974) 'The deep structure of adjectives in noun
phrases'. Journal of Linguistics lo, 111-31.
TOPOLII^SKA, ZUZANNA (1975)'An attempt toward a syntacticdescription
and semantic interpretation of the so-called grammatical category of
degree', Linguistica Silesiana i, 55-62.
ULTAN, R. (1972) 'Some features of basic comparative constructions',
Stanford Working Papers on Language Universals 9,. 117-62.
VAN BUREN, PAUL (1976) 'Localism, comparatives and(hopefully) applied
linguistics', paper read at the I2th International Conference on
English-Polish Contrastive Linguistics, Biaiowieza, Poland, Dec.
1976.
WACHTEL, THOMAS (1980) 'Pragmatic approximations'. Journal of
Pragmatics 4, 201 -11.
WALES, KATHLEEN (1980) '"Personal" and "indefinite" reference: the
uses of the pronoun one in present-day EngUsh', NottinghamLinguistic
Circular 9, 93-117.
WIERZBICKA, ANNA (1972) Semantic Primitives, Frankfurt/Main: Athe-
naum Verlag.
WOJTASIEWICZ, OLGiBRD ADRIAN (1978) 'The predicate calculus with
196 REFERENCES
extra-logical constantsas an instrumentof semantic description', Stadia
Logica xxxvn(i), 103-14.
WOJTASIEWICZ, OLGIERD ADRIAN (1979) 'Antonyms and negations: a
three-valuedsentential calculus withtwonegations'. Stadiasemiotyczne
IX, 99-103.
WUNDERLICH, DIETER (1970) 'Vergleichssatze', in Kiefer, F. and Ruwet,
P. (eds). Generative Grammar in Europe, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973.
Index of subjects and personal names
(Ch. = Chapter; def. = definition; F
absolute adjectives, 10,12,25-7,
83,100,118,120-1,123,131,
133-4,137,140-2,148,150,
166,171,190
acceptability (of a sentence), 62,
66, 80-1, T5.1,107,151,T8.3,
161-2,169-70
adjectives
definition of, 1-2
of colour, 5, 6,174,176,187
of temperature, 16,18, 22 n21
phonological lengthening of,
19 n6
syntactic subcategorization of,
2-3
see also adjectives under
absolute, asymmetric
(-scale), attributive,
attributive-only,
binary-scale,
bounded-scale, central,
denominal, disyllabic, fully
absolute, fully relative,
incompatible, monosyllabic,
negatively absolute,
non-gradable,
non-inherent,
non-numerical, numerical,
open-scale, parametric,
positively absolute,
=Figure; n = note; T = Table)
predicative,
predicative-only, primary
numerical,
quasi-antonymic,
reciprocal, relational,
relative, relativity of,
secondary munerical,
semi-absolute,
semi-reciproc^,
semi-relative, unary-scale,
value-neutral, weakly
absolute
Anderson, P., 127 nl
antonymic pairs of adjectives, def.
of, 6-7
approximation, 70-1,146,153
'as.. .as' as complementizer or
preposition, 145-6
asymmetric (-scale) pairs of
adjectives, 7,61,77,82-3,106,
114-18,120,134,171
attributive use/function/position of
adjectives, 1, 2, 4 Fl.l, 19 n2,
25, 86-7, 89,124-6,129,138,
140-1,145
attributive-only adjectives, 2,3,19
n2, 86,124
Bartsch, R. and Vennemann, T.,
28, 31, 34-5, 39, n2 40 nlO
198
Bennan, A., 39 ii2
binary-sêadjectives/adjectival
pairs, def. of, 5
Bogustawski, A., 16, 29 ii2, 39, 41
nil
Bolinger, D., 19 n2, n6,20 n8,180
nl2
booster, 61,67 n2,118,120,148
bounded-scale adjectives/
adjectival pairs, 7,12,21 nl5,
33,61, 75-7, 81-2, 85,106,
113-14,120,134,168-71
Bresnan, J., 39 n2
central adjectives, 2, 3,19 n4
Chinese, 22 n21
citation form, 18 nl
Qark, H.,39n2
Qark, R.,180nl4
comparative (degree form)
derivation of, 25-7,39 n2
frequency of, 88-9
inflectional vs periphrastic, 1,
6,10,19 n5, 88-9,107,
121,128 n2
comparative sentences
'y4erdian',42-5,48,60-1,
83, Ch.6 88-128,130-1,
133,143-4,157,174,182,
185,187-8,191
êst', 42-3,46,135-41,144
'as A as', 42-3,47-8,60-1,
129-30, Ch.8 143-80,182,
185,187
less A than', 42-3,45-6,48,
60-1,129-34,141-2,144,
182,185
'more A than' 88,120-1,128,
130,185
based on one-argument
propositions, 43-9,106-8,
143,157-61
based on two-argument
propositions, 43-9,106-7,
110,143,145-57,161-2
of linear difference, 43-4,
ai.6 88-128, Ch.7129-42,
179 n2
INDEX
of proportionality, 43,47,
Ch.8143-80
referring to one dimension,
43-9,92-105,143,145-57
refeiring to two dimensions,
43-9,106-8,143,157-62
comparison, types of relationof,
10
container, concept of, 76-7,82,
85,113,169-70
contradictories vs contraries, 82,
85,117
Cook, W., 180 n8
Cygan, J., 19 n5
degrees of comparison, 1
denominal adjectives, 21 nl8
denominate numbers, 33,76
differential scale, 97-8
dimension, concept of, 3
disyllabic adjectives, 19n5
Ehrich,V.,28,39n2
empirical normalitycondition, def.
of, 72,96
entailment, def. of, 20 nl2
essential proposition, 74
'even', 99,118,120-1,124
exaggeration, 71-2, 96,152,159
Fillmore, Ch., 39 n2
French, 39 n3,40 n6,41 nl3
fully absolute adjectives, 12,20
nl4,116,118,120-1,123-4,
171
fully relative adjectives, 12,94-5,
117-18,121,123,150,171,190
fuzzy category/concept, 1,29-30,
32 34
fuzzy set, 32,35-6, 38,40 n8,73,
79, 82, 87, 98,105,160
general expression/proposition, 49,
74, 90,102,105,109
generativegrammar, 19nl, 26,
39
genericexpression/proposition, 49,
74-5,79,103,105,109,160-1
INDEX
Gnutzman, C., 28
'good'-type adjectives, 150,152,
164
Greenbaum, S., 58,60-1
Grice, H.,36,87 n7,128n9
Hankamer, J., 91
Harris, M., 128 n6
hedges/hedge interpretation of
sentences, 104,153-4,156,158,
161-2,164
Huddleston, R., 70,179 nl
incompatible adjectives, 5-6,20
nil
Jespersen, O., 179 nl
Kamp, J., 20 n9, 40 n9
Kempson, R., 20 nl2
Klein, E., 39 n3,40 n7 n9,91,192
nl
Kurytowicz, J., 19 n5
Lakoff,G.,29,40 n8
Latin, 1,2, 91,142nln3
Leech, G., 20 nil nl2, 87 nl
Leibniz, G., 28
lexical field, 5, 6,82-3
limit see threshold value
Lyons, J., 20 nil nl2,28, 39 n2,
74,82
marked term/antonym, def. of,
13-14,18
measure function
def. of, 33-4
figurative use of, 87 n4
MitcheU, K., 144,154,179 nl
monosyllabic adjectives, 19 n5
Montague, R., 19 n2
negative element in comparative
constructions, 26-7, 40 n5 n6
negative sentences 27,40,49,
52-7T3.1-3.9, 84-5,90-1,
110-14,162-8,170-1,176,
199
182,185
negatively absolute adjectives, 12,
117,171
non-comparative sentences, 41
nil, 42, Ch.5 68-87
non-gradable adjectives, 3, 8,19
n4,20 n7, 21 nl8,133
non-inherent adjectives, 2,3,86
non-numerical adjectives, 15-18,
28-9,33,37,43,61,79,100
norm, 28-31,34
numerical adjectives, 15-18,25,
28-9,31-3,35-7,42-3,48,
60, 65, 68-75, 89, 95,106-7,
121,135,187
'old'-type adjectives, 147-8,150,
152,164,166
open-scale adjectives/adjectival
pairs, 7,12-13,16,21 nl5,25,
40, 42, 68-75,77-81,83-4,86,
89, 92,100,106,117-18,123,
131,144,176,185,187,190
Palmer, F.R., 20 nil
parametric adjectives, 16
Parsons, T., 19n2
Pinkham, J., 39 n2 n3,40 n6,128
n7
PoUsh, 1,2,18 nl, 41 nl3, 91,179
n2
positive-degree (form), 8,13,
23-9,31, 33-4,36, 39,40 n9,
41 nl2,42,60-2, Ch.5 68-87,
95,127 nl, 140
positively absolute adjectives, 12
Post, M., 179 nl
pragmatic assumption, def. of, 36
Prator, C., 22 n21
predicative use/function/position
of adjectives, 1, 2,4 Fl.l, 19 n2
n4, 25, 34, 38,41 nil, 42,86,
89,107,124,129,140-1,145
predicative-only adjectives, 2,3,
19 n2
primary numerical adjectives, 16,
18
pseudo-comparative sentences, 43,
200
48,126-7,141,146,178
puU effect, 98-9,112,114,169,
185,187,188,190
quasi-antonyinic
adjectives/adjectival pairs, 7,61,
77, 83, 85,106,118-24,131,
133,136-7,144,176
quasi-container, concept of, 76-7,
82,169-70
Quirk, R., 1,2,58,60-1,87 n3,
128n6nl0,142n4,180nl2
reciprocal pairs of adjectives, 6,20
nl4,100
relational adjectives, 21 nl
relative adjectives, 8,10,12-14,
23, 25-6,28-30,33-6, 83,86,
92,114,116,118,120-1,123,
133-4,137,139,148,166,174,
176,190
relativity of an adjective, def. of,
8,12
form-relativity, def. of, 24
scale-relativity, def. of, 25
Rivara, R., 179 nl
Robins, R.H., 142 nl
round number, 70-1,105
Rusiecki, J., 58, 87 n5
Russian, 91
Sapir, E., 39 nl
scê
antonymic, def. of, 6-7
asymmetric, def. of, 7
binary, def. of, 5-7
bounded, def. of, 7
concept of, 3-4
graded vs ungraded
numerically, 15,37
neutral interval/value on,
31-2
of intensity, def. of, 121,123
open, def. of, 7,21 nl5
quasi-antonymic, def. of 7
symmetric, def. of, 7
types of scales 5-8,9F1.2
unary, def. of, 5-6
INDEX
imary-like 83
unidirectional 77
secondary numerical adjectives 18
semantic interpretation, broad vs
narrow, 70-1,78-9,104
semi-absolute adjectives, 12,
117-18
semi-reciprocal adjectival pairs, 6,
8,20nl4
semi-relative adjectives, 12,114,
117
sentences with gradable adjectives,
typologyof, 42-9,50-1 F3.1
see also sentences under
comparative, negative,
non-comparative,
pseudo-comparative
Sm61ska,_J., 87n5
standard state (sets), 21 nl6,74,
87 n6,103,109,153
superlative degree, 1,19, 23,33,
46,135-41
absolute sense of, 140-1,142
n4
double, 142 n2
inflectional (inflected), 1,19,
46,135
periphrastic, 1,46,135-7
Survey of English Usage, xi, xii,
59,67 n2, 88-9,128 n4,
129-37,139-40,144-5
Sussex, R., 21 nl8
Svartvik, J., 58
synonymicpairs, 19
synonymy, 190-1
'tall'-type adjectives, 147-8,150,
152,164,166
'than' as complementizer or
preposition, 91,128 n7
threshold value (limit), 127,141,
178
Topolinska, Z., 28
transformational-generative
grammar, 26,39 n2
typical sets, 75, 79, 87n6,103,
153,160
INDEX
Ultan, R., 40n7
unary-scale adjectives, 5,8,40 n3,
62, 83-5,118-24,131,137,
144,174-6,182,187
units of measure, 33,71,73,79,83
unmarked term/member of a pair,
def. of, 13,18
vagueness, 32,40 n9
value-neutral adjectives, 12-14,
18, 21 n20, 23,107,146-8,150,
157-8,162,168,171,188
Van Buren, P., 179 nl
201
Wachtel, Th., 70-1,105,180 n8
Wales, K., 58
weakly absolute adjectives, 12,20
n 14,116-18,121,123-4
Whorf, B.L., 21 nl7
Wierzbicka, A., 28,29 n2,39
'within' in measure phrases, 180
Wojtasiewicz, O., 21 nl6,74,192
n2
WunderUch, D., 39 n2, 40 nlO
Zadeh, L,, 32
Index of adjectives
(F = Figure; T = Table; n =note)
However, see also lists of adjectives on pp 89,128,130,135,136, and
144-5; these were ignored in compiling the Index.
able, 128
addled, 7
afraid, 3,4, Fl.l
aged,15
alive, 19 n4,20 n7
aware, 2
bad, 7,17,100,101 T6.6,148,
166,167, T8.7,185,187 T9.5,
188,190
beautiful, 1,5,8,20 n7 nl4,142
n4
big, 3, 4 Fl.l, 17, 30, 79, 86,103,
124,137-40
biolQgical, 20 n6
blue, 5
boring, 141
bright, 16
broad, 159
certain, 2
cheap, 16,37,86
clean, 7, 25, 82,116-17,120
clear, 124
cold, 16,22n21
comfortable, 107
common, 137
complicated, 88
cool, 16,22 n21
criminal, 2
cruel, 5,8,20 nlO nl4; 21 nl4,
121,122X6.13,123,132,T7.2,
134, T7.3,173 T8.12,174T8.13,
176,177T8.15,187T9.6
curved,7
damp, 7
dangerous, 179 nl
dark,16
dead, 3,.4, Fl.l, 19n4,20n7
dear, 16
deep, 13,16,19 n6,95,109,160
difficult, 37
dim, 16
dirty, 7,82,116-18
dishonest, 7,174,175 T8.14,176
drunk, 7
dry, 7,9F1.2,61-2,77,82-3,
114,115 76.11,116-20,128
nil, 171,172 T8.11,190
early, 16,18,124-5
easy, 37-8, 88,130
economical, 6,9 F1.2, ffi, 86,107,
118,119 T6.12.120-1,123,173,
T8.12,174T8.13,191
204
effective, 134
efficient, 7,77,83,130,133
empty, 7,9 F1.2,12,21 nl5,33,
76-7, 81-2, 85,106,113,113
T6.10,114,169,171,189T9.7
erotic, 138
expensive, 16, 37
experienced, 7,28
extraordinary, 141
extravagant, 5,121,122T6.13,
123,132T7.2,134T7.3,173
T8.12,174T8.13
fast, 16
fat, 15, 37-8,157
female, 19 n4
feminine, 19 n4
fond,3,4Fl.l
former, 2,4 Fl.l
frequent, 133
fresh, 7
full, 7,9 F1.2,12,21 nl5,33,61,
76-7, 81-2, 85,106,113 T6.10,
114,168,169 T8.9,170,171
T8.10,184T9.2,185,188,189
T9.7
gifted, 107
glad, 2
good, 7,17,28-9,75,100,101
T6.6,125,130-1,148,149 T8.2,
150,166,167 T8.7,179 nl, 185,
187 T9.5,188,190
grateful, 141
great, 137-8
green, 5,176,177 T8.15,187T9.6
happy, 1,125,180 nlO
hard, 16
hard-working, 107
healthy, 134
heavy, 7,16,137,142
hexagonal, 5
high, 13,15,17, 30, 80 T5.1,88,
126,139
honest, 7
hot, 16,18,22n21,142 nl
humid, 7
hungry, 107,157
INDEX
Ul,2,3,7,116-18
illogical, 133,174,175 T8.14,176
impossible, 133
impressed, 141
inefficient, 7, 77,133
inexperienced, 7
(in)flammable 8, 9 F1.2,21 nl7,
133
inflammatory, 130
infrequent, 133
intelligent, 1, 7, 83,107,157
interesting, 135
kind,20nl0 nl4,21
large, 17, 25,124
late, 16,18
lengthy, 15
light, 7,16
likely, 19 n5,130
Uvely, 19 n4,137,141
long, 3,4 Fl.l, 13,16-18,20 n6,
30, 44-8, 53 T3.3,54T3.5,
56-7 T3.8, 86,96,100,102
T6.7,103,105,109,113,143,
153-4,157-9,161-2,168 T8.8,
179 n2,180 nlO
loud, 16
low, 16, 32,126
male, 19 n4
masculine, 19 n4
mere, 2,4 Fl.l
middle-aged, 85
narrow, 16,19 n5, 56 T3.8,95,
154,161
nice, 138
noisy, 16
non-(in)flammable, 8, 9 F1.2,133
octagonal, 3,4 Fl.l, 5
old, 1, 3,4 Fl.l, 6-8, 9 F1.2,10,
13-16,21 nl5 n20, 24-6,30-2,
34,39, 60,69,73,80 75.1,82,
84 T5.3, 85-7, 87 n4 n7, 91,92
T6.1, 93-6, 97 76.4,98,100,
111 T6.9,125,127,130-1,137,
141,146,147 T8.1,148,150-1,
INDEX
155,157,162,163 T8.5,164
166,178,179 n7,180 nB, 185,
186T9.3,188,189 T9.7
plain, 28
poor, 18 nl
possible, 133
pretty, 3, 4 Fl.l, 28, 84, 88,107,
118,119 T6.12,120-1,123,128
n2,157,173T8.12,174T8.13
pricey, 15
probable, 47
proportionate, 20 n6
purple, 5
quiet, 16
rancid, 7
reasonable, 130
red, 5, 8, 9 F1.2,25, 62,121,122
T6.13,174,187T9.6
revolutionary, 145
rough, 7, 77, 82
round, 5
savage, 130
sensible, 118,119 T6.12,120-1,
130,132T7.2,134T7.3,173
T8.12,174T8.13,176,177
T8.15,187T9.6
severe, 19 n5
shaUow, 16,69,95,161
short, 7,16,21 nl5, 24, 28, 32,36,
52-4 T3.1-3.4, 55-7 T3.6-3.9,
69,78, 80, 84 T5.2, 94 T6.3,95,
97 T6.4, 98, 99 T6.5,102 T6.7,
103,108,110T6.8,112-13,
126-7,148,154-5,156 T8.4,
, 161,165 T8.6,179 n2,180 n9,
183 X9.1,185,188,189 T9.7
sick, 7
simple, 19 n5
sizeable, 15
slim, 15,37
slow, 16
smaU, 17, 30-1,125,137
smooth, 7,77,82
sober, 7
soft, 16
205
square, 5
stale, 7
straiglit, 7
strong, 19 n5,30,90-1
studious, 20 n6
subject, 3, 4 Fl.l
sweet, 91
taU, 7,13,16,21 nl5 n20,24-5,
27-34,36-7,39 nl, 40 n5 n8,
41 nl2,43-9,49 n2,52
T3.1-3.2,54 T3.4, 55 T3.6,56
T3.7,57T3.9, 60,65,68-75,
77-8, 80, 84 T5.2, 86-7,90,92,
94 T6.3,95-6, 97 T6.4,98,99
T6.5,100,102 T6.7,103,105,
110T6.8,112,121,126-7,127
nl, 128 n6,131 T7.1,137-8
140-1,142 n4,143-4,146,147
T8.1,148,153-5,159,162,163,
T8.5,164,166,180 n9,183
T9.1,184T9.2,185,188,189
T9.7,190-1
tantamount, 2,4 Fl.l
tender, 19 n5
thick, 13,16,74, 91,95,100,102
T6.7,150,151 T8.3,152
thin, 16, 91,95,102 T6.7
thirsty, 107,157
tired, 130
tough, 125
triangular, 5
true, 18 nl, 138-9
ugly, 20 nlO nl4
uneconomical, 6,9 F1.2, 83,118,
123-4,191
unhappy,142 n4
unintelligent, 7
valuable, 141
violent, 130
warm, 16,22 n21
weighty, 15
well, 3,7,116-17
wet, 7, 9 F1.2,10,25,77,82-3,
114,115 T6.11,116-18,171,
190
206 index
wide, 13,16-17,30,32,44-8,53 young, 3,6,9 F1.2,12-16,21 nl5,
T3.3,54-5 T3.5,56-7 T3.8,80 24-6,31,34,47,69,82,84
T5.1,95,106,108,113,143, T5.3,85, 87 n7, 93 T6.2, 95,97
154,157-62,168 T8.8 T6.4,98,105, 111 T6.9,113,
wooden, 5 125,127,139-40,155,156 T8.4,
worthy, 134 165 T8.6,166,178,180 nl2,186
T9.4,189T9.7
yellow, 5
LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY
General editors
R. H. Robins, University of London
Martin Harris, University of Salford
Adjectives and Comparison in English presents a unified approach to
the semantics of gradable adjectives in English in all their forms (the
positive, comparative and superlative degrees) and in all their uses
(both as predicates of sentences and as attributes in noun phrases).
English is the focus of study, but our understanding is heightened, and
the interest of the book broadened, by comparative reference to other
languages as well.
Dr Rusiecki checks his theoretical interpretation of the subject against
two sources of information on the use of gradable adjectives by native
speakers of English: the Survey of English Usage corpus at University
College London, and a series of elicitation tests carried out in London in
1978 and 1979. As a result he is able to propose a new typology of
gradable adjectives, and to give a detailed description of the semantics
of sentences using the different types of adjectives in their three
degrees. He investigates semantic relationships between adjectival
constructions traditionally considered synonymous, and comments on
the limitations on the use of formal logic in linguistic description.
The book is the most exhaustive and detailed treatment of the subject
of gradable adjectives so far. Firmly based on theory, it nevertheless
examines - more closely and on a much wider scale than ever before -
empirical evidence on the use of constructions with these adjectives in
present-day English. In doing so it reflects the current revival of interest
in the study of language function and language use, as a counterpart to
the theoretical study of language as a formal system.
Jan Rusiecki was Head of the Applied Linguistics Division of the
Institute of English Studies in the University of Warsaw from 1969 to
1982, and was appointed Chairman of the Institute itself in 1978 and
again in 1981. His research abroad has taken him to the Institute of
Education in the University of London, to Durham University and, in
1971-72, to the United States as a Senior Fulbright Scholar. He spent
1978-79 at University College London with the Survey of English Usage
as holder of the Longman Fellowship - work which provided the
foundation of the present book.

Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adjectives and

S-ar putea să vă placă și