Degree Equative Constructions in English

Kim, Mija

doi:10.30961/lr.2022.58.1.31

Lang. Res. 58(1):31-59

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2022.58.1.31

Article

Degree Equative Constructions in English

Mija Kim ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Kangwon National University

^†Corresponding Author: Lecturer, Institute of Liberal Education, Kangwon National University, 1 Gangwondaekakgil, Chuncheon, Gangwon 24341, Korea, E-mail: 2mjkim@gmail.com

ⓒ Copyright 2022 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Feb 22, 2022 ; Revised: Mar 27, 2022 ; Accepted: Apr 17, 2022

Published Online: Apr 30, 2022

ABSTRACT

When comparing certain properties between two entities, the evaluation is generally comparatively high or comparatively low. However, a certain type of comparative sentence (hereinafter, a degree equative construction) does not contain the entity to be compared. This study addresses such English degree equative constructions, seeking to identify their grammatical characteristics and describe the circumstances in which they are used by carefully examining their syntactic and semantic properties based on corpora data. To this end, to different analysis types are adopted: raw frequency and collostructional. The study investigates the distributional properties of the parameters to identify which properties degree equative constructions are used to compare. The total number of parameters is only 33, an unexpectedly small number. In addition, the study identifies four different types of degree equative constructions in terms of the relationship between the target of comparison and three other elements: premodificational, postmodificational, predicative, and adverbial. To understand degree equative constructions through collostructional analysis, the study calculates the association strength between the parameters and degree equative constructions. Thirteen parameters are the most strongly associated with the construction, and their value is infinite. Thus, this parameter group can be viewed as providing prototypical meanings.

Keywords: equative construction; collostructional analysis; parameter; degree equatives

References

Andersen, R. (1983). Transfer to somewhere. Language Transfer in Language Learning, 1, 177-201.

Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 275-343.

Bresnan, J. W. (1976). On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(1), 3-40.

Corver, N. (2006). Freezing effects. The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2, 383-406.

Davies, M. (2008a). The corpus of contemporary American English: 1.0 billion words, 1990-2019. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ [Accessed July 2020].

Davies, M. (2008b). Time magazine corpus: 100 million words, 1923-2006. https://www. english-corpora.org/time/ [Accessed July 2020].

Dixon, R. W. (2008). Comparative constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language, 32(4), 787-817.

Grimshaw, J. (1987). Subdeletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(4), 659-669.

Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663-687.

10.

Haspelmath, M. (2017). Equative constructions in world-wide perspective. Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 9-32.

11.

Haspelmath, M., & Buchholz, O. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. de Gruyter. 277-334.

12.

Henkelmann, P. (2006). Constructions of equative comparison. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59(4), 370-398.

13.

Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative-language structure and language use. English Language & Linguistics, 12(3), 395-417.

14.

Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.

15.

Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English Language (pp. 1099-1170). Cambridge University Press.

16.

Kennedy, C. & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345-381.

17.

Kennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 33-70.

18.

Kennedy, C. (2005). Semantics of comparatives. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Second Edition, pp. 690-694). Oxford: Elsevier Limited.

19.

Kennedy, C. (2007a). Modes of comparison. In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, E. Staraki, & S. Yoon (Eds.), Proceedings of CLS 43.

20.

Kennedy, C. (2007b). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1-45.

21.

Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 1-45.

22.

Klein, E. (1982). The interpretation of adjectival comparatives. The Journal of Linguistics, 18, 113-136.

23.

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Vol. 510). Cambridge University Press.

24.

Merchant, J. (2012). Two phrasal comparatives in Greek. Ms. University of Chicago.

25.

Napoli, D. J. (1983). Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(4), 675-694.

26.

Pilch, H. (1965). Comparative constructions in English. Language, 41(1), 37-58.

27.

Quirk R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Pearson Longman.

28.

Quirk, R., & Sidney G. (1973). A university grammar of English. London: Longman.

29.

Rett, J. (2014). The polysemy of measurement. Lingua, 143, 242-266.

30.

Rett, J. (2019). Separate but equal: A typology of equative constructions. Ms., UCLA.

31.

Stassen, L. (1984). The comparative compared. Journal of Semantics 3.1(2), 143-182.

32.

Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and universal grammar. Blackwell.

33.

Stassen, L. (2001). Comparative constructions. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds)., Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 993-997). Berlin.

34.

Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.

35.

Strauss, U. (2004). Individual-denoting and property-denoting possessives. In J. Kim, Y. A. Lander & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax (pp. 183-198). Amherst: GLSA Publications.

36.

Treis, Y., & Vanhove, M. (Eds.). (2017). Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (Vol. 117). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

37.

Wunderlich, D. (2001). Two comparatives. In I. Kenesei & R. M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse (pp. 75-89). A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: Benjamins.