Abstract:
There are two
major varieties of comparative constructions: clausal comparatives and phrasal
comparatives. In the former the standard of comparison is expressed by (part
of) a clause and in the latter, it constitutes a single phrase, typically a
noun phrase. For instance, the Russian comparative involving the particle čem as
the standard marker is parallel to the English than-comparative in
that it allows both clausal and phrasal standards of comparison:
(1) Maša
znaet bol’še
čem znaeš’ ty.
Clausal
Masha
knows more
than know youNOM
‘Masha knows
more than you know.’
(2) Maša
znaet bol’še
čem ty.
Phrasal
Masha
knows more
than youNOM
‘Masha knows
more than you.’
Another
comparative construction in Russian, illustrated in (3), only allows phrasal
standards of comparison. This constraint is not surprising since what marks the
standard of comparison is the genitive case morphology, which obviously can
only be borne by nominal elements.
(3) Maša
znaet bol’še tebja
(*znaeš’/znaet).
Phrasal
Masha
knows more
you.GEN
know(s)
‘Masha knows
more than you.’
The
aforementioned comparative strategies have been rather well researched.
However, the literature on Russian comparatives has so far neglected an
additional, less frequently used variety of a phrasal comparative, illustrated
in (4).
(4) Maša
znaet pobol’še tvoego
(*znaeš’/znaet).
Phrasal
Masha
knows PO-more you.POSS.GEN know(s)
‘Masha knows
more than you.’
It is similar
to (3) in that the standard of comparison is again marked by genitive case. The
standard itself, however, takes the form of an attributive adjective inflected
for masculine/neuter gender in the singular. This construction is peculiar in
that no noun may appear following that attributive adjective – this is not
observed in any other environment in Russian. Thus, it is not an instance of
N’-ellipsis. Neither can it be a product of some clausal deletion (which is
sometimes invoked for phrasal comparatives – see Philippova 2018 and references
therein): there is no way to derive a possessive/adjectival form from an
underlying (pro)noun. Still, as we shall see, the form and interpretation of
such sentences suggest that they need to involve a nominal element at some
level of representation.
In
this talk I will give a detailed description of the construction and draft a
proposal of how it should be treated syntactically.
